It Seemed Good . . .
Within the past few weeks, independently of each other, several people asked our feasibility committee to consider floating a survey ballot to assess the interest in separating the community building and school building options before a final yea or nay vote is taken for the "big package." There is apparently some thinking that only a small minority would be in favor of considering this, and that floating such a ballot would be unnecessary. I don't know whether that thinking is based on hard data or on hearsay. If there is data, I wish I could see it. The hearsay I'm exposed to goes along a different line. I have considered offering to gather such data myself. If I were to do it, it would certainly require some additional intestinal fortitude and a lot of time.
One thing I have learned in similar situations in the past is that "hard data" can be misleading also. Here's how that can happen.
Someone crafts a ballot that contains a proposal to which people can respond with a vote supporting the proposal or a vote that does not support the proposal. In our culture particularly, the "support the proposal" wording is loaded with freight. No one wants to be unsupportive, so when a ballot is crafted in this manner, we tend to "support" even if we have serious misgivings about much of the proposal. To remain true to our real feelings and to try to be honest, if we have serious misgivings and are comfortable with expressing them, we add a comment that details our reservations. Yet, when the results are tallied, only the "yes" or "no" votes are likely to make it to the public report of the results. I choose to believe that no dishonesty is intended. The method simply has limitations for discovering people's real preferences because the options have been narrowed so "severely."
In other words, a ballot worded in this way is not really asking "What do you think?" It's saying, ""We're giving you only two options. Which one do you like best (or least)?" As I see it now, a "no" vote is the reasonable option if there is significant unease about the proposal. I didn't see this several decades ago. I always voted "yes" in support of a proposal if I could possibly find a way to do so. My way was usually to articulate my reservations in the comments.
I first saw clearly the benefits and limitations of this two-options-only phenomenon in a "use of language" research project I did in college, and in that project, I tried to compensate for the limitations. As I did so, I saw that it made my results much more messy, but also gave me a far more realistic picture than would have been possible otherwise. I suspected that many of the people I knew who had a Pennsylvania Dutch language background would be more likely to use standard English than people who had spoken English over a long lifetime. I used a professionally prepared survey and asked people in a wide variety of age groups, both among PA Dutch speakers and lifetime-English speakers, but all having lived in the same area for many years, how they're used to saying certain things. The survey gave them a number of choices, but allowed them to add wording that was not on the list. Hiromi helped me wrestle the data into some coherent form, and I wrote a paper on the results. My initial "suspicion" was essentially confirmed, but that confirmation had to be expressed in a very nuanced form because the data demanded it. I ended up with many shades of gray rather than a black or white conclusion.
Designing ballots or expressing results in a nuanced form is arduous work, and, when people are particularly production, action, or results-oriented, taking the necessary time and putting forth the necessary effort may simply not happen. Shades of gray can be too inconvenient.
I do understand that sometimes a "support/don't support" proposal is the best way to proceed. Just recently, I recommended that to someone who was leading a fractious group of people. I believe, however, that the highest standards of Christian conduct call for people in positions of responsibility, especially when spending group money is involved, to make proposals with a great deal of finesse and discernment.
The phrase "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" persisted in coming to me as I was writing this. When I looked it up, I saw that it was part of the statement that James publicized after the Jerusalem conference when matters were settled that insured that the Christian church would not develop along separate Jewish and Gentile lines. I idealize reaching consensus in group decisions in such a way that everyone can say at the end "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us."
The passage in Acts 15 that gives details about the Jerusalem conference tells us this:
1. It took place after "no small dissension and disputation" in Antioch. People involved in the disagreement were missionaries (Paul and Barnabas), teachers from Judea, and local brethren. V. 2
2. Those most closely involved in the conflict decided to seek counsel outside their small group. V. 2
3. They traveled to Jerusalem and consulted the church leaders there, who were the "experts" in the matter. In this group were one or more persons in the following categories--1) Grew up in the same household as Jesus 2) Walked and lived with Jesus as a disciple 3) Saw a vision directly related to the matter at hand 4) Were present when the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost 5) Had been ordained as leaders
4. Impassioned speech from a visionary (Peter) occurred during the meeting, and Paul spoke from a missionary perspective. V. 7-12
5. The impassioned speech was followed by silence--not rebuke--and then by listening to the missionaries. v. 13
6. The leader (James) reviewed the evidence given by the "seer of the vision" and the confirming word of the Old Testament prophets. Although not mentioned specifically, he presumably also considered the witness of the missionaries, and made a pronouncement. vv.13-19
7. A letter was drafted and distributed that contained the following clause: "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;" V. 28
Here are some of the takeaway lessons I see in the above account:
1. Those on the front lines of carrying out a task are often the first to feel the friction that results from unsound policy. In the above case the task was "helping build the kingdom of God" and the missionaries were on the front lines of the task. Our primary task is the same as theirs, and missionaries are still on the front lines of carrying it out. Just as was true at the Jerusalem conference, we ought to take their perspective seriously. I've heard a number of former missionaries express reservations about an ambitious building project. Center has, by my count, 47 members who have served or are presently serving in foreign missions. Hearing from some of them has influenced my thinking. They are concerned about the opportunity cost of monies diverted away from missions. I also hear concerns about what ostentatious construction would reveal about our community's values, or perhaps how it will shape them in the future.
