Category Archives: PC Canada

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

Leave a reply


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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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…

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

3 Replies

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…

Nominees For Moderator Of The 138th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Canada

Leave a reply

The First of December – It is time again for the Principal Clerk of the Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada to announce the names of those nominated to serve as the Moderator of the next General Assembly.  This year the nominees for Moderator of the 138th General Assembly are

  • The Rev. John Borthwick – Currently pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Guelph, Ontario.  The biographical sketch on the church web site tells us that he has been at the church just short of nine years with five years pastoring in Toronto before that. It also says “His current areas of interest are
    conflict mediation, change theory, and the influences of consumer culture on society.” His work leading local churches to build a house for Habitat for Humanity was recognized by a local publication in 2008.

  • The Rev. Peter Bush – Pastor of Westwood Presbyterian Church in Winnipeg, Manatoba. From the church web site there is a  list of articles he has written, including a January 2010 piece for the national magazine, the Presbyterian Record, on the Priesthood of all Believers. Style points for the church staff listing where his title is Teaching Elder.

  • The Rev. Gordon Haynes – Rev. Haynes is on the denominational staff in Toronto where he was the Associate Secretary for Canadian Ministries/The Vine. Beginning this fall he began research for a project that will “provide the [Life and Mission Agency] staff and Committee with the material upon which a national strategy will be formulated.” The announcement goes on to say “The report will identify possible future ministry opportunities as well
    as areas of potential growth and innovation in presbyteries.”

  • The Rev. Dr. Andrew Johnston – Pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, Ottawa, Ontario for just under 14 years. His bio on the church web site lists his service to the church including Moderator of the Presbytery of Ottawa and President of the Christian Council of the Capital Area.  He was awarded a D.Div. from Presbyterian College, Montreal, in 2007.

  • The Rev. Dr. John Vissers – Rev. Vissers serves as Principal of the just mentioned Presbyterian College.  His official bio on the College web site indicates that he began his ministerial career in the pastorate, including at Knox PC, Toronto. He previously taught at Ontario Theological Seminary (now Tyndale Seminary). His M.Div. and Th.D. are from Knox College, Toronto. He also holds a Th.M. from Princeton Theological Seminary.  His bio also tells us that his research interests include “Reformed theology, contemporary theology and constructive Christian doctrine.”

An interesting group – all male, all Teaching Elders, three in the parish, one from the west, and a diversity in ages.

Ballots will go out to the presbyteries shortly and the announcement of who the presbyteries have discerned to lead the next General Assembly will be announced at the beginning of April.  Our prayers are with all the nominees.

137th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Canada

Leave a reply

If you thought the last couple of weeks were busy, hang on because now it gets even more active for the GA Junkies, beginning later today with…

The 137th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada

The General Assembly will convene with worship at 7 PM local time on Sunday June 5 at the University of Western Ontario, in London, OT.  The schedule of events and the business agenda are available online.

The Moderator Nominee is the Rev. Dr. H. D. Rick Horst, pastor of St. Andrew’s, Barrie, and who has been active in community organizations, including currently serving as vice-chair of the board of Barrie’s Royal Victoria Hospital.  He has been active helping congregations with strategic planning workshops.

The PCC places almost all of their GA resources on a single page with handy named links to the different sections.  This includes the Reports and News.

There will be live coverage of the meetings of the Assembly.

There is also an active Twitter community for the meeting with the official account @PCConnect and the hashtag #ga137.  In addition Colin Carmichael (@ccarmichael), the Associate Secretary for Communications of the PCC, will be present and tweeting. (I will update others as appropriate)

Links to other items that may be of interest to GA Junkies can be found on the Office of the General Assembly page resource section including the Book of Forms, Acts and Proceedings archive, as well as policies and guidelines. There is also a list of the referrals that this Assembly will consider.

There is a lot of business in all the reports published on-line so I will not attempt a preview of them all.  I will highlight just one committee, the Committee on Church Doctrine, since it touches on a couple of polity issues I have highlighted in other branches.

