Not Consensus

Recently I was asked, “What is the difference between consensus and the sense of the meeting?” This question has caused me to think, and it has sensitized me to the erroneous and growing practice of Friends to speak of consensus when describing the Quaker decision-making process.

Recent Quaker publications use the word consensus in their title. This trend was particularly evident at the 1981 Friends General Conference gathering at Berea, Kentucky. Upon returning home, I looked up the meaning of consensus in The American College Dictionary. It defines consensus as “general agreement, or concord.” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines it as “group solidarity in sentiment and belief, or general agreement.”

I am convinced that there is a profound difference between consensus and the sense of the meeting, for the latter involves faithfulness to the promptings of the Spirit. Most Friends understand that the sense of the meeting does not necessarily mean 100 percent approval. However, it does mean the Friends are in unity. Unity is a far stronger definition than “general agreement” or “solidarity in sentiment and belief.” The sense of the meeting means that, while some Friends may not be in full agreement regarding a proposed course of action, they are willing for the meeting to move forward.

This concept was seldom more dramatically exemplified than at an early meeting of the American Friends Service Committee. Portions of several days were spent in discussing a proposed new program. Each time the matter was discussed, a spoke against the involvement of the . Finally, Rufus Jones, who was presiding, said, “Friend, we have listened to your views and feelings about this matter. Yet it is clearly the sense of the meeting that we approve the program. Are you willing to stand aside in view of the desire of the meeting to move forward?” response was “yes,” and when the meeting concluded, the man came forward and said, “Rufus, it’s going to take money to start this program. Here’s my check.” There was clearly more than “general agreement” at work in this meeting! The profound difference is that unity was sought in a meeting for worship in which business affairs were considered. In the search for unity, the group was sensitive to the leadings of the Spirit as it sought to discern its movement in the life of the gathered meeting.

The book of Faith and Practice of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting asks this query: “Are your meetings for business held in the spirit of a meeting for worship in which you seek divine guidance for your actions?” Yet, in spite of this query, monthly meetings (and committee meetings) are among the most unexamined aspects of the life of the Religious Society of Friends.

In part this is true because there is no group designated as responsible for cultivating, sustaining, and monitoring this very central process. Of course, the clerks are concerned about the conduct of monthly meeting and committee meetings, and from time to time they may be eldered about the manner in which a particular matter of business was handled. Yet the clerks, by their very position, are not always in the most useful position to observe the decision-making process objectively and critically. How often is this aspect of your meeting’s life really fully and prayerfully considered by Worship and Ministry, or Ministry and Counsel?

How often, and regularly, is it done by monthly meeting, or during a committee meeting? What is your meeting doing to cultivate actively the ability of Friends to consider matters of business in a worshipful manner?

One December, as clerk of Wrightstown Monthly Meeting, I proposed that at this time each year the monthly meeting reflect upon its faithfulness in achieving a worshipful spirit in conducting its business affairs. The following questions were posed: As you reflect upon monthly meeting for the past year, when were we at our best? What factors were present when we achieved these high moments? Friends responded well to these questions but unfortunately they were not recorded.

However, Friends were clearly uncomfortable with this question: When our monthly meetings were least favored, what factors contributed to their reduced quality? Why does a question of this type distress us? We can learn from both positive and negative experiences. However, it is imperative that we never forget that we do not learn from experience. Rather, we learn from examined experience.

I suggest these questions to help us in such an examination:

How might we use the period of worship prior to monthly meetings or committee meetings? Friends sitting in the gathered meeting might engage in prayer for: the clerk, guidance in making rightly ordered decisions, sensitivity to God’s leading, sensitivity toward one another, and guidance upon a particular matter to be considered.

How might we create and maintain a spiritual quality in all of our deliberations? This might be done through silent prayer for those speaking to matters of business, through vocal prayer for guidance, by the quality of our reflection upon what has been, or is being, said, and by the manner in which we listen.

What is the atmosphere of our monthly meetings and committee meetings? Does everyone feel their contributions are welcome? Do all feel that what they say will be accepted as coming from the depths of their life and religious experience? If the answer is “yes” to this question, it means that we are particularly sensitive to the condition of others, and that we exercise great care in terms of our own involvement and participation.

Do members frequently, or occasionally, acquiesce to a proposed sense of the meeting with which they are not in unity? Do these Friends share their lack of unity with the decision outside monthly meeting, or a committee meeting? When this is done at the level of the monthly meeting, it destroys its authority. When this occurs following committee meetings, it is destructive. In both instances it shows that there is a lack of trust.

How might we use the concluding period of worship? We might exercise ourselves, either silently or vocally, by expressing thankfulness for guidance received during the meeting. There may be need for prayer that any tensions or wounds created during the meeting might be healed. If we have been responsible for discord, tensions, or perceived wounds, we might commit ourselves (in the silence) to work to restore harmony and understanding.

There are times when it is in order to feel a sense of gratitude and thankfulness for our good fortune in having been present! Friends present might direct prayer toward those who have accepted responsibilities, relative to decisions made, that they might be given the strength and insight to faithfully carry them out.

Persons might reflect upon their own part in the meeting just concluded. Was I fully present and sensitive to others? Was my participation useful, or was my behavior destructive to the quality of the life of the gathered monthly meeting, or committee meeting?

Do those who are unable to attend monthly meeting, or committee meetings, have any responsibility toward the life of either? When possible, they might tum their prayers and thoughts toward the gathered meeting in session.

It might be useful for Friends, individually and collectively, to consider these questions: Do you feel a responsibility to attend monthly meeting and committee meetings as frequently as possible? What are you doing to develop your capacity to be a useful participant in monthly meetings, or in committee meetings?

In addition to the questions and possible responses proposed here, what insights does your experience enable you to share? How do you prepare yourself to be a worshiping participant in monthly meeting? In committee meetings?