Considering 2021 PCA GA Overtures, Part 2

As I resume consideration of the numerous overtures we will handle at the General Assembly in St. Louis, I move to the slightly less controversial matters.

I won’t look at the overtures about presbytery boundaries. I generally approve them.

Overture 38: Commend Human Sexuality Report

This is a positive overture on the part of Calvary Presbytery and I will vote to approve it. In the course of the overture it summarizes each of the 12 statements found in the report. There are a number of important distinctions and assessments in this document.

“We all stand in need of God’s grace for sexual sin and temptation, whether married or not.”

“Moreover, some persons, in rare instances, may possess an objective medical condition in which their anatomical development may be ambiguous or does not match their genetic chromosomal sex. Such persons are also made in the image of God and should live out their biological sex, insofar as it can be known.”

“Without some distinction between (1) the illicit temptations that arise in us due to original sin and (2) the willful giving over to actual sin, Christians will be too discouraged to “make every effort” at growth in godliness and will feel like failures in their necessary efforts to be holy as God is holy.”

“Nevertheless, being honest about our sin struggles is important. … Christians out to acknowledge their sin in an effort to overcome it.”

“Nevertheless, we recognize that some Christians may use the term “gay” in an effort to be more readily understood by non-Christians. The word “gay” is common in our culture, and we do not think it wise for churches to police every use of the term.

“Nevertheless, we do not support the formation of exclusive, contractual marriage-like friendships, nor do we support same-sex romantic behavior or the assumption that certain sensibilities and interests are necessarily aspects of a gay identity. We do not consider same-sex attraction a gift in itself, nor do we think this sin struggle, or any sin struggle, should be celebrated in the church.”

I think this is a positive step forward for us. It is clear but gracious in recognizing particular struggles in need of greater understanding and assistance from the community of faith.

Overture 3: Amend MTW Manual

Heritage Presbytery returns to an older request that has likely been amended. The manual has a “Statement on Valuing Women in MTW” which was distributed to missionaries. Guidelines opened leadership positions to unordained men and women. They want spiritual oversight for ordained serving in MTW and don’t want them subject to unordained persons. It is an agency of the Church. Should it be run like the Church? That is the basic question.

They want women valued but also those who are ordained to not under the authority of unordained persons. They see “an untenable crisis of conscience for both men and women”. Two years ago I argued against the similar overture. I think I understand the concerns of friends in MTW. Let me say that such an agency was not anticipated in the NT (this does not prohibit its existence). It is run by the Church but isn’t a church though it facilitates the planting of churches. I am sympathetic but still not sold on the overture.

Amending Processes for Pastors and Officers

This begins with Overture 5 by Calvary Presbytery. The BCO requires a majority vote for pastors, elders, deacons from those eligible and present at the meeting. The key is the majority of those eligible to vote versus the majority of votes actually cast. Both GA and Robert’s Rules have focused on votes actually cast. In some cases (larger churches) it may be quite difficult to assess the number of members present. Under the BCO if there are some candidate overlooked by a member they are counted as ‘no’. So they want to substitute “votes cast” for “voters present”. This seems quite reasonable to me.

With Overture 31 from Northwest Georgia Presbytery, there is a desire to amend BCO 22 regarding the process from Assistant to Associate Pastor. Currently there is no process spelled out. The default would be 20-2 which includes a search committee which seems inappropriate for a change in call instead of a change of pastors. They want to add a sentence indicating that those who have served for a least a year may be elected to Associate Pastor by the congregation upon the recommendation of the Session w/out a pulpit committee.

This seems quite reasonable and I will vote to approve this. Even though I want to get rid of the Assistant Pastor option.

Overture 6 from Covenant Presbytery wants to amend BCO 24-1 on the question of timing for exams of officer candidates. This is in connection to a SJC case that declared the “sequence in BCO 24-1 is mandatory”. The nomination period is to be followed by the training of all the nominees, and then they are all examined. Nominees, supposedly, are only to be removed after examination. The SJC recommended changes to the BCO to create more flexibility.

How many of us who read this went “Ooops!”

There is a lack of common sense at work in this mandatory order. Not all nominees are qualified and should not have to go through with training when the Session knows they will not approve of the nomination. Training, well done, should also reveal how well the nominee works with the officers. Why would a person who doesn’t play well with others have to continue this process and waste their, and the Session’s time?

This overture seeks to allow Sessions the flexibility to sequence examinations in accordance with their desires and wisdom. It adds “qualified” prior to nominees (which doesn’t seem to help matters). They strike “then” which is the word that creates the sequence.

