DOCSLIB.ORG

George Fox Seminary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
George Fox Seminary GEORGE FOX UNIVERSITY TOGETHER, FULL OF WISDOM AND THE HOLY SPIRIT: A PARADIGM FOR CONGREGATIONAL DISCERNMENT AND DECISION MAKING A DOCTORAL PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GEORGE FOX SEMINARY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF MINISTRY BY MERRIE SCHOENMAN CARSON PORTLAND, OREGON MARCH 2013 All Scripture references, except those quoted by other authors within quotes, are from the New International Version of the Bible. Copyright © 2013 by Merrie S. Carson All rights reserved iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was completed with the help of many people to whom I am deeply indebted. The staff and faculty at George Fox Seminary have been insightful, challenging, caring, encouraging, and helpful. My sincere appreciation goes to Doctors Loren Kerns, Cliff Berger, Dan Brunner, Frank Green, Leonard Sweet, Jules Glanzer, Cecilia Ranger, Richard Sartwell, Carole Spencer, and my professor and encouraging advisor Dr. Chuck Conniry. Thank you to Dee Small for her joyful attention to our smallest needs, including doughnuts and marshmallows! Thank you to David Nixon, for his thoughtful, kind presence and discerning heart. Many thanks are due to my cohort friends, the “Special K’s”: Dr. Rodney Berthelot, Dr. Jerilyn Felton, C. V. Hartline, David Herrmann, Dr. K’Lynne McKinley, and especially to Dr. Laurie Mulkey and Dr. Donna K. Wallace who dialogued with me and read my writing long after class time and their dissertations were done. Sincere thanks to my Saturday prayer group (Carol, Char, Janet, Marcia, and Marlene), Amy Chase, my spiritual director Julie Anderton, and friends and colleagues who believed I had something important to say and were willing to pray with and for me. Last, I thank my family, especially Dick and Mary Schoenman, Sue Carson, Suzie Crisp, Rosie and Lamar Fontaine, Sherry Carson, and children David, Jill, Andy, Marie, Rob, and Emily for their support, and encouragement. I cannot thank my husband, Ron, enough for his love, patience, and all that he has done to make this possible. For all of the above I thank and praise my Lord Jesus Christ, who through this experience has taught me much about partnering with Him and listening to His Spirit. Merrie Schoenman Carson iv CONTENTS Section............................................................................................................................ Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION: TWO VIGNETTES .............................................................................1 ONE THE PROBLEM: The Challenges of Congregational Discernment and Decision Making in American Church Culture ....................................5 Cultural Influences Rationalism Naturalism Narcissistic Individualism Restless Impatience and Information Overload Pragmatism Guardianship Mystical Experience and Spirituality A Better Way for Congregational Discernment and Decision Making? Understanding Guidance from Wisdom, the Holy Spirit, and the Community TWO OTHER MODELS OF CONGREGATIONAL DISCERNMENT AND DECISION MAKING ......................................................................42 Guidance from Wisdom Guidance from the Holy Spirit Guidance from the Community Guidance from Wisdom and the Holy Spirit v Guidance from the Holy Spirit and Community Guidance from the Community and Wisdom A Better Way? THREE THE PROPOSED PARADIGM: Together, Full of Wisdom and the Holy Spirit .....................................................................................74 Guidance from Wisdom, the Holy Spirit and the Community Discernment and Decision Making in the Early Church of Acts Ignatian Discernment and Decision Making Quaker Discernment and Decision Making Wesleyan Quadrilateral Discernment and Decision Making Contemporary Discernment Models of Decision Making FOUR ARTIFACT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................134 FIVE ARTIFACT SPECIFICATION/BOOK PROPOSAL..............................137 Query letter Non-Fiction Book Proposal SIX POSTSCRIPT ..........................................................................................148 APPENDIX A: THE ARTIFACT ...................................................................................153 Chapter 2 ..............................................................................................................154 Chapter 3 ..............................................................................................................193 Chapter 4 ..............................................................................................................247 APPENDIX B: The Tests of Authentic Spiritual Guidance ............................................307 APPENDIX C: Summary of Seven Models of Congregational Guidance ......................314 APPENDIX D: Congregational Decision Making