Drinking from the Fire Hose: GA Days 4 & 5

As the standing committees completed their work, and the plenary body took its first actions on their recommendations, the volume of business to track is enormous. (Tracking it is the responsibility of the tracking team in OGA, headed for the umpteenth year in a row by veteran Jim Collie of Santa Fe Presbytery, right.)

As the recommendations on high-profile items came forth on Tuesday, the profile of this Assembly took shape. This is an Assembly dominated by progressives – I would say about a 2:1 ratio, which is easily the largest differential since reunion. By contrast, the 2010 Assembly, which put forth Amendment 10-A and the new Form of Government was about 54-46 on the progressive side. It is apparent that not only did the evangelical wing of the church not mount an organization, they did not bother to put forth candidates for commissioners.

On Tuesday, the Marriage Issues committee recommended adoption of both items being touted by the progressive Covenant Network: Item 10-3, an authoritative interpretation of W-4.9001 which would give pastors discretion to perform same-sex marriages (or not to perform them) according to the dictates of their conscience, under the laws of their jurisdiction; and item 10-2, a proposed amendment to W-4.9001 that would reframe the explanation of marriage to a covenant between two persons (rather than “a man and a woman.”) They passed the committee by votes of 51-18 and 49-18, respectively. (Committee votes on these issues tend to skew more progressive than plenaries, in part because the committees listen to the stories of those most deeply affected during the open hearings. Many times, a committee has put forth a more progressive recommendation only to have the minority report prevail on the plenary floor.) One commissioner on that committee told me that one reason they adopted both items was to communicate to the church that they were not trying to make an “end run” of the presbyteries, which have to vote on amendments, but not authoritative interpretations. 

If approved by the full Assembly, the authoritative interpretation would take effect immediately on the adjournment of the Assembly, and would not be affected by a negative vote of the presbyteries on the proposed amendment.  That comes up for action Thursday afternoon.

The standing committee on Middle East issues, by a 45-20 voted to recommend divestment from the three targeted companies (HP, Caterpiller, Motorola Solutions) that are profiting from supporting the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory. They did so by recommending approval of the more modest proposal of New Covenant Presbytery (item 04-04) with a clarifying amendment saying, “This action on divestment does not mean an alignment with the overall strategy of the global BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanctions) movement.” Personally, I think that is too nuanced to change the headline in the secular media, if the Assembly concurs. A more radical statement offered by Grace Presbytery (04-02) that would have labeled the Israeli occupation and sanctions “apartheid” failed in committee by a single vote (33-32), but will still have to be voted on by the full Assembly.

In the committee I resourced, on Mid Council Issues, the recommendations of the Mid Council Commission were passed on to the Assembly with overwhelming approval following an amendment increasing the maximum number of synods to 12 from the eight originally proposed (there are 16 now). In a separate action, the standing committee rejected appeals by the Commission and recommended that the Synod of Puerto Rico be exempted from consolidation given its unique cultural identity. A bizarre proposal to form a single synod with regional offices dedicated to various functions is being put forth as a minority report. If approved, the amended Commission recommendations would still require the synods to make a proposal by 2016 or that Assembly would be expected to appoint an Administrative Commission to recommend boundary realignment to the 2018 Assembly.

While the amendment increasing the number of synods alleviates some of the anxiety regarding wholesale upheaval of the synod transformations currently underway, it still is merely a technical fix on an adaptive challenge facing the church. By continuing to push the threat of an Administrative Commission to force consolidation, it subordinates mission to structure, instead of supporting a more organic structure that emerges from the evolving mission needs of presbyteries. It remains to be demonstrated how larger, more distant synods enhance the mission of presbyteries and congregations.  But, as I noted in my preview blogs, the inertia behind a second two-year commission’s recommendations is hard to overcome.

More personally, the Mid Council Commission demonstrated disrespect and contempt of synods and their leaders, offering thinly veiled accusations in the form of pastoral palliatives like “we know that change is hard to embrace and synod executives are fearful of losing their jobs.” That completely disregards both the major transformations in synods over the last four years, as well as the public commitments of persons such as myself to transitional (i.e., temporary) employment to facilitate change. They owe the synods and us an apology.

On Wednesday, following a morning set aside for reading reports, the Assembly convened in plenary session to begin consideration of committee recommendations.  The first item of business was the “division of the house” on the controversial vote to permit the moderator to poll presbytery executives as an advisory group. The persistent rumor – reported in Monday’s blog – that this was an effort to influence the Middle East issues has been denied by the executives promoting the motion. (That blog post was picked up by the Presbyterian Outlook and linked on their Facebook page, increasing page views tenfold.) Equipped with electronic voting devices, the division of the house taken this afternoon rejected the motion by a 52%-48% margin, rendering moot the concerns as to whether a 2/3 majority was necessary.

Then, employing a change in the standing rules adopted last Assembly, the plenary body disposed of 131 items of business via a “consent calendar” – which approves non-controversial items in an omnibus motion. About 15 items were removed from the motion for debate during their respective committee reports.

But the biggest news today was the Assembly’s approval – for the second time in four years – of a recommendation to add the Belhar Confession to our Book of Confessions. It will now be sent to the presbyteries for their votes, and if 2/3 approve, it will be added to our confessions at the next Assembly.  That is much more likely this time (it was disapproved in 2011) since the major resistance came from fears it would mandate gay and lesbian ordination. Post 10-A, the wind has been taken out of the sails of that argument.

Of note to my friends in the Synod of the Sun, Grace Presbytery commissioner Dan Klein offered a memorial minute Wednesday night for Sara B. Moseley, former moderator of the General Assembly, synod icon, and a truly gracious individual.

Thursday will be a big day of business, including action on the same-sex marriage recommendations.  We will see if the crying YAAD appears (more on this tomorrow).