Originally I was not planning to post a pre-meeting comment about tomorrow’s second vote to select the Moderator designate of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.  The vote is necessary because in last month’s voting the Rev. Norman Hamilton and the Rev. Norman McAuley each received five presbytery nominating votes with the remaining nine votes divided between three of the other four candidates.

But today Alf McCreary, the religion correspondent for the Belfast Telegraph, has an opinion piece in that paper titled “Church’s election process shows the need for reform.”  In that article he brings up two good arguments why the church should modify their election procedures.  While I see his point I am not sure that I agree with him.

His first point is that the second vote should be taken the same day as the first rather than waiting the month.  He argues that this would provide a longer lead time for the nominated candidate to make the necessary preparations for the Assembly and their moderatorial year. 

From the practical consideration of giving a designate a chance to prepare I could see that the four extra weeks to make arrangements could be useful.  But from the management of the presbytery meeting and the discernment process of the body having the vote at successive meetings is more logical.  Going through the process twice in one evening would get it over with but would also prolong the evening since every presbytery reports to a central office and 18 presbyteries would have to wait for the last one to report to know if another vote is necessary.  Yes, times could be set for voting to be completed, but to set pre-determined inflexible times for making decisions goes against the Presbyterian concept of the body taking the time to discern God’s will together.  (Note: this is not an argument against a specific body setting its own time to end debate.  Any individual governing body is welcome to limit their debates as they decide for themselves.  My argument is with outside constraints limiting discussion.)

And if the amount of lead time is truly a concern then move the moderator voting back a month so there will be sufficient time after a runoff should there be one.

Mr. McCreary’s second point is equally valid – that with a term of one year by the time the Moderator has come up to speed through on the job training their moderatorial year is up.

While valid points, what both of these arguments miss is the nature of the role of the Moderator in the Presbyterian system.

First, the Moderator is chosen for his previous experience, service to the church and divinely bestowed gifts for this form of service.  Particularly if the moderator designate is a pastor they have already moderated session meetings and probably church committee meetings.  The presbyteries in selecting their nominee should consider the skills and abilities each candidate has for presiding at the meetings and representing the church throughout the year.

As an aside, while the selection to be a Moderator of a higher governing body is an honor it should not be viewed as a “lifetime achievement award” or automatic post when you have “put in your time.”  Like all positions within the church God bestows specific gifts upon each believer for them to use for the building up of the Body.  Not all these gifts are alike.  While everyone has gifts, not everyone has the gifts of administration and leadership desiresable for the position of Moderator.  The body’s work of discernment is related to identifying those who do possess the gifts that correspond to a particular position of service, be it Moderator or another office.

Second, the position of Moderator is one of service and not authority.  Granted, he is empowered with the authority necessary to conduct the meetings of the governing body decently and in order.  But beyond that he has no authority of his own but the authorization of the governing body.  In this light, the position is a temporary one and passes to the next Moderator on a regular basis, generally when the governing body next reconstitutes itself.

Having said that I would also acknowledge that the selection process for the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland is both unique among Presbyterian branches and also my favorite.  It is the only one where all those gathered to discern God’s will are not in the same place but rather distributed in their 19 individual presbytery meetings.  Other branches do it by nominating committee or the Moderator is selected from among the members of the Assembly when the governing body convenes.  To me, having one individual identified and endorsed by the wider church represented by the presbyteries is particularly meaningful.

So there you have my commentary on the Irish process.  I can understand the concern for efficiency, expediency and experience.  And I would hope that in our governing bodies we would keep those goals in mind — but only to the extent that we are still concerned with discerning God’s will together.