For some time I have been concerned that when making decisions, at a personal, industry, government or church level, we often fail to consider the impact or consequence of decisions made.
There is pressure for action – we need an answer NOW! Immediacy has become the base-line. As a result, we don’t take the time to consider – what next? What will be the outcome of our decision? Who will be affected? Have we looked at all angles?
Government
The first time I was made fully aware of how short-term thinking can have consequences in relation to government policy, was when the country was experiencing extreme drought. You may recall the promotion of showering with a friend, using our grey water, etc. In one Victorian regional town the promotion of the recycling of grey water was so successful that it produced an unexpected outcome. As a result of the reduced amount of water flowing through sewage systems, the system became blocked and thus requiring truck loads of fresh water to be pumped through the system to remove the blockage. If time had been taken to consider the impact of this policy and the reduced water flow in the system, this could have been managed and avoided.
Quite often one hears in government circles the comment, “That’s the next government’s problem.” Short-term thinking does at times seem endemic throughout the system.
Also, one area of government can have a policy that, unless there is a review by the whole of government, one problem gets solved at the expense of an impact elsewhere. Time. It all gets down to taking the time to review and always ask the question, “What if?”
I found myself impacted by a government personnel ‘policy’ during the same-sex marriage debate. While having no problem with same-sex couples wishing to establish a recognised relationship, I did as a Christian have an issue with changing the actual definition of marriage. The government in its wisdom introduced a counselling service to be available on the day of the ‘vote’ to support those who may be impacted by a negative outcome. However, the support was only for those who would be impacted if the vote did not allow same-sex marriage. The counsellors were promoted as being experienced in same-sex relationships and were there to help. There was no consideration whatsoever of those, like myself, who would find the change to the definition of marriage difficult. And I wasn’t alone. There were others of Jewish and Muslim faith on staff. I formally complained and received an apology advising that they had not considered the ‘other side’ of the debate and would be more careful in future.
We also saw the issuing of conflicting policies in Victoria with the quarantine hotels. There was a policy objective based on employment and security – but not health. And this had consequences.
Industry
There are many examples of products being developed and released into the market that have consequences. Unfortunately, some of these consequences are only discerned over time. They are often referred to as “unforeseen consequences”. However, once the consequence becomes known and is identified, then it is a risk. It needs to be addressed and managed – this related to cigarettes and asbestos.
The consumer in this regard also has a responsibility when purchasing items. The use of technology is a key area – how much are we prepared to accept the consequences of overuse or misuse of technology. If we recognise the possible consequences, we are then, based on the level of probability, accepting the risks.
Church
This is a tricky area, as decisions within this context impact on the direct beliefs and passions of individuals. But consideration of the request for decisions by either the Boards or Synod need to include consideration of consequences of such decisions.
There are some proposals that are put forward where it is obvious that people have not considered the impact of the outcome of an acceptance of that proposal. It may be OK in their own context, but when considered more widely across the church, be totally inappropriate. Have they considered that? Or, is it a case of what they want just being validated by others?
A key problem for me is the request that each congregation decide whether they are in favour of the ordination of women. Seems simple. Just decide. But what is the congregation? Is it a body of one mind? Within it, are there differing views on this matter? What is the consequence for those who do not accept the outcome? And, just as there will be differing views among members, what about differing views among members of families? Is it the intent of the vote to split families? I am aware of husbands and wives who differ, children from their parents, among siblings. OK – we get a decision – then what?
Is such an approach one of demonstrating the love for one another Jesus requires of us? Jesus speaks quite clearly in John 17 of his desire that “we be one”. He is not about division.
I also think, from a consequence viewpoint, that the only time it is relevant for a congregation to determine whether they are in favour of a woman as their pastor, is when they are vacant and seeking to call a new pastor. At this point in time it is relevant. At any other time it is somewhat theoretical and doesn’t directly impact on the congregation except for the distress and possible damage that would occur.
We need to find a way to accept the validity of each other’s views on this matter and to allow each congregation, at a time when appropriate, to determine whether they are prepared to call a woman or not. It is my view that any other approach would have consequences that we can’t imagine.
Currently in this time of COVID, as we are all encouraged to be vaccinated, the key message is to do so, not only for ourselves, but for others – to stop the spread, to reduce the impact on the health care system, etc. Isn’t this aligned with the new commandment given to us by Jesus – that we love one another. It is about the other.
Surely if we can think of the other with COVID, we can also show the same compassion and think of the other in regard to women’s ordination. It is not about winning or losing, but acceptance, tolerance and care for the other.
Or am I being naïve? I guess I will have to bear the consequences of that also.
Faye Schmidt's Thoughts 