A close vote
24/06/16 05:20
Nearly half of the citizens of Great Britain woke up disappointed this morning. Around 48% of them voted yesterday to remain in the European Union. They were not, however, the majority of the votes cast. The other 52% voted to leave. The pundits had predicted a very close election and they were right.
The markets took the news dramatically. The FTSE 100 Index fell more than 8% before recovering. It is now down about 4.5% from yesterday’s value. Banks, it seems, are taking the hardest hit. Barclays and RBS fell about 30% before recovering to losses of about 17%. The value of the British pound fell dramatically. At one stage it fell to $1.32, a low not seen since 1985. Here in the United States, markets are expected to fall as well. S&P Futures were down 5% and Dow Jones Industrial Averages fell 600 points. Investors around the world are expected to panic, selling stocks and purchasing gold and treasury bonds, investments made when markets are falling.
Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that he will resign in October, forcing new elections. Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon says she will push for a second independence referendum to protect Scotland’s E.U. membership. Predictions abound that this signals the beginning of a total breakup of the European Union.
Whatever happens, it is going to be messy.
The vote takes Britain and the world into uncharted territory. Before the vote, those who were campaigning for staying in the union were quick to state that those leading the exit vote had no real plan for how to actually accomplish the exit. There may be some truth to those claims.
I’m no expert in European politics. What I know comes from reading the BBC news website on a fairly regular basis. And readers of this blog don’t turn to it for information on politics in the first place. What I do know is that close votes are a sign of deeply divided communities. I’ve heard too many stories of congregations that became divided and took votes that were close. The results have usually been dramatic and unpleasant. Not long ago a congregation with which I am familiar got into conflict over pastoral leadership. The vote was close. The congregation ended up splitting into two different congregations. A few years later, one of those congregations decided to give up and cease being a church. The other is struggling, too small to hire the leadership they want and continuing to decline since the split. The end result in the next few years might be that where there once was a healthy congregation there will be none.
A wise mentor once told me that a simple majority vote will divide a congregation. He went on to say that even a two-thirds majority leaves a third of the congregation upset. He advised that major decisions, such as calling a pastor or launching a capital funds drive should meet a minimum of 80% support. If they fall short the congregation should consider that the decision has not yet been reached and continue to search. That sounds like high stakes, but the stakes are high when a community begins to form divisions.
At this point in my career, I prefer boring church meetings to those filled with conflict. And I’ve been around long enough to sense conflict coming when it does.
Still, it is unreasonable to expect congregations or any other group of people to always agree. There will be times when differences emerge and opinions are deeply held. There will be times when things don’t go the way I want them to go.
One of my early lessons in church politics resulted in a story that I have previously reported in my blog, but I’ll repeat again. My home church was remodeling the sanctuary. There was plaster peeling from the walls and ceiling and there were stains from a previous leak in the roof. The appearance of the room was shabby and it was in need of a makeover. Plans were drawn and funds were raised. New lighting was installed. Paneling was put up. Paint was applied. The room was looking great. Some thought that new pews for the church would complete the makeover. My father was convinced that the old pews could be refinished and serve for many more years. At the meeting, it became clear that his was a minority opinion and the congregation voted to purchase new pews. He was a bit miffed at the decision and asked for the catalogue to see what pews cost. He turned to the price page and without even studying, selected the most expensive pews in the book. To illustrate his point, he made a motion that they buy those pews. The motion passed. That church has the fanciest, deeply padded, gold brocaded pews I’ve ever seen in a church. And my father bought the first one. Sarcasm doesn’t really work in church meetings.
But he didn’t leave the church because he disagreed with the decision of the congregation. He remained committed and participated.
I’ve seen that over and over in the church. A committed church member disagrees with a particular idea, votes against it, and then supports the decision of the majority. That attitude has served me well in my experience with the church. As pastor, I rarely vote in local church meetings. Believing in that principal of it takes 80% to make a decision, I attend meetings to observe and listen. if the decision were to come down to a single vote, I think it would be best for that vote not to be mine. In Conference and National settings of the church, however, I participate and vote. I can remember several times, when serving on the Conference Board and others when serving on the Board of Directors of Local Church Ministries, when I cast a lone dissenting vote. The decision went against what I believed was best for the organization. I didn’t get angry and quit. Moreover, I have tried to take responsibility for the decision of the group even though I dissented from it. As a member, I am responsible for what we do together, not just for my own opinion.
