Paul K. Hooker

Friday, 9 July

Another interesting day.

We began with a motion to reconsider an action taken late Thursday evening on marriage and civil unions. As I noted in a previous post, the Assembly answered with a study paper a number of proposals to amend the definition of marriage and to give pastoral guidance concerning what ministers are to do in response to requests for same-sex marriages. The motion to reconsider was an effort to reopen that debate and answer each of the items individually. The motion to reconsider failed, however, and the matter of marriage is now closed for this Assembly.

The Mideast Peacemaking Committee reported on the conversations between our Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) and the Caterpillar corporation. At issue is Caterpillar’s manufacture of heavy-duty construction equipment used by the Israeli Defense Force to raze houses of Palestinians and build Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and Caterpillar’s refusal to change its practice of selling its equipment for use in these ways. The Assembly voted to “denounce Caterpillar’s continued profit-making from non-peaceful uses of its products” (418 for the motion, 210 against, and 9 abstaining). The Assembly then declined to divest itself of its slightly more than $10 million in stock and bonds invested in Caterpillar, Inc.

Several of the speakers to the two actions argued that denouncement is a way of articulating our church’s criticism of Caterpillar’s practices while at the same time not breaking relationship with Caterpillar. The hope is to “keep the door open” for additional conversations that might ultimately lead to change in the company’s corporate practice. The sense of the discussion seemed to be that divestment would terminate the conversation and eliminate the possibility of participating in constructive change.

The Assembly also took up the report of the Mid-East Study Commission. The report as it entered the Assembly was widely regarded as bearing a pro-Palestinian bias. The Assembly committee amended the language considerably, broadening the testimony from both Palestinian and Israeli experience, re-emphasizing Israel’s right to security within its own borders. The amended version was approved, by a vote of 558 for the motion, 119 against, and 7 abstaining.