The first of these is “Ministers ceasing to act as agents of the state.”  This came to the Assembly from an overture in 2007, was referred to the Committee, and the Committee says “The authors of the overture are to be thanked for provoking a stimulating conversation within the Church Doctrine Committee.”  As a personal aside, this topic was also seriously discussed on the Special Committee I was on and while little was actually mentioned in our report, we acknowledge some significant theological issues related to both sides of this issue.

Two years ago the Committee circulated to the church a document titled “Doing Weddings Better.” The Committee received responses from 18 presbyteries and 52 sessions. They conclude “The overwhelming view of the church across the country is ministers in The Presbyterian Church in Canada should continue to sign marriage licenses, and a more significant role needs to be played by sessions and congregations in celebrating the covenant couples make between each other and with God in their marriage vows.”

The Committee recommends that the response to the original overture be this report and no change in policy.

The second item that caught my attention is a notice of future work, not an action item for this Assembly, on “A study of Presbyterian Polity: Its Distinctives and Directions for the 21st Century.” It is found at the end of the report beginning on page 7 and is an interesting read for polity wonks and others musing on what Presbyterian polity will/should look like in the future.  Let me give one extended extract:

A second factor that must be considered is that Reformed or Presbyterian polity at its beginnings, was remarkably flexible. What gave Calvinism, not only its theology but also its polity, an international character was its ability to adapt to different conditions and circumstances in the various lands in which it gained acceptance. This can be seen in the different polities that took root in Reformed and Presbyterian churches in France, Switzerland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Scotland, England, Canada, the United States, South Africa and Korea, to name a representative number. There are common elements in these polities but practices vary on a wide variety of matters. In other words, there is no pure, near-perfect Presbyterian Polity which a national church can therefore claim to possess and of which it can boast…. At the same time, Presbyterian polity is not infinitely malleable. Being an essentially conciliar system it is therefore incompatible with the hierarchical systems of the papacy and monarchical episcopacy. It is true that Presbyterianism opts instead for a hierarchy of church courts but in these courts the movement is both from top to bottom and from bottom to top. It is also incompatible with thorough-going Congregationalism or Independency. While Presbyterianism emphasises the importance and role of individual congregations it stresses their connection with one another within presbyteries, synods and General Assembly in order to maintain the unity of the church.

A related issue that has also to do with flexibility is that originally Presbyterian polity consisted of a number of basic principles as is evident from the Scottish First and Second Book of Disciple and the Westminister Assembly’s Form of Church Government. Inevitably these principles gave rise to more detailed rules of procedure which were necessary. Our book of Presbyterian polity originally bore the name Rules of Procedure and Book of Forms. (The members of General Assembly must have been asleep when it was proposed and adopted that the long title should be shortened to Book of Forms. This misnomer has been perpetuated for decades.) Moreover, we keep adding new rules almost annually. Rigidity sets in and flexibility is cast aside. All too often our rules stand in the way of carrying out our mission and are used by so-called experts in The Book of Forms to intimidate those not so well informed or as clubs to clobber one’s opponents over the head with. We need to heed Jesus’ critique of the multiplication of laws formulated by the Pharisees and Sadducees: “They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear” (Matthew 23:4). What are the principles that lie behind the minute rules? How is it possible to keep them at the forefront and maintain a measure of flexibility in the application of these rules?

Fourthly and finally, an aspect of our new context is that many of our congregations, unlike in the past, are now made up of Christians from other church traditions, Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, United Church, etc. The Pew Foundation, a few years ag
o found that up to forty percent of USA Protestant congregations are now made up of Christians from other church traditions. This is equally true of most of our Canadian Presbyterian congregations…

I should also point out that there are reports from one Special Commission and two Special Committees.  The Commission was constituted to hear the appeal in a disciplinary case and they upheld the findings of the synod trial court.  The first Committee is looking at how the recommendations of a 2002 report regarding Han-Ca Presbyteries (Korean language) have been implemented and is only a progress report.  The second Committee reviewed the “Synod staffing formula” agreed to in 2009.  The Committee was formed when overtures questioning the formula were brought to the 2010 Assembly. The Special Committee found “We believe that the current funding formula, with its emphasis on an equal provision of resources to each region of the church, and its secondary provision for communicant membership is a fair and transparent approach.” They recommend no change in the formula.