Britain has voted. Britain is divided. More important than the votes now, is discerning leadership that can bring the two sides together and uncover a deeper unity for the nation.
The markets took the news dramatically. The FTSE 100 Index fell more than 8% before recovering. It is now down about 4.5% from yesterday’s value. Banks, it seems, are taking the hardest hit. Barclays and RBS fell about 30% before recovering to losses of about 17%. The value of the British pound fell dramatically. At one stage it fell to $1.32, a low not seen since 1985. Here in the United States, markets are expected to fall as well. S&P Futures were down 5% and Dow Jones Industrial Averages fell 600 points. Investors around the world are expected to panic, selling stocks and purchasing gold and treasury bonds, investments made when markets are falling.
Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that he will resign in October, forcing new elections. Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon says she will push for a second independence referendum to protect Scotland’s E.U. membership. Predictions abound that this signals the beginning of a total breakup of the European Union.
Whatever happens, it is going to be messy.
The vote takes Britain and the world into uncharted territory. Before the vote, those who were campaigning for staying in the union were quick to state that those leading the exit vote had no real plan for how to actually accomplish the exit. There may be some truth to those claims.
I’m no expert in European politics. What I know comes from reading the BBC news website on a fairly regular basis. And readers of this blog don’t turn to it for information on politics in the first place. What I do know is that close votes are a sign of deeply divided communities. I’ve heard too many stories of congregations that became divided and took votes that were close. The results have usually been dramatic and unpleasant. Not long ago a congregation with which I am familiar got into conflict over pastoral leadership. The vote was close. The congregation ended up splitting into two different congregations. A few years later, one of those congregations decided to give up and cease being a church. The other is struggling, too small to hire the leadership they want and continuing to decline since the split. The end result in the next few years might be that where there once was a healthy congregation there will be none.
A wise mentor once told me that a simple majority vote will divide a congregation. He went on to say that even a two-thirds majority leaves a third of the congregation upset. He advised that major decisions, such as calling a pastor or launching a capital funds drive should meet a minimum of 80% support. If they fall short the congregation should consider that the decision has not yet been reached and continue to search. That sounds like high stakes, but the stakes are high when a community begins to form divisions.
At this point in my career, I prefer boring church meetings to those filled with conflict. And I’ve been around long enough to sense conflict coming when it does.
Still, it is unreasonable to expect congregations or any other group of people to always agree. There will be times when differences emerge and opinions are deeply held. There will be times when things don’t go the way I want them to go.
One of my early lessons in church politics resulted in a story that I have previously reported in my blog, but I’ll repeat again. My home church was remodeling the sanctuary. There was plaster peeling from the walls and ceiling and there were stains from a previous leak in the roof. The appearance of the room was shabby and it was in need of a makeover. Plans were drawn and funds were raised. New lighting was installed. Paneling was put up. Paint was applied. The room was looking great. Some thought that new pews for the church would complete the makeover. My father was convinced that the old pews could be refinished and serve for many more years. At the meeting, it became clear that his was a minority opinion and the congregation voted to purchase new pews. He was a bit miffed at the decision and asked for the catalogue to see what pews cost. He turned to the price page and without even studying, selected the most expensive pews in the book. To illustrate his point, he made a motion that they buy those pews. The motion passed. That church has the fanciest, deeply padded, gold brocaded pews I’ve ever seen in a church. And my father bought the first one. Sarcasm doesn’t really work in church meetings.
But he didn’t leave the church because he disagreed with the decision of the congregation. He remained committed and participated.
I’ve seen that over and over in the church. A committed church member disagrees with a particular idea, votes against it, and then supports the decision of the majority. That attitude has served me well in my experience with the church. As pastor, I rarely vote in local church meetings. Believing in that principal of it takes 80% to make a decision, I attend meetings to observe and listen. if the decision were to come down to a single vote, I think it would be best for that vote not to be mine. In Conference and National settings of the church, however, I participate and vote. I can remember several times, when serving on the Conference Board and others when serving on the Board of Directors of Local Church Ministries, when I cast a lone dissenting vote. The decision went against what I believed was best for the organization. I didn’t get angry and quit. Moreover, I have tried to take responsibility for the decision of the group even though I dissented from it. As a member, I am responsible for what we do together, not just for my own opinion.
Britain has voted. Britain is divided. More important than the votes now, is discerning leadership that can bring the two sides together and uncover a deeper unity for the nation.