46th GENERAL ASSEMBLY OVERTURES

1 46th GENERAL ASSEMBLY OVERTURES Preliminary, Personal Assessments by Dr. David F. Coffin, Jr. PLEASE NOTE: For the sake of conscience, a word of explanation about this review: I prepare these materials for myself, as a discipline to help me reflect on the business of the ASSEMBLY beforehand, and also, so that in the press of ASSEMBLY business on the floor, I can quickly reorient myself to the issues. In no sense is this material prepared for the purpose of encouraging a party spirit, or a pre-committed voting bloc. Although these views reflect my current convictions, I am not even sure that I will vote as specified, because I am committed to listening to the debate, and if compelling arguments are set forth contrary to my current views, to change my position in light of our deliberations. I hope that all can agree that such a stance is essential to the functioning of the deliberative ASSEMBLY that biblical Presbyterianism sets forth, as liable to direction both through reasoned, biblical argument and by the immediate work of the Holy Spirit.

2 The only reason I distribute this material is because it has proven helpful to others to stimulate their prayerful reflections in preparation for the debate. You are free to distribute my summary as you will, but only with the above disclaimer attached. I should note: the intelligibility of my terse comments depends upon one having read carefully the overture in question! Find the full text of the OVERTURES at: So too, space limits anything but direct speech, so please forgive a dearth of polite expression in what follows. # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 1 Grant BCO 59, Solemnization of Marriage, Full Constitutional Status On this subject-matter cf. OVERTURES 2, 5, 24 AFFIRMATIVE Combined with Overture 5. See below. NOTE: CCB finds that the proposed amendment is NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution, CH, 281, A. Calvary CCB, OC 2 Amend BCO Chapter 59 and Grant Full Constitutional Authority On this subject-matter cf.

3 OVERTURES 1, 5, 24 ANSWER by reference to the ASSEMBLY s action on OVERTURES 1 and 5. NOTE: CCB finds that the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution, CH, 281, B. Grace CCB, OC 3 Amend BCO 32-19 to Allow Counsel by Any Communing Member in All Levels of Courts AFFIRMATIVE, as amended The Overture identifies a serious defect in the rules with respect to counsel for an accused party, in that under the current rule the accused might well lose his counsel from one court to the next. Further, the current rule, strictly construed, might forbid anyone who is not a member of the SJC to serve as counsel before the Commission. The remedy, however, is too broad, and would likely be disruptive at the Session level. Better would be the following, which would preserve the local character of Session proceedings, but allow a broader pool at the appellate level: .. an accused person may, if he desires it, be represented before the Session by any communing member of the same particular church, or before any other court, by any communing member of that court the Presbyterian Church in America.

4 One serving as counsel shall not be allowed to sit in judgment in a case as might have otherwise been permitted by his membership in the court. A member of the court so employed shall not be allowed to sit in judgment in the case. South Florida CCB, OC # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC NOTE: CCB finds that the proposed amendment is NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution, CH, 281, C. However, consider the note on two ambiguities, p. 282. 4 Amend RAO 9-4 to Require Three REs on Each Ad Interim Committee NEGATIVE The argument of the overture is unpersuasive, in that the problem of ruling elder participation at the ASSEMBLY is hardly a function of committee appointments. In any case, however laudable the intention, such a restriction would unduly limit the range of subject-matter expertise that is at the heart of the work of an ad interim committee. NOTE: CCB finds that the proposed amendment is NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution, CH, 282, D.

5 Calvary CCB, OC 5 Revise BCO 59 On this subject-matter cf. OVERTURES 1, 2, 24 AFFIRMATIVE, as amended The argument of the Overture (found in part in Overture 1 and in part here) remains unpersuasive. Nevertheless, the proposal need not be rejected, so long as it is perfected in order to do no harm. CCB finds the Overture in conflict with the Constitution (as below), but I suppose Calvary intended Overture 5 to be taken with Overture 1, the former providing the perfected text to be sent down, the latter providing the proper enacting clause. Yet there are other problems in all the proposed text options, that would need to be resolved by OC. First, the current language in 59-2 is Christians should marry only in the Lord.. Our Confession has Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord ( ). The OPC directory has Christians are to marry only in the Lord. This simple solution remedies the confusing proposal of Overture 2, who marry to marry (which suggests that the obligation isn t universal), and it remedies the loss of our Confession s only in OVERTURES 5 and 24.

