Continuing the conversation.
Thanks for the comments. I hear what some have said, and think I was probably a bit to sharp in my original post. But there is something here worth talking about.
I looked up the ACL website – there’s nothing in its desire, character, policy objectives or activities that indicates that endorsing all the evangelical candidates would be problematic. In fact, it would seem to make sense, given the statements.
Well, you say, why should they endorse other people’s nominations? What’s the problem with keeping it ‘tight” – that is, recommending the same number of people as there are positions? A couple of things about that.
First, since it always nominates ‘tightly’ as well as recommends ‘tightly’ – exactly the same number of people as positions – that means the nomination and the recommendation will always perfectly align. As people have pointed out, it can only nominate people it knows, people you might call mates. Fair enough. But the upshot is that it is very hard to avoid the impression that it covers the field in nominations of those close enough to the decision makers on the ACL, and then supports its own nominations. In other words, that it’s power to the mates.
Which leads to the second point – and it’s a trickier one. I may have misjudged it, but the power of the recommendation letter is enormous. At a bald statistical level, what would be its success rate over, say, the last decade (the extent to which its advice is heeded)? 96%? 99%? Very significant power. Again, that’s OK, ACL does the work, ACL achieves its goals. But surely with that power comes equally great responsibility. and to leave the impression that that power is being exercised in favour of friends – those it knows to nominate – is at best dangerous, at worst seductive.
What’s more, inevitably – and despite the fact that letter explicitly tries to avoid this implication – the result of such power is that those who aren’t endorsed are seen as somehow less kosher. You can say all you like that it shouldn’t be that way – but my take on it is, that’s how it’s seen.
Of course, you say, people are free to be nominated by anyone. That’s absolutely true, but they will always know that unless it’s the ACL that nominates them, they will have someone else nominated against them and supported by the 90-something % successful ACL. Plenty of times people have been advised not to stand, and have pulled back, so they won’t be seen to be rocking the boat. Yes, we’re all big boys and girls, and it’s a rough and tough world, and it shouldn’t matter to someone how they go in an election! Easy to say, but only really credible from the lips of someone who has stood independently of the ACL.
These are just the realities of the situation.
I started the first post by saying that I believe in having an ACL – and I do. And I take the points that people have made. I make no attributions of motive, I get that it’s a big Diocese, and we can hardly expect the ACL council members to know everyone etc.
But ..
It’s all just a bit too neat, don’t you think?
It seems the options would be:
1. Get involved in ACL to ensure it isn’t a closed shop
OR
2. Set up something yourself to do a similar way but in the way you want
OR
3. Just mope about the current predicament hoping someone else will do the work (what most people who aren’t happy do – but to be fair – most people don’t have the time to do everything!)
No one has to join the ACL, no one has to take any recommendation from the ACL.
I hear people make this ‘closed shop argument’ about the local church as well;
- how do you recruit staff for your church?
- Do you see personal recommendation as important, even essential?
- Two candidates being essentially the same, but one known to a person you trust, do you go with them?
The argument seems to be two ways – if the ACL does put up good people – why worry so much?
Andrew,
thanks for your comment, and fair enough. Moping doesn’t help anyone.
But at the same time, there’s a chance that a conversation could be the start of a ‘something else’.
Or somehow convince the ACL to split into two or three friendly but competing groups who present their nominations on merit. (and some kind of policy)
What would be more difficult, convincing synod reps that there was another genuinely evangelical option, or convincing people to be nominated against a 99% vote?
Andrew,
a conversation like this needs to take place in the Southern Cross or in a wider forum. ever thought of posting these thoughts to the sydang website?
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your replies the other day. I appreciate you taking the time.
How exactly is it that you envision trust and proper exercise of responsibility to work for the ACL if it recommends / endorses people that it doesn’t know? I would have thought that ‘knownness’ is crucial to the exercise and maintence of trust / responsibility – which is what I was getting at in part in my prior response.
Yes, ACL does run the temptation to be a club for mates to elect mates: we are sinners in a sinful world after all. But that doesn’t make their principle of recommending those who are *known* (not necessarily ‘friends’ at all) to be wrong – it’s something that needs to be held accountable for. Possible temptation (and yes, even possible failure at times) doesn’t obviate the goodness of the principle. Accountability is key.
Which, yes, these posts of yours are trying to do. At the very least, your posts are raising some good questions about process / accountabilitiy / trustworthiness. And that’s a good thing.
But I still have two questions about whether this is really the most helpful way to do that. First, if you have problems with the recommendation process, to what extent do you have first hand information of how the ACL currently goes about deciding nominations (I was trying to illustrate with my personal experience that the ACL isn’t being unfaithful with their responsibility in my experience: quite the opposite). Does that first hand evidence warrant such doubt (as much as you say you make no attributions of motive, what is the rhetorical weight of concluding your post with “But … It’s all just a bit too neat, don’t you think?”)?
