53rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY OVERTURES Preliminary, Personal Assessments by Dr. David F. Coffin, Jr., Draft 4 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. 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. Should you be interested in some thoughts on the consideration of Overtures, see Appendix I. Finally, I note that I am a member of the Standing Judicial Commission of the General Assembly. According to the requirements of the “Operating Manual of the Standing Judicial Commission” (OMSJC), I am committed to “perform the duties of [my] office with impartiality and shall be diligent to maintain the impartiality of the Commission” (OMSJC 2.10). Thus, I am not permitted to make “any public or private statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of a pending matter or impending matter in any court of the church” (OMSJC 2.5). That notwithstanding, I am permitted to “make public or private statements in the course of [my] duties as a presbyter . . . with respect to biblical teaching, confessional interpretation, the principles of the form of government and discipline. . . .” (OMSJC 2.6). Nothing I have said in this review is intended to intimate, hint, or suggest which party should prevail in any case that might come before me under our current BCO, or under any proposed amendments, should they be adopted. 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 carefully read the overture in question! Find the full text of the overtures at: https://pcaga.org/resources/#overtures/ So too, space limits anything but direct speech, so please forgive a dearth of polite expression in what follows. 1 OVERTURE STATISTICS I. NUMBER OF OVERTURES AND REFERENCES 1 Overture referral from the 52nd General Assembly 89 Overtures submitted to the 53rd General Assembly 83 Overtures referred to OC (#s 1-9, 11-43, 45-61, 63-69, 71-82, 84-86, 89) 75 Overtures referred to CCB for advice (#s 1-3, 5-9, 11-43, 45-49, 51-60, 63-69, 71-75, 77-79, 81, 82, 84-86) 12 Overtures to AC (#s 5, 32, 40, 41, 43, 68, 73, 77, 78, 79, 80, 88) 3 Overtures to CC (#s 32, 68, 83) 9 Overtures to CMD (#s 32, 40, 41, 43, 68, 73, 77, 78, 79) 3 Overtures to CTS (#s 32, 68, 83) 2 Overtures to Genva (#s 32, 68) 16 Overtures to MNA (#s 2, 10, 11, 32, 40, 41, 43, 44, 62, 68, 70, 73, 77, 78, 79, 87) 9 Overtures to MTW (#s 32, 40, 41, 43, 68, 73, 77, 78, 79) 2 Overtures to PCAF (#s 32, 68) 2 Overtures to RH (#s 32, 68) 9 Overtures to RUF (#s 32, 40, 41, 43, 68, 73, 77, 78, 79) 2 Overtures to all 10 C&As (#s 32, 68) II. GENERAL SUBJECT-MATTER DIVISIONS 55 proposing amendment to BCO (#s 1-3, 12-31, 34-39, 42, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54-60, 64, 65, 67-69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 82, 84-86) 20 proposing amendment to RAO (#s 5-9, 11, 32, 33, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 53, 63, 73, 77 79, 81) 5 presbyteries & boundaries (#s 10, 44, 62, 70, 87) 4 declarations (#s 61, 66, 76, 89) 2 erect various ad interim committees (#s reference from 52nd GA, 80) 1 directions to AC (#s 88) 1 calling for a day of prayer and fasting (# 50) 1 calling for prayer of thanksgiving (# 4) 1 one giving directions to CC and CTs concerning faculty (# 83) III. OVERTURE SOURCES 34 Presbyteries, 1 Session and 1 individual submitted Overtures Ascension(1), Calvary (7), Canada West (2), Catawba Valley (2), Central Florida (2), Chesapeake (1), Covenant (2), Eastern Carolina (1), Fellowship (1), Great Lakes (2), Hills and Plains (2), Illiana (1), Korean Northwest(1), Metro Atlanta (1), Mississippi Valley (3), New York State (2), Northern California (2), Northwest Georgia (5), Ohio (2), Pacific (1), Pacific Northwest (7), Philadelphia (1), Pittsburgh (1), Potomac (3), Rocky Mountain (1), Savannah River (3), Session of Grace Covenant Church (1), Siouxlands (1), South Texas (2), Southeast Alabama (2), Southwest Florida (6), Suncoast Florida (1), TE Cody Hooper (1), Tennessee Valley(1), Westminster (17), Wisconsin (1) 2 OVERTURES SUBMITTED TO THE 53rd GA # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 52nd GA 2025-49 NEGATIVE Pacific OC, AC, Erect an Ad Interim Committee on AI In general, to paraphrase a US President, study committees are not the solution, they are the problem. The concerns that occasion their appointment seem to be lagging Northwest CC, CDM, CTS, Geneva, MNA, slightly behind the latest hot topics in the news cycle and tend to reduce the Assembly to a mere interest group clamoring among a crowd of competing voices, rather than MTW, PCAF, RH, RUF uphold its stately position as “the bond of union, peace and correspondence among all its congregations and courts,” a grand agent of the Great Commission. Folks tend to use study committee reports to the neglect of (or to undermine) the Constitution of the PCA. Historically study committees have been proposed as a stealth way to give minority views a greater hearing than they deserve. So too, they are sometimes a means to avoid the difficult labor required to pursue debate and resolution with people, we suppose to be opponents, face to face. Such committees are quite expensive, their work-product is widely varied in value, and if committee members cannot agree, the effect of the conflict between a committee report and a minority report can be divisive. It has not been uncommon in Presbyterian history that the fruit of such labors is either a sentimentalizing collection of platitudes that compromise Scripture teaching, or a hammer-and-tongs