Democracy in Action

At a few points it became an exercise in tedium, but overall what I have experienced at General Council 41 — the United Church’s triennial gathering — is democracy in action.

Throughout the three-year interval between gatherings, and especially in the year leading up to General Council, the lower courts of the United Church have an opportunity to forward proposals for consideration by Council, the highest court.

Proposals vary from taking a stand on any number of important issues to dissecting our polity and policy and recommending changes. Some proposals are forwarded by groups of interested, like-minded people through their congregations and Presbyteries, to their Conferences, and ultimately to general Council.

Others are the result of a task grow that was appointed by a previous General Council, or the current General Council Executive.

The tedium comes, in part, during discussions on proposals where Commissioners sometimes get hung up on wording, an attempt to massage the grammar and syntax.

It also comes as a result of people who are used to less formal parliamentary procedures, requiring too-frequent rulings by the chair on the process being followed.

But overall, it is democracy in action.

I believe that people who complain about the political structure of our municipal, provincial or federal government, and suggest that the average person should have more input, would find ours a compelling model.

It’s not perfect.

Aside from the above-mentioned tedium, there is an implicit requirement that participants immerse themselves in the process, outlined in the guidebook we call “The Manual.”

The Manual contains our “Articles of Faith,” our By-Laws, and the definitions and descriptions that guide our processes.

Of course, not everyone needs to be a Manual expert. For that matter, most participants — those who sit on the various committees at all levels — have only a basic knowledge of The Manual, and typically just those section that pertain to their involvement in the process.

In fact, I suspect that most people who attend the United Church are unaware that we have a Manual to guide our operation. This is evident in the comments one hears, complaining that “Presbytery won’t let us…”.

One of the unique aspects of United Church structure is that it is “bottom-up.” While the hierarchy that exists allows for each higher court to provide oversight of the one below it their authority, such as it is, is limited to ensuring that the requirements of The Manual are met.

The structure consists of four Courts:

The Congregation/Pastoral Charge
- individual or groups of churches in a community

Presbytery
- an organizational district, consisting of representatives from each Congregation/Pastoral Charge

Conference
- an organizational district, consisting of representatives from each Presbytery

General Council
- representatives from each Conference

Each level has its own committee structure, and an overall executive council.

Lower courts do not seek permission, although a higher court may advise that a particular action is not in keeping with The Manual.

Our hierarchy is a two-way street. Suggestions for changes to policy can come from any level, including the General Council Executive (GCE) and/or the General Secretary (GS). But changes that affect the entire church are considered by the entire church, in the form of “Remits.”

A Remit goes to the GCE/GS, but is then passed back through the Courts to the congregations. Discussions are held and a vote is taken, and the results transmitted back to the next higher level.

This year we dealt with “Remit 6” which sought to include three currently-used statements of faith — creeds — to the “Basis of Union,” the document which outlines our beliefs.

The “new” creeds, some of which have been in used for over 80 years, have gained common usage, though they are not “officially” part of our doctrine.

Remit 6 was transmitted from GCE to Conferences, who transmitted it to Presbyteries who, in turn, transmitted it to their constituent congregations.

Discussions were held and votes taken, and the results transmitted back through the chain either with or without concurrence. The results were then published and ratified at the meeting of General Council.

Every member and adherent of the United Church was given an opportunity to have their say in this matter. As with any voting process, there were those who disagreed with the proposal; they had their say, and they accept the results.

It is democracy in action.

Later this week we will elect a new Moderator. The Moderator is the elected, presiding officer of the meetings of the General Council, its executive, and its sub-executive, and is the public face and voice of the United Church of Canada.

This year we have fifteen nominees from which to choose.

Too often, in our ”regular” lives — dealing with political structure — we bemoan the lack of participation by the average citizen, and decry the way in which politicians conduct themselves.

I’m not suggesting that individuals within the church are perfect, only that we, in the United Church, have a structure which not only allows full participation but encourages faithful and respectful relations throughout.

We have an opportunity to have our say, and we accept the decisions made at all levels.

 
It’s a system that, for the most part, works quite well.

If only our secular political structure worked as well.

But… that’s just my opinion.