The Saturday evening and Sunday morning sessions at assembly were spent at table groups sharing stories, theologies, and writing prayers for themselves and for the Church. By most accounts these were faithful and moving experiences; for many laity (and some clergy) these discussions were challenging and ultimately affirming of God’s presence. No points-of-views were changed but the conversation was filled with Grace.
Then came Sunday afternoon. It started, as these things often do, from the unlikeliest source: The Committee to Nominate Standing Committees. Prior to General Assembly, nominations are received by the committee for open slots on the denomination’s many committees. Nominators present a name and a reason that person should be considered. The Committee to Nominate discerns the suggestions and presents a slate.
The slate for the Church Doctrine Committee had four names of members continuing for a second term and three names for new members. Those three were nominated by the Presbytery of East Toronto.
The nominators within East Toronto felt Church Doctrine needed some more members favourable to a liberal argument. An obvious advocacy move.
Meanwhile, during assembly, commissioners who favour tradition felt the three new nominees were too “liberal.” These commissioners also attempted a simple advocacy move to support their view by switching one of the nominees with another person they thought would be favourable to their position.
And that’s all it was—advocacy attempts from differing perspectives. But that’s not how it played on the assembly floor. There was bitterness and anger, suspicions of conspiracies and accusations of underhanded play. Tempers flared, there were lines to register dissent, some quick-draw parliamentary moves. It was a mess. But it needn’t have been.
The mess and the conspiracy talk began because the commissioners’ motion was to replace the one (till that moment) openly gay minister (onequeerpresbyterian.wordpress.com) in our denomination who was named amongst the three nominees, with a much-needed representative from the Han-Ca presbyteries. It was a brilliant attempt at checkmate; but, again, obvious, pitting one minority voice against another. (Another interpretation would word it differently: It pitted homophobia against racism. We’ll let that hang in the air for now.) It was ultimately defeated; with a proviso later added to include the Han-Ca candidate at the earliest opportunity.
Advocacy struggles are often bitter and justifiably filled with suspicion in society at large. We have become accustomed to hearing battling groups accuse each other of deceit. But that needn’t be the case in the church—in the end our process is transparent. Decisions are made by representative members, in an open court. Wary of a motion? Get up and talk about it. That’s how we lobby; in the open. (I realize there are lobbying attempts behind the scenes, but a) that’s part of the advocacy process, and b) it really is not as sinister as it sounds.)
Our process requires care and prayers, honesty and confidence. We are going to disagree, and passionately, because it all matters. It matters a lot. But we have to have confidence that God is in control. If we lose that, we’ve lost everything.
Oh, and then we all went on a harbour cruise packed on a boat, with finger food, beverages, laughter and a lot of sunshine. Gotta love that Holy Spirit! Grace can happen, despite ourselves.
