No, the left did not filibuster at Synod

The Thursday debacle was caused by something else.

This is the third and final post addressing the accusation from the right that the left filibustered at synod, thus delaying discussion to the point that Committee 8’s recommendations on gravamina could not be acted upon.

First, a quick recap:

• Last Thursday, I looked at the debate on Committee 7’s recommendations, affirmed and clarified the previous year’s Synod’s rulings on the HSR, definitions of unchastity, confessional status, and related matters.

• Then, last Friday, I looked at the short discussion of Committee 4D’s recommendations, which covered the pastoral care responses to LGBTQ+ people, among other things.

Today’s email covers four items:

1. A summary of the Thursday, covering Committee 8’s recommendations on Neland, Committee 2D’s recommendations on seating deacon delegates at synod, and Committee 8’s recommendations on gravamina, which ended in a deferral to Synod 2024.

2. A summary of all debate on Wednesday and Thursday together, covering all the major topics related to the HSR, Neland, and gravamina. These two days were Peak Synod.

3. Why I don’t think the left was filibustering and why the right’s accusations are unfair.

4. Why Synod’s overall schedule is the real problem.

Normally, I’d break this into four separate posts over the next three days, but I’m tired of thinking about Synod 2023, so I’m getting it over with in one very long post. It’s tedious. (Tomorrow’s email will be shorter—I promise!)

Let’s begin.

Summary of Thursday at Synod 2023

First, here’s a breakdown of how floor discussion went at Synod on Thursday.

Number of speakers

On Thursday, there were 97 speakers:

• 62 speakers on the left (64%)

• 35 speakers on the right (36%)

Time given to speeches

Over the course of debate on Thursday, the total time given to speeches was 1:57:56:

• Speakers on the left spoke for 1:24:45

• Speakers on the right spoke for 0:33:11

Average speech time

Once again, speeches from the left were longer, on average, than speeches from the right:

• Speeches from the left lasted 01:22 on average

• Speeches from the right lasted 00:57 on average

Calling the question

During the Thursday sessions, the question was called four times:

1. Lloyd, Classis Zeeland, after 27 minutes of debate and with 27 speakers in the queue

2. Kurt, Iakota, after 12 minutes of debate. Chad Steenwyk overruled the calling of the question. In response, Kurt challenged the chair, which prompted a voice vote in which Chad was overruled.

3. Kurt, Iakota, after 6 minutes of debate

4. Kurt, Iakota, after 8 minutes of debate

Ceasing debate on Thursday

In addition to the calling of the question, Chad Steenwyk, who was chairing in place of Paul DeVries most of the day, successfully moved to cease debate three times, each of which was affirmed by a majority of delegates, though the third time was met with several points of order and multiple delegates on the left leaving in protest.

Chad has received criticism from the left for how he handled the debate on Thursday, but I don’t think this criticism is justified, for three reasons:

1. He overruled an instance of the calling of the question on the grounds that he felt there was more discussion to be had. He was challenged, and the chair was not sustained. But the left should see this for what it was: it was not Chad who was trying to cut off debate. He was trying to give everyone a chance to speak, and it was the body who decided.

2. After Paul DeVries argued that adopting Committee 8’s recommendations would be punitive, Chad Werkhoven responded rather forcefully toward Paul DeVries. Chad interrupted him to remind him to direct his comments at the chair, not Paul.

3. Though Chad Steenwyk has been criticized—most memorably by Cara DeHaan—for ending debate on the matter of gravamina too early, I don’t think he had any other option, given that Synod was out of time and still had more recommendations to consider. It’s also important to remember that the motion to cease debate requires a majority vote, which was given by the body.

Summary of all of Wednesday and Thursday at Synod 2023

So far, I’ve looked at Wednesday and Thursday separately. Let’s combine everything together. Below are the totals for all of Wednesday and Thursday discussion, which includes discussion on the HSR, Neland, and gravamina.

Number of speakers

On Thursday and Friday at Synod 2023, there were 216 floor speeches:

• 141 speakers on the left (65%)

• 70 speakers on the right (33%)

• 5 speakers unknown (2%)

Time given to speeches

Over the course of the discussion on Thursday and Friday, the total time given speeches for or against motions lasted 05:13:58:

• Speakers on the left spoke 3:44:44

• Speakers on the right spoke 1:25:39

• Speakers unknown spoke 0:03:35

Average speech time

Once again, speeches from the left were longer, on average, than speeches from the right:

• Speeches from the left lasted 0:01:36 on average.

• Speeches from the right lasted 0:01:13 on average.

• Speeches from unknown lasted 0:00:43 on average.

