I have been watching certain people online criticize pastor Kevin DeYoung for the way he moderated a debate last week at the recent General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America. The body was debating a motion about whether to retain the current leader of Mission to North America (MNA).
At the end of the allotted time for debate, teaching elder Timothy Brindle rose to speak against the motion (watch here). Brindle says that the leader of MNA had supported race-based “affinity” groups in the past, including worship services designed to serve only one racial grouping. Brindle said, “Friends, if the coordinator of MNA believes he’s not safe in space with me because of the color of my skin, this is a denial of the sanctifying grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
At this point, DeYoung interrupted Brindle’s speech and said, “Brother… we ask you to speak with decorum and not in a way that is personally attacking. It is germane to bring up issues relative to this particular motion but would ask you to speak in a more temperate way.”
This brief exchange has led to all kinds of criticism online of the way DeYoung handled his job as moderator. Doug Wilson, for example, posted an entire essay on his website accusing DeYoung of being steered by the “progressive gaze” because of the way he handled this moment. Basically, he accuses DeYoung of using his moderator power unjustly to silence a conservative voice. That’s the gist of it.
Before I say anything else, I want to be clear that I am a Southern Baptist and am not in a position to speak to the merits of what the GA was debating. If anyone is sitting in the cheap seats, it’s me. I am on the outside looking in at this one. I know nothing about the leader of MNA nor of the challenges facing that organization nor of the accusations made against him on the floor. All I know is what I saw in the debate, which anyone can watch below or here.
I also want to stipulate that I totally agree with the point Brindle was making about race-based “affinity” groups and dividing worshipers based on race. Brindle was spot-on to say that such a practice is a violation of the numerous prohibitions on partiality in the Bible (e.g., James 2:9). I couldn’t agree with him more on that point. If the accusation is accurate, the relevant authorities ought to be putting an end to it.
Having said that, the video also shows that Brindle was breaking Robert’s rules of debate in making what is otherwise a crucial point about race-based affinity groups. Robert’s Rules forbids addressing remarks to or against another member of the assembly. “The measure, not the member, is the subject of debate.” Roberts also says that “under no circumstances can [a member] attack or question the motives of another member,” and this is what Brindle was doing when he was interrupted by the moderator. He was speculating on the motives of the leader of MNA.
Robert’s Rules of Order say that the moment such comments are made, the chair must “act immediately and decisively to correct the matter and prevent its repetition” (Robert’s Rules, Section 43, “Refraining from Attacking a Member’s Motives”). As chair, DeYoung’s duty in that moment was to enforce the rules of debate that the General Assembly had agreed to. The chair cannot set aside that duty even when he agrees with the point being made by a particular speaker. Even if the member was correct in the point he was trying to make about the other person’s motives, that kind of address is forbidden by Robert’s Rules.
Ruling elder Scott Robinson gives some additional details that aren’t on the video but that those in the room would have seen and heard. He says that when Brindle made the remark,
Several other commissioners simultaneously stood/shouted to raise a point of order to rule the speech intemperate. Had DeYoung so ordered it, Brindle would have been asked to apologize with possible censure. Instead, DeYoung decided *not* to rule intemperance, but simply to give a warning to Tim [Brindle], which is about the mildest thing that can be done in this situation. DeYoung successfully defused the situation, and allowed the time clock to expire naturally, moving us forward in the conversation while lowering tensions in the room. Those attacking DeYoung are wrong on what happened, why it happened, and have themselves assigned false motive.
I have watched the exchange numerous times, and I’ve also gone back and viewed the entire debate on the motion. I have also reviewed section 43 of Robert’s Rules of Order. I can only conclude that the chair ruled correctly in this case. It is absurd to accuse the chair of being steered by the “progressive gaze.” On the contrary, he was simply enforcing the PCA’s rules of debate.
If a member of the body doesn’t like those rules, then they should move to change them. But accusing the person they elected to enforce them is not a remedy. It’s just wrong.
