Breaking Arms Across The Aisle

Many people may not care as much about what is going on at the currently in-session 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (#GA220). Regardless, it should be noted that last night’s conversation on the floor was one that was highly contentious as we discussed and voted on whether or not to actively, peacefully divest from corporations that harm Palestinian lives and communities in the West Bank. Though the recommended action was to divest, a minority report was made, offering a substitute motion to positively invest instead. In an almost surprising turn of events, the proposed substitute motion became the main motion by a two-vote difference. TWO votes – in all essence, a split vote. Ultimately, this new motion passed, and the denomination voted not to seek divestment (you can read more about that here). In the following minutes and hours, there was much grief that we as a denomination had thus chosen the side of income instead of justice for an oppressed people. While an important issue, this post is not about that.

Early this morning, as I sipped coffee from the safety of my dining room, I read this tweet from good friend Carol Howard Merritt: “Our system is set up to thrive on controversy…”.

This insight was, to me, simultaneously true and saddening. While Robert’s Rules & Parliamentary Procedure is indeed designed to allow room for all voices to be equally heard (whether it be my beloved denomination or this country), we have moved into a societal culture in which we no longer use this process to respectfully listen to each other, engaging in conversation for edification, and instead have come to the point of using the process as a tool to beat down the ‘other’ side, forgetting that we are engaged primarily toward the same end, forgetting that those who are politically or theologically across the aisle are still our sisters and brothers, with the same inherent and foundational interests. At least, I still believe that we share the same inherent and foundational interests.

[I also believe that this is less a reality in the Church, though it is present, and perhaps growing.]

If, indeed, our system is set up to thrive on controversy, it is because we have allowed it to become so. I do not disagree with Carol, but merely lament her insight that this is what we have come to: that instead of using such a tool to fully edify our conversations and decisions, we instead allow bullying and bloodying of the very people we are called to walk in relationship with, for the further proclamation of God’s Kingdom.

This is not to say that we can’t have differing opinions, but we have seen such uses of our procedural system in this week. Earlier, our duly-elected vice-moderator was led to resign because of vitriol and hurt that were thrown at her after her (fully in-order) election. Last night (and I say this in my personal opinion), the recommended action was overruled by a minority response that didn’t like the way their committee had voted (in a 3-1 manner). All of this is, technically, in order, but is being used in such a way to create controversy instead of building up the body.

We see the same thing, but in a stronger sense, in our nation’s political system. I did not agree with many of the actions of our previous president, nor did I vote for him (in either election), but he was duly elected, and I honored that. However, what I see today is that our nation’s current president, also duly elected, is quite often not afforded similar respect, and that the legislative branches of our government are caught up in a quagmire of those who act because they want to hamper our president’s efforts, rather than out of a good of the country.

That we have allowed this to become the climate in which our governmental systems (ecclesiastical or political) operate is a sad state of affairs, and we have no one to blame but ourselves. The only hope we have is to build up relationships, and respectfully listen, instead of trying to win our own perspective. Will this happen? Sadly, I think not. The populace too enjoys a good, controversial show then a good, edifying conversation. This is what we’ve come to, and the bed we sleep in. My prayer is that God may indeed prove me wrong. But as I will continue to work to such an end, I’m not going to hold my breath.

Regardless as that may be, I urge us all to seriously consider putting aside our human desire to ‘win’ and allow instead our ability to respectfully listen to one another, and hold each other in the mutual common work that is the foundation of each of our calls, even as our perspectives may differ.