Why it’s incorrect to accuse the left of filibustering

All of the above data confirms the right’s accusation that the left was taking up too much floor time during a tight schedule. However, I don’t think it’s fair to call this filibustering, nor do I think it’s accurate to accuse the left of using the schedule to avoid voting on Committee 8’s recommendations.

1. The process functioned as designed.

Our parliamentary procedure is designed for the minority to have a voice. There are good reasons the gears of synod move at the pace they do. This is by design.

2. The minority always speaks more.

There was no need for the right to convince the left to change their mind, so the right didn’t need to speak.

Additionally, nobody on the left thought they would convince anyone on the right (though perhaps they thought they could convince a few moderates).

The reason the left spoke so much is because it lacks the strong coordination of the right. The substance of the speeches reflects this: many asked for the clarification of processes, timelines, and potential outcomes. It was more important for the left to understand this than the right because it directly affects the future of their churches and classes.

There was one notable exception at Synod 2023 when this pattern reversed itself. Paul DeVries, in his role as a delegate and member of the in loco committee, urged the body to not adopt Committee 8’s recommendation to appoint a new in loco committee, saying such a thing would be “punitive.” The tone of the debate changed: it was clear Paul’s speech had swayed the moderates to vote with the left, and it was now the right who was on defense.

In a reversal of the previous pattern, after Paul DeVries’s speech, there were now more speakers from the right, which believed itself in the minority:

After Paul DeVries’s speech, speakers on the right had more cumulative speaking time than the left:

After Paul DeVries’s speech, in a departure from the pattern earlier that morning, speakers from the right also spoke longer than speakers from the left:

3. Filibustering assumes intent, and such intent did not exist.

The right’s accusation of a coordinated strategy to run out the clock is untrue. Actually: the left is pretty disorganized. Most of the speeches were actually questions and reflected authentic concern, not a political strategy.

Here’s Matt Ackerman, delegate from Classis Lake Erie:

I heard the suggestions that those of us on the left were trying to filibuster. I promise you that wasn't an organized strategy at all. I was in on the strategic conversations, such as they were, and none of us thought synod would run out of time or tried to facilitate that. You're right that people feel more compelled to speak when they feel like they're losing or just not being heard. That was the case – it felt like we weren't being heard and arguments weren't being addressed (which gets to the question of a “deliberative” synod). That was part of the frustration at the end when all hell broke loose. But the left is nowhere near organized. We're a mess. Note how many of those ‘pundits’ you referenced today are on the right or center right. Who is speaking on the left? Your uncle. And Reformed Journal... sort of. The left is getting killed on messaging.

I’m taking Matt at his word for a variety of reasons that I won’t get into here, not least of which is that his grandfather was pastor of Third CRC in Lynden, Washington during the 1960s, which in CRC World is enough to trust someone with your life. (Similar: I hired a contractor do some work in my garage last week for the sole reason that his last name was Zylstra. That’s how this subculture works.)

The left may have proximity to the traditional sources of influence in the CRC, including its institutions, publications, and networks centered on Grand Rapids. But these mechanisms are far less effective or responsive than the kind of online networking and collaboration happening on the right. What the right doesn’t realize is there are no parallel networks on the left. Organizations like Hesed, All One Body, Better Together have little influence on the left compared to the Abide Project on the right. There is also no version of The Returning Church for the left in the CRC.

The right mistakes disorganization for calculated intent, when, in fact, the left couldn’t have mounted a filibuster on the floor of Synod if it wanted to.

The actual problem isn’t filibustering, it’s Synod’s schedule

Synod convened Wednesday morning at 8:15 and recessed on Wednesday evening at 10:07, 13 hours and 52 minutes later.

Synod convened Thursday morning at 8:15 and recessed on Thursday afternoon at 3:06, 6 hours and 51 minutes later.

During these two days, synod was in session a total of 20 hours and 43 minutes. However, only 5 hours and 13 minutes was devoted to speeches—less than 25%. What was Synod doing those other 15 hours? They were worshipping and praying; breaking for lunch, dinner, and morning and afternoon coffee; hearing updates from Wiebe Boer, president of Calvin University, and Moses Jawara of the CRC in Sierra Leone. Committees read their recommendations, including in some cases both majority and minority reports. Each of these items is valuable and useful.

But not as important.

As the saying goes, this meeting—or large parts of it—could have been an email.

Given the substance and importance of what was discussed, the blame should not go to the left for taking more time than the right. It needs to go to the schedule.

Thanks for reading.

Kent

P.S. Tomorrow, the CRC Circulatory System.