Questionnaire. ..................................320 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................323 vi ABSTRACT In American consumer culture a congregation’s decisions are often based on the sum of individual personal preferences, limited information, and pragmatism, promoting disunity with no assurance that God’s will is discerned and done. After exploring seven cultural “spirits” that cause problems for congregations as they discern God’s will and make decisions, this dissertation examines the biblical, historical, theological, and cultural backgrounds for Christian communal discernment to discover how congregations can effectively make more God-focused, God-honoring, and God-reflecting decisions. The current study proposes that a Christian community makes better decisions—more faithful to its identity as the “body of Christ”—when it uses a model of discernment/ decision making that includes: (1) insights/teaching/judgments from wisdom sources, (2) the guidance of the Holy Spirit through personal and corporate listening prayer and evaluation, and (3) contributions from the entire congregation or group. It looks at how the lack of one or two of these components is detrimental to healthy congregational functioning and provides examples from Scripture and Church history. Also examined are current models that enable congregations to apply wisdom and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit as they together discern practical solutions to ministry concerns. The Artifact (chapters and appendices from a proposed book) presents biblical, historical, and practical materials, and theological arguments supporting the proposal. It demonstrates how God’s people have valued wisdom as a gift, using insights gained through thoughtful consideration of human behavior and Creation to aid their discernment/decision-making. It explores God’s leadership of his people and the Spirit’s guiding and gifting of Jesus and the Early Church. It also examines Jewish and Greco- vii Roman models of community organization, and Early Church decision-making structures and practices. In addition, New Testament teachings about unity, leadership, and healthy “body of Christ” dynamics are provided. viii INTRODUCTION: TWO VIGNETTES The members of Lakeside Church were gathered for a quarterly congregational meeting to vote on a new set of church policies and procedures. After a brief prayer and devotion on the importance of unity, the Chair announced that the question/discussion time would be limited to issues of clarification, since concerns should have been expressed to the revision committee in writing prior to the meeting. The committee, of which she was a part, had worked many hours on the documents and the congregation’s job was to approve them, not change them. The agenda for this meeting was a full one so discussion would be restricted to twenty minutes. Fred leaned over to his wife and said, “Looks like they’re railroading it through. I wonder if anyone will try to object.” Ten minutes into the discussion, Charles, a former member of the church council, raised concerns that he had already given to the committee, and suggested a possible change to deal with them. He was promptly gaveled down by the Chair as being out of order and, in spite of his protests, asked to sit down. The tension in the air was palpable. John, whose wife was on the church staff, asked if the staff agreed with the revisions, since the church was currently without a senior pastor, and some changes were aimed at “restricting the power” of the pastoral staff. He was assured they all had agreed and that their concerns had been addressed. He was stunned by this response since he knew his wife hadn’t heard back from the committee about the detailed six-page letter she had sent them several weeks before. John was followed by Jane, a member of the revision committee, who talked emotionally about how much time and effort they had put into developing the new policies and procedures and suggested that the congregation needed to trust them and 1 2 honor their work by voting “yes” on the measure. She then called for the question. Her appeal apparently worked because the congregation voted to accept the documents. The church chair briskly led the congregation through the rest of the agenda, pausing only occasionally to allow brief discussion. After the meeting Fred grumbled to his wife as they left, “I don’t know why I even bother coming to these meetings. Our thoughts
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conducting Youth Parliament Contents
