It is Monday.

And I have entered and exited the fugue state that followed General Assembly to find you, my readers, are clamoring for an update.

Actually one person sent me a message on Facebook, 
but I’m running with it.

Many of the most critical decisions made by the 220^th General Assembly were decided by the thinnest of margins. What does that mean, you might ask? Well, obviously, it means Presbyterians are not of one mind about anything, except perhaps that a mushroom mousse popover makes a lousy entrée. What I do not think it means is the church is divided into two camps; there was a lot more going than any liberal/conservative dichotomy explains.

Of course, it is just my luck that the Assembly’s most significant actions were clustered in the surrealistic marathon of Thursday and Friday; as you may have heard, after a full day Thursday, Friday at the Assembly began at 8:30 a.m., broke for worship, lunch and dinner - all at the convention center - and did not adjourn until around 1:45 a.m. Saturday. I will do my best to summarize the discussions and decisions taken; my apologies if I miss something.

First up: Divestment.

The Middle East Peacemaking Issues Committee proposed the PC(USA) become the first U.S. mainline Protestant denomination to divest from companies doing business with the State of Israel. Specifically, they recommended phased divestment from three corporations: Caterpillar, whose heavy equipment is used by the Israeli military to destroy Palestinian homes and livelihoods in the Occupied Territories; Hewlett-Packard, which sells communications, logistics and planning hardware used in the ongoing Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza Strip; and Motorola Solutions, which sells surveillance equipment used to protect Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.

For eight years, we were told, The Mission Responsibility Through Investment  Committee (MRTI) used proxy votes, shareholder resolutions, and calls for dialogue to persuade these companies to limit non-peaceful uses of their products by the Israeli government and military, but to no avail. The proposal, which had the backing of the General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC), would have meant the selling of more than $17 million worth of stock by the Presbyterian Board of Pensions and Foundation – a lot of money to be sure, but just a tiny fraction of the Presbyterian Portfolio, and only .018% of CaterpIllar, .014% of HP, and .003% of Motorola Solutions. In addition, this divestment would be phased, meaning the vast majority of stock in the companies would be retained until it could be sold without losing value.

Believe me, the lobbying was intense.

People came from all over the world to influence this decision – Presbyterians; Palestinian Christians; Jews both for and against Divestment. And they were doing a lot more than singing out front: they were at breakfasts and other meals, in the exhibition hall and even in Plenary, engaging commissioners with arguments on both sides of the issue.

After the Committee’s presentation, several commissioners presented a minority report from the Middle East Committee based on an overture that had actually been approved by the Committee. Instead of combining divestment from the corporations with a strategy of investment in the West Bank and Gaza; the minority report replaced divestment with ‘creative engagement’ and investment. After much, much, much debate, the assembly voted by a vote of 333-331 (with two abstentions) to make the minority report the main proposal. And then there were still more hours of debate.

The arguments as I understand them break down this way: 

Divestment would demonstrate the church’s moral oppo­si­tion to the Israeli occupation; it would focus attention on how these corporations make money from the violence and injustice of the occupation;  and would demonstrate sup­port for the Pales­tin­ian Chris­tians and oth­ers seek­ing peace with jus­rice. Investment is fine, but what Palestinians really need is freedom.


Divestment would do nothing to change Israel's actions, and would unfairly stigmatize corporations who are doing legal business with a trusted ally, and which employ hundreds, maybe thousands of Presbyterians. It would remove the PC(USA) from the discussion with these corporations, alienate ecumenical partners, especially in the Jewish community, and would give political cover to extremists who deny Israel's right to exist.


Divestment, as described by MRTI, doesn't really make a clear statement, since it occurs over time, and is accomplished in such a way that our investment income is not adversely effected. As such it seems to be a hollow symbolic gesture, which may make some people feel better, but will do little to make things better. 


In the end, three statements may well have reframed the entire argument. First, Teaching Elder Sue Krummel of Great River Presbytery (and candidate for moderator) pointed this out:'

as Presbyterians, we know about divestment 

– we call it ‘Withholding Per Capita,’ and we know it doesn't work. 

Then, Teaching Elder Susan Andrews, Moderator of the 215th  General Assembly, truly surprised me. A well know liberal in the denomination, Rev. Andrews stated her opposition to divestment, advising the church to remember both the current suffering of Palestinians and the centuries of Christian persecution of Jews.

Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, the Stated Clerk warned the Assembly

that the last shuttle buses would be leaving soon for the hotels.

In the end, the vote was 369-290 (eight abstentions) to adopt the minority report calling for investment and not divestment. To his credit, Teaching Elder Jack Baca of San Diego Presbytery, moderator of the Middle East Committee, told reporters while it might seem there division in the church on this matter, in fact the assembly was unified in its desire for peace, security of Israel and independence for Palestinians. The apparent division was simply a matter of the best strategy that the church can pursue to help attain those goals.

Next up: Same Gender Marriage.