Second, regardless of current practice one way or another (ie, in the interests in preserving faithful discharge of responsibility in the longer term): as you a member of the ACL, if you have issues with the process, as I said previously … are you pursuing the mechanisms of accountability that the ACL is constitutionally created around (letters requiring response, annual AGM, elected council members, broad council base of lay and ordained in copious amounts to provide diversity of the nomination pool … it’s hardly a club of close friends)? As a member, do you write to the ACL council requesting agenda inclusion / discussion on a topic or attend the AGM? Are you involved in making ACL stronger from within? If so, what was the response? If not (I don’t know – you may have in the last 18 months since I stepped down), why not?
Hi Scott, good response. I can’t answer for Andrew, but it seems he is asking a structural question, rather than a motive question.
Is it healthy for the diocese to have this kind of structure?
So, if Andrew were to spend his time strengthening the ACL from within, or to join the council, yes it would mean his circle of ‘mates’ would now be on the inside, but it wouldn’t change the structure.
The vague feeling we all have that this shouldn’t be talked about, that it is innappropriate or unhelpful to question the system as we have it, is itself part of the problem.
I think many synod reps would find it incredibly useful if a body of respected evangelicals undertook the task of screening, interviewing, getting to know nominees and then endorsing them as evangelical nominees. I’d always thought this was what the ACL did, but now I realise its mode of operating is slightly different.
Scott and Mike,
thanks for your comments. Mike, you’ve put the question really well. For me to get on the inside of the ACL (unlikely as that is!) doesn’t deal with the structural issue.
One way forward is for lots more people to take up the responsibility of nominating candidates for positions, and then writing to the electors in support of their nomination.
Another option is for another group to emerge, which does the same sort of thing as the ACL.
The very fact of plurality would be enormously beneficial, it seems to me.
Would the emerging group have to do a similar thing? (ie recommend mates?). Couldn’t it be the kind of thing you had in the first post, a screening body?
The issue I think needs to be addressed is long term stagnation in governance. The reality is sharp disagreement about how to run things loses you friends. In a ‘nominate your friends’ system, the trend is for sharp disagreement to be minimised. Even if this is framed as the ‘effectiveness’ of candidates. Especially when the political decision makers are also diocesan office holders. Presented with two potential nominees, both evangelical, both capable, it is hard to see an office holder recommending a nominee who is going to fundamentally disagree about how to do things. Short term this leads to boards that seem effective and efficient and unified, but in the medium to long term it leads to boards that stagnate and make mistakes. In this situation, the gadfly on the board (if s/he makes it there) seems to be an obstruction and ‘inefficient/ineffective’, and will lose friends.
In a ‘nominate your friends, especially effective ones’ system, this shuts down the potential for this gadfly board member to serve on other boards later on, since they will both lose friends and appear ineffective.
So robust debate and different ideas wane.
(this isn’t to say robust debate never happens, but that this system tends toward similar views and closed mouths. Those strange conversations with grown, elected men ‘I agree with you but could never say it’)
Actually, Mike, i think there is a way through the ‘emerging group just doing a similar thing’ issue.
More and more it seems to me that the real problem is the tight correlation between number of positions up for election, the number nominated and the number recommended. Break that nexus and you have a different thing altogether.
So, for example, if such a group had a policy :
a) neither necessarily to nominate for all positions
and
b) to recommend evangelicals it hadn’t nominated in addition to its own nominations,
that seems to me to change the game.
It’s less pure politics (you might recommend as someone who gets in over your own nomination!), but it’s more generous (interesting parallel to Archie Poulos’ Southern Cross article).
Sometimes policy (b) would be easy, if the other nominees were known (we’re a big Diocese, but we’re not that big); on the other hand, if a person wasn’t known, then maybe a rule like ‘open to receiving a commendation that a person is ridgy-didge evangelical’ would be sufficient to trigger recommendation.
If the result is a more transparent and generous culture, surely that can’t be a bad thing?
I wonder whether proposing that ACL policy should be “endorse everyone who is an evangelical” merely shifts one problem and creates a bunch of others.
If I understand the current procedure (and if I am mistaken I am happy to be corrected) it goes something like this: A spot on Board X is open for election. The ACL tosses around some names and eventually come up with a shortlist of five. ACL is happy with the evangelical character of Individuals A, B & C but has questions about D & E, so they are discarded. After consideration, ACL decides to endorse Individual B. The other four are free to be nominated in the election but the ACL says nothing about the Character, Conviction and Competency of any of them. An alternate system would not stop ACL giving an Endorsement to Candidate B but would give an Approved By sticker to A and C.
Here are my concerns.
First, it does nothing to address the “jobs for mates” problem that Andrew is concerned exists. It merely expands the circle of “mates” two or threefold. If ACL would be genuinely happy with any of three candidates getting a particular board spot and one of them is successful then it will still get what it wants while having the illusion of an open democracy. This is the way elections are run in China and North Korea. Even though I am a member of ACL I don’t wish diocesan elections to be run along One Party State lines. It is more honest for an organisation to state openly their preference for the election and allow other candidates to put forward their reasons why they are a more capable or godly alternative.
