Just before the end of the year, the GA Junkie (http://blog.gajunkie.com) wrote an update on our little conversation here in the PCC. I’d invite you to read his thought provoking article: http://blog.gajunkie.com/2011/12/29/follow-up-on-polity-details-of-the-presbyterian-church-in-canada-moderator-election.aspx
I’ll pick up his final paragraph:
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.
First, I think working to make the church “more open, more interactive, and more appealing to the younger generation” is a wonderfully reasonable goal! Now, while my inspiration may have been sparked by our sisters and brothers to the south, let me be clear to say that I don’t envision our denomination heading down the line of US election fever! I have no thoughts that we should have travel budgets, election fundraisers, placards and ‘VOTE FOR ME’ pins. However, like any election, the discernment of who might be our next moderator should be a time to invite the Church as whole to talk about what is most important at a time such as this. I believe that social media creates a perfect environment for this conversation. Hear me say though that I don’t think that our selection of a moderator needs to become a competitive journey. But I do think that we should ask those who are standing for moderator to tell us what they think about the issues that our denomination faces – whether that is an uncertain future, a pressing theological issue, responding to a local, national, or global need. And the purpose of this invitation is not to set them against each other so that whoever ‘wins’ the debate can be the victor but to help engage us (the Church) in conversations that matter and in the end discern with the help of the Spirit who of the nominees would be most appropriate for a particular time in our denomination’s life and work.
Have I broken with tradition? Yes. Do I have a respect and appreciation for ‘how things are done’? Yes. Could I have followed a different path towards this journey? Yes. But sometimes you need someone to take a risk off the beaten path in order to see a new way of doing things. Sometimes they fail… and we learn by their failure. And other times we discover a whole new world. In 2012, we will see where this lands us.
A blog formally known as borthwick4moderator (2011-12) 
John, I can only speak for myself, but I’ve heard enough about the process. I’d like to hear you expand your answers to your own questions, especially #2 and #7.
If the top three challenges facing the Presbyterian Church in Canada are as you say – collective anxiety, idolatry of buildings, processes and our way of doing things, and theological polarization – what do you believe the Moderator of General Assembly can do to help us address them?
And what do you feel God is calling us to be and do at this time and in this place? I agree absolutely – surely no-one would disagree! – that we continue to be called to be followers of Christ at this time and in this place. But what do you believe the Moderator can do to facilitate the openness, experimentation, and new and different expressions of being church that you specifically name?
And of course, I’d also like to hear from the other nominees, in response to either your questions or whatever questions of their own that they want to raise.
Andrew, to be clear, the questions I answered were supplied by Rafael of Queen St. East PC (http://moderator2012.wordpress.com/).
And I agree, process was not what I signed up to discuss. But isn’t it interesting that it is often the first volley thrown in any attempt to experiment, change, go in a different direction. Our initial question to any innovation is often: Does it fit our process? Our ethos? The way we do things? Instead of asking, what process would we need to create in order to make room for something new. Can we allow ourselves to envision a new way of doing things or perhaps give ourselves breathing room to allow something new to be born? And then, let’s get the process people in to shape the swaddling bands around this beautiful creation.
To be true to your questions though, you are asking what can a moderator of GA do to help us or to facilitate the new thing that God is about within and beyond our denomination. I have and will continue to argue that the moderator of GA could be a more proactive role… a more prophetic role, and yes, a more facilitative role. I realize that the role is limited… that as some might say… it is to moderate the GA and then shake hands and kiss babies for a year. But I think that the way the role has been shaped, clipped, and boxed in by our structure, our ethos, our tradition and our denomination over the years has made it nothing more than the conductor of the band on the deck of the Titanic (ok, that could be a little dramatic, sorry!)
But think about it, if the only interaction our congregations have with the moderator is a possible anniversary Sunday preaching spot (if you are selected by the Committee to Advise), maybe a special dinner in their honour, and a monthly piece in the Presbyterian Record, what real impact can that role have. But that is what WE have done to the role. As I’ve said in prior posts, I think the moderator should spend their year engaging the Church in a dialogue about its future. Spend as much of their time as they can on that. Scrap the Anniversary preaching and Moderator dinners, let the moderator hike up their robes and get in the muck and mire that we find ourselves in at a time such as this. I believe the moderator of the GA is in a unique role here. How many times have Presbyteries tried to do this on their own? Or congregations for that matter? Could a moderator of GA have a better chance of bringing us together to talk about our future, imagine options, and fight for and model that spirit of experimentation, playfulness, and openness? I think it is worth a shot.
I don’t claim to have the answers to our future, Andrew, but I think we need to begin to talk more concretely about it together… and I believe the moderator of the GA is in the perfect position to be a catalyst to this conversation and that future moderators could carry the torch from year to year. For too long, we’ve encouraged our moderators to pick THEIR theme and go with it… perhaps we need to stick with one theme for a little longer than a year. I know that our attention span is limited but I think the denominational distraction has gone on long enough. We need leadership and a moderator can inspire and encourage the leaders and visionaries that already exist in our pulpits and pews.
I believe that God has already equipped Christ’s body for the future. I still hold out a flicker of hope that it exists in some emerging form in our denomination. But our fear, idolatry and polarization will snuff it out. The good news is that God still desires a people to be God’s body in this world… and Christ’s body will always find a place to call home. Will we be too distracted to see it being born? I hope not.
And now to you, Andrew and of course others, where are you with question #2 and #7?… what are the greatest challenges in your opinion? and how would you articulate what God is calling us to do and be at this time and in this place?
And can the moderator of GA do anything to help?