The GA Junkie

Moderator Designate Of The Presbyterian Church In Ireland -- The Rev Roy Patton

2012-02-07T21:56:13Z

It is the First Tuesday in February and right on schedule, a bit before 9 PM local time, Alan in Belfast and then William Crawley have broken the news that the Presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland have selected the Rev. Roy Patton as the Moderator Designate for the 2012 General Assembly. Mr. Patton was selected from a group of five nominees. He was the clear favorite of the 19 presbyteries receiving almost half of the endorsements with eight. (Not even close to needing the new same-day voting process in the event of a tie.)

Rev Patton is the pastor of Ballygilbert Presbyterian Church where he has been serving for 17 years. Before that he served at St. Enoch's, Belfast, and Downshire Road, Newry.

He has considerable service to the PCI participating on several boards and working as the convener of some of them. Currently, he serves as the Convener of the Board of Mission in Ireland.

He is a graduate of Trinity College and received his theological training at New College, Edinburgh, and Union Theological College, Belfast. (For those not familiar with the PCI, the completion at Union is a requirement of the denomination.)

The church web site tells us that his wife Daphne is a teacher and that they "very much work together as a team."

(source: Presbyterian Church in Ireland )

So in light of that, our congratulations to Rev. Patton and our prayers for him and Mrs. Patton as they get ready for the General Assembly and for his Moderatorial year. Blessings on you.

The news is just breaking but additional coverage and quotes can be found at Alan in Belfast and the BBC news. We are expecting a formal press release to be posted by the PCI, but their pre-vote page has a brief biography of Rev. Patton and the other four candidates.

A Giant

2012-02-05T04:11:05Z

This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. [Romans 3:22-24]

Yes, tomorrow is the high holy day of American civil religion. Enough chicken wings will be eaten to circle the world more than twice. (Although putting them on a cupcake seems to be taking both these fads too far.) And with my interest in social media, the ways that it will be used this weekend are fascinating. Maybe more on that another time.

You know it must be a high holy day when there is a movement to make it, or more specifically the Monday following it, a holiday. (Got to have time to recover I guess.)

And I guess in the midst of all this there is a football game...

What is interesting about this game is that at one time or another both teams tried to hire a certain college coach by the name of Joseph V. Paterno. One of the teams almost got him but after initially saying yes he thought about it some more and decided not to sign the contract.

Lots has been written about JoePa over the last couple of months, but yes I thought I would add my voice to conversation. I am a graduate of Penn State and have always thought very highly of Joe. I still do. I am still processing a lot of what has happened recently and being a deliberative Presbyterian I am withholding final judgement until more of the facts are known.

Let me be clear right up front -- I am not here to apologize, ignore or explain away Coach Paterno's failings with respect to the recent scandal. As the quote I started with, and many more in scripture say, none of us are perfect. Joe apparently had a moral lapse which helped facilitate the abuse of young children. That will clearly leave a major dark mark on his legacy.

But consider his work on balance - and not the work on the football field on Saturdays. Coach Paterno was an icon, a giant, for good reason. And it went beyond the high graduation rate of his players and his clean record with the NCAA. How many other coaches do you know have given over $4 million dollars back to their school for academic and spiritual causes. But to characterize him like this, while good, misses both the big picture and the small details.

Phil Sheridan, of the Philadelphia Inquirer does a great job of capturing the big picture:

To say he was the Nittany Lions' football coach would be to say that Steve Jobs worked in computers, or that Walt Disney was a cartoonist. The man was larger than the university where he worked, than the sport that he coached.

That was both his greatest achievement and, in the end, part of his downfall.

And Rick Reilly, my favorite sports columnist, in his ESPN commentary captures the details in his piece titled "Joe Paterno's True Legacy." It is about Joe and Adam Taliaferro, a player who was paralyzed in a game in 2000. Here is a small part of that article about the care Joe showed for his player:

And every other week, Paterno would fly to Philly to see him.

"He'd bring our trainer and a couple of my teammates," Taliaferro says. "Nobody in the hospital knew he was there." Paterno would tell him all the dumb things his teammates and coaches had done lately. Pretty soon, Taliaferro would be laughing his IVs out.

"I can't tell you what that meant to me," says Taliaferro, now 30. "I'm stuck in that hospital, and here's Coach Paterno bringing a piece of the team to me, in the middle of the season. How many coaches would do that?"

But you have to realize that this was not an isolated case and he cared about people beyond his circle of players. Many people have contributed recollections over the last couple of weeks about the small things JoePa did. As Cory Gieger, the host of a radio sports show, put it on Twitter after a call-in honoring Joe: @corygiger: There's no question those small gestures by Paterno made tremendous impact on so many people, giving them stories & memories for a lifetime.

And I don't think Coach Paterno would object to my using that quote at the beginning -- he was a religious man and a faithful Roman Catholic. He was a man of quiet but not silent faith. His was a firm but not flashy faith. In an article on the Catholic Review web site his bishop remembers him for his faithfulness and his support of the spiritual center and a local school.

My most vivid memory of Coach Paterno, at least off the field, was a political rally on campus. A congressional candidate had gotten JoePa and a former President of the United States to come out and endorse him. I don't need to tell you that the Coach got by far the loudest applause when introduced. (But I don't remember if the guy won the race.)

And on Penn State's University Park Campus one of the highest honors you can receive is to have a Creamery ice cream flavor named after you. In the last two months sales of Peachy Paterno have dramatically increased.

The point is that while football was important, it was not the most important thing in his life. His family, the relationships with his players, the university community and the world at large were important too and he did not neglect them.

History will ultimately be the judge in this world. But as the scripture above says about the next one "all are justified freely by his grace that came by Christ Jesus." And while our salvation does not depend on our works, for a lot of people Coach Paterno made their lives better. As his son Jay said at the public memorial service...

"Among the things he accomplished in his life, it was the games he won that counted the least."

How Do You Get Your Message Out? New Development In Standing For Moderator

2012-02-04T03:51:58Z

Well, as much as I have spent time discussing the Moderator election for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, today's brief note on new approaches brings us back to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

A couple of days ago I got an interesting Tweet from one of the candidates standing for Moderator of the General Assembly of the PC(USA). It reads:

@nealpresa: Receive alerts of mod candidacy by texting word, "PRESA" to 56512. For email alerts text "PRESA (your email)" to 56512 #fb #pcusa #ga220

So now we can get mod candidacy alerts by text message. I believe this is a first.

