The new scheme will see the old parliamentary majority voting method thrown out, as the delegates come together for the historical gathering to decide the future direction and focus of the WCC works for the next 8 years.
The changes have not been embraced by all however. Many who have expressed their support for the alterations have stated their expectancy of a fundamental renewal of dialogue within the fellowship of churches and the work culture, report the WCC. On the other hand, those opposed to the variation have said they are afraid that controversial questions will be left out so that the consensus will not be endangered.
A WCC Committee member from the Religious Society of Friends in the USA, Eden Grace told, “On the contrary, I hope that more controversial issues will be heard. No-one needs to fear to be trapped in a vote any longer.”
In fact, the Religious Society of Friends has used the consensus model for voting for over 300 years, and Grace testified, “The consensus model is about a spirit of open listening. We don't just accumulate more messages in favour than against. We work towards a common mind, seeking the mind of Christ.”
Many have stated that the consensus model should not just be looked at simply as a change in procedure, but a new building of a culture in which all members can have a place.
An Orthodox US lawyer and central committee member from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East, USA, Anne Glynn-Mackoul said, “Debating in the parliamentary style creates an atmosphere of ‘for or against' rather than supporting co-operative listening and thinking.”
Grace and Glynn-Mackoul were members of a Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC. It was established by the 8th WCC Assembly in Harare in 1998 to address Orthodox concerns with the direct priorities of the council.
The Special Commission put forward a number of proposals in 2002, and among them was the consensus model, and in February of this year the WCC Central Committee adopted the suggestion with a unanimous vote in favour.
The WCC has made sure that the consensus model cannot be abused and used as a simple power of veto to every single member. A majority of 85% will still be enough to enforce on a final vote in a deadlock situation. The only situation that is not possible is when a matter arises that puts the self-understanding of a member church into question.
To allow delegates to understand the new measures more efficiently, the WCC will be providing a manual on the consensus procedure, and a training sessions will be held to prepare committee moderators before the assembly.
The manual states that when delegates follow a hearing with “warmth towards an idea or acceptance of it”, they can signal this to the moderator with an orange card. The blue card shows “coolness or disapproval”.
In addition, if both cards are crossed in front of the chest while a speaker is still at the microphone, this silently indicates to the moderator that prolonging debate is not seen as helpful by the delegates.
Rev. Dr D'Arcy Wood, former president of the Uniting Church in Australia, where the consensus model was introduced ten years ago testified, “Our model is more free-flowing and flexible. More people are included in the 'wording' of decisions. This leads to much higher levels of satisfaction, and more ownership of decisions. More people have become actively involved in the implementation.”
The WCC has stated that this is exactly what it wishes to achieve in its decision-making process at the assembly in the future. A WCC press release states, “The diversity of contributions will not, it is hoped, separate churches, but enrich the fellowship and the life of every church.”
Daniel Blake
Christian Today Correspondent