So, the time is getting closer (and I got this done in time) for the Assembly will be called to order. Lots going on this week but we look forward to beginning it with the 137th General Assembly.  Our prayers are with you.

General Assembly Season 2011

Leave a reply

We are entering the 2011 General Assembly Season.  GA Junkies get ready!

For those who may be interested in the upcoming gatherings here are the meetings of governing bodies that I have on my calendar and will be trying to track: (Information marked with * is updated from the original posting)

51st General Synod
Presbyterian Church in Trinidad and Tobago
27 April 2011
San Fernando

General Assembly
Free Church of Scotland
23-27 May 2011*
Edinburgh

General Assembly
Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
23 May 2011*
Edinburgh

General Assembly
Church of Scotland
21-27 May 2011
Edinburgh

General Assembly
United Free Church of Scotland
1-3 June 2011
Perth

137th General Assembly
Presbyterian Church in Canada
5-10 June 2011
London, Ontario

137th General Assembly
Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America
6-8 June 2011
Dallas, Texas

General Assembly
Presbyterian Church in Ireland
6-9 June 2011
Belfast

207th Stated Meeting of the General Synod
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
7-9 June 2011
Flat Rock, North Carolina

39th General Assembly
Presbyterian Church in America
7-10 June 2011
Virginia Beach, Virginia

78th General Assembly
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
8-14 June 2011
Sandy Cove Conference Center, Maryland

181st General Assembly
Cumberland Presbyterian Church
20-24 June 2011
Springfield, Missouri

180th General Synod
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
20 June – 1 July, 2011
Indiana Wesleyan University

31st General Assembly
Evangelical Presbyterian Church
22-25 June 2011
Cordova, Tennessee

75th General Synod
Bible Presbyterian Church
August

These are the ones that I am tracking at the moment.  I will update as appropriate.  Remember, that not all the Presbyterian branches have Assemblies or Synods this year — This includes the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand, Presbyterian Church of Australia, and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  If I have missed one, or have information wrong, please provide the appropriate information and I will update the list.

To go along with GA season, I have two more items…

The first is the series of articles I wrote as an introduction to Presbyterian General Assemblies three years ago.  My GA 101 series consists of the following

GA101: Preface
GA101: Introduction – Why in the world would anybody want to do it this way?
GA101: Connectionalism – The Presbyterian Big Picture
GA101: The Cast of Characters – A score card to identify the players
GA101: The Moderator – All Things In Moderation
GA101: Where does the GA business come from? – Incoming!
GA101: Doing the business of GA — Decently and in Order

Yes, what started as a six part series expanded into seven completed articles with two more unfinished ones in the queue.  (Maybe this will give me some motivation to finish those up.)

And finally, on to the ridiculous.  Lest we take ourselves too seriously, last year I had a little fun with the General Assembly and in the post passed along the GA drinking game and GA Bingo. Please play both responsibly.

So, for all the GA Junkies out there I wish you the best of GA seasons.  May you enjoy the next three months of watching us do things decently and in order!

New Moderators And Moderator Candidates

Leave a reply

Over the last couple of days there has been an interesting collection of announcements about Moderators and Moderator Candidates. A very quick run-down:

Yesterday the Presbyterian Church of Ghana held the installation service for the Right Reverend Professor Emmanuel Martey, who becomes the 16th Moderator of the General Assembly.  The Rev. Martey was elected by the 2010 Assembly back in August and now begins a six year term of office.  It is reported that he expressed his optimism while acknowledging the task ahead.  The previous Moderator, the Very Reverend Dr. Frimpong-Manso, assured the new Moderator of his support.

