Let me start off by saying that I am not a huge Barack Obama fan. I did vote for him, but like many on the left, I have mixed feelings about his performance so far. On health care reform, however, I think he is doing it right, and I have a lot of sympathy for the beating he is taking from both sides.

As a pastor, I have experienced similar challenges of guiding a divided constituency through a difficult decision making process. Several years ago, the columns on the church where I was serving developed some major cracks. An architect told us that the entire front of the building would collapse within 10 years if we didn’t do something. The congregation had to decide between repairing the columns (which would only be a temporary fix) or renovating the entire front of the building (which would be a permanent solution and would greatly enhance the appearance of the church).

As with the health care debate, people were polarized over the decision. About 60% wanted the costly full-scale renovation, but several folks made passionate arguments about the the long-term consequences of such an investment (although there was no shouting and nobody drew a Hitler mustache on my picture). I sided with the majority, and I knew that I could ignore the opponents and hurry through a quick vote. 

In the same way, Obama could forget about the Republicans and use his muscle to get the health care bill he wants. The left understands this, and being eager for reform sooner rather than later, they have been criticizing the president for his attempts at bipartisanship. Why court the Republicans if we know that the vast majority of them will never support the president no matter what concessions he makes?

In my church debate, adopting an aggressive leadership style like this would have been disastrous. I could have gotten the full renovation approved with a single meeting and a single vote.  But then 40% of the congregation would have been angry at myself and the other 60% of the church. And in their bitterness, they probably would have been disruptive to any future initiatives that I proposed.

Instead, I led the church through a six-month discernment process where we held meetings, invited in outside experts, and gave everyone time to consider the full ramifications. By the time the decision was made, very few had actually changed their minds. But everyone’s voice was heard, which made for a much more peaceful church after the process was finished.

Obama is guiding the nation through a similar process, although it is one that is much more difficult and complicated than a building repair. Therefore, a thoughtful process is even more critical. He is giving the opposition a chance to voice its opinion, even if they do it in an immature and unhealthy way; and he is reaching out to the Republicans in Congress to make them part of the process, even if only one or two actually changes their vote.

I believe Obama is determined to get the public option, and I think he could get it with the George Bush approach of "My way or the highway." But if he can do the same thing with a less partisan approach, it will accomplish more than just getting the legislation passed. With a less bitter and less divided public (which may or may not be possible), and with olive branches offered to opponents in Congress – reform has a much better chance of succeeding once it is implemented. It would also give Obama a stronger footing on the many other important issues he is going to tackle.