The 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America will be held June 16-19, 2009, in Orlando Florida.  I have made a few comments on the Assembly already, but while I have been reading the tea leaves about the EPC GA, the first overtures have been posted on the PCA GA Overtures page.  So far it seems like the usual collection, some familiar, some new, and some of the “Blood on Every Page” variety.  So, here is what is now reported:

Overture 1 is from Missouri Presbytery and at this time there is no text available yet and just the title “Amend BCO 37-7”  We will await the text to say much more, but for information Chapter 37 in the Book of Church Order (BCO) deals with “The Removal of Censure” and section 7 addresses the removal of censure by the new presbytery or church when an officer under censure has relocated.  Wait and see.

Update 2/19/09:  Overture 1 has now been posted and it seems, to a point, a very reasonable clarification.  The current wording refers to when an officer relocates to another “part of the country” and the overture points out that it implies the same country and second that the person could move geographically outside the PCA jurisdiction.  The request is to replace that phrase with “location.” That helps the first, but I am still trying to figure out if a person moves out of the area of PCA jurisdiction what governing body would be there to receive the documentation, hear the repentance, and provide restoration?

Overture 2 asks for modification of the Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO) regarding the debate on minority reports and is from Potomac Presbytery. (The RAO can be found about 2/3 of the way through the BCO document.)  The RAO was substantially revised a couple of years ago and this overture is part of the tweaking process to help adjust parts which may not have worked quite as well as hoped.  In this case, it is to create a longer time for debate on motions with minority reports.  The RAO sets the time of debate at 10 minutes for a main motion while this overture suggests 60 minutes of debate, extendable in 10 minutes increments by a simple majority, for reports or processed overtures with a substitute motion coming from the committee of commissioners.  It seems that some extension of time is reasonable considering one of the points in the overture is:

Apart from the will of the majority, the current rules allow for only 10 minutes on the main question and three minutes per speaker—thus allowing merely three and a third speakers from among hundreds of commissioners on questions that are typically of great importance.

Overture 3 — In overture 3 we have a “Blood on Every Page” type of overture, one that seeks to change the constitution because of something that did, or in this case more appropriately did not, happen.  This one, while not complex, is so loaded with nuances that maybe I should have split it out into its own analysis.  It comes from Central Carolina Presbytery.

The overture seeks to change the BCO language about when a higher governing body may “Assume Original Jurisdiction” (AOJ) over a particular matter of dispute or complaint.  (Note that this pertains specifically to the matter of dispute.  For the PC(USA) readers to “assume original jurisdiction” usually has the connotation taking over the operation of a lower governing body and replacing the lower body with an administrative commission.)  And specifically, this change refers to cases where the matter is about doctrine or cases of public scandal.

First, this overture wants to remove the condition “if the Presbytery refuses to act.”  The argument is made that this is ambiguous, or at least not precise, language.

As presently worded, AOJ via 34-1 or 33-1 is essentially unachievable since the phrase “refuses to act” is vague – or at least it has been interpreted variously. Does it mean a Presbytery refuses to: (a) discuss the matter, (b) investigate informally, (c) investigate formally, (d) indict, (e) try and convict, (f) censure appropriately, or (g) something else?  Some men plausibly interpret “to act” as “to indict” since the paragraph begins with the noun “Process” and process begins with indictment and appointment of a prosecutor. But that is not how the PCA’s highest court has interpreted the phrase in two cases.

This requirement would be replaced with GA action being postponed until the presbytery has concluded its action or “been afforded reasonable time to do so.”  However, I can envision similar arguments about ambiguity over that phrase as there is over “refuses to act.”

Second, the overture “adjusts the bar” for GA stepping in on a
presbytery matter from two other requesting presbyteries to five.  For
a presbytery to step into a session matter the bar is left at two other
sessions since some presbyteries are fairly small.

For changes to two paragraphs in the BCO, this overture comes with another 5 1/2 pages of rational arguing for the changes.  This argument includes a review of two judicial cases, the recent one in Louisiana Presbytery and an older one in Tennessee Valley Presbytery, where other presbyteries wanted the GA to step in but the Standing Judicial Commission ruled that the presbyteries had in deed acted.

But there is also an interesting part that takes this issue back even further to the PCUS in 1940 when four presbyteries requested an investigation of the teachings of E.T. Thompson at Union Seminary in Richmond and the GA declined stating that jurisdiction over a member rest solely with the presbytery of membership.  Two other legislative cases are cited as well.

