Some thoughts on Sunday...

The Plenary Session Sunday afternoon began with considerably less energy than did the first session. No doubt, this was due, in part, to the rather low-key nature of the business at hand; the fact that commissioners were still rolling in after the GA worship invasion of Pittsburgh was also a factor. On a personal note, I was privileged to worship with Friendship Community Presbyterian Church, a fascinating multi-cultural congregation which for fifty years has been ministering to the  neighborhoods beyond the University of Pittsburgh in West Oakland.

Thanks, Friendship!

Our primary item of business in Plenary was the election of the Stated Clerk, where, for the first time since reunion in 1983, there was only one nominee: the current Clerk, Gradye Parsons. On his good days, I’m sure Rev. Parsons is gratified that, after four years on the job, the church appreciated his energy, intelligence, imagination and love enough to endorse a second term without opposition. On his bad days, I wonder if he looks at the state of the denomination and understands why no one else wants  his job. At any rate, he was given a glowing introduction by the nominating committee, and elected by acclamation, after which he was given, of all things a pair of binoculars.

It will be interesting to see if he uses them during Wednesday’s Plenary.

The other item taken up was the election of the Vice Moderator, which requires a bit of explaining to the uninitiated.  When someone stands for Moderator (no one runs for Moderator, as it is considered unseemly to chase after the office), they announce in advance their choice for Vice Moderator. Thus, the two stand as a sort of ticket, in contrast, say, to a system where the candidate with the most votes becomes Moderator, while the candidate with the second highest tally is Vice Moderator. However, unlike every other system with which you might be familiar, the Vice Moderator is not elected by the vote for Moderator; they must be elected in a separate action, in which the moderator asks the Assembly to ratify their choice, and the Assembly does. Usually.

This year was a bit different.

As mentioned in a previous blog post, the Vice Moderator Candidate, the Rev. Tara Spuhler McCabe created some controversy when it was revealed that, while Associate Pastor at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, she had signed a marriage certificate for a same-gender couple. While same-gender marriage is now legal in the District of Columbia, such an  action is generally understood to be contrary to the Constitution of the PC(USA).

Prior to the vote, a commissioner asked the question, can we vote no – that is, can we not ratify the choice of the new Moderator? The answer, proffered by Shenandoah Presbytery’s own Tom Hay (acting as Clerk for this session) was, to paraphrase, of course; we actually have a procedure for when the Assembly says no: basically, the moderator tries again, picking another commissioner, and asking the Assembly to accept them.

Then, another commissioner asked if there was a way for the assembly to discuss the pros and cons of such a vote – to debate the choice for Vice Moderator. This, Tom told us, we could not do, unless two-thirds of the registered commissioners were willing to suspend the standing rules, which say clearly that the Moderator tells us who they have selected, and we say yeah or nay, right then. So it was moved and seconded that we suspend the rules and allow debate.

Fifty four percent voted to do so, which, although significant, fell short of the supermajority required.

We then proceed to vote on the question of the Vice Moderator. In a simple yes or no vote, Rev. McCabe received sixty percent – more than enough to allow her to be installed, but a strong signal about the ambivalence of the assembly during these difficult and uncertain times.

Committee work has begun, so things might be a bit quiet for a few days. Look for the fun to resume Wednesday, when the Assembly begins to tackle the big stuff in Plenary.