The Intersection of Decorum and Personality-Driven Critique at the PCA
I have read much from men that I respect about what took place on the floor of General Assembly when our moderator interrupted TE Timothy Brindle and exhorted him to exercise more decorum, to speak in a way that was not personally attacking the coordinator of MNA, and to be more temperate in his comments.
Some have called this action of the moderator into question. Others have defended his action and have said that Timothy violated Robert’s Rules of Order.
I do not personally know our moderator, but I respect him and have benefited from his work over the years. As for Timothy, he is my dear friend and associate pastor at our church (Olive Street Presbyterian Church). He has been and is a true blessing to me and our church, and has shown himself to be a man of impeccable integrity.
I appreciate the difficult job that the moderator had. Though I disagree with his action in this incident, I agree, as others have pointed out, that he was very measured and exercised restraint in his warning to Timothy. Nevertheless, I do not agree with his action, nor do I agree with those claiming that Timothy violated the rules. To review:
1. The item under consideration was “Your committee therefore recommends the assembly elect coordinator Irwyn Ince in order to complete the process put in motion.”
The subject under debate was personally named—Irwyn Ince—and whether he should continue to serve as coordinator was at issue.
How can one speak to that? The moderator tried the best he could to give instruction:
“This item is before the body. This is unusual, but we will follow the normal rules of debate…we will try to move back-and-forth…for or against. To remind you that we want to speak with proper decorum fitting this assembly. This is a matter that deals with a particular coordinator appointment, but I think we can find ways to speak to this that are not personality-driven, though in speaking for or against you may speak to things that you believe lend support or not to this particular recommendation. If it is my judgment that any particular speech is out of hand, I will rule it so, and we trust you brothers, to proceed with the proper Christian decorum as we look at this matter.”
The issue debated was about the person, his performance, and his election, yet, we were not to speak in a way that is personality-driven. Does that mean you can’t address his performance? His character traits that might make him qualified, or disqualified? His beliefs? The implications of his beliefs? Were deliberations to deal solely in abstractions? Was the record of the candidate, including his stated beliefs, out of bounds?
In other discussions, such as whether to form a study committee or whether elders only should serve communion, it’s fairly clear what personality-driven might mean. Robert’s Rules 43 states,
“In debate a member must confine himself to the question before the assembly, and avoid personalities…In referring to another member, he should, as much as possible, avoid using his name, rather referring to him as “the member who spoke last,” or in some other way describing him…It is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.”
In other words, someone rises to speak to an issue. You disagree with that person. You cannot attack that person, or talk about his motives (because we don’t know what a person’s motives are, unless they reveal them), etc. Here’s an example: “What Bob just said is ludicrous, and the only reason he said it is because he is going to personally benefit from a no vote. Don’t listen to Bob. He’s off his rocker!”
Instead, you might say, “Mr. Moderator, I strongly disagree with the statements of the previous speaker. If we vote yes for this item, it will have devastating effects, and it should be understood that the previous speaker will benefit personally from a no vote…”
The difficulty we had was that the matter being discussed was not an issue per se, but a person and his fitness to continue serving as the MNA coordinator. You have to discuss his qualifications for the position, and that means both his performance, and his beliefs.
The context of ordination is analogous, if imperfectly. This is what we do with every candidate who comes before presbytery (where Robert’s Rules also apply). Everything they have said they believe and statements they have made about an issue must be examined and taken into account to assess their qualification and fitness for the position to which they are being called. That is the essence of what we were doing on the floor at GA as it regards the coordinator and his reelection to one of the most important posts in the PCA.
2. Many stood up and spoke about the coordinator’s performance and mismanagement of the agency, which resulted in huge financial losses. Even though these called into question his capability and leadership, none of that was judged as lacking decorum, or lacking temperance, or constituting a personal attack, even though the comments were direct, hard-hitting, and negative about his performance.
