I know this is going to sound horrendously wonky, and may make it sound like I'm against what the GS did, but it seems to me that revisiting R-59 (regarding the study of white privilege in the processes and procedures of GSC) was not parliamentarily cricket. (I'm in FAVOR of the ultimate resolution!)
The problem is -- the Synod had voted, and moved on, to other business. The action having been taken, it was done. If the Synod wanted to reconsider its original action, then someone who had voted on the prevailing side in the original action would have had to move to reconsider, and then that would have had to be voted on prior to a re-vote on (presumably an amended) R-59.
Why does this matter? Because, while 3 people did get up and say they were in favor of the intent of R-59 but opposed for technical reasons, the body really has no way to know why the rest of the house voted as it did. Maybe people had the same reasons. Maybe not. It's just not possible to say.
Again -- I did mention that I am IN FAVOR of what ultimately happened -- but we have to be careful that stuff like this doesn't happen, because once the house speaks, it speaks. There are ways to go backward, but this doesn't seem to me to be one of them.
At least that's my opinion. I'd be more than happy to be corrected by a more able parliamentarian than I.