Chapel Next the Green (the history of Twickenham Congregational Church) index page
This paper was produced by me (Tony Bryer) when the method of electing elders at Twickenham United Reformed Church was under discussion in 1997 and 2003
Review of Elders Election Procedures (original 18 Nov 2003)
The key issue (though the whole subject is open for discussion) appears to be whether members should be able to indicate on the nomination paper their desire not to be nominated, a privilege currently extended to retiring Elders only. FWIW my view on this is that the present system is best because:
- Some people who would make excellent Elders might, out of a genuine sense of modesty, decide to debar themselves. Under the current scheme if they are nominated and then approached by the minister he can say that a significant proportion of the membership do wish them to serve and the knowledge of this may shape their decision.
- If someone decides to debar themselves (perhaps because they are a new member and think it proper to do so) and then at a future time decide to change this, it might be interpreted that they have decided to ‘run for office’, and the fact that this might be the perception might in turn dissuade them from making that decision.
Below is a paper that I produced for the April 1997 Elders Meeting which may provide some helpful background information – I have not updated the text so obviously some of the comments and topical references are now no longer valid.
Tony Bryer
Twickenham United Reformed Church –
Election of elders and related topics.
Some personal thoughts
As the question of how we elect our elders is to be discussed at our next Elders’ meeting and I have to chair the discussion I thought it would be helpful to put together some notes summarising how we got to where we are now, and the reasons for some of the changes that have been made over the years. Those who have read a well known chapel history may recall that it was a dispute over the way in which deacons should be elected that all but led to the closing of the church – I hope our discussion will more amicable!
History
At the re-formation of the church in 1882, 38 members signed the roll and five deacons were elected shortly afterwards. During 1895-6 they were replaced by a committee of nine, including two ladies (one was Mrs Tite, commemorated on one of the plaques in the church). The October 1900 Church Meeting set out the rules for the election of deacons including: six deacons, two retiring each year; mid-term successor to take balance of original term only; retiring deacons eligible for re-election; all elections by ballot; a clear majority of votes cast required to be elected (in the 1902 election no candidate apart from John Gould received more than 50% of the votes, so he was the only one elected). Between 1903 and 1909 a Church Management Committee (of 14) replaced the diaconate.
The diaconate was re-established by the April 1909 Church Meeting; the rules were as follows: (i) twelve deacons including ex-officio, the secretary, treasurer and financial secretary; (ii) one third of diaconate to retire each year; (iii) “the election of deacons shall be by secret ballot. A voting paper with the names of all the gentlemen in the church who are eligible shall be sent to each church member, who shall have as many votes as deacons to be elected” – votes to be placed in a ballot box, two non members as scrutineers, result to be announced without figures; (iv) honorary and life deacons do not have to retire or be re-elected; (vi) no deacon to be considered elected unless in receipt of 50% of votes cast; (vii) quorum of five deacons; (viii) “any member desiring to raise any question at church meeting shall give sufficient notice for the matter to come first before the diaconate ….”.
In May 1918 the system for electing deacons was re-examined; all men would be eligible unless the secretary was notified in advance of the ballot paper being prepared. The new diaconate (8 elected + 2 life deacons, John Gould and William Purchase) would coopt two lady deacons (“such ladies to be members of the church, the wives of the deacons to be ineligible. Names of ladies suggested by the church to be favourably considered”) – Ethel Purchase and Mrs A.Lewis were the first two so to serve.
In 1926 matters came to a head when the church meeting decided that ballot papers should be sent to all members, instead of asking for nominations on two Sundays, as had been done in 1925 – a practice being recommended by the Diaconate “in view of the state of the Church Roll, there being so many names on it of people who never attended the Church“. One result was a decision to reinstitute communion cards to ‘purge’ the church roll. The other result was the decision to set up a Church Council – read ‘Chapel Next the Green‘ for the rest of this sad story.
There are no detailed references for many years afterwards, though at a discussion at a deacons’ meeting in 1966 it was agreed that deacons should seek to bring forward recommendations likely to receive the support of the church; the church secretary would present such recommendations to the Church Meeting; and committees would be appointed where appropriate (building and bazaar) who would report to the Church Meeting. In summer 1967 nineteen church friends (including five couples) were appointed to assist the minister with pastoral care. The method of electing deacons was discussed again in 1969 – see below.
United Reformed Church practice
The Scheme of Union lays out the responsibilities of Elders and states that they are to be elected by the Church Meeting, but does not give any guidance on how they should be elected or for how long they should serve.
