Looking for Consensus but Finding Division

Finding consensus on challenging issues requires deft handling and a flexible approach by the board chair.


by Dan Busby and John Pearson


A guiding principle is that when the board is making a decision,
the process should be fair, open, and recorded.[1]

Robert C. Andringa and Ted W. Engstrom


The church board meeting started well, but the first issue on the agenda was a doozy. The church was about to launch a major building campaign and three stewardship consultants had submitted proposals. The building committee recommended one of the three firms but without much conviction.

After a brief discussion, it was obvious that the board was deeply divided on the issue. Liz and Rick squared off with passionate speeches, debating pros and cons. Alan and Bill took some cheap shots at each other. It was to the point where some board members were squirming in their seats.

As one board member after another took very strong positions, uncertainty was written across the face of the chair. But with a motion and a second on the table, the board chair proceeded to a vote.

A novice could have predicted what would happen next: a split decision. Eight voted yes and seven voted no. While the motion carried, the matter clearly had not been handled well. The remainder of the meeting was tension-filled. Not only did the board fail to find consensus, they didn’t even find common ground. Yogi Berra once quipped, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” This matter was definitely not over for this board.

Conversely, a colleague tells a story with a much happier ending. Their church board was considering the acquisition of a major piece of real estate for a new campus. The opportunity had been on the agenda for more than six months. Every angle had been carefully analyzed—from zoning to parking to the mortgage. There was a motion and a second to move ahead with the acquisition. The board chair then went around the table and asked each member to share their feelings on the acquisition. Everyone was ready to move forward except Roger who said he was not comfortable proceeding.

The board chair could have moved to a vote and the issue would have passed. But he discerned it would be wiser to table the motion until the next meeting. Over the next month, the board chair met with Roger several times to discuss Roger’s misgivings. By the time the board met again, Roger had reached a comfort level with the property acquisition and the issue passed unanimously. The result: the board moved to a stunning level of congeniality and even consensus—thanks to the grace-giving way the board chair handled this significant decision.

What do these two stories tell us? Being the board chair is an extremely challenging task. And, there is not one right way to handle every item on the agenda.

Your church constitution or bylaws may provide guidance on how the board reaches decisions. Or, it may simply say that the board must follow Robert’s Rules of Order—a process with which few board chairs or boards are truly comfortable.

You have heard the terms consent agenda, unanimity, simple majority, and super majority. Inherent in all of these terms (which are discussed in more detail below) should be a desire to find consensus—a word that is often not well understood. Merriam-Webster defines consensus as, “general agreement or unanimity, the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned, or group solidarity in sentiment and belief.”[2] Consensus is a spirit or sense of the board. It is not a formal action. It is a process that seeks widespread agreement among group members. Unanimity is one possible result of the consensus process.

Determining if there is consensus on a particular agenda item before a vote is taken is often an excellent approach. After adequate discussion, the chair asks, “Is there consensus that it’s time to vote?” This is a signal: If you have more to add, speak up! At times, a red or green straw vote card may be used to indicate consensus. “If you are ready to vote, hold up your green card; if not, hold up your red card.”

The bottom line: Your board needs to find a way to reach decisions peacefully, thoughtfully, fairly, and openly. To avoid the wounds of division, your board should agree on the best way to reach consensus. Here are three approaches:

  • A consent agenda. Routine items can be grouped under one agenda item, termed a consent agenda. These items might include the approval of the minutes of the previous meeting, committee assignments, committee reports, and the like. Using this approach, the board chair entertains a motion to approve all of the items in the consent agenda. Agenda items upon which the board is unlikely to quickly reach consensus should not be included in a consent agenda.
  • Unanimity. It is rare for boards to require unanimity (100% agreement) on all actions. The danger in requiring unanimity is that one person can block an action and allow a decision to simply be endlessly kicked down the road. “The practice of required unanimity tends to silence those who would otherwise take a different view unless they think it is of critical importance. Others may feel unspoken pressure to go along with the perceived majority at the time of voting only to feel like a hypocrite later.”[3]

While reaching a unanimous decision is a positive accomplishment, most boards realize that it is acceptable for one or more members to dissent from a decision.

  • Simple or super majority. Most boards make decisions by simple majority. However, the constitution, or bylaws, or your Board Policies Manual may require more than a simple majority for certain actions, such as the purchase or sale of property. A so-called super-majority usually requires a two-thirds or three-fourths affirmative vote of the board.

Leverage these keys for reaching consensus without division—peacefully, thoughtfully, fairly, and openly:

  1. Right purpose. The board must always start and finish with the Colossians 3:17 test: “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus giving thanks to God the Father through Him.”
  2. Right people. Unless the right people are around the board table, which involves board selection, orientation, and ongoing training, the seeds are sown for division in the boardroom.
  3. Right board chair. When it comes to finding consensus, the chair is the key person. This is why the decision of whether the senior pastor should be the board chair is so critical. In denominational settings, polity may dictate that the senior pastor is the board chair. In most other churches, a senior pastor may or may not chair the board. For more insights, read David McKenna’s masterful book, Call of the Chair: Leading the Board of the Christ-centered Ministry.[4]
  4. Right agenda. A well-planned agenda goes a long way for achieving consensus. Placing the right issues on the agenda at the right time requires discernment.
  5. Right approach. There is no single right approach for every agenda item in each meeting. Sometimes, while the board meeting is in progress, the chair will sense the Holy Spirit’s leading—and call a holy time-out. This might require setting aside usual parliamentary procedures and functioning as a committee-of-the-whole (the board operates as a committee under informal rules). It may also involve prayer!



Glorify God in your church board meetings
by achieving consensus when possible.
God-honoring decisions can be made
peacefully, thoughtfully, fairly, and openly—
when you have the right purpose, the right people,
the right board chair, the right agenda, and the right approach.

  Board Action Steps:

  1. Reflect: When divisions occur in your board’s decision-making, how does your board chair address them?

  2. Review: Discern how the board can improve its decision-making processes and foster greater congeniality towards reaching a consensus.

  3. Re-visit: Periodically revisit the consensus-reaching and decision-making processes and make adjustments as necessary.



Lord, thank you for giving us the Holy Spirit
who guides us in making our board decisions. Amen.



[1] Robert C. Andringa and Ted W. Engstrom, Nonprofit Board Answer Book: Practical Guide for Board Members and Chief Executives, expanded ed. (Washington, DC: BoardSource, 2004), 150.

[2] Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 2003).

[3] Andringa and Engstrom, 151.

[4] David L. McKenna, Call of the Chair: Leading the Board of the Christ-centered Ministry (Winchester, VA: ECFAPress, 2017).


From Lessons From the Church Boardroom: 40 Insights for Exceptional Governance, ECFAPress, 2018, www.ECFA.Church/KnowledgeCenter.

This text is provided with the understanding that ECFA is not rendering legal, accounting, or other professional advice or service. Professional advice on specific issues should be sought from an accountant, lawyer, or other professional.