A year is long enough

Here is an editorial from the Times in which they argue that the Moderator’s term in office should be more than just one year.  It’s quite flattering that such an august organ as the Times should even be giving the Moderator more than a passing nod.  That they have even taken the trouble to consider how the kirk can better engage with society is a wonder in itself.  We didn’t know you cared. 

Is their analysis right?  I myself heard one of our most respected ex-Mods, John Miller, make this arguement.  He said that it takes a year to get into the swing of things; that one hardly has time to develop relationships or become press-savvy.  He recommended three years. 

All these things are true.  But I for one don’t want the role of Moderator to become any more than merely honourary.  In some ways, I think the modern Mod still does too much.  S/he goes round the country, like an ecclesiastical cheer-leader, speaking to large congregations (because everyone turns out for the Mod), telling us that the kirk is “in good heart”.  S/he goes abroad representing the kirk, and is always received politely, just as one would an elderly aunt.  No one is interested in what she has to say; but we’ve got to keep up the pretence–after all the Church of Scotland is the “mither kirk”. 

If the Church of Scotland is going to  engage better with modern society it won’t be through an extended moderatorial year.  It will be through the effective communication of the gospel from her 1200 parishes up and down the land.  It will be from well-taught, highly motivated Christians, who love the Lord Jesus and love Scotland.  And if ministers are going to give some kind of lead, these will emerge naturally (or spiritually). 

Moderators tend to be establishment figures.    They don’t take risks.  They don’t rock the boat.  They don’t offend, even if it is for the gospel’s sake.  I’m afraid John C Christie will be more of the same.

Anyway, here is the editorial. 

The Church of Scotland yesterday revealed the name of the man who will head the Church next year. Or rather, in the terms the Kirk prefers, it put forward its selection of John Cairns Christie as the Moderator Designate of the General Assembly of the Kirk (see page 25). His name will be considered next May by delegates to the assembly and almost certainly accepted.

The news of an appointment of such significance might have been expected to arouse keen interest north of the Border. This, after all, is the man who will be responsible for leading a church whose membership comprises around 10 per cent of the population of Scotland, and though that membership has fallen below the 500,000 mark it is still considered to be the national church of Scotland, a body that has represented the faithful since the Reformation.

It is, however, unlikely that Mr Christie’s nomination will raise widespread interest or comment. Unlike the selection of a new Scottish cardinal within the Catholic Church, or the appointment of an Archbishop of Canterbury to represent Anglicans, the emergence of a new Moderator has rarely commanded much attention.

The reasons have nothing to do with the calibre of the candidates. There have been some formidable appointees in the past — intellectuals such as Iain Torrance in 2003, dedicated communitarians such as John Miller in 2001, the first woman moderator, Alison Elliot in 2004.

What counts against them is that they have just one year in which to fulfil their office. One year, in which a programme of visits, speeches and occasional tours abroad are arranged. Not surprisingly most people feel that, however hard the incumbents may strive to convey a message, they are simply not around long enough to make an impact. By the time they have completed their programme, they are in line for replacement.

This means two things. First, they do not have the time to build a relationship with the outside world; to create the recognition factor that is so important today; to become familiar to those they need to reach most — the Scottish public. Second, a year is simply an inadequate period in which to draw out and explain what may be a complex series of moral messages. Dealing with some of the urgent issues that face Scotland today — whether they concern family relationships, youth behaviour, crime, sex, or medical ethics — requires more than just a quick-fire response.

The Kirk should be providing clear leadership and guidance of the kind that builds confidence in its judgment. How much more readily that can be done when a familiar figurehead is providing that guidance. It is, perhaps, not surprising that Catholics in Scotland feel they know their cardinals far better than the Kirk’s adherents know their moderator. Of course, there are historical reasons for this; the Kirk is nothing if not democratic and has always set its heart against the emergence of a hierarchy. But in striving for egalitarianism it may be losing something more important — the ability to reach out to its congregations at a time when a shrinking membership needs moral leadership more than it has ever needed it before.