This is actually a very smart move if you are aiming for a particular demographic. Consider a meeting of a youth group (youth ages 14-20) that I was at last Sunday afternoon. They were discussing an upcoming activity and the youth chair needed a piece of information from the adviser. The adviser asked "Can I email you that."

"No" replied the youth, "text it to me."

I can't speak for this as a national trend, although I suspect it is, but for most of the youth and young adults that I work with on various things (and this includes my own kids) by far the number one means of communicating is by text message on their phones. If you haven't noticed, phones are not to talk on any more but devices to send and receive text messages. (And I sometimes suspect that one appeal of contacting your parents by text is that your friends don't know its your parents you are texting to as opposed to having them overhear you on the phone.)

Email? Too complicated for the easy stuff. Twitter? Interesting, but not the way to hold a conversation. Text messaging is the simple method of communicating one-on-one for youth and young adults.

This does of course beg the question of whether there are enough commissioners who would want to get updates by text message to make this approach worth while. It will be interesting to find out. And yes, I have texted in to be added to the distribution list but no alerts yet.

So how do you go about doing this? Well, the "text to" address of 56512 belongs to a direct marketing firm called Guide by Cell that offers various audio, mobi and text packages. It must be pretty affordable because the budget for a Moderator campaign is capped at $1500.

As I said, it will be interesting to see how this new media works out for Rev. Presa. Stay tuned...

(And yes, there is other Moderator news this week, but I'm going to let that run a bit further before I do more with it.)

Musings On The FOP NRB Theology Document - 2. Theology Comes First

2012-01-08T16:01:05Z

As we anticipate the next gathering of the Fellowship of Presbyterians I thought I would riff for a few minutes about their draft Theology Document...

One month ago the Fellowship released both a draft Theology and a draft Polity document for the new Reformed body ( NRB ) in preparation for their meeting in just under two weeks. The close of the comment period for the drafts was yesterday and registration closes on Monday. The Fellowship says that at the present time 2100 people have registered for the meeting so it looks will have significant participation.

For those interested in polity, parliamentary procedure and process I think you will find some of the analysis by Carmen Fowler LaBerge in the Layman of some interest. She highlights many of the process issues that will come up at the meeting, e.g. Who can vote on these documents? Will substitute motions be permitted? I'm sure the organizers have this all in hand but an announcement of these process issues has not been posted to the Fellowship web site. She also echoes a couple of my thoughts about the Theology document, which I will refer to in a minute.

While my first musing was on the polity related to subscribing to the theology, when the documents were released I probably looked forward to reading the theology document more than the polity -- after all, our polity flows from the theology. There were several things I anticipated in the theology document and I can say that I was wrong about several of them.

Maybe my biggest question, and my biggest surprise, was the approach they took to confessional standards. The proposal is to adopt the whole of the current Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Confessions as the initial standards. The Forward to the document begins with this (page 1):

The first task is to identify the statements of our confessional heritage that will connect us with the one holy catholic apostolic church and express our distinctively Reformed convictions within that church. We propose the collection of confessional documents in The Book of Confessions as the appropriate theological expression at this moment in our life together. These creeds, confessions, and catechisms have much-needed wisdom of proven worth for us, and can uniquely serve as the central documents for a new Fellowship that strives to retain meaningful connections among congregations, some of whom will be within the PC(USA), some of whom will be in a new Reformed body. (emphasis as in original)

Later it continues with (page 2)

We recognize that The Fellowship and/or the new Reformed body may, after a time of building and testing theological consensus among us, alter this judgment. But it is our opinion that the theological consensus among evangelicals has not been tested and, further, that to presume a consensus where one does not exist is to repeat one of the most significant theological failures of our generation. As members of the ordered ministries of the Church, we have agreed to The Book of Confessions. Let us keep that covenant that we may be found faithful to any new theological covenant we will make.

As I said, Carmen Fowler LaBerge echoes my surprise at this broad inclusion when she says:

I was surprised that the Fellowship document recommends the entirety of the PCUSA Book of Confessions as the confessional standard of the new Reformed body. In particular, the Confession of 1967 is problematic for many who have grown disaffected with the PCUSA's diffuse theological wanderings since its adoption a generation ago.

I could ask whether the playing field would have been different if the Belhar Confession had been adopted -- but since it was not this really is a hypothetical and moot question at this time.

Now, I am going to take the document at face value about their reasoning, but also add that there are obvious pragmatic benefits to this choice: The document mentions the shared confessional standard that would benefit union churches and affiliations as well as the fact that they are beginning with a standard currently accepted and vowed to by those in the Fellowship. But, when you consider the time frame that the drafters were under as well as the potential for bogging down an assembly in fine-tuning a new confessional standard, the benefits of an off-the-shelf known entity are obvious. It also means that the NRB does not have to worry about publishing their own volume of confessions just yet.

The Confessional Standards are the first substantive portion of the document and the second is the Essential Tenets (of the Reformed Faith). I think that most would agree that the Essential Tenets section does a good job of articulating the historical orthodox Christian beliefs as well as what most would consider the traditional Reformed distinctives. Throughout it there is good agreement with the Foundations section of the PC(USA) Book of Order. In general, whether you personally agree or disagree with Reformed theology and basic Calvinism, you have to acknowledge that for the most part this section holds closely to that. And doing this section as a narrative, and not bullet points, I would say enhances the value of it.

The point where the disagreements would most likely begin is in the final "application" section - the document calls it "Living in Obedience to the Word of God." This is the section that uses as a framework the Ten Commandments. While I discussed some of my hesitancy with this in the previous post, this is the section that applies the preceding confessions and tenets to specific lifestyle issues that a good portion of the church might see in a different light. For instance, the second point says:

2. worship God in humility, being reticent in either describing or picturing God, recognizing that right worship is best supported not by our own innovative practices but through the living preaching of the Word and the faithful administration of the sacraments;

Church historians and polity wonks may recognize that the term "innovative practices" is a loaded term in Presbyterian tradition. This is a current topic among churches, like the Free Church of Scotland, that are discussing flexibility in worship styles, particularly regarding exclusive unaccompanied Psalmody. As one article on the Regulative Principle puts it - "The regulative principle of worship requires man to worship God only as He has commanded in His Word. To add elements of human innovation into the worship of God brings His just displeasure." (emphasis added) Many of these Presbyterian branches would consider some of the worship practices seen across the PC(USA) as "human innovation."

