Long ago when the United Church was but a new-born thing, the Conferences directly appointed all the members of national committees. General Council provided staff, but the Conferences named who sat around the table. If we move forward a few decades we find the General Council electing members of national committees from names sumitted by the Conferences. Slightly different selection process but similar results. Fast forward to the Division structure introduced in the 1960s and we often find a straight line of people from the national divisions, through the Conference, to the Presbyteries and often to congregations.
Admittedly there were drawbacks to that arrangement. Because the same people served on multiple levels there could develop a hothouse atmosphere of church insiders listening and speaking only to one another. Another major drawback was multiple appointments, creating incredible time demands on people. As the United Church had fewer and fewer volunteers with those sorts of time gifts to give fewer and fewer people were willing to take these roles which might well see you on Presbytery, Conference and national bodies. Finally, it was tremendously expensive (both for the environment and the bank account) to be drawing significant numbers of people together from across the land. In the 1970s there may well have been thousands of volunteers (lay and ministry personnel) serving on a variety of national bodies.
However, the major benefit of that system was the degree of connection from one end of the church to the other. The United Church has a conciliar system of government - meaning that different councils or courts have both independent and overlapping areas of responsibility. For such a system to work effectively each council needs to be in communication with the others. That allows resources and insights to be more freely shared. It allows a particular court to give good leadership in its area of responsibility and advice and insight to other councils. It also prevents one council from unknowingly heading off in directions contrary to the best wisdom of its partner councils.
As I indicated, the old system was far from perfect. However, we now have a strange creation which very few in the wider church seem to understand. I include myself amongst the mystified. We have a national nominating committee that, regularly twice a year and sometimes in between, publicizes opportunities to serve on national bodies. Individuals are invited to discern the guidance of the Spirit in relation to their involvement. They can be nominated by others or self-nominated. The nominating committee then makes its selections.
The positive aspect of this process is that you don't have to be a "church-geek" to serve on a national board or committee. Hopefully every congregation makes members aware of these possibilities and, even if they don't, the information is readily and clearly available on the United Church web site. So, lots of opportunities exist for a wide variety of gifts and skills to be accessed for the good of the national church.
However, there are some problems. Chief amongst those is the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, the Nominating Committee has never published its criteria for selection. Let me be clear, I think nominating is one of the hardest tasks going. I'm probably the least conspiracy-minded person you will ever meet and I have huge esteem for the members of the nominating committee, but that closed system leads to some discomfort. People are thanked for their interest but not informed why they are not selected. This opacity is a challenge, especially when coupled with the second major problem: there seems to be no effort made to ensure that the individuals selected are members of any other court of the church. Presumably they are members of the United Church but that is often the extent of their connection.
That is problematic in at least two ways. It means that the official connection between the Conferences and the General Council is borne on the shoulders of the two individuals elected to serve on the General Council Executive. That is a huge burden in a conciliar system. Secondly, it means that those who are selected to serve on national bodies have no place else "to stand." They have no official place of accountability, no regular place to test out and get feedback on ideas and proposals. They may have no idea about past experiences in the areas under discussion. They are, by design, individuals. Which, by natural consequence, means that the General Council staff, hold an increased margin of power in the equation, simply from length of tenure and possession of knowledge. Again, you don't have to ascribe any malice or ill will to anyone to recognize that we have a very different arrangement than we had in 1925 and one that signficantly alters both the power differentials and the relationships between the courts of the church. To ask whether we are well served by such a system is not to question the capacity, commitment and good will of those involved. It is to ask, particularly in an context where ever-faster decision-making seems to be required in a smaller, leaner church, whether that is the best way forward. Or does it result in different courts - or national staff - creating programs and policies in greater isolation than is helpful to them or the wider church? We can't afford (in many ways) to return entirely to the former models. We can afford to consider - particularly with increasingly effective means of electronic communication - whether there are better - more open and participatory as well as connected - ways to conduct our life together.
No comments:
Post a Comment