Overture 18 from Pacific Northwest Presbytery covers the same ground and for the same reasons. The difference between these overtures is that this one only strikes the “then” in 24-1. It then adds a sentence to clarify: “The Session may render a decision on Christian experience at any point in the process, and based on that decision, may judge him ineligible for that election.” This is a more helpful overture in my opinion. I guess the questions of giftedness and chemistry could fall within that. These are the issues for our Session. We are a small congregation. These are the manifestations of Christian experience that we are most concerned with after the biblical qualifications. This would be the preferred of the two overtures.

Amending the Rules of Assembly

In addition to the BCO and Robert’s Rules of Order, the workings of General Assembly are also governed by the Rules of Assembly (RAO). Two overtures seek to amend RAO 15-6.s.2, 3 to adjust the rules concerning Minority Reports. The Overtures Committee is allowed to have minority reports. This is to permit voice at the Assembly to minority opinions.

This is a delicate balance. Voice should be heard and not just in debating the majority recommendation. But debating minority reports can eat up lots of time. One issue becomes how small a minority should be permitted to present their opinion. At the 47th Assembly the size of the Overtures Committee was more than doubled, while the number of dissenters necessary for a minority report remained the same rather than increasing in proportion. This means a much smaller minority can force the Assembly to follow procedure for their minority view.

Overture 9 from Ascension Presbytery focuses on this problem. They foresee additional growth in the number of presbyteries which permits an even larger Committee. They propose fixing the minority report to a percentage of delegates rather than a fixed number of delegates. This does seem to be a better way “to balance the rights of the minority and those of the majority”. This proposal indicates that at least 10% of delegates, at least 1/3 of them must be ruling elders, must sign the minority report for it to be presented to the Assembly. I intend to approve this Overture.

Overture 10, also from Ascension Presbytery focuses on the content of minority reports. Currently there are no requirements on the content of minority reports. Currently the majority does not see the minority report and often does not have sufficient time to prepare a response to the minority report. They recognize that the minority report may actually present a better proposal and the Assembly would be better served if they had the opportunity to present it to the Committee first. As a result they propose adding two new paragraphs to the RAO.

The first would require that a “proposed action or proposed change in the recommendation from the Overtures Committee” be included unless presented to the Committee. The second limits the minority report to arguments actually presented in the Committee deliberations so the representative of the majority isn’t answering previously unheard arguments. I intend to approve this Overture as well.

Technological Issues

Overture 26 from Philadelphia Metro West Presbytery wants to add a new section to BCO 10 to permit the use of telecommunication as the discretion of the body in question: General Assembly, presbyteries and congregations. This would include the meetings of committees, commissions, and agencies. The newest version of Robert’s Rules includes this provision. This may be unnecessary as a result. But it doesn’t hurt to end discussion and debate (since no all of us are experts on RRO and keep up with changes). I agree in theory. Presbyteries that cover lots of geographic territory have been using technology for awhile with committee meetings. Covid has expanded the use of technology to presbytery meetings.

But I can see problems. I just don’t want one person’s technological limitations or problems to nullify a meeting.

The Overture notes that in 2002, the Committee on Constitutional Business prohibited the use of teleconferencing for presbytery meetings based on the language of 13-4 and 14-5. Unless that language is also changed this will probably be rejected by the CCB.

Overture 32 from Central Indiana Presbytery is a request to form a study committee for Biblical Ethics in Digital Media. Their concern arises from the 9th commandment and the WLC 144 & 145. The growth of social media (FB, Twitter and blogs) has brought out the worst in many. Officers in the church (as well as lay people) should be accountable for their words. The overture wants to study how best to apply God’s commands to internet communication and recommend possible BCO changes.

I do see a great need for this. There have been “discernment” blogs run by PCA officers and members that misrepresent actions and views of others. There are times when men treat others horribly online. Our discourse is not always God-honoring. Attempts to self-police have failed. Moderators are often disparaged in other groups. What we are doing isn’t working and we need wisdom to navigate these new waters.

Overture 15 is from the Session of New Covenant PCA in MD to “Disallow Electronic Communications Regarding Voting at the General Assembly.” It refers to RAO 11-2 communications to General Assembly, as does 11-3. This seems irrelevant to the matter at hand. The messages in question are to individuals, not the Assembly. This Overture alleges the existence of a “political director of the National Partnership”. This seems quite inappropriate to me, the making of allegations as the basis for an Overture. If I can talk to my friend sitting next to me, why can’t I use technology to communicate with my friend on the other side of the building? I’m not the part of the National Partnership. Not all communication in the Assembly is for the Assembly. Are we now wanting to silence and censor those who disagree with us or think disagree with us? I do not support this Overture.