Specifically, the term "innovations" is a technical term in many branches of Presbyterian polity whose depth of meaning I won't go into at this time. One place it is regularly found is in the Barrier Act - the standard in many Presbyterian branches descending directly from the Scottish Reformation that says when an act of the General Assembly/Synod must have the concurrence of the presbyteries. A polity discussion from the Free Church Assembly regarding worship practices discusses the Barrier Act of 1697. The sub-title of the act is "Act anent the Method of passing Acts of Assembly of general concern to the Church, and for preventing of Innovations." (Yes indeed, capitalized as a proper noun.)

But getting back to the Theology document... This complexity around the application of the second commandment is just one example. My point is that it is usually when the church tries to translate doctrine into practice that we run into the biggest differences of opinion.

Moving on I'll finally get to what I like best about the Theology document, and that is the concept behind section three on Ideas & Questions for Immediate Consideration. Let me back-track to the Forward for the real punch line here (page 1-2):

Casual affirmation of our theological heritage by our generation has severely weakened our worship and witness. We are squandering the gifts our confessional heritage could give us. We confess we have not been good stewards of the Faith. We must now reengage the Faith of the Church in ways that are more deeply committed to its truth and thus its value in ordering our life toward faithfulness. We have a strong conviction that our current theological failures are not the failures of the bishops at Nicea, the divines at Westminster, or the confessors at Barmen; the failures are our own. Now is the time to confess it and strengthen our theological covenant.

It later (page 2) says

Structures for doing theological work and for keeping theological integrity need to be established. Theology is not only to be established in our minds and become formative for our hearts, it is to be embodied in our manner of life and in the structures of the church. Companies of Pastors and Orders of Elders need to be formed. Teaching and Ruling Elders must relearn how to fulfill their missional callings in light of the Faith of the Church. Our faithfulness depends on it. We strongly propose that new structures will be formed for the purpose of making a contribution to the theological well-being of the church so that our Faith can make its full contribution to the mission of the Church.

[Rant mode on] This may not be true for your congregation but I sometimes ask myself "If we have a Book of Confessions, why don't we use it?"

One of my concerns with adopting the Belhar Confession was that we have so many documents now that just sit on the shelf, what is the value of adding one more? And I'm sure my pastor is getting tired of my commenting that we don't use confessions enough in worship and education, or when we use one from another tradition why don't we use more from our Book of Confessions.

Don't misunderstand me - just as this Theology document finds the standards "have much-needed wisdom of proven worth for us" I agree and value both the historical and the timeless voice in which they speak. It is not in their intrinsic value that I have questions but in their visibility and application in the church today.

[Rant mode off]

I really like the fact that the Theology document recognizes this and proposes a process for keeping the confessions "on the table," making sure theology comes first (page 10):

Renewed commitment to sustained conversation is needed. At its best, sustained conversation is characterized by prayerful and rigorous study of the Scripture with attention to clarifying the Reformed theological lens through which we read the Scriptures, by grateful listening to the voice of the church around the world and through the ages, and application of theological wisdom to every part of life before God and for the world.

Toward these ends, we now commit ourselves to the formation of theological friendships in communities that include all teaching and ruling elders - gatherings of elders which covenant to study and learn together, providing mutual encouragement and accountability for the sake of sustaining and advancing the theological and missional work of the church.

If the creeds, confessions and catechisms are living documents, then we must live with them and into them. I very much appreciate that this document and the proposed life of the NRB addresses that fact.

Well, there are a bunch more things I had in my head to muse about, but my time is up and this got longer than I thought it would. At this point I don't anticipate another musing before the FOP has their next gathering so I'll sit back and watch Presbyterian polity at work in a new venue. Prayers for the gathering and I'll catch up with the FOP on the back side.

Follow Up On The Presbyterian Church In Canada Moderator Election -- Details And Discussion

2011-12-29T20:12:33Z

The recent twist in the process to elect the Moderator of the next General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada is still a developing story and polity discussion. Since my last post on the topic the Presbyterian Church in Canada has released the biographical sketches of the five candidates for Moderator of the 138th General Assembly. The discussion around "active campaigning" for the office has also continued -- I will get to that in a moment, but first some polity details about the election.

The focus on the election got me asking questions about what the details of the process are. As I noted in that last post, the Book of Forms (section 282) basically says that it will happen. Drilling down a bit more I find that the most recent minutes (page 11) indicate that the process is "In accordance with the method determined by the 95th General Assembly..." Well, with a lot of help I want to take a look at the method which I have found to be a bit unique in the Presbyterian system.

Now, to give fair warning, this first part is polity wonkish and you may find it interesting but there are not many significant take-aways. You can go ahead and jump to part two if you are primarily interested in the developments in the moderator's election itself.

Also, as I will explain in a moment, this research can not be done online. So I am indebted to Colin Carmichael, the Associate Secretary for Communications at the PCC and the Clerks Office for providing the relevant documents for this discussion.

This all started when I read the minutes of the last General Assembly and they say that the method of election of the Moderator was determined by the 95th General Assembly (1969). The problem is that the oldest records available online are the 118th General Assembly (1992). After contacting the office Colin and the Clerks graciously, and quickly, provided me with not only the relevant portion of the 95th's Proceedings, but also related portions of the 98th's and 99th's Proceedings. In addition, they included this year's Clerk's letter to the presbyteries that helps explain the process. Again, my thanks for all the work.

So what is the process? Based on a recommendation from the Administrative Council concerning a suggestion from the Committee to Advise the Moderator, the 95th General Assembly (1969) established a five year trial of standing orders to have the church elect, or technically nominate, the Moderator of the General Assembly. The process begins with presbyteries nominating individuals for the position -- each may nominate up to two and they can be from other presbyteries. Then, based on these nominations the Clerk's office confirms each of those nominated is willing to serve and sends out ballots to the presbyteries. Here is where it get's unique - each individual with a vote in presbytery, ministers and the designated ruling elders, is eligible to vote. But the vote is not by presbytery but rather all ballots get returned to the national office and they get collectively counted. The top vote-getter is the final nominee for the office.

Now, for the polity/parliamentary procedure specialists the instructions have as part of their Preamble: "That in the Regulations below where the phrase "nomination of Presbytery" or equivalent is used, this phrase be understood for convenience only. (The only true nomination for Moderator is from the floor of Assembly.)" You can breath easier now.