    Conducting Youth Parliament Contents FOREWORD iii 1. Introduction: Why Youth Parliament 1 2. Indian Parliament at a Glance 9 3. Preparing for the Youth Parliament 15 4. Procedure for Conducting Youth Parliament - Part I 22 Seating Arrangement, Formal Sitting of the House, Oath or Affirmation, Obituary Reference, Question Hour 5. Procedure for Conducting Youth Parliament - Part II 31 Papers to be laid on the Table of the House, Calling Attention Notice, Adjournment Motion, No-Confidence Motion, Discussion of Matters of Urgent Public Importance for Short Duration 6. Procedure for Conducting Youth Parliament - Part III 40 Legislative Business APPENDIX I Glossary of Parliamentary Terms 45 APPENDIX II Some of the Words and Expressions 55 declared as Unparliamentary APPENDIX III The Youth Parliament Competition Scheme 57 APPENDIX IV List of Business and List of Questions for Oral 62 Answers APPENDIX V Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution 77 APPENDIX VI Suggested Reading 78 CHAPTER 1 Introduction: Why Youth Parliament The law-making bodies are required to discuss various local, national and international issues and then make suitable laws on them. The members of these bodies present all points of views and try to represent all kinds of interests related to a problem. Eventually there is accommodation of various interests and a compromise decision is taken. An effort is always made to take such a decision as would please most and antagonise least. Such decisions are frequently taken by Parliament. The decisions of Parliament are important since they affect the whole country. Each one of us is affected by the decisions of Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Procedure Cheat Sheet
    Parliamentary Procedure Cheat Sheet Each officer should be familiar with the fundamental rules of parliamentary procedure. The business of any meeting is conducted more efficiently and quickly with parliamentary procedure and gives members a sense of security in knowing what course of action may be taken. As stated in “Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised,” the rules of parliamentary law are built on a careful balance of the rights of persons and subgroups within an organization. The rules are based on regard for the rights of: • The majority – defined as more than half • The minority • Individual members • Absentees • All these together Order of Business Call to order The president must first determine if a quorum is present. A quorum is defined as the number of voting delegates who must be present in order for business to be legally transacted. The bylaws should stipulate the number for quorum. If your bylaws do not stipulate a number for quorum, then it is a majority (more than half) of your voting delegates. No business may be conducted if the College Panhellenic meeting lacks a quorum. The president stands, waits or signals for quiet, and says, “The meeting will come to order.” Note: Rapping once with the gavel, if desired. Opening The president says, “Please repeat the Panhellenic Creed.” Roll call The president says, “The secretary will call the roll.” Reading and approval of minutes The president says, “The secretary will read the minutes.” Note: The secretary stands to read the minutes. The president sits down. This should only happen if the minutes are not distributed before the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE EXAMPLE MOTIONS Privileged
    PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE EXAMPLE MOTIONS Privileged Motions Motion to Set Time for Next Meeting Typically used when the next meeting needed is not the next regularly scheduled meeting. Usually implies that business will not or can not be completed in the current meeting, but also can not wait until the next regular meeting. Therefore, it is not really an adjournment, but rather a lengthy recess, usually of at least one day. “I move to set the time of our next meeting for 7:00 pm tomorrow night to continue the present discussion.” Not debatable, amendable, majority vote required. Motion to Adjourn Has the affect of closing the meeting. If the motion fails, it cannot be made again until after the completion of other business. “I move that we adjourn.” Not debatable, not amendable, majority vote required. Motion to Recess Calls for a specific time for the recess to begin and a specific time for the meeting to resume. When other business is pending, it is a privileged motion. If there is no business pending, it is a main motion and may have subsidiary motions applied to it. “I move that we recess from now until 9:00 pm.” Debatable, amendable, majority vote required. Question of Privilege Deals with disturbances, unfavorable condition of the room, or the rights and privileges of the body or of a member. Raising a question of privilege does not require being recognized by the Chair before speaking. Member: “ rise to a question of privilege.” Chair: “State your question of privilege.” Member: “Due to the noise in the outer hallway, I request that the doors be closed.” Chair: “Your point is well taken.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Procedure Definitions and Examples of Motions
