Reflections from General Assembly
By Rev. Jody Mask
I was honored to serve as a Teaching Elder Commissioner to the 225th General Assembly of PC(USA) this year. It was my first GA, so while I was eager to experience it, I was also worried. What would it look like to faithfully participate with the other commissioners in discerning the will of the Holy Spirit? What about the experienced commissioners--would their experience set an example or intimidate? What about the voices of those long silenced? Would the body be ready to listen to those members?
On top of these concerns, this year’s GA was unique in its format. The committees met in person, but not all at once. When those staggered meetings concluded, we all met online for five days of plenary sessions. This had never been done before--would we be able to complete our work without being sidelined by technical mishaps? What’s more, the previous General Assembly, which met at the height of the pandemic, deferred much of its work to this GA. Did we have enough time?
The very first meeting was itself a hybrid. The “Round 1” group of committees met in person while the rest met via Zoom on June 18 to conduct important business like voting to make our online meetings possible and electing our new co-moderators.
Beginning June 27, I served on the Immigration Committee in person in Louisville. About 30 commissioners assigned to Immigration gathered daily at The Presbyterian Center. We were accompanied by three types of advisory delegates: ecumenical, missionary, and young adult. As happened during the later plenary meetings, the advisory delegates voted first in order to advise commissioners as they prepared to vote. But before votes occurred, we learned as much as we could about the particular issue, supplemented by expert testimony from World Mission staff, immigration lawyers, and other experts in immigration policy.
Meetings began with worship to ground us in the Lord’s work. Because the Immigration Committee workload was relatively light, our final day together consisted only of worship,celebration, and recognition of all who made it possible--from staff who coordinated room technology to meeting planners to Presbyterian Center staff who worked extra hard to keep our environs clean and safe. Through it all, our faithful committee leaders--a moderator, assistant, parliamentarian and transcriptionist--served the Lord faithfully by keeping us on track. (Our vice moderator had a family emergency and could not participate--so extra kudos to our moderator!)
After the fourth and final round of committees, we enjoyed the Independence Day holiday before gathering via Zoom from July 5-9 for plenaries. Each of those meetings began with worship, of course, and later in the morning to accommodate our western colleagues as best as possible.
Between plenary sessions, we sometimes heard reports from entities like Presbyterian Women, the Presbyterian Foundation, and the Board of Pensions. Much of the collective committee work passed on a consent agenda, but many items were pulled from it so that the body could debate, amend and otherwise address them. Only one of the four IOBs (Items of Business) from Immigation was pulled from the consent agenda: whether to declare the PC(USA) a “sanctuary and accompaniment” church. (That declaration was affirmed.)
I have to say that this “hybrid” approach to the GA was executed fairly well, given the technological and logistical challenges. But I am also aware of my own access to tech tools and expertise that made my job easier. All that is to say that while we finished our work with time to spare on Saturday, we could have done much better. Items deserving more debate received little or none, while seemingly inconsequential or low-impact proposals were debated more than they should have been.
And while PC-Biz, the website through which we organize and vote on GA business, largely suffices as a platform, it also has its limitations. Here are two examples:
At the end of the day, things could have been much worse. Given the enormous logistical and technical challenges, the GA staff who prepared for the assembly should be commended for their dedication, inventiveness, and tenacity. As the next GA will also be hybrid (but with committees meeting virtually in advance of in-person plenaries), I pray that we will learn and improve the way we do the work God has called us to do at the General Assembly.
On top of these concerns, this year’s GA was unique in its format. The committees met in person, but not all at once. When those staggered meetings concluded, we all met online for five days of plenary sessions. This had never been done before--would we be able to complete our work without being sidelined by technical mishaps? What’s more, the previous General Assembly, which met at the height of the pandemic, deferred much of its work to this GA. Did we have enough time?
The very first meeting was itself a hybrid. The “Round 1” group of committees met in person while the rest met via Zoom on June 18 to conduct important business like voting to make our online meetings possible and electing our new co-moderators.
Beginning June 27, I served on the Immigration Committee in person in Louisville. About 30 commissioners assigned to Immigration gathered daily at The Presbyterian Center. We were accompanied by three types of advisory delegates: ecumenical, missionary, and young adult. As happened during the later plenary meetings, the advisory delegates voted first in order to advise commissioners as they prepared to vote. But before votes occurred, we learned as much as we could about the particular issue, supplemented by expert testimony from World Mission staff, immigration lawyers, and other experts in immigration policy.
Meetings began with worship to ground us in the Lord’s work. Because the Immigration Committee workload was relatively light, our final day together consisted only of worship,celebration, and recognition of all who made it possible--from staff who coordinated room technology to meeting planners to Presbyterian Center staff who worked extra hard to keep our environs clean and safe. Through it all, our faithful committee leaders--a moderator, assistant, parliamentarian and transcriptionist--served the Lord faithfully by keeping us on track. (Our vice moderator had a family emergency and could not participate--so extra kudos to our moderator!)
After the fourth and final round of committees, we enjoyed the Independence Day holiday before gathering via Zoom from July 5-9 for plenaries. Each of those meetings began with worship, of course, and later in the morning to accommodate our western colleagues as best as possible.
Between plenary sessions, we sometimes heard reports from entities like Presbyterian Women, the Presbyterian Foundation, and the Board of Pensions. Much of the collective committee work passed on a consent agenda, but many items were pulled from it so that the body could debate, amend and otherwise address them. Only one of the four IOBs (Items of Business) from Immigation was pulled from the consent agenda: whether to declare the PC(USA) a “sanctuary and accompaniment” church. (That declaration was affirmed.)
I have to say that this “hybrid” approach to the GA was executed fairly well, given the technological and logistical challenges. But I am also aware of my own access to tech tools and expertise that made my job easier. All that is to say that while we finished our work with time to spare on Saturday, we could have done much better. Items deserving more debate received little or none, while seemingly inconsequential or low-impact proposals were debated more than they should have been.
And while PC-Biz, the website through which we organize and vote on GA business, largely suffices as a platform, it also has its limitations. Here are two examples:
- Finding where in a maze of text we needed to be looking at a given moment of uncertainty or debate proved to be tricky. Something as simple as line numbers might alleviate this issue.
- I heard many people express frustration with the “virtual queue” process of recognizing speakers. Some voices were allowed to speak much more frequently, and those voices were disproportionately white. I understood the need to limit debate when a majority of voices were speaking in favor of the same position, but that seemed to give more airtime than necessary to dissenting voices.
At the end of the day, things could have been much worse. Given the enormous logistical and technical challenges, the GA staff who prepared for the assembly should be commended for their dedication, inventiveness, and tenacity. As the next GA will also be hybrid (but with committees meeting virtually in advance of in-person plenaries), I pray that we will learn and improve the way we do the work God has called us to do at the General Assembly.