2. Visionaries are a benefit in the process of finding the best solutions--not to be hushed or dismissed. Peter didn't always get it right, but at the Jerusalem conference he certainly did. Peter's history in instructive here. After his initial vision, he had seemed to have forgotten its message at one point, and Paul "withstood him to the face" on the matter, whereupon Peter changed his mind and promoted again the message he had received in the original vision. At the Jerusalem conference, Peter and Paul had no apparent disagreement, and Peter was the one who made a defense of the position Paul had earlier confronted him on. Paul added additional data to the record, and both of them spoke in favor of the position that James eventually articulated. Confrontation is part of this story, but the end of the story spells agreement. I am enormously inspired by visionaries, (who are often seen to be confrontive) and find promotion of the status quo necessary sometimes, but far less satisfying.
3. Passion and patience both are appropriate when a thorny matter is being discussed. I do not always find quiet meetings to be synonymous with good meetings. I see a lack of passion as a problem, as is a lack of patience, of course. On the latter, there is more ready agreement than on the former, due to our cultural sensibilities. Those above who were involved in "no small dissension" were all believers, and they took their differences all the way to Jerusalem. After the final decision was made there, the differences apparently were no longer divisive. I find this approach reassuring--vigorous, open discussion, with all the "cards" in plain view to everyone before a decision is reached.
4. Agreement on the ultimate purpose of our efforts is absolutely foundational to a good outcome. This seemed to be the case at the Jerusalem conference. I have less confidence that this is the case in our community right now--on ultimate purposes or intermediate ones.
5. Laying upon others no greater burden than is necessary is a godly act. It's quite a different matter to decide how to spend our own money than it is to decide how other people should spend theirs. Undertaking major construction assumes that financial help will be forthcoming from everyone. Due partly to what one speaker called the Mennonite "gene" that tends to consider financial matters very private, we don't know much about each other's financial status, unless our spending is conspicuous. I consider it very likely that we have people among us for whom helping substantially with an expensive building project would be a significant financial burden. I certainly do not wish to see laid on such people a greater burden than is necessary.
6. Seeking input from experts is an act of wisdom and humility. When this community built a birth center, the ladies (Kathleen J. and Lois Y.) who had the vision for the service and many years of training and experience in doing the work, had a great deal of input on building design, but of course, it was builders who actually did the final work of drawing and constructing--presumably even then seeking input from others whose building expertise exceeded their own. I do not understand why building a school should not first involve hearing from teachers for the same reason as building a birth center should involve hearing first from midwives--or building a Choice Books building should involve hearing first from people who currently or who have in the past worked for Choice Books. The fact that teachers are not primarily the ones in our community pushing for new construction raises for me the question whether the primary goal behind the feasibility committee's work is actually a goal of meeting educational needs, or whether constructing a school is being used as impetus for reaching some other goal. Center has about 31 current or former teachers among its members, with almost half of them (14) having taken at least two years of post-high school training. Fourteen or so families have demonstrated a significant commitment to homeschooling. I count these people among those on the front lines of the work of education as surely as those who have done classroom teaching. Hearing from some of these people, and being counted among them myself has also helped shape my thinking on our current situation.
I believe that every congregation voting and providing input in public discussion on feasibility committee matters has its own "culture"--composed of both positive and negative aspects. I have attempted to focus on what I consider positive aspects of the congregation I'm part of--a significant population of missionaries and teachers and homeschoolers--more than 70-100 members. Anyone interested is free, of course, to do an analysis of their own or anyone else's congregation, and identify what they consider positive and negative aspects of the culture. What none of us can legitimately do is view sentiments and comments and even votes from any group without considering the context for those sentiments, comments, and votes and examining all of the above in light of ultimately noble, shared purposes--certainly something more than private agendas.