    Parliamentary Procedure Definitions and Examples of Motions A. Privileged Motions: Motions which do not relate to the pending question but have to do with matters of such urgency or importance that, without debate, they are allowed to interrupt the consideration of anything else. a. Adjourn: Terminates the meeting. "I move that we adjourn." b. Recess: Permits a short intermission in a meeting. "I move that we recess for 10 minutes" or ". until 2:00" or ". until called to order by the chair." c. Raise a question of privilege: Permits a request or main motion relating to the rights and privileges of the assembly or any of its members to be brought up for immediate consideration because of its urgency. "I rise to a question of privilege affecting the assembly." d. Call for the orders of the day: Requires that the adopted agenda or order of business be followed. "Mr. Chairman, I call for the orders of the day" or "Madam President, l demand the regular order." B. Subsidiary Motions: Motions which assist the assembly in treating or disposing of a main motion. They have the effect of hastening action upon, delaying action upon, or modifying the main motion. a. Lay on the table: Lays a pending question aside temporarily when something more urgent has arisen. "I move to lay the question on the table" or "I move that the motion be laid on the table." b. Previous question: Ends debate and orders an immediate vote. "I move the previous question" or "I move we vote immediately on the motion." c.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert's Rules of Order - Summary Version
    Robert's Rules of Order - Summary Version For Fair and Orderly Meetings & Conventions Provides common rules and procedures for deliberation and debate in order to place the whole membership on the same footing and speaking the same language. The conduct of ALL business is controlled by the general will of the whole membership - the right of the deliberate majority to decide. Complementary is the right of at least a strong minority to require the majority to be deliberate - to act according to its considered judgment AFTER a full and fair "working through" of the issues involved. Robert's Rules provides for constructive and democratic meetings, to help, not hinder, the business of the assembly. Under no circumstances should "undue strictness" be allowed to intimidate members or limit full participation. The fundamental right of deliberative assemblies require all questions to be thoroughly discussed before taking action! The assembly rules - they have the final say on everything! Silence means consent! • Obtain the floor (the right to speak) by being the first to stand when the person speaking has finished; state Mr./Madam Chairman. Raising your hand means nothing, and standing while another has the floor is out of order! Must be recognized by the Chair before speaking! • Debate can not begin until the Chair has stated the motion or resolution and asked "are you ready for the question?" If no one rises, the chair calls for the vote! • Before the motion is stated by the Chair (the question) members may suggest modification of the motion; the mover can modify as he pleases, or even withdraw the motion without consent of the seconder; if mover modifies, the seconder can withdraw the second.
    [Show full text]
  • Viva Voce: Implications from the Disappearing Voice Vote, 18651996
    Viva Voce: Implications from the Disappearing Voice Vote, 1865–1996∗ Michael S. Lynch, University of Kansas Anthony J. Madonna, University of Georgia Objective. Congressional votes are only recorded if a member formally requests a roll call vote, and that request is supported by one-fifth of those present. Many votes pass viva voce and are never recorded. We seek to examine changing patterns of unrecorded voting, analyze the causes of these changes, and consider the implications of these changes for congressional scholars. Methods. Using landmark legislation from the 39th (1865–1867) to the 104th Congress (1995–1996), we analyze whether bills receive a recorded or unrecorded final passage vote. Results. We find that while the likelihood that a landmark law receives a recorded final passage vote fluctuates over time, electoral pressures consistently influence members’ decisions to record their votes. Conclusions. We argue that studies of Congress must account for the roll call generating process when analyzing roll call data. On October 17, 2003, the U.S. Senate held a recorded vote on an $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill, which provided emergency fund- ing for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the time, President George W. Bush’s foreign policy approach was fairly popular, and the measure passed with the support of 87 U.S. senators. One of the 12 senators who voted no was the junior Democratic senator from Massachusetts, and Bush’s eventual opponent in the 2004 election, John F. Kerry. Bush and his interest group allies hammered Kerry on this vote during the early stages of the presidential election, accusing him of voting against providing troops with essential food and equipment.