Yesterday was also the day that the Principal Clerk of the Presbyterian Church in Canada announced the names of the nominees for Moderator of the next General Assembly. The nominees are:

Notable that all are ministers, no elders, and the westerner is from Hamilton (just slightly west of Barrie), so they reflect the church’s eastern concentration.  The vote of the presbyteries will be counted and announced on April 1, 2011.

Finally, not a GA Moderator, but the new Moderator of the National Youth Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  The Kirk has announced that Amanda Philip will lead NYA 2011 as well as serving as a youth delegate to the General Assembly in May.  The press release informs us that Amanda has attended every NYA since 2005 and has been a youth delegate to GA three times.  She also works in social care for the church at Morlich House. Other coverage of her appointment from the Edinburgh Guide.  Waiting for more info or response on the Church of Scotland Youth (COSY) Blog .

Best wishes and prayers for all of you.

Reorganization Of The National Office Of The Presbyterian Church In Canada

2 Replies

In these challenging economic times Presbyterian branches are wrestling with what it means to be connectional and then how do we pay for it.  Last Saturday I was part of a discussion at our Synod Council meeting where we weighed a number of financial issues with how we relate to each other and tried to discern what we should be doing.  Over the last couple of years many branches have been dealing with the cutting of costs and/or enhancing revenue.

Well, along these lines the Presbyterian Church in Canada yesterday released a plan to reorganize their national office. It calls for a combining of their congregational ministries resource unit, The Vine, with their national ministries unit Canada Ministries.  The reorganization will also have financial management for the Life and Mission Agency centrally administered.  The former will result in a reduction in workforce of one executive and one support staff position while the latter will not affect staffing levels but will free up staff for other work.  The press release also notes the reorganization of duties in other units that will result in a reduction of three full-time equivalent positions.  Of the total of five positions eliminated two will be through retirements.

UPDATE: Reaction from the Emmaus Project which is part of the combined ministries. Update to the Update: Not part of those agencies, see the note in the comments.

The press release closes with this –

The management team expresses its appreciation of all staff who have lived with the knowledge that a reorganization is underway at the national office. These changes have not been without pain and stress and we regret that several good colleagues will be leaving the national office. The ongoing dedication and commitment of the national office staff to serving our church is acknowledged with gratitude.

New Moderators Take To The Web

2 Replies

With most of the General Assemblies now concluded it is interesting to see new Moderators taking to the web in various forms.  Here is a quick run-down of what I have seen so far…

The stand-out, in my opinion, is the Rev. Dr. Herb Gale , Moderator of the 136th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, who has not only taken to blogging quickly, but with gusto as well.  He is writing an official blog where he has already posted 12 entries, ten of them since the General Assembly where he was installed.  Of course, it helps to have something to write about and his last four entries (1, 2, 3, 4 ) detail his experience of attending a reception for the British Monarch on her visit to Canada.  In particular I would recommend the last one in the series where he reflects on the event and makes some theological connections.  He writes in part:

In the monarchical system as it has evolved in Canada, it doesn’t matter what our rank or station – whether we are a parking lot attendant or the Prime Minister of Canada – we are all servants of the Queen, who is herself a servant of the people.  The fact that everyone addresses her as “Your Majesty” is in fact a great leveller of status, simultaneously lifting up the lowest in rank and lowering the highest in rank. Surely this is a reflection of the profound spiritual significance of what we experience as we submit to the sovereign grace of the true King of kings (and queens), Jesus Christ our Lord, who shed his blood that we might all attain true royal status.   And as the lights suddenly came on as we stood in line to greet the Queen, as my own name was called to be introduced to Her Majesty, I thought of the passage from 1st Peter:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people;

Once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.  (1st Peter 2:9-10)

I look forward to reading more from Mr. Gale.

The other notable web presence is from Elder Cynthia Bolbach, Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in the form of an official web page with her monthly column.  I have been keeping an eye on her individual blog, Food for Thought, but she has posted nothing there since before the Assembly.  She is however up to two tweets.   And the Mod Squad Facebook Page has been transitioned to the new moderatorial team.

