A Proposal for a New Order of Church Business MeetingsEvery once in awhile an idea comes along that revolutionizes the accepted way of doing things. Most of these ideas, while fresh and innovative, have also a certain feel of inevitability, as in, Why didn’t we think of this before, or, This makes much more sense.
Just the other day one of these ideas came to me in a flash of inspiration. After giving the matter further thought, I realized I could not keep this wisdom to myself. Therefore, I hereby (I’m getting warmed up with good, proper meeting language) advance the following approach to our church business meetings.
Instead of the current method of voting, I think it might prove expedient to replace the lackluster raising of the right hand with the brandishing of longish staffs or sticks. You may feel somewhat alarmed to hear me say this, but let me develop it a little.
The staffs should be made of a hard plastic that would allow a smarting blow to be delivered to the cranium, but would do no lasting or lethal injury, as this would cut into the size of church membership rolls.
Once a motion has been raised, another kind of motion would rejoin, indicating a negative vote or an objection. Once all of the vote-blows had been delivered, the floor would be returned to the person making the motion, if he’s not already on it. If this person is of firm mind or hardy constitution, he could reassert his motion, resulting in a second round of voting. Some sort of Yea signifier would need to be developed, perhaps a tapping on the floor with the stick.
As you can see, this idea is still in the rough stages, but with a brainstorming session, these minor details could be worked out. Obviously some changes would have to be made to Robert’s Rules of Order, but these could be mostly accomplished with a pair of scissors.
To keep the whole matter from getting out of hand, a moderator might be chosen. This probably should not be the pastor, as he is sure to want to be holding a stick. He has patiently borne many trials and tribulations.
The moderator’s role would be important. He might have to make admonishing statements like, “Bob, Joe hasn’t spoken yet. You need to wait until he says something you disagree with before striking him.”
Once the process is tried, it’s possible that this whole new undertaking could prove such a cathartic process that it could even be used to prevent church splits. In most church split cases, if I’m not mistaken, the group desiring to split are in the minority, and thus could eventually be subdued. And once the struggle was over, it might give to the church new members in the hospital on which to show their charity.
As with any emerging idea, I’m still to some extent thinking aloud. If this business method seemed too harsh to some, maybe the meetings could be taken in the opposite direction, and they could be a feel-good affirming affair. When anything is said, required positive responses would be issued by at least three people, for instance, “That’s wonderful; thank you for sharing,” or, “You have wisdom beyond your years,” or, "I love that shirt you're wearing."
I may not be open to having a vote on the proposal.