Suffrage and the Church

I haven't been a priest for an awfully long time, and I have only been an incumbent for a very short time - but in the years I have existed within parish structures, I have been convinced of the cause of the gentle degradation of that noble body - the parochial church council.

I wrote a while ago about how, here, we will do things a little differently when the next session of the PCC begins. That was not all I believed needed adjustment for the Council to be effective in its work. The other factor, I believe, surrounds the right that the members of the electoral roll possess but rarely ever have a real chance to use - their vote. 

I am not talking of the pack animal arm-in-air type voting. I am referring to a meaningful election where everyone gets a chance to make a difference. The degradation of the valency of the parish council surrounds the following process:

• The PCC is overworked with the minutiae of parish life
• It becomes an unattractive proposition 
• Insufficient people stand for the vacancies at the next session
• To make up numbers arms are twisted
• Just enough people stand for election for the vacancies to be filled
• They get elected en bloc and very much en passant
• No-one remembered who was on the PCC if you ask them after the fact
• The PCC becomes detached from parish life
• ...and a cycle of insufficient nominations for vacancies perpetuates
• Start at the top

My feeling is that an election where, unfortunately, people may lose and not be elected is vital to the health of a PCC and in many ways to the parish. The reasons for this are simple - the people who have the vote are then caused to use it, and become an active part of the process rather than a passive member of the crowd. They get to exercise their responsibilities under that suffrage too. We had an election yesterday here, and yes, people were not elected. I bet that those who were at the meeting will be able to name the new PCC though - and that is a start in itself. 

When I was young (in my teens), the PCC of which I was a member was routinely formed in a contested election. It was, perhaps not by chance, a time of great growth in that parish. Oddly, growth seemed to diminish as the PCC seemed to stop being elected. This may be chance, but there is also a chance that it wasn't. Perhaps winning in an election was an attractive prize (it certainly felt good as a 17 year old), and maybe that sense of satisfaction was enough to get the parish 'heart' pumping - but whatever it was, it seemed to make a very considerable difference. 

Voting for God

As I sat in Lincoln Cathedral yesterday, listening to a sermon being delivered by the Dean, Philip Buckler, something that he said stuck (which is an achievement given that I have been coated with a rather embarrassing Sermon Teflon). He spoke of the appetite that the world has to seek an elected God. 

He was, I think, referring to the proliferation of the Western Ideal - democracy, and how we apply that to our faith. As he commented, we judge God's 'electability' on the basis of the Bums-On-Seat Quotient - which is to say, that if church  numbers go down (as they seem to, sadly) that God is somehow failing in the approval ratings. We are, step by little step, moving towards a Bruce Almighty scenario (the Dean didn't say that bit, I hasten to add). 

I blame Richard Dawkins who, oddly, seeks to take the proverbial knife to the proverbial pistol fight, claiming that our pistols don't exist and that he left with the only viable alternative, that we is all dead and the duel is done. Silly man. What he has done, though, quite skillfully, is to make God's existence contingent on our belief and our willingness to stand up and vote. Ergo, God exists because Christians defend Him/Her - ergo, if they didn't God wouldn't. You get the idea. 

Christians are celebrating the Holy Trinity at this time. Like so many things, (or indeed all things when we talk of matters of faith), we are pinning our beliefs on the innately un-provable. There is nothing specifically scriptural that 'proves' that the Trinity exists. The three-in-one idea is a human construct, born of a desire to understand our faith, draw into a closer relationship with God and to piece together the God who makes Him/Herself known to us in light touches throughout all ages. Let us not forget too that we can no more 'prove' the Trinity, or indeed God, than we can the wind. We know of both because of their effect upon other things. Those things that are separate to God, the Trinity and to wind (Heb 'ruach', the other name for the Holy Spirit) are the only things that point to the 'inner truth' or existence of them.

But I digress. There have been times when, in arguments with my wife or an employer, that they have claimed not to believe me. Fine, I would retort - the truth is not dependent upon your belief, and that you don't believe doesn't mean that I am not telling you the truth. Much as it annoyed them no end, it is the basic perspective that I hold in matters of the faith. Professor Dawkins may wish to spend him life telling the world that God-believers are deluded, but God is not injured or enhanced by a single believer. God is. Christians should be aware of the danger, though, of being drawn into a 'prove it' argument. Confessions of faith are part of what we are and what we are called to do - but not because of trickery or the subterfuge of those who claim no belief. After all, our confessions are of faith - and the harder we try to 'prove', the greater our failure. I do not live a moment of my own life to prove God's existence. What I am called to prove is that I love God, and I can only do that by living my life in that light. 

And what if God were outvoted? Would he leave us all to our own devices and switch out the lights? 

Heaven forbid.

AV and Being Bothered

We the British people, the lovely United Kingdomites, the extended family of none other than the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, will be called to make a choice today.

AV it or Not AV it, mate!

For those of you in the further flung places of our wonderful world, we have a choice about our voting system. Currently we elect our politicians, like horses, in a 'First past the post' system where the chap or chappess with the greater number of Xs wins. The Alternative Vote is the choice that is on offer in this referendum, and in simple terms, is a process by which election candidates are ordered by preference. The winning condition is to receive more than 50% of the votes cast. Failure to achieve that means that the poor poppet who secured the least number of votes have the alternative choices on their ballot papers considered and re-distributed. In other words, if your No. 1 doesn't win, your No. 2 etc may gain from your vote. To me it is simple, though many are confusticated by the whole thing. 

Me, I am for the Alternative Vote. It favours a three-party system whereas the 'first donkey past the post' favours a two-party system. AV also means that, in the end, the winner of a given election has secured the greatest volume of support. The other system allows a government to be formed that may well not have the physical majority of the total of votes cast. The answer seems simple to me. It also means that my vote matters, unlike now when voting for anyone other that Tory in this area is a waste of pencil-lead. 

But my views are not why I have written this post. There is a societal cancer that lingers in the bones of our great nation. Apathy. In recent elections, the turn-out has been poor. People just don't seem to want to engage with the process. I am not sure if this apathy is born of laziness, not caring, or having too many other burdens already, but the problem is right there. AV or No AV - it is almost moot-point when the V is a minority sport. To gain half of the votes cast when only 36% of voters voted means that you can only claim 18% of popular support, and frankly, it makes little difference how we get there. However, a viable government 18% does not make, in my modest opinion.

As a Christian, I believe I have a duty to vote in this and all elections that effect me and my area. My reason for this is that the least in our society are affected by the outcome (and perhaps it is true to say that all of us are, and my ministry is to all people, not just the least by whatever measure we are working with). If I have a care for a just society I have to play my part in its formation and governance. If I have a love for neighbour, what affects my neighbour must be important to me too. Say 'Fair Trade', and you will bring every living-breathing Christians out in the goose-bumps of justice-for-all. Say 'referendum' and I fear that you will struggle to bring many out of the house.