UPDATE: The Rev. Harry Reeder, the Moderator of the 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, has now posted his thoughts on the Assembly on his personal blog InPerspective.

On the other hand, it has been a bit disappointing that two other new Moderators have not yet, as best as I can tell, kept up the blogging that their predecessors began.  It appears that the official Moderator blog of the Church of Scotland has disappeared and that the Rt. Rev. John Christie will not be keeping us updated on his thoughts and activities the way the Very Rev. William Hewitt did. (And it is disappointing that Rev. Hewitt’s entries have not been publicly archived.) Likewise, I am keeping an eye out for blogging activity from the Rev. Norman Hamilton, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, but I have not seen it yet either.

It is worth noting that the Rev. Landon Whitsitt, Vice-Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA), continues his active blogging on his personal blog, Landonville.  It will be interesting to see how much he overlaps his personal musings with official duties in that space.  (But if you want a preview of the book he is writing keep watching his writing blog. Interesting stuff there too. )

Finally, it is worth noting that two of the past moderators have not disappeared from the blogosphere.  The Rev. Stafford Carson, immediate past Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, continues to write his blog as he returns to parish ministry.  Similarly, the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow has posted his last official blog entry as Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the PC(USA), but anyone that knows Bruce knows that his personal blog will keep going strong.

I hope that in the coming days I’ll find more official blogging out there but this is a start for this crop of Moderators.

How Much Presbyterianism Can You Handle In One Day?

Leave a reply

How much Presbyterianism can you handle in one day?  While I think I could probably manage consecutive General Assemblies and Synods for a long time, it appears that my limit is two concurrent… the third I’ll have to handle by “tape delay.”

Yes, the last couple of days there have been three meetings of the highest governing bodies of different branches going on at the same time and I did indeed saturate.

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland finished up this morning.  I think that the notification of the conclusion of the Assembly on Twitter from @pciassembly – “The Overtures were agreed. The 2010 Assembly is over. Thanks for following.” – probably came none too early as I checked in on the live streaming and saw the numbers in the Assembly Hall steadily dropping as the final session went on.  I won’t speculate if they maintained a quorum and no one seemed ready to ask that question.

The session was prolonged by a significant amount of business held over from previously arrested reports.  In particular, I was curious about three items from the Panel on Ministries ( in the General Board report ) where the GA approved general schemes for part-time ministry, auxiliary ministry and the appointment and training of evangelists.  In one of the more interesting moments of the session the Assembly heard a request from the Presbytery of Monaghan which, after having its boundaries extended, requested to change its name to the Presbytery of Monaghan Plus.  There was a serious question asked “Is that the best you can do?” and the speaker outlined the geographic and theological basis for the presbytery committee’s choice of name.  The motion died for lack of a second so they will ponder anew a name change.

At the same time I was following the Presbyterian Church in Canada General Assembly on Twitter hashtag #ga136 and on their Cover It Live board.  No lack of interesting polity and parliamentary action there either.  Got to love the discussion board comment just now posted by GMRoss saying “book of forms revisions during the duldrums of the heat of the afternoon – Don’s checking them off. are we asleep, complacent, or making real changes?”  Sounds like the complaints about the heat in the Assembly Hall during the Church of Scotland GA a couple of weeks ago.

Like the Irish, there was a parallel discussion in the Assembly in Canada about flexible ministry.  The Assembly agreed to the plan put forward by the Clerks of Assembly to explore the possibility of commissioned ministry that I talked about earlier.  There was significant discussion about the Life and Mission Agency’s recommendation 15 regarding three overtures dealing with Educational Requirements for Candidates from Other Theological Schools.  The committee submitted a recommendation that they report back next year.  When an amendment was proposed that would specify certain requirements the Moderator, correctly in my opinion, ruled that it was a separate motion and therefore what was proposed from the floor was a “notice of a motion” ( see page F-9 in Practice and Procedure ) or as sometimes poetically referred to a “notion of a motion.”  This is part of the standing rules to give commissioners a chance to ponder the action before having to vote on it and requires that notice appear in advance of the debate itself.  The Moderator’s ruling was challenged, but the Assembly upheld the ruling of the Moderator with the result that there will be an extra session this evening to consider the motion.  (N.B. this would not have worked yesterday for there was clear indication on the Twitter feed that there was a more important event yesterday evening. )

