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…
