Filibustering, part 2
Synod's Wednesday evening discussion of Committee 4D recommendations
Yesterday I made the claim that the left was not filibustering at Synod 2023.
But then, I showed a bunch of data that seemed to disprove my claim, looking at how the left dominated the floor discussion on Committee 7A and 7B recommendations. Today and Monday, I’ll show some more data that seems to continue to disprove my claim.
In the words of Paul DeVries, stick with me…
By the numbers: floor discussion on Committee 4D recommendations
After Synod finished discussing 7A and 7B on Wednesday evening, they turned to Committee 4D. This work was originally given to Committee 8, but because Committee 8 had so much to do, some of the Overtures were given to Committee 4.
You can find the discussion on the livestream and Act of Synod, pp. 1022–1023.
Number of speakers
On Wednesday evening, there were 24 speakers:
12 speakers on the left (50%)
8 speakers on the right (71%)
4 unknown (17%)
Time given to speeches
Over the course of the discussion, the total time giving speeches for or against the motions lasted 0:27:32:
Speakers on the left spoke for 0:19:27
Speakers on the right spoke for 0:05:48
Speakers who I couldn’t tell were on the left or right spoke 0:02:17
Average speech time
Speeches from the left were far longer, on average, than speeches from the right:
Speeches from the left lasted 0:01:37 on average
Speeches from the right lasted 0:00:44 on average
Speeches from people who I couldn’t tell were on the left or right lasted 0:00:34 on average
There was only one speech that lasted by Brandon Haan from Classis Grandville. He spoke 4 minutes and 41 seconds, despite a couple of attempts by Paul DeVries for him to stop, beginning at the three minute mark.
Calling the question
During the Wednesday evening session, the question was called three times, in all cases by those on the right:
By Lloyd, from Classis Zeeland, after roughly 16 minutes of debate
By Bill, from Classis Illiana, after roughly 9 minutes of debate
By David, from Classis Thornapple Valley, after roughly 8 minutes of debate
Once again, the right has been accused of weaponizing the calling of the question, but in this case, I actually think what Lloyd, Bill, and David did was appropriate in this case.
In the first instance, here’s what was being debated:
“That synod instruct all congregations of the CRCNA to show love to all people groups, including our LGBTQ+ members and neighbors, by condemning hateful or demeaning speech and violent or demeaning actions.”
At one point, Paul DeVries looked at the number of speakers in the queue and asked if Synod was really going to vote it down, after which Bill from Illiana called the question. Paul should have ceased debate instead.
In the second instance, here’s what was being debated:
That synod direct the Office of General Secretary to develop resources and tools, or endorse existing external resources and tools, that align with our Reformed doctrinal standards (as articulated in previous synodical decisions), to equip congregations for pastoral ministry with and to our LGBTQ+ members and neighbors.
This, too, should not have been debated as long as it had. Nobody seemed opposed, and it eventually passed overwhelmingly.
A final comment
As I re-watched the debate on the 4D recommendations, I lamented how little progress has been made. The conversations seem to have shifted toward gracious separation and gravamina, even though this is equally important work that we have already agreed to do:
That synod affirm our commitments to manage disagreements within our congregations, and among churches, with love, charity, and grace, and to ensure that all who seek to follow Christ are afforded a respectful place to honestly share their views and listen to those of others.
—AdoptedThat synod urge our congregations to, in accordance with Scripture and our confessions, be places of belonging for LGBTQ+ members seeking to follow Christ.
—Adopted
On Monday, I’m planning to get to what happened at Synod on Thursday.
Thanks for reading,
Kent