I have simplified the steps in the discussion above but those are the essential steps. What is interesting is that this is what is referenced in the current minutes since it was only a five-year trial. That is where the Acts and Proceedings from the 98th and 99th GA's come in. The vast majority of the original process was retained but an important change was made: In the voting each presbytery member now ranks their choices for Moderator. If no nominee receives a majority, not plurality, based on the number 1 choices, then the lowest vote-getter is dropped and those ballots selecting that person first have their second choice votes distributed. The process continues until one nominee receives a majority.

Again, for the polity wonks, here are the usual contingencies:

10. That the nomination be made from the floor of the Assembly, and that the opportunity be given for another nomination or nominations.
11. That, if the foregoing fails to be effective, the election of the Moderator shall proceed in the manner of 1969, notice being given to the Presbyteries as early as possible.

Let me throw in two things here: 1) Somewhere there is a little bit more because these instructions don't include the part that a nominee needs the endorsement of three Presbyteries to appear on the ballot. 2) Because the instructions are pieced together from a series of Acts and Proceedings it appears that while reference is made to Standing Orders, they exist only as parts of different acts recorded by year and not a unified reference book.

A great transition to the next topic is the Clerk's Letter from last August soliciting nominations for Moderator of the General Assembly. With that letter the Clerk included an adopted overture from the 74th General Assembly (1948) [slightly edited for length]:

A&P 1948, page 160 (Appendix)
NO. 11 - PRESBYTERY OF GUELPH
Re: Undue Influence Among Presbyteries

To the Venerable, the General Assembly:
WHEREAS, circular letters have been received by this Presbytery each year for a number of years from one or more other Presbyteries giving notice as to whom they have nominated for General Assembly appointments, and
WHEREAS, these nominations are supposed to be reported only to the General assembly and to the Boards concerned, and
WHEREAS, it would appear that the Presbyteries responsible for this procedure have been seeking to influence other Presbyteries to support their candidates.
It is humbly overtured by the Presbytery of Guelph that the General Assembly taken some action to put an end to this practice which we deem undesirable.
Extracted from the Records of the Presbytery of Guelph by Morriston, Ontario
March 17th, 1948
T.G.M. Byran
Presbytery Clerk

A&P 1948, page 94 (minutes)
Overture No. 11, Presbytery of Guelph, Re Undue Influence Among Presbyteries

Mr. W.A Young was heard in support of the Overture of the Presbytery of Guelph Re Undue Influence Among Presbyteries, and moved, duly seconded, that the Assembly express disapproval of practice complained of, and it was so ordered.

The Clerk includes in the body of the letter the advice:

While the overture refers only to letters from presbyteries, I am of the opinion that if, in the overture, reference had been made to letters from individual ministers, Assembly's attitude would have been the same - disapproval of the practice. Subsequent Assemblies have not changed the position taken by the 78th [sic?] Assembly, but it appears that some within our church are either not aware of the action or have chosen to disregard it. Your assistance in communicating this concern and your good example will be greatly appreciated.

So that is regarding the lobbying of presbyteries and individuals on behalf of a candidate. The current situation involves the candidate himself and the use of social media and not letters.

To recap the situation, one of the candidates for Moderator, the Rev. John Borthwick of Guelph (déjà vu?) has been active on social media to begin a discussion about the moderator election. Is it "active campaigning" as I originally called it? It could be interpreted that way and I will leave it to the reader and those in the presbyteries of the PCC to decide if it is. What he has done is opened up a discussion about the role of the moderator and what else should go on around the process of election.

At this point Mr. Borthwick is taking full advantage of social media with his personal Twitter at @jborthwik, his moderator Twitter at @borthwick4mod, a Facebook page, and more recently a blog related to his Moderator campaign - borthwick4moderator. That blog is what I want to focus on.

Now, while I appreciate his reprinting my previous post on this topic in his second post on the blog, I want to focus on his writing as a whole, with some emphasis on a more recent post. I will quote extensively, but will edit almost all of them for length.

The blog does have a number of sections found on typical PC(USA) Moderator candidate sites including the obligatory Who Am I? and the Sense of Call. His sense of call is short and telling - here it is in total:

“I’m average.” I discovered that fact while I was attending the October 2011 meeting of the Synod of Central and Northern Ontario and Bermuda. During The Rev. Jeff Crawford, our Synod Youth Consultant’s presentation, it was noted that the average age of Canadians is 39 years old. I’m 39, really and not just holding. For the last year or two, I’ve felt called to the role of Moderator of The Presbyterian Church in Canada. I was originally inspired by the journey and witness of The Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow as he became one of the youngest moderators of the PCUSA [sic]. I believe it is time for the Canadian average to be represented and apparently our young people do as well. As a conclusion to Jeff’s presentation, he noted that the members of the Synod’s Presbyterian Young People’s Society had asked him to deliver a recommendation to the upcoming Synod meeting: that we consider nominating a 39 year old to the position of Moderator of General Assembly. It was then that I said, “Here I am!”

(I will leave comments about being inspired by Bruce and the PC(USA)-ification of the PCC for another time.)

In addition, he has the usual Endorsements section and the Experience and Education list. He also has a couple sections you don't regularly see - a listing of his Growth Areas and the information on The Other Nominees.

As of today he has seven posts on his blog including a brief initial Welcome, a recent Christmas greeting, and the reprint of my article I have already mentioned. I will leave it to you to read the article about what a Moderator is and the one on "Ten, actually Nine, Questions Every Moderator Nominee Should Answer." I want to finish this post focusing on the remaining two that focus on the Moderator campaign.

The second of the two is "Being the Change" where Mr. Borthwick responds to a couple of thoughtful comments posted on the Facebook page about his handling the campaign, with an eye not so much on the legalistic aspects but on a spirit of fairness. Here are a few selected sections of Mr. Borthwick's response:

I deeply appreciate these comments. I would love for all of the nominees ‘to be on the same page’… but recognize that we didn’t ‘sign up with this in mind’. I appreciate Andrew’s point in a previous post, where he says let’s hear from all the nominees instead of just promoting John Borthwick.

and

I respect my fellow nominees deeply and am honoured to be on a list with them. I also believe that any one of them would make an excellent moderator… but most of all I’d love to hear more about their vision and hopes for our denomination (beyond the 100 words) and would consider it a privilege to spend the next 114 days discussing the issues with them.

and finally

I am attempting to ‘be the change’ as opposed to following a traditional process. That doesn’t always win you friends. My goal in all this is not about ‘winning’ though but about shaking our denominational tree a little to see what fruit falls.