Issues of Race

Overture 36 from Chesapeake Presbytery requests a study committee on white supremacy. Yes, racism is a sin. That includes white supremacy (and black supremacy which member of BLM seem to advocate for in its place). Since we have position papers on other issues, they want us to have one on white supremacy in light of the “recent national events reveal both the ripples of, existing tensions between, and deep wounds within” our nation, congregations and families. Perhaps this Overture is mis-named since they mention “how to make progress toward racial reconciliation”.

I know that the media and some politicians want us to see white supremacy as one of our biggest threats. When I see who’s burning down cities, it isn’t them. I don’t think the KKK has much power and aside from some militia groups in the middle of nowhere, I’m just not seeing it. Admittedly, I could be naive and I don’t spend time in dark web chats.

This is controversial since the goals and foundational ideas supporting this overture are not clear (beyond explaining that racism is a sin). Is this arising from embracing CRT and wokeness? Or, to put it another way is this from Social Justice A (biblical justice) or Social Justice B (non-biblical expression of social justice- see the Thaddeus Williams video below)? Which “social scientists” will be rely on? Why only “white supremacy”? Hopefully these are questions that can be addressed more fully at GA.

I recognize that there are racists and there is systemic racism. I am increasingly convinced that CRT, which rejects a biblical world view, by its focus on groups (oppressors and oppressed, colonizers and colonized etc.) at the expense of individuals, with its focus on power and not hatred, and its worldly solutions is not the way for us go. It is anti-gospel, in my opinion. I am not in favor of an overture that would move us toward wokeness. I would be interested in one that seeks gospel solutions to these problems of sin.

There are three overtures on the issue of “Asian Flourishing” in light of the recent rise in attacks on Asians in America (what about the rise in anti-semitism?). The first is Overture 45 from Metro Atlanta. The next, Overture 46 from Metro NY, is nearly identical.

In previous years we addressed racial issues that had direct connection to our denomination (meaning, our churches and forefathers were guilty and complicit in racism in our churches and communities). Are the Korean churches in our denomination experiencing problems within our denomination? I’m sorry, I’m growing weary of what can seem to be virtue signaling. That doesn’t mean this is simply virtue signaling. I struggle with our perceived denominational need to made statements about every controversy. (Did I mention that one of my kids is from China?) I didn’t think we needed to make one on marriage. I thought the Scriptures and our Confessions were clear on that issue and on this issue: favoritism is sin. Hatred in the heart is condemned by Jesus. Acts of violence are sinful. Scripture also tells us to weep with those who weep.

There are some positive recommendations in the overture, such as the pastoral letter, making information known (though I’m not sure how people couldn’t have some general idea about the racism and oppression experienced by Asian in our country). I am divided.

Overture 48 from the Korean Capital Presbytery also wants us to denounce anti-Asian violence. It does hit home with them, and we should weep with them. Is that accomplished with an overture? This overture highlights some of the most egregious events in our national history (the Massacre of Chinese in Los Angeles in 1871, the Chinese Expulsion Act of 1882, and the internment of Japanese Americans during WW II). Perhaps we should just repudiate the listed activities (scapegoating, jokes, slurs and violence), period. They are wrong regardless of who the victims are. The largest public lynching in U.S. history was in New Orleans in 1891 and the victims were Italian. Polish joke books are common. Irish people were enslaved and hated in America. Our objects of hatred and prejudice is not limited to any particular groups (Hispanics have plenty of events they can mention). Those who hate and exhibit prejudice are also not limited to any particular groups. Spike Lee’s profanity-laden montage in the middle of Do the Right Thing exposes the hatred of people of different ethnic groups for other groups. I think we need to go deeper and broader in how we approach this or we will just address the problem de jour.

Too often such events lead to the comparing of grievances which leaves us more estranged from one another. We use them to justify our actions toward other groups of people. It would be a great day if comparing our scars drew us together as it did Hooper and Quint in Jaws. We all know these actions are wrong- we need a way forward. The Law doesn’t give us the way forward, only the gospel does.

Overture 47 from Chesapeake Presbytery concerns a study committee on Critical Race Theory. Many in the PCA have been embracing CRT, and others have been denouncing it as committing the same sins of favoritism and prejudice that lead to our racial problems in the first place. I have relationships in which disagreement on CRT has created walls. It is so hard to talk about this because rejection or acceptance of CRT is met with equal measures of suspicion. At times assumptions are unfairly made which shut down discussion.

I’m not sure a study committee is the right way to go. Perhaps a debate at next year’s GA would be a better route. It could be preceded by a short tutorial on what CRT is by an advocate. Perhaps this takes place in addition to a balanced study committee that summarizes CRT in a way that advocates affirm. Let us learn from the Federal Vision Study Committee that many questioned in terms of content and tone so we don’t make similar mistakes.

This is an issue that isn’t just “out there” but also within our denomination. We need to address it, somehow, so we don’t bite and devour one another. But fairly, accurately.