    [Show full text]
  • Push Button Parliament–Why India Needs a Non-Partisan, Recorded Vote System
    163 Push button parliament–why India needs a non-partisan, recorded vote system Fecha de recepción: 06 de septiembre de 2009 Fecha de aceptación: 16 de junio de 2010 Shalaka Patil* Abstract: Decisions of national importance are made by Parliamentary voting. Yet Indian Members of Parliament (MPs) vote with a remarkable lack of freedom and accountability. The introduction of the Tenth Schedule in the Constitution has crippled free expression, since it provides that MPs voting against ‘any direction’ of their Party are liable to disqualification from the le- gislature. In addition, except for Constitutional amendments, Indian Parlia- mentary Procedure Rules do not require votes of MPs to be recorded unless the Speaker’s decision is contested in the House. The result is that voting in the House has become mechanical, controlled by Party politics and devoid of responsibility. This paper comments on a general theory of democratic accountability through the lens of Parliamentary voting. It suggests that the voting system adopted in the Parliament is an effective indicator to measure the level of accountability of its Members. In the context of India, this paper argues that the level of accountability will increase to a desirable extent only when there is adoption of a recorded system for every important House * SMs. Shalaka Patil graduated with a Bachelors in Law degree in 2009 from Government Law College, Mumbai, India. Thereafter she worked in dispute resolution in a leading law firm in Mumbai. Shalaka completed her master’s degree in law from Harvard Law School with a focus on dispute resolution and public law in 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Make a Motion & Parliamentary Rules at a Glance
    How to Make a Motion (From “Rules of Order in Brief”) What is a motion . A motion is a formal proposal by a member, in a meeting, that the question – that is, whether the proposed action should or should not group take certain action. be taken. A main motion is one whose introduction brings business before an Right after stating the question on a motion, the president or chair assembly. There should be no debate on a matter before a motion turns toward the maker of the motion to see if he or she wishes to be regarding it has been made. Only one main motion may be before assigned the floor. the assembly for action at a time. During debate, there are also certain other motions that you may How you get to speak at a meeting . make relating to the main motion’s consideration, or, in some cases, interrupting its consideration. These are called secondary motions. You stand up immediately after the previous speaker has finished The most common secondary motion that relates to a pending and call out “Madam President or Chair.” The president or chair motion is a motion to Amend it. designates you as the next speaker, or recognizes you, normally by calling out your name. The President or Chair “Puts” the Question When no one else seeks recognition to debate, the president or When you are authorized to speak in this way, you are said to have chair may ask, “Are you ready for the question?” This means, “Is the floor. When finished, you sit down, and thus yield the floor.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, Tenth Edition, 2001
    ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER What are Robert’s Rules of Order? The first edition of the book was published in February, 1876 by U.S. Army Major Henry Martyn Robert. Its procedures were loosely modeled after those used in the United States House of Representatives. Robert wrote Robert’s Rules of Order after presiding over a church meeting and discovering that delegates from different areas of the country did not agree about proper procedure. The book is now in its 10th edition; Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR). Robert’s Rules of Order provides applicable rules governing key matters of meeting and general procedures, including: Establishing a Constitution and Bylaws for your student organization. Structure of the meeting Agenda and debate. Motions; including making, seconding, debating, modifying and amending motions. Sufficient majority and simple majority and which decisions are appropriate to them. Establishment of a quorum. Definition of membership. Voting rights of presiding officer and voting procedures. AN OUTLINE OF BASIC PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE Prepared by Douglas N. Case Parliamentary Authority: Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, Tenth Edition, 2001. I. Rules Governing an Organization State and Federal Law - governing corporations, tax-exempt organizations, public legislative bodies, etc. Articles of Incorporation - applicable to corporations Governing Documents of Parent Organizations - applicable to chapters, affiliates, etc. of larger organizations D. Local Constitution and Bylaws - defines the organization's basic structure and fundamental rules. Normally requires a 2/3 vote and prior notice for amendment and are not subject to suspension. E. Standing Rules - operating procedures consistent with all of the above.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chairperson