The other post is his extensive answer to the idea of "active campaigning." Here are his arguments for his approach, extensively edited for length:

The moderator of the PCC is just the chair of a really big meeting… but I believe that the office carries tremendous power to influence and even transform our denomination. [...] [W]e should hear more than 100 words from our candidates! We should hear about their vision and the ways that they will attempt to implement that vision. [...] I’ve always wanted to know more about the candidates. And so that is why I’m sharing with you.

I believe that the process we have now diminishes the office. I’ve talked with many over the years who see the role as insignificant. A victory lap for some. A final feather in the cap for others. [...] Most people tell me that they tend to vote for who they know and like (or by process of elimination, vote for who they don’t know but have no negative opinion of unlike the other candidates). [...] I’ve heard ruling elders say that either they don’t vote or they ask their minister who they should vote for… since they don’t know any of the candidates. I wonder if we have ever looked at ‘voter turnout’ with regard to our Moderatorial race. Some of my colleagues have told me that they haven’t voted in years. [...] I’d suggest that some kind of modest campaigning (at least one that outlines what kind of vision candidates have for our denomination and how they would go about executing it through their year as Moderator) would be helpful and appropriate.

Maybe the way we have understood the role of moderator is a thing of the past. [...] It seems that one generation sees it as something that one ‘stands’ for while the other wants to know what one stands for! I think it is time that we knew what our moderator candidates stand for.

There seems to often be a disconnect between the office of the moderator and the overall direction of the Church and its vision, planning, and campaigns. [...] Wouldn’t it be great if our moderators worked in partnership with denominational directions, plans and campaigns. [... W]hat I’m recommending is that the Church makes an informed decision on who they would like to see as giving ‘voice’ to those directions.

Finally, I’ve been told that I’m being disrespectful to past moderators and my current fellow nominees. I wish to convey no such disrespect. I have appreciated and valued the work of our past moderators, and our current one. I respect greatly how they chose to serve our beloved Church in the role of moderator and their richness of work and witness that raised them to being recognized by the Church. I also respect my fellow nominees, Peter Bush, Gordon Haynes, Andrew Johnson, and John Vissers. They are all men whom I have met personally and have greatly appreciated my interactions with them. Any one of them would make an excellent moderator of the PCC. I would love to hear more from them as to how they would lead our denomination into the future and what kind of vision they would desire to see implemented to strengthen our life and work together.

I would encourage you to look at the thoughtful responses in the comments section of that post. Bryn MacPhail notes "In my 13 years in the PCC, I probably left something like 4 or 5 signed ballots blank–not because I didn’t value the position, but because I valued it so much that I refused to vote for someone I wasn’t well acquainted with." Andrew Reid has a particularly thoughtful and extensive response which includes the observation "However, the impression I took from your “campaigning” was that you are not trying to change the process but simply sweeping it aside." And finally, Colin Carmichael reminds everyone that if other candidates want to participate in the discussion the church has a resource in www.pccweb.ca that they can use and his office would be glad to help them get going with their own web sites.

An interesting discussion - and I will leave it up to you to determine its value. On the one hand, it is aimed at making the church more open, more interactive, more appealing to the younger generation. On the other hand, it is a unilateral attempt to do this in a way that is inspired by a different Presbyterian branch and clashes with the ethos of the PCC. Is this a reasonable goal? Is this a good way to go about reaching that goal? What matters here is not just the destination but the journey - how it is done is just as important to involving members as what the final outcome is.

Still plenty more to come in this discussion I am sure. It will be interesting how both the wider church responds to this discussion as well as how the 138th General Assembly does. Stay tuned...

Passings -- William H. "Bill" Hopper

2011-12-22T05:02:28Z

Last week I lost a good friend when Bill Hopper transferred his membership from the Church Militant to the Church Triumphant. Those that knew Bill know that he sure fit the description of a member of the Church Militant.

Bill had a long and distinguished career in the PC(USA) and its predecessor branches as a missionary in Iran and Pakistan and in his service to the church on every level from the congregation to the General Assembly. To the wider church he may be best known today for his co-authorship, with Clifton Kirkpatrick, of the book What Unites Presbyterians.

To me Bill was a coworker in our presbytery -- we would regularly see each other at presbytery meetings and events and exchange greetings and briefly catch up. But more than that Bill had the spiritual gift of encouragement. It seemed like every conversation we had, somewhere in it he slipped in some comment about how well I handled some report to presbytery or what a good job I did with a particular presentation. In the 15 years that I have been serving in various positions in middle governing bodies he was constantly encouraging me and supporting me in each new role.

But what I will remember Bill the most for was that he was a strong and vocal supporter of the joint governance by teaching and ruling elders. In a presbytery meeting if a ruling elder prefaced their remarks with something like "I am only a ruling elder but...", he would soon be at the microphone encouraging them with something like "There is no such thing as 'only an elder' in the Presbyterian church," and he would continue with a brief refresher on the nature of our joint governance.

Today would have been Bill's 86th birthday. We will miss him but we rejoice that he has entered into his eternal reward.

There is another recollection of Bill by Sonnie Swenston-Forbes, and Sonnie has also posted a letter many of us got from Bill's family.

The Airline Industry As A Model For The American Mainline Churches

2011-12-21T21:14:17Z

Last Friday on NPR's All Things Considered news show there was an interesting piece in their Planet Money segment on "Why Airlines Keep Going Bankrupt." In that report the following lines got me thinking:

(Reporter) CAITLIN KENNEY: ...[A]ll airlines face these challenges and only some file for bankruptcy. He says it's usually a certain type.

(Interviewed expert) PROFESSOR SEVERIN BORENSTEIN: The legacy airlines.

So my thinking made the jump -

"All churches face challenges and only some are in steep decline: The mainline churches."

Is there a parallel or model in here? I am still not sure, but permit me to riff on this a bit.

The story discussed how the legacy airlines had price structures and business models that date from before 1978 when the airline industry was deregulated. After deregulation they could not change rapidly enough to compete with the new low-cost carriers that sprung up and the legacy airlines were driven into bankruptcy, sometimes twice. What did bankruptcy get them?

KENNEY: And that's where bankruptcy comes in. When you see a bankruptcy, think of it as an airline saying we want to renegotiate our contracts so we can be more like newer airlines. James Sprayregen is a partner at the law firm Kirkland and Ellis. He's worked on the bankruptcies of United Airlines and TWA.

