LOUISVILLE — Often, disagreements in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) get hashed out privately, in the corridors or behind closed doors.
At the General Assembly Council meeting Feb. 11, one blew up in public.
The exact issue being voted on had to do with the procedure the church should follow when it hires a coordinator for the work of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy.
One underlying issue is how much freedom that committee should have — a recognition that sometimes, recommending social policy for the denomination on issues such as abortion or the environment or war can be controversial and sometimes unpopular work. As a result, a certain amount of independence for that committee has been written into the denomination’s rules.
And there is still lingering tension floating through the denomination over a controversial trip the advisory committee took to the Middle East in the fall of 2004, which included a visit with Hezbollah that drew international headlines and led to the firings of two people from the PC(USA)’s national staff.
None of that was discussed directly at this council meeting.
But Nancy Kahain, the council’s chair, made it clear that attempts to work with the advisory committee’s leadership to draft rules for the hiring procedures had become frustrating and, in her view, politicized. Kahaian spoke of being troubled and disappointed by “a manipulation of the process.”
Paul Masquelier Jr., the council’s vice-chair, spoke of the rug being pulled out from under a supposed agreement at the last minute, and said after months of trying to work things out with the advisory committee, he’s “sick and tired” of the way things have been handled.
Nile Harper, chair of the advisory committee, asked for more time to discuss the matter — saying if action on the proposed rule changes were put off until the council’s next meeting, in April, he thought agreement could be reached on the exact composition and selection of the committee that would be involved if a new coordinator were being hired.
That’s what was being discussed: who would be represented on the committee, how would they be selected, who would have a vote and who would make the final decision.
But the council wasn’t willing to wait.
Some questioned whether the rules should be different for the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy than for the Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns or the Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns. To have the hiring of the coordinator of the social witness policy group “elevated to a different kind of status is beyond my understanding,” Masquelier said.
And the council decided not to wait for more efforts to reach an amicable agreement — it would vote. It approved the procedural changes the council’s leadership recommended.
And council member Jim Kirk summed up some of the feeling in the room when he said he didn’t really understand what the dispute was all about — he felt he was being asked to make a decision without having enough information about what was causing the ruckus.
“Late night deals being made — that’s not my church,” Kirk said. “I want more information” in order to make a solid decision.