The current system
The system being used for the election of Deacons up to 1969 was that candidates would be nominated and seconded, having been approached first to ascertain their willingness to serve if elected. The key disadvantage of this system was that, when approached, some people were unwilling to accept nomination, perhaps because they sincerely felt that they were not suitable, or that they were a relative newcomer. In theory someone who was willing to serve only had to persuade two people to nominate them and they might then assume office by default, even though a large number of members might have doubts about their suitability.
Under the new scheme ‘Active and aged’ members (but not Junior members and those who had moved away) were invited to submit nomination papers, and those receiving 10% of the nominations would be approached by the minister to see whether they were willing to serve. In deciding whether to accept nomination the prospective candidate would have the reassurance of knowing that a reasonable number of people supported them. As in the old system, an election would be held if the number of people accepting nomination exceeded the number of places (though I do not recall an election ever being held under the new system). People tend to renominate retiring elders and if an Elder was retiring or standing down for a period any nominations for them would be ‘wasted’. Retiring Elders were therefore given the opportunity to have their names marked with an asterisk to indicate that they were not willing to accept nomination for a further term.
The scheme was most recently modified a few years back. The changes made were (i) increasing the nomination percentage from 10% to 20% (partly reflecting the lower membership, so as to ensure that a reasonable number of people were in support); (ii) the introduction of a six month membership qualification rule before being eligible for nomination; (iii) the option (never used to date) of having a mid-term (Sept/Oct) election to fill vacant places; (iv) adding an extra space when the number of places to be filled was equal to the number of retiring Elders (so as to give people a chance to nominate fresh candidates without seeming to be disloyal to those who are in service) and (v) confirming candidates by a vote at church meeting even when no ballot is required. [since then we have made the qualifying percentage 25%]
Should retiring elders be able indicate their willingness to serve again (or not)?
If someone is not currently serving they may or may not be willing to serve and one nominates them on that basis (though there is nothing to stop anyone asking someone whether they would be willing to serve), whilst one would generally assume that a retiring Elder is willing to stand for a further term unless they specifically indicate otherwise. I would therefore support the present system. There are perhaps two negative effects: (i) the retiring Elder has to make a decision whether to stand again several months before their term ends, and (ii) someone may be in a position where they are willing to serve if necessary, but if there is another willing candidate they are quite ready to stand down. To date we seem to have followed a convention whereby spouses of Elders do not seek or accept nomination* (this is not a hard and fast rule, and practice in other URC’s varies), and the ‘asterisk’ leaves people free to nominate the retiring Elder’s spouse (if they have one!).
Compulsory stand-down period
The question of having a compulsory stand-down after a set number of terms has been floated. In ‘The Work and Administration of a Congregational Church’ [1925], T.T.James says (p.39) “In all cases members completing their term of office should be eligible for re-election. It is sometimes laid down that no member of the Diaconate shall be eligible for immediate re-election, but while this plan doubtless secures the presence of new members upon the Board, a thing not infrequently to be desired, the balance of advantage is against it, for it involves the interruption often of most valuable service, and may remove from the counsels of the Church those most competent to guide and lead by reason of wisdom and experience” [and I thought I was the only one who writes long sentences!]. Interesting he suggests a scheme for electing deacons in smaller churches that is not dissimilar to our current scheme.
It is very unfortunate for our church that all four retiring candidates have chosen to stand down this year, and I wish it is was otherwise. It would have been equally unfortunate if two were voluntarily standing down, and the other two were being forced to take a year out by the existence of a stand-down rule. Such a rule would presumably have to include an exception in respect of the Church Secretary.
How many elders should we have?
I personally think that we have too many Elders. We had 12 deacons when the membership was 120+. We now have a membership of around 50, and when one takes out those who are housebound or are retired non-serving Elders, those who spouses of Elders (who by convention do not serve – is this appropriate?*) and others who are not available, not many people are left.
The comment has been that most of those attending church meetings are Elders and spouses of Elders – slightly less true following recent retirements. It has also been said that we need a reasonable number of people to ensure a wide range of views, but numbers in themselves will not necessarily achieve this. As outlined above, in past times (1894, 1903, 1926) a lack of confidence in the ability of the Diaconate to work in accordance with the will of the membership led to it being replaced by a Church Committee, an option not open to us today. [In 1998 we reduced the number to 9, then in February 2000 agreed that we would if future appoint up to 12 serving Elders]
Finally there is the question of the duties that have to be carried out. We could perhaps consider whether non-serving Elders be asked to take places on the vestry duty rota, and whether pastoral responsibilities could be better shared (thinking about the ‘Church Friends’ of the late 1960’s?).
Tony Bryer 5 April 1997
* This was discussed at a later church meeting and it was agreed that spouses of serving Elders should not feel constrained in any way when deciding whether to accept nomination