One thing I have learned in similar situations in the past is that "hard data" can be misleading also. Here's how that can happen.
Someone crafts a ballot that contains a proposal to which people can respond with a vote supporting the proposal or a vote that does not support the proposal. In our culture particularly, the "support the proposal" wording is loaded with freight. No one wants to be unsupportive, so when a ballot is crafted in this manner, we tend to "support" even if we have serious misgivings about much of the proposal. To remain true to our real feelings and to try to be honest, if we have serious misgivings and are comfortable with expressing them, we add a comment that details our reservations. Yet, when the results are tallied, only the "yes" or "no" votes are likely to make it to the public report of the results. I choose to believe that no dishonesty is intended. The method simply has limitations for discovering people's real preferences because the options have been narrowed so "severely."
In other words, a ballot worded in this way is not really asking "What do you think?" It's saying, ""We're giving you only two options. Which one do you like best (or least)?" As I see it now, a "no" vote is the reasonable option if there is significant unease about the proposal. I didn't see this several decades ago. I always voted "yes" in support of a proposal if I could possibly find a way to do so. My way was usually to articulate my reservations in the comments.
I first saw clearly the benefits and limitations of this two-options-only phenomenon in a "use of language" research project I did in college, and in that project, I tried to compensate for the limitations. As I did so, I saw that it made my results much more messy, but also gave me a far more realistic picture than would have been possible otherwise. I suspected that many of the people I knew who had a Pennsylvania Dutch language background would be more likely to use standard English than people who had spoken English over a long lifetime. I used a professionally prepared survey and asked people in a wide variety of age groups, both among PA Dutch speakers and lifetime-English speakers, but all having lived in the same area for many years, how they're used to saying certain things. The survey gave them a number of choices, but allowed them to add wording that was not on the list. Hiromi helped me wrestle the data into some coherent form, and I wrote a paper on the results. My initial "suspicion" was essentially confirmed, but that confirmation had to be expressed in a very nuanced form because the data demanded it. I ended up with many shades of gray rather than a black or white conclusion.
Designing ballots or expressing results in a nuanced form is arduous work, and, when people are particularly production, action, or results-oriented, taking the necessary time and putting forth the necessary effort may simply not happen. Shades of gray can be too inconvenient.
I do understand that sometimes a "support/don't support" proposal is the best way to proceed. Just recently, I recommended that to someone who was leading a fractious group of people. I believe, however, that the highest standards of Christian conduct call for people in positions of responsibility, especially when spending group money is involved, to make proposals with a great deal of finesse and discernment.
The phrase "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" persisted in coming to me as I was writing this. When I looked it up, I saw that it was part of the statement that James publicized after the Jerusalem conference when matters were settled that insured that the Christian church would not develop along separate Jewish and Gentile lines. I idealize reaching consensus in group decisions in such a way that everyone can say at the end "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us."
The passage in Acts 15 that gives details about the Jerusalem conference tells us this:
1. It took place after "no small dissension and disputation" in Antioch. People involved in the disagreement were missionaries (Paul and Barnabas), teachers from Judea, and local brethren. V. 2
2. Those most closely involved in the conflict decided to seek counsel outside their small group. V. 2
3. They traveled to Jerusalem and consulted the church leaders there, who were the "experts" in the matter. In this group were one or more persons in the following categories--1) Grew up in the same household as Jesus 2) Walked and lived with Jesus as a disciple 3) Saw a vision directly related to the matter at hand 4) Were present when the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost 5) Had been ordained as leaders
4. Impassioned speech from a visionary (Peter) occurred during the meeting, and Paul spoke from a missionary perspective. V. 7-12
5. The impassioned speech was followed by silence--not rebuke--and then by listening to the missionaries. v. 13
6. The leader (James) reviewed the evidence given by the "seer of the vision" and the confirming word of the Old Testament prophets. Although not mentioned specifically, he presumably also considered the witness of the missionaries, and made a pronouncement. vv.13-19
7. A letter was drafted and distributed that contained the following clause: "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;" V. 28
Here are some of the takeaway lessons I see in the above account:
1. Those on the front lines of carrying out a task are often the first to feel the friction that results from unsound policy. In the above case the task was "helping build the kingdom of God" and the missionaries were on the front lines of the task. Our primary task is the same as theirs, and missionaries are still on the front lines of carrying it out. Just as was true at the Jerusalem conference, we ought to take their perspective seriously. I've heard a number of former missionaries express reservations about an ambitious building project. Center has, by my count, 47 members who have served or are presently serving in foreign missions. Hearing from some of them has influenced my thinking. They are concerned about the opportunity cost of monies diverted away from missions. I also hear concerns about what ostentatious construction would reveal about our community's values, or perhaps how it will shape them in the future.