Second, the “endorse all evangelicals” approach would turn the ACL into the Sydney Inquisition. If it was the job of ACL to publically determine the fitness of individuals for office based on their evangelical conviction then, by definition, there would be a number of people who are nominated for positions that wouldn’t “pass the acid test”. At the present time a non-endorsement by the ACL is not an outright slur on a person’s evangelical credentials. This would not be the case under the proposed changes – candidates would either have something like “ACL Approved Evangelical” next to their names on the ballot paper or a Very Telling Blank Space. Also, what would happen in the case of those evangelicals who didn’t feel as though they were happy with their evangelical credentials being evaluated by ACL? While ACL requires an affirmation of faith from its members, at present there is nothing in their charter that gives them the right to ask probing questions or dig through the trash cans (physical or digital) of people standing for diocesan offices. Do we really want to give that power to a voluntary association?
From what I can tell, the biggest objection to ACL at the present time is the extent to which their endorsement of a candidate can sway an election. That may be true, but in a democratic system no one party has to endorse everybody. Perhaps what is needed is a method by which the merits of non-ACL candidates can be more widely disseminated and evaluated before the elections. Is it possible, for instance, to include in the SDS website a section for Board Elections where full profiles and CVs of those standing for board memberships can be viewed and the candidates can “make their pitch” as to why they are the best person for the job? Synod members could then be instructed to study the merits of each person standing for elected office before casting their vote. If this were to occur, then while I think ACL endorsement would still carry weight with the electors there would be more chance of the “rank outsider” winning the day if there was a feeling that ACL were genuinely misguided in their choice.
Hi Luke,
thanks for your comment. I have also been mulling on exactly this issue – as you put it, the ‘Sydney Inquisition’!
I think you have put your finger on an important issue – namely, information. We still operate under the old rules, whereby nominees include a precis of 30 words along with their nomination.
In a digital age – possibly with username and password for Synod members – more information is easily accessible.
But I think even more important is the culture issue. If it really is the case that the ACL is just the nominate-and-recommend-people-we-know group, and not really the broader keep-the-Diocese-evangelical group, then what’s needed is more people nominating and recommending right alongside the ACL – and to not worry about how that is seen by others.
Thanks Luke,
perhaps a second organisation could be a ‘ask the hard questions, dig through the trashcans’ organization, but nominees voluntarily request such a grilling.
That way, those ‘ridgy didge’ evangelicals who want to stand seperate to the ACL have a rigourous way of gaining the synods trust. Others who aren’t interested in such an endorsement can still stand..(perhaps over time some ACL nominees might like such a grilling, given MPJ’s comments on the other post!). In some ways it could be an ‘inquisition’, but at least its terms could be transparent.
The nominees can promote their competance themselves, but promoting your trustworthy evangelicalness is trickier to do on your own.
You are right though Luke, this kind of system means that when you write someone off a ‘not evangelical’, you have to say it publically. The benefit of this is that if you make a wrong call, there can be outrage.
Hi Andrew,
It’s good to have these questions asked. I think I may have similar concerns to yourself.
That is, I am absolutely satisfied with the theology of the people the ACL nominates – I wish to see the diocese remain evangelical and reformed in outlook. The problem is, though, I believe the effect of the ACL dominance is to bring in people with the same *political* and *strategic* outlook.
Is this a problem? I think it is. While I am personally happy to see everyone come from a similar theological camp, I would rather see the various committees made up of people with diverse strategic and political approaches. I believe this will generate better outcomes.
It’s possible that some of the (pretty severe) problems the diocese has encountered administratively (and even missionally) the last couple of years would have been avoided had their been more diversity of opinion on some of the key committees.
How do we achieve that in practice? Not sure, to be honest. If the diocese sent out more information about the nominees, that would be a start. But I’m reluctant to put even more burdens on that already over stretched body.
Hi Craig,
nice way of putting the issue, distinguishing between the theological outlook and the political / strategic outlook.
Luke is pretty insightful here. And he’s noticed something: ACL keeps the diocese evangelical (or intends to), but it doesn’t always endorse only evangelicals. Actually it has often made sure that non-evangelicals have a voice too – for the health of the whole diocese. Hard to do that when you have to endorse every evangelical.
I reckon the solution is a time limit on all big committees. Twelve years on Standing Committee and you have to move on – that would ensure a turn over of people.
MikeJ,
I hear in your comments evidence that the ACL takes really seriously the burden that has been laid on it by success. What I think Andrew is saying is that ‘that burden’, essentially the effective running of the diocese, needs to be placed back in the hands of synod, either by the ACL refocussing on its charter, ‘the reformed evangelical character’, or by other individuals/groups being able to convince the synod that there is more than one evangelical option.
I do find the comment that the ACL ensures non-evangelicals have a voice interesting.
I’m sure this isn’t the ACL’s intention, but making the space for non-evangelical voices is rather helpful for the ACLs political goals. It firms up the need for evangelical synod members to vote for the ACL, as the option is presented, ACL or not-evangelical.
Nevertheless, this idea that the ACL is not simply about endorsing evangelicals, but is actually tied up with a particular vision for the health of the diocese, which is decided on in a very opaque way, not publicised in any comprehensive way, and therfore is not open to review or critique from anyone outside the organisation fascinates me.
don’t want to clog up the comments,
so I’ve put up some reflections on politics and ideology in dominant party systems at http://www.dead-flies-and-perfume.blogspot.com