Committee 13 – Theological Issues and Institutions voted yesterday on the overtures to change the Heidelberg Catechism. There were three overtures to consider with three different approaches. The committee chose the simplest, but, as far as I can tell, an unconstitutional approach.
Just for reference the Book of Order has this to say about changing the Book of Confessions:
G-18.0200
(2) The approval in writing of two thirds of the presbyteries;
(3) The approval and enactment by the next ensuing General Assembly.
The committee recommendation is that item 13-06 be approved and answer items 13-04 and 13-05. This overture basically says, just make a few specific changes in five of the questions in the Catechism. The others were two versions within the system required by G-18.0200. The Presbyterian News Service article on this is not helpful on this polity nuance.
There was disagreement because 13-06 was approved 33/26/2. The vote to have the other two overtures answered by this one was 40/6/12.
In the adopted recommendation there is no mention of the amendment process, no mention of even sending it to the Presbyteries.
I would love to have been there because I figured that 13-06, being contrary to the Book of Order as I understand it, would be quickly defeated. I would like to hear what discussion the committee had. What advice did they get? What is their reasoning that this is decent and in order?
I’m sure all of this will come out in the committee report to the full Assembly and I can’t wait to hear the polity logic on this one.
This seems to reference where the amendment process is followed and the Presbyteries would need to ratify.
“The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has the right to determine its confessional stance and can consider amendments to The Book of Confessions, guided by “The Assessment of Proposed Amendments to The Book of Confessions” (BOC, xxxi-xxxvi) and following the process outlined in the Book of Order (G-18.0200).”
This is my 4th PC USA GA… not sure what is happening here this time around. Are people are more emboldened or more unaware of consequences?
You’re right. I would hope that the Stated Clerk would remind folks that this is unconstitutional when it hits the floor at plenary.
Well clearly the authors of this catechism endorsed homosexuality!
We’re just trying to catch up to the Reformers’ agenda.
(not)
The ratification/approval process does not have to be specified in the amendment. The BOO provides the process that has to be followed.
That could very well be the case and it will automatically be reframed with enabling language. I’m just used to the usual boiler plate being in the overture from the beginning, such as “Instruct the Stated Clerk to take the appropriate steps…” You could very well be right that under our polity this implicitly contains the required procedure. But read on face value the language is not in there.
We don’t do ‘implicit’ well. R may be correct, but in looking at pc-biz, I too am uncomfortable with the lack of explicitness, given seeing it everywhere else. We shall see, I do suspect it will be a point of discussion on the floor.
I was an observer during the debate in committee … it was pretty intense and close. We can argue polity, but I’m more interested in the issues regarding the Confessions. One question was raised regarding which language we consider normative for the Confessions. I’d argue that we need to keep our translations true to the original language. Someone asked about our Korean and Spanish translations … they didn’t go out to the presbyteries for approval. Isn’t this merely a translation correction? Maybe, maybe not.
The other thing I think about is the role of the confessions. If we believe that they are the Church saying what it believes at given periods of History and in specific contexts … then we have to be true to the original language. Is it right for the entire church to vote on the authenticity of a given translation? That seems to be a scholarly decision more than a governmental decision. But I can see it both ways.
While the issue seemed to be focusing on the homosexuality issue arising from the translation insertion in question #87, I think these other issues are much more important to the role of the Confessions in the church.
No doubt it will be discussed on the floor (with a full minority report). It will be interesting.
So, exactly what is the process for ratification by the presbyteries of the propsed change/delete of G-6.0106b?