And in an interesting argument, the Overture considers the constitutions of other Presbyterian branches, the ARP, EPC, RPCNA, and the PCUSA and notes that in each of these denominations original jurisdiction can be exercised pretty much unilaterally by a higher governing body (such as upon complaint by any party in the PCUSA).  It also notes that the OPC has no provision for AOJ.

It will be interesting to see how this fares in the Assembly and, if approved by GA, then in the presbyteries.  Remember, for the PCA changes to the BCO require a 2/3 approval of presbyteries.

Overture 4 from Heritage Presbytery seeks to formalize the usage of the term “Interim Pastor,” a term that currently does not exist in the BCO.  In the index under Interim Pastors is says “see Stated Supply.”  At the present time the BCO only provides for Stated Supply for a full-fledged temporary pastor, but the overture points out that people refer to them as Interim Pastors anyway.  It is interesting to note that this is just being suggested as an alternate term with no definitional distinction being made between the two terms.  I am curious to see if the Assembly thinks that these two terms refer to different types of temporary pastors.  (Or that may just be a PC(USA) thing.)

Overture 5 from James River Presbytery is another request to “Appoint Study Committee on Role of Women in the Church.”  This is more general than the four overtures related to this last year where two of those were specific to studying the role of deaconesses and the other two had deaconesses in mind as well.  I had one post last spring that referenced all four of those overtures.  I would describe the action taken at last year’s Assembly as saying that there was no need for further GA action at this time, but that the Assembly would be keeping in touch with the presbyteries on this through the review process.  If you want more info from last year you can check out my post after the decision, but be sure to read the comments where my interpretations are corrected by ones closer to the action than I.

We will see if more overtures concerning the role of women are coming, but this one asks for a study committee that would report to the next Assembly and address:

1. What sorts of roles may women fill in the life of the church?
2. What are some models of local church practices that have developed as ways of employing the gifts of women in the lives of their congregations that might be exemplary and encouraging to other local churches?
3. What elements of organization and accountability to ordained leadership can be commended to PCA churches that are consistent with the BCO?
4. What modifications, if any to the BCO might be desirable for achieving the best utilization of the gifts of PCA women in light of the teaching of Scripture?

This overture does not ask for a study of the ordination of women but notes the sufficiency of the current practice.  Whether intended or unintended this study committee, if approved, could open that door.  I could see the Assembly adding another condition that would explicitly keep that door closed if this overture is approved.

Overture 6, another one from Central Carolina Presbytery, is the overture that has circulated already.  It would decouple the BCO Directory for Worship section on marriage from the civil definition of marriage and begin the process to give the marriage section full constitutional authority instead of the advisory authority it has now.  I have a more detailed discussion in my previous comments.

Overture 7 is another detailed, yet brief, overture that a GA Junkie would appreciate but could have a post of its own.  In summary, Southeast Louisiana Presbytery argues that Section 16 of the Manual of the Standing Judicial Commission (found at the end of the BCO PDF) is unconstitutional.  They consider there to be insufficient safeguards on due process and parts of the section to be in direct contradiction to the BCO.  They keep the Overture brief by using a series of short “whereas’s” referencing other documents and precedents, but it also requires the reader to chase down the references to fully appreciate the nature of the complaint.  The overture requests that the the section be declared constitutionally defective and that the Standing Judicial Commission amend the manual.

Overtures 8 and 9 are both from Ascension Presbytery and concern BCO section 13-6 that deals with the transfer of ministers into the PCA from other denominations.  Specifically, overture 8 would adjust that section to make a distinction between ministers transferring from denominations with fraternal relations and those from other denominations.  Those from branches which the PCA has a relationship with would only be required to stand for the same examination as a PCA minister transferring presbyteries.  Those from other denominations would require a more extensive process and examination, up to the same as is required of PCA candidates for ministry if the presbytery deems it necessary.  Overture 9 adds an aditional requirement to 13-6 that men transferring from other denominations state any specific instances that their doctrine differs from the Westminster Standards.  Again, this is also required of candidates.

So, we await the text of overture 1 and I anticipate that there are a few more overtures coming. We will see how all this business develops.  Stay tuned.

Footnote:  My phrase
“Blood on Every Page” comes from the subtitle of a book on Presbyterian polity by William Chapman and embodies the concept that some of what is in our Book of Church Order results from learning through the conflict in the church.  We are after all “Reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God.”