Others spoke positively about his performance, and his character. One notable example was TE Sean Michael Lucas. Dr. Lucas’ comments begin at the 1 hour, 48 min mark of the recording of the meeting that day:
“…I can say without equivocation that Irwin, in his leadership, has been instrumental to what we have done in my congregation, fathers and brothers. I would urge us to approve once again Teaching Elder Ince as our coordinator for MNA because he is a transformational leader…He is also, as we know, a humble preacher and a hope-filled pastor. Even just in our meeting today, we have seen his humility and his apology and his willingness to recognize where MNA made mistakes, but he has also led with hope in a denomination that at times might create challenges for some…Finally, I speak as one who’s been yoked together with my friend for well over a decade, and he has been a faithful friend, a faithful friend to help me carry out mission at IPC Memphis, but also as we’ve gone through our own journey of difficulty with my wife’s health he has been a faithful pastor and friend to me for all these reasons as a transformational leader as a humble and hopeful preacher…as a faithful friend as one who’s passionate about church planting, I would encourage the assembly to vote in favor the committee’s recommendation and once again reelect Irwin Ince as our coordinator thank you.”
Wait a minute: I thought this could not be personality-driven? Why didn’t the moderator call that out of order? Because it was germane and relevant to the motion, which was about the person, Irwyn Ince. Indeed, the moderator was right to not call the above comments out of order. You must speak about the person if you are going to make the case about his qualifications to be the coordinator. Dr. Lucas, and others who spoke in favor of the coordinator believed that his moral qualities were exceptional and made him fit for the position, and they said so. Are those who might disagree not permitted to state the opposite provided they do so with evidence? I am not questioning the coordinator’s morality. I have never met him, but he seems to be a likable person, and good man. I can understand why so many like him, and spoke about his moral character. I only use this as an example to highlight what appears to me to be an inconsistency.
3. Timothy’s point was not to highlight the coordinator’s morality, nor his motives, but his beliefs. He began his comments by saying that his concerns had to do with a stance held by the coordinator on affinity groups and evenings for black worshippers. He then quoted James 2:1 which condemns partiality. He then said “if the coordinator of MNA believes he is not safe in space with me because of the color of my skin, this is a denial of…”–this is when the uproar began, but Timothy finished by saying, “…the sanctifying grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Please note, he didn’t talk about motives. He didn’t personally attack the coordinator. He talked about the coordinator’s reasoning and beliefs, and the implications of those beliefs. Those beliefs are well known, as are the coordinator’s comments explicitly promoting partiality in other forums. Moreover, Timothy’s statement was in the form of a hypothetical—an informed one, but a hypothetical nonetheless. “If Ince believes…” This form left room, even invited, rebuttal. The effect of Timothy’s statement was to raise a point of inquiry backed by a paraphrase of the MNA coordinator’s own public and recorded statements.
Robert’s Rules of Order New Revised In Brief helpfully states, “Criticizing an opponent’s reasoning, however, is different from criticizing the opponent personally… you may attack the idea or likely results of the proposal in strong terms, but you must avoid personalities!” In this case, we were discussing the person and whether he should continue to serve as coordinator. His stances and beliefs are fair game—they must be fair game because they have a direct bearing on his fitness to serve and further the mission of the organization he heads.
Timothy didn’t personally attack the coordinator but criticized his views to show how they make him unfit for the office, and the reason he could do that is because the coordinator himself and his qualifications for the office he was being considered for were under discussion.
4. The moderator, according to his right and obligation, interrupted Timothy (and there was also a point of order being called). The moderator stated: “We ask you to speak with decorum and not in a way that is personally attacking. It’s germane to bring up issues relative to this motion, but would ask you to speak in a more temperate way.”
I respectfully disagree with this characterization of Timothy’s speech. I believe that Timothy spoke with decorum and temperance, and that he was not speaking in a way that was personally attacking the coordinator, but was stating what the coordinator believes and the effects of his beliefs. I agree with the moderator that it was germane to bring up issues relative to the motion. And what was the motion about? Irwyn Ince and whether he should be reelected. Are not the coordinator’s ethnocentric views and statements of ethnic partiality germane and relevant to the discussion, since he is being considered for reelection as coordinator of MNA? I believe that they absolutely are.
In conclusion, Timothy did not lack decorum, he did not speak in a way that personally attacked the coordinator, and his comments were not lacking in temperance. Timothy’s statement was within the bounds of Robert’s Rules given the topic under discussion. Though I disagree with how the moderator characterized Timothy’s speech, I respect the moderator and can understand the difficulty he had in making an on-the-spot judgment. I believe he did an outstanding job overall during the assembly. I am thankful that the Lord has used this to shine a light on a serious and toxic issue within the PCA that must, and shall be, addressed going forward. Thanks for taking into consideration this perspective on what transpired.
Image Credit: Unsplash
