Opinions: Perspectives from readers

The recent decision by the Executive Board of Mennonite Church USA concerning the 2013 Delegate Assembly meeting in Phoenix, Ariz., was an incredibly complex one.

Regardless of the outcome, some stakeholders were not going to be satisfied or supportive. There was no simple, win-win option. That would have made the decision easy, not difficult. This decision may prove to be one of the most demanding that this particular board faces for some time. It was an honor to be a guest and observer as the board members wrestled with this sensitive and critical decision.

In my work with governing boards, I am often asked for case studies on how governing boards can effectively deal with difficult matters. I am keenly interested in the question of how our faith and sensitivity to spirituality shape the process of discernment and decision-making. The Executive Board’s discernment process on this challenge had features that modeled sensitive and responsible spiritual discernment.

My comments are not to be construed as a rationale for the outcome but as a witness to the integrity of the discernment process. I noted six important dynamics, each of which constituted faithful discernment. I only hope these would characterize how most face such critical and complex matters.

1. The board gathered critical input. The executive director and board solicited considerable input from many different stakeholder groups. Summary reports were prepared and distributed to the board in writing as part of the meeting preparation materials. The board invested nearly an hour in thoughtful review and in summarizing what board members thought they were hearing and should be learning from the feedback.

2. The board took adequate time. The board chair, executive committee and executive director recognized the significance of this decision and designed an agenda that provided ample time—in this case nearly five hours—to address the issue. The board engaged the issue with energy but not frenzy. Other items were compressed or delayed to create adequate time for discernment. This provided time for individuals to reflect, interact, pray, wait and sharpen their personal perspectives on a wide range of options.

3. The board prayed and reflected. At several points in the meeting, individual board members or the board chair asked that the conversation be suspended for a period of silence, reflection and prayer. The result was an awareness of the presence of God and a stance of listening for continuing direction from the Holy Spirit.

4. The board communicated in straightforward ways. The chair of the board invited board members to engage each other in loving but honest communication. Opinions and perspectives on the issue and options were far-ranging. On several occasions the chair focused a question and asked each board member to comment. Exchanges were civil but real. Feelings of aspiration, hope, hurt and struggle were all expressed. Board members wrestled with breadth of perspectives in the constituency. The conversation reflected the reality of diverse perspectives.

5. The board decided to move forward together. There was recognition that whatever the resulting decision, it was important for the board to stand together and move forward together. This did not require and did not mean that all board members agreed. Actually, there was searching discussion about whether this meant that all board members had to agree personally with the proposed resolution or that the emerging direction was their personal preferred outcome. Board members demonstrated great sensitivity to each other’s personal stake and conscience. The board agreed that it would move forward together—trusting the leading of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of the church and God’s grace.

6. The board anticipated response. The board wisely anticipated how the outcome would be perceived or received by many impacted by the result. The board gave prayerful and thoughtful consideration to what kind of communication could serve the church and build trust. This began with straightforward communication with other leaders from across the church who met in Tampa, Fla., just as the board was concluding its work.

I have seldom seen this quality of spiritual discernment. As a member of Berkey Avenue Mennonite Church in Goshen, Ind., and an executive with a set of ministries related to Mennonite Church USA, I am grateful for a churchwide board that practices such discerning leadership.

Rick Stiffney is president/CEO of Mennonite Health Services Alliance of Mennonite Church USA.