« The New Jim Crow and Leapfrogging the Plank | Main | Jeremiah's Ducks »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Andrew Taylor-Troutman

Theresa, I take Robert's Rules seriously because I do think they encourage participation and allow all voices to be heard. But as someone who is by no means a guru, I read this post as a word of liberation, an accent on grace.

Also, we are using your work about worship practices incorporated into meetings as part of our NEXT Church regional gathering in Durham, NC. Thanks for inspiring us to fly!

Theresa Cho

Thanks Andrew. I actually disagree about RR. Although I think the initial intention of RR is that all voices be heard, I feel in my presbytery it has been quite divisive. I think if we can make room for other decision making models like consensus it may invite more participation and voices to be heard. I think RR is great when there is a need for more order and process because a vote is close. That's just been my experience though.

Andrew Taylor-Troutman

That is interesting. Doubtless, SF is different from southern Appalachia where I live! In this context, I have witnessed what appeared to be a clear consensus dramatically altered by a sudden change of ideas, even offered by a single voice. What I appreciate about RR is that it is supposed to create space for such movement of the Holy Spirit. What I find so helpful about your metaphor here is that RR (and other models) is a work in progress, not an infallible machine.

The comments to this entry are closed.