2. Visionaries are a benefit in the process of finding the best solutions--not to be hushed or dismissed. Peter didn't always get it right, but at the Jerusalem conference he certainly did. Peter's history in instructive here. After his initial vision, he had seemed to have forgotten its message at one point, and Paul "withstood him to the face" on the matter, whereupon Peter changed his mind and promoted again the message he had received in the original vision. At the Jerusalem conference, Peter and Paul had no apparent disagreement, and Peter was the one who made a defense of the position Paul had earlier confronted him on. Paul added additional data to the record, and both of them spoke in favor of the position that James eventually articulated. Confrontation is part of this story, but the end of the story spells agreement. I am enormously inspired by visionaries, (who are often seen to be confrontive) and find promotion of the status quo necessary sometimes, but far less satisfying.
3. Passion and patience both are appropriate when a thorny matter is being discussed. I do not always find quiet meetings to be synonymous with good meetings. I see a lack of passion as a problem, as is a lack of patience, of course. On the latter, there is more ready agreement than on the former, due to our cultural sensibilities. Those above who were involved in "no small dissension" were all believers, and they took their differences all the way to Jerusalem. After the final decision was made there, the differences apparently were no longer divisive. I find this approach reassuring--vigorous, open discussion, with all the "cards" in plain view to everyone before a decision is reached.
4. Agreement on the ultimate purpose of our efforts is absolutely foundational to a good outcome. This seemed to be the case at the Jerusalem conference. I have less confidence that this is the case in our community right now--on ultimate purposes or intermediate ones.
5. Laying upon others no greater burden than is necessary is a godly act. It's quite a different matter to decide how to spend our own money than it is to decide how other people should spend theirs. Undertaking major construction assumes that financial help will be forthcoming from everyone. Due partly to what one speaker called the Mennonite "gene" that tends to consider financial matters very private, we don't know much about each other's financial status, unless our spending is conspicuous. I consider it very likely that we have people among us for whom helping substantially with an expensive building project would be a significant financial burden. I certainly do not wish to see laid on such people a greater burden than is necessary.
6. Seeking input from experts is an act of wisdom and humility. When this community built a birth center, the ladies (Kathleen J. and Lois Y.) who had the vision for the service and many years of training and experience in doing the work, had a great deal of input on building design, but of course, it was builders who actually did the final work of drawing and constructing--presumably even then seeking input from others whose building expertise exceeded their own. I do not understand why building a school should not first involve hearing from teachers for the same reason as building a birth center should involve hearing first from midwives--or building a Choice Books building should involve hearing first from people who currently or who have in the past worked for Choice Books. The fact that teachers are not primarily the ones in our community pushing for new construction raises for me the question whether the primary goal behind the feasibility committee's work is actually a goal of meeting educational needs, or whether constructing a school is being used as impetus for reaching some other goal. Center has about 31 current or former teachers among its members, with almost half of them (14) having taken at least two years of post-high school training. Fourteen or so families have demonstrated a significant commitment to homeschooling. I count these people among those on the front lines of the work of education as surely as those who have done classroom teaching. Hearing from some of these people, and being counted among them myself has also helped shape my thinking on our current situation.
I believe that every congregation voting and providing input in public discussion on feasibility committee matters has its own "culture"--composed of both positive and negative aspects. I have attempted to focus on what I consider positive aspects of the congregation I'm part of--a significant population of missionaries and teachers and homeschoolers--more than 70-100 members. Anyone interested is free, of course, to do an analysis of their own or anyone else's congregation, and identify what they consider positive and negative aspects of the culture. What none of us can legitimately do is view sentiments and comments and even votes from any group without considering the context for those sentiments, comments, and votes and examining all of the above in light of ultimately noble, shared purposes--certainly something more than private agendas.
posted by Mrs. I (Miriam Iwashige) at
10:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home