    USG Meetings —The Douglas Rules of Order What is Parliamentary Procedure? Parliamentary procedure is a set of rules designed to move business along in a meeting while maintaining order and controlling the communications process. Its purpose is to help groups accomplish their tasks through an orderly, democratic process. It is intended to facilitate the smooth functioning of the meeting and promote cooperation and harmony among members. The rules of procedure are guidelines, not laws. The important thing is for the group to remain focused on its objectives and reach decisions while allowing everyone to participate and be heard. Principles of Parliamentary Procedure Parliamentary procedure is based upon a few simple principles: ● Only one issue may be discussed at a time. ● All members have an equal ability to participate ● No member can speak until recognized by the chairperson. ● Every member can speak to the issue on the floor; however, no one can speak a second time as long as another wants to speak a first time. ● A vote decides an issue. ● The chairperson controls debate. The Chairperson The Chairperson has the success or failure of the meeting riding on their shoulders. They should be thoroughly familiar with all the business to be dealt with at the meeting, including reports and business held over from previous meetings. The Chairperson must be sensitive to the physical, informational, and social needs of all members. In USG the Chairperson has absolute control over the meeting. No one may speak without being recognized by the Chairperson. The Chairperson may impose limits and restrictions on debate as they see fit.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of Order
    07/L4/2OL1, PROCEDURE - and ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER (Just the Basics) WHY? WHY? WHY? . Parliamentary Procedure is a common, tested way to . Using Parliamentary Procedure keeps meetings on track . It gives everyone an opportunity to particiPateand to be heard o Used properly, it can ¿voidconfusion Basic Principles . Chairperson runs the meeting consistent with the Bylaws . Membe¡ship makes one decision at a time . Members must be recognized by the chairperson before they can speak . Decisionsare made by majorityvote o Members have the opportunit', to discuss or debate items beforevoting + a7/L4/2OL1 s How does it work? . Move on down the agenda one matter at a time . Informational items do not require a motion, the Chai¡ merely recognizes the member presenting the information o Action ltems will require a motion, a second, debate or discussion if a memberwishes to debate the motion, and a vote . People speak IN TURN, as recognized by the Chair Getting to Speak o When a member has something to say they ask for recognition by the chair. This may be done by raising a hand or by standing and âddressing the chair . Afterthe Chair recognizes the membeç the member mayspeak WHEN SPEAKING . Comments should be addressed to the Chair . Speak on the topic at hand . Courtesy demands that members do not ask for recognition from the chair while someone else is still speaking . People who have not yet spoken have priority over thosewho have wish to spéak for a second time . If time limits are in place, members can only speak for the set amount of time on any one topic 07/14/20L1.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert's Rules of Order and Parliamentary Procedure
    Robert's Rules of Order and Parliamentary Procedure Background Parliamentary procedure (or law) originally referred to the customs and rules for conducting business in the British Parliament and later referred to deliberative assemblies in general. In Great Britain, these procedures form a part of the unwritten law of the land, and in our own legislative bodies they are the authority in all cases where they do not conflict with existing rules or precedents. Henry Martyn Robert was an engineering officer in the regular U.S. Army in the late 1800s. Without warning he was asked to preside over a church meeting, and to his embarrassment he realized that he did not know how. This situation, familiar to many of us who have been in heated or disorderly union meetings, left him determined never to attend another meeting until he knew something of parliamentary law. Ultimately, he discovered and studied the few books then available on the subject. As he was transferred to various parts of the United States during his military service, he found virtual parliamentary anarchy, since people from different parts of the country had differing ideas about correct procedure. In 1876, General Robert set out to bring the rules of parliamentary law (by then adopted by the U.S. Congress) to members of ordinary societies and organizations with the publication of the Pocket Manual of Rules of Order. It sold half a million copies before it was completely reworked in 1915 and published as Robert's Rules of Order Revised and made Robert's name synonymous with the orderly rules in deliberative societies.
    [Show full text]