JAMES SPRAYREGEN: Those contracts, albeit amended, you know, dozens and probably hundreds of times, they sort of grew on themselves almost like a coral reef. And a lot of inefficiencies got built into those.

KENNEY: In bankruptcy, work rules change, vacation days go away, pensions and benefits get reduced.

SPRAYREGEN: Unfortunately, bankruptcy is all about breaking promises.

KENNEY: Breaking those promises means the legacy airlines are going to start to look a lot like the newer airlines.

So, let's break this down a little bit...

The concept of deregulation is an interesting one to consider for denominational dynamics. When the mainline membership peaked in the 1960's the mainline was pretty close to a de facto established church. Then society changed and the mainline church, and churches in general, lost their cultural and social status and the decline began. Norms were not the same regarding the mainline churches and more flexibility and variability were introduced into society's church-going habits. As I pondered this change that might reflect a sort of "deregulation" in the American religious landscape two things came to mind that might be indicators and results of this change.

The first is the, shall we say, change in stability of the American Presbyterian mainline. Following the division in the 1930's related to the Fundamentalist/Modernist debate, the branches of the Presbyterian mainline enjoyed a period of relative tranquility that was marked by unions and not by divisions. Following the 1960's the controversies heated up again with the formation of the Presbyterian Church in America from the southern branch in 1973 and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church from the northern branch in 1981, and other rearrangements continuing to the present. (Check out the chart of the American Presbyterian branches.)

The second development I thought might be indicative of a denominational deregulation is the external influence of non-denominational churches and particularly megachurches. With the loss of influence, authority and loyalty to denominations in general, and the mainline in particular, independent or loosely affiliated churches grew. Note the similarities in timing discussed in this article by Scott Thumma (written around 1996):

Nearly all current megachurches were founded after 1955. The explosive growth experienced by these congregations, however, did not begin in earnest until the decade of the eighties (Vaughan 1993:50-51). The 1990's have not slowed this growth. Data collected in 1992 revealed over 350 such congregations (Thumma 1993b). Vaughan estimates that the number of megachurches grows by 5 percent each year (1993:40-41). Given this rate over two million persons will be weekly attendees of megachurches in the United States by the start of the new millennium. Anyone familiar with the American religious scene cannot help but have noticed the rapid proliferation of these massive congregations. In fact, it is precisely their size which attracts so much attention.

OK, so in this model we have a societal change that results in a sort of deregulation of the denominational, and particularly the mainline, landscape. This deregulation resulted in both internal and interdenominational changes. And like the airlines the churches are in a position that they can not change fast enough to stay competitive. (old inefficient airplanes --> old inefficient buildings?)

In the story the thing really inhibiting the legacy airlines are the labor agreements. For the churches, what would be our "labor agreements" that have built up over time and keep us from being able to transform into the new reality?

Our polity? Does nFOG solve this for the PC(USA)?
Our structure? Will the MGB Comm be able to solve this? How about the Special Committee on the Nature of the Church for the 21st Century?
Our leadership? Not enough creative thinkers or not enough with a good perspective on youth?

I could go on naming elephants in the room and sacred cows and I'm sure you can think of things that I would not. The point is that there are lots and lots of things which are being mentioned that are keeping a mainline church pointed in the same direction and there is usually someone that thinks that changing that thing will allow the church to, forgive me for using the business term, be more competitive.

Let me step back for a moment here and affirm that there are certain things that are needed for a business and likewise for a church. These can be modified and adapted but not all together dispensed with. To take the analogy to possibly an absurd level of detail, just as an airline needs planes a denomination needs congregations, and as a plane needs a pilot a church needs a pastor. The question is not do we need a plane, but what plane works best in a particular situation? A pilot needs to be trained, but how much and what kind of training for that plane and that situation? Similarly, the "business model" for a denomination does not require every congregation look the same and every pastor have identical training.

If you would permit me a short detour on this theme: Taking a cue from the airline industry, maybe churches need "type certification." In the airline industry the basic educational requirement for pilots is very similar. If all you want to do is train to be a air transport pilot you can do it in about 6 months for $60,000. But whenever you switch aircraft types you need to be trained and certified on that specific aircraft. Just because you fly a 737 does not mean you can sit down in a 747 and properly fly it. So, could the church have a basic fast-track training program for pastoral leadership and then a more customized extension for the specific situation the individual is going into? For the PC(USA) there is already an interim pastor training program that does something like this. (Although it is an extension, not a replacement, of the standard course of study.) And yes, this is a very general proposal and actually off-topic for this post, but maybe something for continued contemplation.

Returning to the original riff - Let's move on to the most loaded and divisive question in this model: What would the equivalent action be for a mainline church to reorganize like a company would reorganize in bankruptcy?

Let me put it a different way: What does the mainline church need to get out of to continue on as a viable entity? Or to use the language quoted above - What promises does the mainline church need to break to become the church for the 21st century?

Note carefully the model -- this is not working around the edges or tweaking a few programs. This is noting one or two really big things that you then throw out and begin over again. This is the opportunity to deal with that one thing that is holding you back and replace it with something you can work with. Yes it is radical, but in this model, that is what the legacy airlines have to do to remain viable.

So what is it? Maybe the polity? The structure? The ecclesialogy? The theology? I don't know and I'm not going to suggest anything specific here. The question for thought and discussion, if you accept this model, is what items are peripheral to our core business of being Presbyterian and Reformed, of "Glorifying God and Enjoying God Forever," of preaching the Word, administering the Sacraments and upholding Discipline, that we can dispense with at whatever cost? If we said "no more Mr. Nice Guy," what would you do to change the church?

Now, maybe I am completely off base with this - I am more than ready to accept that conclusion. I am simply extending the historical development of one industry to a completely different realm. I can easily be convinced that the model I have put forward here is way too superficial and general and that comparing the airline industry to the Christian Church is not fair to either. I am cautious that what I have done is forced the analogy, making something fit where no correspondence is deserved.

So there I end the thought experiment, at least for the moment in this form. I will say that enough of the analogies work in my own mind that I don't plan on stopping to think about it - but I won't promise any written follow up. However, in this time of rethinking everything about the mainline churches I thought it might be an interesting model to put out there. Thanks for thinking it through with me. Your mileage may vary.

Now, where did I put that court decision...

[After thinking about this over the past weekend I was interested to see that on Monday Pastor Questor reposted a similar sort of model, but comparing the mainline to the American auto industry.]

Musings On The FOP NRB Polity Document - 1. Can I Declare An Exception?