Finally, I have not had a chance to keep up with the third meeting, the 206th meeting of the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church finishing up today.  I’ll go back and have a look at that business later but for regular updates I would refer you to Brian Howard, Tim Phillips, and Seth Stark who are all at the meeting.

Yes, GA season is in full swing.  Enjoy it while you can all you G.A. Junkies.

136th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Canada

4 Replies

The 136th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada convenes in Sydney, Cape Breton at 7:30 pm this Sunday, 6 June 2010.  (Some preliminary meetings and activities will begin the day before.)  Here is what you need to know to follow along:

Business before the Assembly
As I look through the reports I have not seen anything that strikes me as a high-profile or “lightning rod” issue.  I could easily be wrong because I read it too fast or I am not familiar with the current concerns in the church.  (And I am sure that someone will let us know if I did miss something.)

There are a lot of interesting items coming to the Assembly.  One of those is the recommendation against having biennial assembly meetings.  Some of the committee reports weigh in on the question but one of the most interesting, at least to me, is the response from the Committee on History.  In their extended response they cast it in the historical perspective and legacy of the church and one of their sections says:

2. The legacy of church union has something to teach us about the unique situation of The Presbyterian Church in Canada. As Prof. Keith Clifford says in The Resistance to Church Union, 1904-1939 (p. 142), the Presbyterian Church Association worked around the courts of The pre-Union Presbyterian Church in Canada appealing to the membership directly and suggesting an inbred hostility to the clerical establishment which was regarded by many lay people opposed to Union as having predetermined Church Union. After 1925 there was an inbuilt suspicion of the centralization of authority resulting sometimes in an inchoate democratization (and laicization) of the power base of The Presbyterian Church in Canada. One can only imagine what the Presbyterian Church Association would say today about biennial Assemblies.

Another very interesting item is the revisions to the judicial process.  The judicial process chapter of the Book of Forms was modified in 2006 and will be reviewed in the future after there has been more experience with it.  However, the Clerks of Assembly are recommending (recommendation 17) an immediate addition that would permit an investigating committee to make the determination that insufficient evidence exists and they could unilaterally decide not to proceed with a disciplinary case.  The other interesting recommendation related to judicial process is that the Assembly Council is recommending (recommendation 7) the Clerks of Assembly be instructed to consider recommending to the Assembly appropriate legislation to establish a standing judicial commission.  I was disappointed to see that the Life and Mission: Communications unit is considering closing down the Being Presbyterian blog, but I do personally know the work involved in keeping multiple blogs active and can understand the concern.  And where the PC(USA) has developed a Social Media Policy for its GA, the Life and Mission Agency report contains a proposed (recommendation 4) General Assembly Digital Images Policy.  And in another parallel, I found an interesting response in the Clerks of Assembly report to Overture 14 (recommendation 16) asking for the elimination of synods:

The framers of Overture No. 14, 2010 suggest that the synods of our church have become ineffective, expensive in terms of both time and money, and a source of disenfranchisement for many elders and ministers.

The Clerks of Assembly remind the Assembly that across the country synods function in different ways. Some provide an important source of collegial community for ministers and elders who are serving in remote parts of the country; some provide strong governance oversight; and some play substantial roles in overseeing the work of thriving camping ministries and that of regional staff.

Synods, that would like to reduce the scope of meeting both in terms of the number of individuals attending and costs involved, now have the option of functioning as commissioned synods.

