On Maneuvers: Day 2

Sunday of General Assembly is generally a Sabbatical from business. It begins with worship in local congregations, which helps the commissioners and observers get a larger picture for the host community. I attended First Presbyterian Church of Farmington Hills – the home church of my seminary field education mentor Sue Ellis Melrose (who is also vice-moderator of the Committee on Local Arrangements). Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons was the preacher, and the occasion was also the 60^th anniversary of the church’s chartering – believed to be the only such chartering to have been conducted by a General Assembly during the Assembly (which met in Detroit in 1954). It was an uplifting service and we were warmly welcomed. Other Assembly-goers reported equally positive experiences among the forty or so host congregations.

Then it was back to the COBO center for an afternoon of light business. This included the installation of the Assembly vice-moderator, Larissa Kwong Abazia of the Presbytery of New York City. After last night’s stunning first ballot win for new moderator Heath Rada, many attributed the surprise victory to his savvy choice of a vice-moderator candidate.

But the brief afternoon session also included the first genuine procedural maneuver of the Assembly. Commissioners from New Covenant Presbytery (disclosure: in my synod) proposed a motion that the Assembly be permitted to poll Executive Presbyters as an advisory group (similar to YAADs,TSADs, MADs, and EADs). The motion was before the Assembly with no warning, it was rushed to a vote by the new moderator, and was adopted by a show of hands (well, voting cards). This has major significance for a number of reasons, and is likely to be challenged. The significance is that it is the first time such advisory powers have been given to a group with established power in the church. Advisory votes are designed to empower those on the margins, or those with whom we have important mission relationships. An advisory vote given to those already with power in the church has the appearance of a power grab.

It is also significant because the two sources of this motion are leaders in the presbyteries of New Covenant and National Capital – the two most outspoken supporters of the Israeli side in the hot-button divestment issue. This has given rise to the speculation in some quarters that there may be a hidden agenda to this maneuver. True or not, it casts suspicion on the motion. It did not help that the inexperienced moderator made remarks in calling for the vote that could have been heard as advocacy for the motion (a moderatorial no-no).

But it appears that major procedural mistakes were made. Advisory delegates and their voting rights are specified in the Standing Rules of the Assembly (B.2.b-c), so that extending advisory privileges to others constitutes a suspension of the rules. Standing Rule L.3 (on suspension of the rules) provides (1) that the motion must first be submitted to the Committee on the General Assembly for review (it was not clear that such a review was made, and I, at least, did not hear them report); and (2) that adoption requires a 2/3 majority vote. The 2/3 majority requirement was not indicated prior to the vote, and from where I sat, the ayes appeared to be less than a 2/3 majority.  I understand that a division has been called for by a commissioner, and that it will be revisited when the Assembly reconvenes in plenary on Wednesday.

If there is any consolation to be found here, granting advisory status to EPs could backfire big-time. Commissioners typically disdain advice rendered by synod executives at the Assembly (who, as corresponding members have voice but not vote). I don't expect EPs will get any warmer reception.

Was this just a procedural snafu, or are there other agendas afoot? We shall see. But the maneuvers have commenced.