Running by Standing

Last evening, as the first major item of business, the commissioners elected the Reverend Dr. Neal Presa as Moderator of the 220^th General Assembly. One of the peculiar habits of hard-core Presbyterians is that despite all the formal orderliness surrounding the election of a moderator, despite the respectful tradition of standing when the moderator enters the room, despite all of the denomination’s venerated traditionalism, we reference our moderator on a first name basis – so from last night forward for the next two years, Dr. Presa becomes simply “Neal.”

Not surprisingly, we also make sure to use our own particular language for the entire process. While the office is clearly formally elected, one does not “run” for moderator – doing so would seem to move the office away from ecclesiastical matters to “common politics” – one “stands” for moderator. (Which brings some level of satisfactory response to the accusation that “Presbyterians stand for nothing.)

Every woman and man who stands for moderator does so knowing that success will radically shift personal and professional lives for the next two years. That along with the honor and recognition and respect comes not only hard work amid tremendously arduous schedules of travel, but the slings and arrows from those both in and out of the denomination who seem to see only that which is wrong with our particular part of the Church.  Irrespective of any disagreement any of us might have with a particular opinion or position of any candidate, we must remember the commitment made by each of them in choosing to stand for election.

The four Presbyterians who “stood” last night were representative of the diversity in our denomination:

            

            Four teaching elders

            Three pastors

            Three males

            Two baby boomers

            One female

            One member of a racial-ethnic group

            One executive presbyter

There was also clear diversity of theological opinion. While none of the candidates could be seen as extreme in any orientation (or frankly even approaching extreme), it was clear by their answers and statements that a pretty broad spectrum of theological discourse was present.

The process for election opens pretty much as one might expect. There are brief (mercifully!) statements from each of the candidates – none of them are ever particularly revelatory, instead essentially presenting a glimpse of a personality and overall style. This is followed by questions from commissioners each of which must be answered by each of the candidates. Often it is these questions which bring to the surface what are likely to be the “hot button issues” at the assembly.

Responses are brief, usually thirty seconds or less, and since it is usually understood that no moderator sets policy but facilitates the process for carrying out policy, the overriding concern is usually how a particular man or woman will represent the assembly actions over divisive and controversial issues to a fractured denomination that might be tenuously holding together at best.

Four ballots were needed to elect Neal. Our process relates more to political convention nominating than it does most elections – the assembly votes over and over on all candidates until one has received a majority. There is no “run-off” between the two top vote-getters. There is no threshold of percentage needed to stay in the race. What is interesting is that there are small shifts in successive ballots, and that these shifts occur with no politicking and no speechifying.

In the assembly only commissioners have the right to vote, but there are “advisory delegates” who cast ballots which are not counted for election. These advisory votes are cast and their results displayed immediately prior to each of the commissioner ballots. Three of the four advisory delegate groups are comprised of perhaps a dozen or two persons – theological students, ecumenical “partners” and missionary representatives – but the fourth, Young Adult Advisory Delegates or YAADs, are sent by each presbytery, so their number is significant. In addition YAADs have the privilege of speaking from the plenary floor – in fact several questions for candidates last night came from YAADs.

It is hard for me to reconcile the notion of having a large group of persons representing a particular aspect of denominational life potentially affecting the outcome of the assembly process while not having a vote that actually counts. The conventional wisdom (and folklore) is that “the YAADs always elect the moderator” – that at each assembly their advisory vote “predicts” the eventual outcome of the election. Last evening was no different. Each advisory ballot showed Neal far ahead, with a clear majority among the YAADs. Of course, he was also the most youthful and perhaps “hippest” candidate. Throughout the season of candidacy he was ever-visible on all forms of social media and at one point last evening he provided his Twitter and Facebook contacts.

How all of this might have affected the assembly is another matter for another discussion for another day. For now, the Presbyterian Church USA has a new moderator – we should rejoice that he is called to serve, and we should not cease to pray for him.