There are two items that particularly jumped out at me.  The first is interesting because of my being a polity wonk and the issue raises an interesting polity question at the intersection with the effort to be more flexible in how the church does things.  In the Clerks report there is a response to an item that began as an overture in 2008 requesting the option to commission lay missionaries to administer communion in hardship situations such as in remote and rural churches.  The Life and Work Agency returned a recommendation concurring with the overture and the 2009 Assembly then sent it on to the clerks to have the polity wording worked out.  The recommendation from the Ministry and Church Vocations unit in 2009 was against this course of action. (And the report notes that some presbyteries, based on the 2009 approval, had begun commissioning missionaries which the clerks quickly let them know that this has to be done decently and in order and it was only approved in concept and the Assembly had yet to approve the details.)

In their report the clerks note that they find themselves in a bit of a polity dilemma — while it was the will of the 2009 Assembly to move forward with this action this was in conflict with previous Assemblies, as recently as 2008, affirming as a theological doctrine of the denomination that only Ministers of Word and Sacraments celebrate the sacraments.  So here is their proposal:

While hearing the need articulated for an alternative method of providing the communion in areas where ministers of Word and Sacraments are not readily available, the Clerks believe it would be highly irregular to reverse this aspect of the church’s doctrine and practice by creating what could be deemed a new order of ministry without the usual theological reflection by the denomination. Normally, a document outlining a new position is sent to the church for study and report. The responses to the study and report are taken into account and the “new position” may be modified according to wisdom received by the process.

Therefore, while the Clerks have proposed legislation as requested, they, together with the Life and Mission Agency: Ministry and Church Vocations, offer a study paper that is designed to encourage the church to contemplate this important issue from a theological perspective. Before guidelines for education or other requirements are proposed, the Clerks would like to hear from the church through responses to this document.

The formal recommendation (recommendation 3) is that the study paper and proposed legislation be sent out to the church for study and comment and the clerks will return in 2011 with their recommendation, revised according to the responses.

The other item that caught my attention was the study paper reported by the Committee on Church Doctrine and posted as a separate document on the web site.  This sixty-page study paper titled “One Covenant of Grace: A Contemporary Theology of Engagement with the Jewish People,” is also being recommended for study and comment by the church in advance of formal adoption by the 137th Assembly in 2011.

It should be no surprise that this caught my attention because of all the publicity that the Report of the Middle East Study Committee to the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA) is causing.  But, let me be clear that these are two very different documents in scope and purpose.  While the PC(USA) report would be characterized in the peacemaking and social witness focus, the PCC document is focused on doctrine, specifically the issue of supersessionism, that is, how Christians and Jews are related as God’s chosen people.  The PC(USA) report focuses on modern relationships between ethnic groups and biblical implications for the land.  The reports are related to the extent that they each have an extensive discussion of the biblical background of the Jewish nation and how the biblical narrative demonstrates their special relationship with God.  The two discussions provide nice compliments to each other in many ways.

The concluding doctrine statement in the PCC report, which will be studied this year and considered for adoption by the 2011 Assembly reads in part:

In stating our relationship with the Jewish people we reaffirm a central tenet of our Reformed faith expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, that there is one covenant of grace embracing Jews and Gentiles and therefore, not “two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations” (VII, 6).
Accordingly, we affirm that the Jewish people have a unique role in God’s economy of salvation and healing for our world. Jesus himself taught that “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22) and the Apostle Paul stated: “to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 9:4-5). The Jewish people have a pre-eminent place in God’s covenant, John Calvin, finely said, for they are “the firstborn in God’s family.”

We affirm that God has graciously included Gentile Christians, rightly called “posthumous children of Abraham” (J. Calvin), by engrafting them into the one people of God established by God’s covenant with Abraham. This means that Jews have not been supplanted and replaced by Christians in the one covenant. As Paul teaches, God has not rejected or abandoned them: “I ask, then has God rejected his people? By no means!” (Romans 11:1).

Lots of interesting stuff here.  I look forward to the discussion of these and other topics at the Assembly.  Stay tuned.