2011-12-14T02:10:53Z

Prologue
Regular readers have probably noted that my blogging productivity has decreased a bit the last few months. This is due to an increased number of personal, professional and Presbyterian commitments. While I always anticipate that I can find more time for blogging in the future, sometimes that does not come to pass.

I tell you that as an introduction to this particular post and probably a few to follow. (I won't promise anything.) I have decided to classify these as "musings" - posts which are shorter, more spontaneous and less polished than what I consider my regular writing to be. I also consider musing about this particular topic appropriate since the Fellowship of Presbyterians' New Reformed Body documents are also a work in progress and at a stage where a more informal discussion is probably most appropriate.

Well last weekend I "escaped" and backpacked to a campsite up in a canyon in the mountains above L.A. (picture right) It was a wonderful chance to get away and the weather was really great. (And then that campsite probably got a foot of snow in the storm that rolled through yesterday.) But being so close to the longest night of the year I brought plenty of reading material and had a chance to do a first read of the NRB Theology and Polity documents. (Anyone read them in a more unique location?) A couple of first impressions and thoughts from that reading...

The Fellowship of Presbyterians recently released their two organizational documents for discussion in advance of their Covenanting Conference in mid-January. To set the stage for anyone who has not reviewed the documents yet let me begin with a summary of the two pieces.

The Theology document is a three-part statement that begins by affirming that the confessional basis for the NRB will be the current Book of Confessions of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The second section then sets out what the NRB considers to be the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith. The third part is titled "Ideas & Questions for Immediate Consideration" and sets out a vision for the NRB as a group that actively does theology and has a "renewed commitment to sustained conversation."

The Polity document is a Form of Government for the NRB modeled on the PC(USA)'s new Form of Government section. There are no Foundations, Worship or Discipline sections yet.

One point that struck me as I read through the Polity was the reliance on the Essential Tenets section of the Theology. I found nine references to it (numbers following are the FOG section number, italics as used in the original, text from the version posted now (expecting the obvious typo to be fixed soon)):

(Regarding new congregations) ...desire to be bound to Christ and one another as a part of the body of Christ according to the Essential Tenants [sic] and government of the NRB. [1.0200]
(Regarding expectations of members) Those who are invited to take significant leadership roles in the congregation should ordinarily be members for at least a year, agree with the Essential Tenants [sic] of the NRB, be trained and/or mentored, and be supervised. [1.0305]
(Regarding qualifications of officers) Ordaining bodies must ensure that all officers adhere to the Essential Tenets of the NRB. [2.0101]
(Third ordination vow) Do you receive and adopt without hesitation the Essential Tenets of the NRB as a reliable exposition of what Scripture teaches us to do and to believe, and will you be guided by them in your life and ministry? [2.0103c]
(Regarding the preparation of pastors) In addition to adherence to the Essential Tenets, presbyteries shall ensure that candidates for ministry are adequately trained for their task. [2.0400]
(Regarding Affiliate Pastors) Affiliate pastors must adhere to the Essential Tenets of the NRB. [2.0401f]
(Regarding the duties of the synod - note that in this FOG a General Synod is the highest governing body.) c. maintain the Constitution and Essential Tenets of the NRB. [3.0202c]
(Regarding Union Congregations) Congregations, historically members of the PC(USA) or other Reformed denominations, who wish to maintain that membership while joining with the NRB and who recognize and teach the Essential Tenets may request to join a presbytery of the NRB... [5.0202]
(Regarding other denominations) Out of our common Protestant heritage, partnership and joint congregational witness will be encouraged where mission, ministry, and collegiality can be coordinated and approved by the appropriate governing bodies, and where the Constitution and Essential Tenets of the NRB can be followed. [5.0300]

Clearly the Essential Tenets are put forward as the distillation of what is unique and special about the NRB. This is plainly presented as the litmus test of what it means to belong to this branch. For comparison there are only four uses of the term "scripture" or "scriptures," three of them in the ordination vows, and two uses of "confessions," one in the ordination vows.

In reading through this I did wonder about the variation in the language regarding the relationship to the Essential Tenets. The word most commonly used is "adhere," so the intent is to stick to them. But the ordination vow preserves the current language of "receive and adopt" adding the "without hesitation" regarding the Essential Tenets. Are these the same or different? If my promise is to "receive and adopt" is asking me elsewhere to "adhere" to them asking more, less, or something different of me? Remember, I'm just musing about it here and don't really have an answer at the moment.

I guess what really sticks out to me is that the language seems to be asking me to agree to 100% of what is in the Essential Tenets, even when I think it might conflict with my understanding of Scripture or the Book of Confessions. This is not an academic exercise.

A simple example: For the sake of this example let's say that I agree with everything the Essential Tenets say except that as I read them there is one little point that bothers me based on my theological framework. At the end of the document the Ten Commandments are used to summarize some of the points. This is a time-honored way of discussing theology and is used in many catechisms, along with the Lord's Prayer, as a template for teaching the faith. But the Essential Tenets summarize the fourth commandment like this:

4. observe Sunday as a day of worship and rest, being faithful in gathering with the people of God;

I honestly have a theological issue with simply taking this commandment and substituting "Sunday" or "Lord's Day" for the term "Sabbath." To explain briefly, I see the Sabbath as an Old Testament template or analogy for the celebration of the Lord's Day in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. The theological connection is much more nuanced than can be expressed in a simple one-to-one substitution. The Westminster Confession of Faith [section 6.112ff in the Book of Confessions] takes a lot of words to expound on this analogy. Maybe the best brief discussion of the nuances is from the Heidelberg Catechism:

Q. 103. What does God require in the fourth commandment?
A. First, that the ministry of the gospel and Christian education be maintained, and that I diligently attend church, especially on the Lord’s day, to hear the Word of God, to participate in the holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian service to those in need. Second, that I cease from my evil works all the days of my life, allow the Lord to work in me through his Spirit, and thus begin in this life the eternal Sabbath.

All this to say that on this point I have a small, but what I consider substantive, disagreement with the Essential Tenets. So what happens now? The Essential Tenets do not address how minor differences in theological understanding are to be treated. Taken on face value I guess I can not adhere to the standard as the Polity requires. (And please understand, I am not putting up a hypothetical disagreement here but one that I honestly and sincerely hold.)

