A Theology of Consensus

The idea of "consensus" does not really appear in the Biblical writings, and has to be teased out of what is there. Obviously, either as a tribal people, or as a settled nation, the political systems tended to be hierarchical, and notions of democracy remote. However, here a few gleanings, although most are warnings against how consensus may go wrong.

The story of Abraham "haggling" with God over who should be saved from Sodom and Gomorrah, and reducing the numbers, as he bargains for the people living there facing destruction is an interesting one, and could be seen as Abraham and God trying to reach a consensus on the matter.

A lesson to be learnt on consensus here might be that those in a position of considerable power should be open to having their minds changed by the moral appeal of those in a much weaker position.

At the end of the time of the Judges, Samuel is faced with a majority request by the people to have a King like the surrounding tribes. He warns them of the consequences: (1 Sa 8:11-17) and how their freedom will be reduced, but they still demand a king, and of course, all the consequences he warns them against come to pass.

A lesson to be learnt on majority consensus here is not always the wisest choice of action, and "what the people want" can actually lead to losing freedoms. What the people do not see, in their short term desire, is how the big picture will be played out, and what are the unseen consequences (although clearly seen by Samuel) of their choice.

Close to the time of exile, we find the priests telling the King that Jerusalem will not fall, that God is with them and against the surrounding nations. Jeremiah: Here is a consensus of informed opinion, from all the high officials and priests, and the prophet Jeremiah comes along, and tells them it is all wrong.

We can see here consensus is not always the correct choice, and can be totally wrong. There is a need for a "prophetic" voice, challenging consensus, pointing out injustices, and saying what people do not want to hear, but should.

Coming to the New Testament, there is again nothing that tells openly of "consensus". The disciples and Jesus did not vote on what to do! But I think we can still tease out a few helpful tips.

Where other people are also spoken of as healing in Jesus name, the disciples are cross, and want Jesus to stop them. He rebukes them, and tells them that those other people are also doing God's work. We could take this as laying down a guideline that working to the same end does not necessarily mean everyone has to be part of the team, the "inner circle", and consensus does not mean excluding those who also are fellow travellers.

With Paul's conflict with Jerusalem over adherence to Jewish laws, we see both a compromise, and the limits of compromise. The subject of boundary-markers between Jews and pagans is at the heart of the conflict. Paul wants the Christians to "stop thinking of themselves as basically belonging to this or that ethnic group, and to see the practices that formerly demarcated that ethnic group from all others as irrelevant, things you can carry on doing if you like but which you shouldn't insist on for others."(Wright, 2002)

As Tom Wright notes:

"This is what underlies the debate about justification and circumcision in Galatians 2. The question underneath the passage is not, 'Do we have to perform good moral deeds in order to get to heaven,' but rather, 'Are Jewish Christians allowed to sit down and eat at the same table as Gentile Christians, when the latter have not been circumcised?.. We need to make a clear distinction between the aspects of a culture which Paul regards as morally neutral and those which he regards as morally, or immorally, loaded."

Obviously it is difficult to generalise from local and general conditions within the nascent Christian community, but one matter than could be generalised is to say that politicians are bound to disagree at some matters when they sit around the table, but they should be able to work out what are critical points of disagreement and what are not, so that they can work together on what they are agreed on, rather than making everything part of a package of issues which has to be accepted in total, thus excluding those who might otherwise join in on some matters.

So to summarise, some principles and comments:

- Consensus means being prepared to change your mind, even if you don't have to. Those in power should be genuinely open to listen to and be swayed by the moral case of those in a weaker position, and not just defend their own position. The steamroller approach is one which does not build consensus. Majority rule can all to easily turn into tyranny, when it excludes the voice of the disenfranchised minorities.

- Consensus as "majority rule" does not always make the wisest choices, and needs wise counsel to point out the consequences which follow from a course of action before irrevocable decisions are made. Decision making often assumes that one decision means one result, and there will be no unintended consequences which could have been foreseen if a little more criticism was given. The philosopher Karl Popper suggested that rather than loving our ideas, because they come from us, we should be especially careful and critical of them.

- Consensus may be completely wrong. The prophetic voice, to give warnings, and say what people do not want to hear is needed. When a protest is being made, rather than being an irritant to be brushed aside, it should be seen as a warning against complacency, and an opportunity for critical reflection on where the government might be wrong.

- Consensus should be inclusive, which means working with people who are not on your side, and not excluding them from your deliberations.

- Consensus means separating matters on which people differ from those on which people agree, rather than bundling policies as a "take it or leave it" package, with the resultant confrontational politics which helps no one.