6 Second, the proposal to add only to 59-3 should be dropped, as the simple declarative is sufficient, and the addition could be taken to forbid remarriage after a biblically warranted divorce or the death of a spouse. Third, 59-4 should not be stricken, at least not for the grounds offered, , this section no longer reflects the uniform theological position of our denomination, nor does it accurately reflect our cultural practices in regards to parental involvement in matters of marriage. What evidence is there that this is the case? Fourth, as I believe that 59-5 addresses the issue of arranged marriages ( , parents picking the spouse), none of the proposed replacements for inclinations preserves the point, particularly not Overture 2 s inclinations to remain single . Finally, it strikes me as odd to add but one or two Scripture proofs, and leave the rest without warrant. NOTE: CCB finds that the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution, CH, 282, E.

7 Calvary CCB, OC # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 6 Revise RAO 9 to Require that Recommendations from Ad Interim Committees Be Referred to OC OUT OF ORDER RAO 9-6 can not be changed apart from an antecedent change in BCO (see note below). NOTE: CCB finds that the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution, CH, 282, F. Calvary CCB, OC 7 Reduce ASSEMBLY Registration Fee to $100 for Ruling Elders NEGATIVE The argument of the overture is unpersuasive, in that the problem of ruling elder participation at the ASSEMBLY is hardly a function of the registration fee. A week off from work and the expense of food and lodging is a more likely culprit (if one is considering costs), but it is doubtful that even that is the principle impediment. AC recommends NEGATIVE, CH, p. 307. Calvary AC 8 Revise BCO 34-8 and 37-8 regarding Restoration of a Deposed Minister NEGATIVE Whatever gain is to be had in the consolidation (and I have found that BCO 34-8 serves a valuable purpose for the court to have in mind at that juncture, before folks ever get around to looking to the chapter on restoration), the integration proposed fails to capture what was in the parts.

8 The phrase GENERAL sentient of the Church is not captured in judgement of the courts and is a diminished standard. The loss of great caution strikes one as significant, and the addition of in a local congregation is unduly specific. NOTE: CCB finds that the proposed amendment is NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution, CH, 282, G. Tennessee Valley CCB, OC 9 Amend BCO 9-7 Regarding Assistants to Deacons or Deaconesses and Amend BCO 24-11 by Adding New 24-11 regarding Women Officers NEGATIVE CCB s advice is sound. The congregation has no power to require vows. Further, the seriatim listing of what may not be said suggests completeness, making possible other, perhaps equally objectionable locutions, as legitimate. Finally, the proposed addition 24-11 fails the test of coherence. What is in view in the phrase, the Church as a whole promises ? The invisible church? The visible branch of the church, the PCA, as it now exists, and that including every court (even those that vote against the proposal) and congregation members (who have no vote)?

9 Or worse, perhaps in view is the PCA, as it shall ever after exist? It seems it must be the latter, but under what theory of church government can one expression of that government ever after absolutely bind those that follow? NOTE: CCB finds that the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution, CH, 283, H. Grace CCB, OC 10 Amend BCO 25-11 to Require Thirty-Days Notice to Withdraw from PCA On this subject-matter cf. OVERTURES 12, 17 ANSWER by reference to the ASSEMBLY s action on Overture 17. NOTE: CCB finds that the proposed amendment is NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution, CH, 283, I. There is a dissenting opinion. Evangel CCB, OC # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 11 Amend BCO 8-1 and 8-3 Regarding Qualifications and Roles of Elders On this subject-matter cf. OVERTURES 15, 27 NEGATIVE The proposed change fails to grasp the significance of the sentence in BCO 8-2 that is subject to amendment.

10 That sentence was amended to highlight special place of evangelism and discipleship that had been thought to be lacking in the unamended section. The addition of and demonstrate hospitality suggests that the sentence is simply a listing of activities that might be extended at length, thus diminishing the focus. If this must be added (although it is surely covered in the All those duties.. sentence, it should be as conjunction to They should visit the people at their homes.. NOTE: CCB finds that the proposed amendment is NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution, CH, 283, J. Eastern Pennsylvania CCB, OC 12 Amend BCO 25-11 to Require Thirty-Days Notice for Congregational Meeting to Leave the PCA On this subject-matter cf. OVERTURES 10, 17 ANSWER by reference to the ASSEMBLY s action on Overture 17. NOTE: CCB finds that the proposed amendment is NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution, CH, 283, K.)