Now, the polity wonks have surely figured out where I am going with this (even if they weren't tipped off by the title). The American Presbyterian church has been struggling with how to handle these differences, big and little, throughout its entire history. We affirm in the Westminster Confession that "God alone is Lord of the conscience" and we understand that to a certain degree we can differ in belief but must be consistant in practice. That is what the Adopting Act of 1729 was basically about.

So how is the NRB going to approach this? At the present time I did not find a solution in the proposed Polity document. One approach would be a highly structured method like the Presbyterian Church in America has where ordained officers are required to subscribe to the Westminster Standards and they must declare and explain exceptions like I have done above. As the Book of Church Order says [21-4f]

Therefore, in examining a candidate for ordination, the Presbytery shall inquire not only into the candidate’s knowledge and views in the areas specified above, but also shall require the candidate to state the specific instances in which he may differ with the Confession of Faith and Catechisms in any of their statements and/or propositions. The court may grant an exception to any difference of doctrine only if in the court’s judgment the candidate’s declared difference is not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine because the difference is neither hostile to the system nor strikes at the vitals of religion.

But this adds an additional layer of administration to a Form of Government which is intended to be simple and clean. It also opens up the "slippery slope" or "camel's nose under the tent" problem where a series of very small steps away from the Essential Tenets results in a cumulative substantial difference and heterogeneity in what is intended to be a fairly homogenous belief structure. As I pondered this it seemed to me that incorporating a way to relax a point in the Essential Tenets could be problematical for the NRB.

You can justly accuse me here of focusing too narrowly on minor details -- Guilty as charged. My particular point detailed above is pretty minor in the grand scheme of Christian doctrine. But let me ask these two questions: 1) If I have a tiny little difference of understanding can I still in good conscience adhere to the standard if no provision is made for variability? 2) If differences around tiny details are acceptable, where is the line between the tiny stuff and the big stuff?

Enough musing on this for now. As I continue musing to myself on other points in the Polity and Theology documents maybe a few more will find their way into this virtual space. So until next time I leave you with the sunset over The City of Angles that I watched last Saturday night.

An Interesting Development In The Presbyterian Church In Canada - Active Campaigning For Moderator

2011-12-04T06:32:56Z

In my reading today I came across an interesting development -- one of this year's nominees for Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada has begun an active campaign for the office.

While this is now standard procedure in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in no other branch (to my knowledge) does active campaigning take place. In most branches out-and-out campaigning by a nominee is considered inappropriate to the office. Many times subtle campaigning does take place, but it is in the form of word being spread through networks of supporters asking voting delegates to support this candidate or that one.

Let us take a step back for a moment and consider the position and role of the Moderator. First, a person does not "run" for Moderator but "stands" for it. Someone does not so much seek the office as the office seeks them through the discernment of the community. The position is often considered an honor bestowed on an individual for service to the denomination but comes with the expectation that the person has the experience and character to preside over the meeting(s) of the governing body in a neutral way. The Moderator must control the flow and efficiency of the meeting while being fair to all making sure both sides get heard. From experience I can tell you it is no small task and after a particular contentious meeting your head can be spinning. (And a good Moderator has a great Clerk covering their back.) In addition to presiding over the meeting the Moderator also acts as the visible face of the governing body for the term of office. The office carries no power beyond that necessary to run the meeting and the powers accorded to the position for the work of the term of office. However, in the way that a person holds the office, the things they say and priorities they keep, they can have a significant impact on the life of a denomination.

I have written much more extensively on the role and selection Moderators but let me just finish by saying that there are three usual methods for a Presbyterian General Assembly or Synod to select their Moderator. They can be elected from the commissioners to the Assembly at the beginning of the meeting (PC(USA), PCA). They can be selected by the presbyteries in the time leading up to the Assembly (PC Canada, PC Ireland). Or they can be selected by a nominating committee in advance of the meeting (Church of Scotland, Free Church of Scotland). As I mentioned above, the PC(USA) does have active campaigning for the position in the 6-9 months before the Assembly, and most of the nominees for the upcoming assembly have web sites (1,2,3) and Facebook pages (1,2,3).

In fact the PC(USA) has fairly strict rules for the election of the Moderator and campaigning in advance of the meeting. These can be found in section H of the Standing Rules of the Assembly. They have a small limited budget, not counting travel. They can not distribute campaign materials to commissioners except in the designated campaigning space and time and in the commissioners' mailboxes. The nominees and their supporters can not actively contact commissioners before the meeting. As the Standing Rules say:

(b) In order to encourage reliance on the leading of the Holy Spirit in the selection of the Moderator, no candidate shall send a mailing of any campaign materials, print or electronic, to commissioners and/or advisory delegates or permit such a mailing to be sent, nor shall candidates or their advocates contact commissioners and/or advisory delegates by telephone.

I review all this as an introduction to the news that it appears PC(USA) style campaigning for the position has come to the Presbyterian Church in Canada.

The election of the Moderator as described in the Book of Forms is rather general:

282. At the time appointed for meeting, a diet of public worship is held when a sermon is preached by the moderator of the last Assembly, or, in his/her absence, by a former moderator. Immediately thereafter the Assembly is constituted with prayer, and a provisional roll, consisting of the names of commissioners appointed at least twenty-one days before, is submitted in printed form by the clerk. The General Assembly elects its moderator on nominations made immediately after the Assembly has been constituted, who then takes the chair.

The actual election procedure with the nominations and election by presbyteries in advance was set by the 95th General Assembly and then the election by the Assembly, while in theory it could be a contested race, is usually a pro forma vote.

Well, now that the nominations are out the Rev. John Borthwick has supplemented his regular Twitter account (@jborthwik) with a Moderator campaign account (@borthwick4mod) and he has created a Facebook page for his campaign.

Nothing says he can't do this -- But the usual custom is to have a more passive campaign. He has gotten one comment on the Facebook page indicating support, one saying "Sorry, but not a big fan of campaigning," and one that says "Drag us into the 21st Century, screaming if necessary." Mr. Borthwick does appear to be the youngest of the nominees and this could be interpreted as a clear statement of his youth and association with a younger demographic in the church.

Lots and lots of questions come to my mind with this development. Will others follow - this year or in coming years? Will the Assembly feel it necessary to prohibit, regulate or comment on this development? Will the active strategy turn out to be a positive or negative for his election? To put that another way, as the commenter on the web page says, will, or does, this change represent an approach to bringing denominations into the virtual age?

This is at least a development worth watching. Is it a development whose time has come or one that clashes too strongly with our Presbyterian ethos? It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Stay tuned...