[Jtsummers]

You may want to take your issue with the use of the word "procedural" up with the authors of SICP:

> Underlying our approach to this subject is our conviction that “computer science” is not a science and that its significance has little to do with computers. The computer revolution is a revolution in the way we think and in the way we express what we think. The essence of this change is the emergence of what might best be called procedural epistemology—the study of the structure of knowledge from an imperative point of view, as opposed to the more declarative point of view taken by classical mathematical subjects. Mathematics provides a framework for dealing precisely with notions of “what is.” Computation provides a framework for dealing precisely with notions of “how to.” [Emphasis in original]

-- Preface to the First Edition

[zahlman]

That does explain the use of the term. They are reasoning about the systems in terms of what will happen (its procedure), but still describing systems as compositions of parts (as nodes in an AST, effectively) rather than as lists of instructions. And they teach how to analyze problems in order to design systems that way. And, of course, writing the program is inherently a self-directed imperative; you can't simply learn how to write programs and have programs exist as a result — you have to take that initiative.