majority vs. minority report that divides the Assembly. There are a few legitimate, and Constitutionally safe, grounds for appointing study committees, e.g., when the Assembly has determined that a change in the Constitution is desirable and seeks an able and broadly representative committee to study the best means to that end, to prepare a recommendation, and to prepare a rationale for the church. Such was the case, for example, with the Ad Interim Committee on Judicial Procedures. Rarely such committees may be needed to bring Scripture light to some novel and complex matter that is a threat to the whole body, for example, the Ad Interim Committee on Human Sexuality. In the main, however, the best resources for our folk are not Assembly study committees, but the intellectual and spiritual wealth we have in our ministers, teachers, and scholars through academic institutions, conferences, publications, broadcasts, recordings, journals and magazines. AC recommends AFFIRMATIVE but urges that a funding mechanism is needed, CH, 506. CC recommends NEGATIVE, CH, 1708. CDM recommends AFFIRMATIVE, CH, 705. CTS recommends AFFIRMATIVE, CH, 1829. Foundation recommends NEGATIVE, CH, 2003. Geneva recommends AFFIRMATIVE, CH, 1906. MNA, no advice, CH, 812. MTW recommends answer in the AFFIRMATIVE, CH, 916. RH, no advice, CH, 2102. RUF recommends AFFIRMATIVE, CH, 1006. 3 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 1 Amend BCO 23-1 on Associate/Assistant Pastors Succeeding Senior Pastor AFFIRMATIVE The Rationale provided by Presbytery offers a sound argument for the amendment. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 467, item A. Potomac CCB, OC 2 Amend BCO 5-4 for Consent of Mission Church Members in Calling a Pastor NEGATIVE The provision is seeking unnecessary refinement in circumstances that in the nature of the case are unrefined. I suppose that one member so-received would not be required to give his consent, as the amendment specifies “members”. But if not, why not? The plural implies at least two such members, but if only one consents, what would be the outcome, as there can be no majority. Experience teaches that even the most mature and cordial congregations can struggle with temptations when calling a pastor. Why put that burden on a few, that are hardly a “congregation” in any material sense of the word and make the work of a mission church effort more complicated and liable to failure? If any new members are received the Sunday following the proposed congregational meeting where consent must be granted, “each member so received shall be understood to assent to the call of that minister and to affirm the promises made to the pastor in BCO 21-10” (BCO 5-5.a.). There is no reason flowing from our polity principles why this should not be true for all members until the mission becomes a particular church. So it has been for 53 years. MNA no advice. CH, 812, line 6. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution, in particular, BCO 25. CH, 467, item B. Wisconsin CCB, OC, MNA 3 Amend BCO 32-20 and 32-21 Regarding Dismissing Charges NEGATIVE The proposed amendment identifies some deficiencies in BCO 32-20, but it needs further refinement. Where in process are such decisions to be made? When the indictment is delivered, when the plea is made, at any time during the proceedings? Further, the proposed procedure for dismissal on the ground of memory begs the question. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 468, item C. New York State CCB, OC 4 Docket a Prayer of Thanksgiving for Adult Professions of Faith AFFIRMATIVE A lovely proposal, likely help keep us all heavenly minded, and thus to not lose heart, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. Pacific Northwest OC 4 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 5 Amend RAO 5-1.a that AC Members Elected by GA Must Be from Different Presbyteries REVISED February 2026 AFFIRMATIVE A wise proposal, supported by good reasons, that has already stood the test of time as a provision governing the Standing Judicial Commission. AC makes no recommendation. CH, 507, line 19. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 468, item D. Pacific Northwest CCB, OC, AC 6 Amend RAO 14-9, 15-8, and add 16-7.h to Require 150 Commissioners to Remove from an Omnibus REVISED April 2026 NEGATIVE A premise of the Assembly’s existence is that it is a deliberative body. Taking recommendations in gross should be employed only when it is obvious to all that there is nothing in a recommendation that requires deliberation. Wisely, the Assembly has recognized that even one delegate has the right to call for that deliberation. It adds insult to injury, not only to require 150 commissioners to agree, but that without deliberation! NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 468, item E. Pacific Northwest CCB, OC 7 Amend RAO 16 Regarding RPR’s Reporting on Presbytery Records REVISED April 2026 AFFIRMATIVE This is an outstanding proposal that is desperately needed. RPR does critically important work to enable the GA to uphold our Constitutional Standards. However, that work has been increasingly burdened by the number of presbyteries and the number of Commissioners. If adopted this proposal will go a long way toward supporting and sustaining RPR’s efforts, while reducing tensions, and removing burdensome procedures that have outgrown their usefulness. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 468, item F. Pacific Northwest CCB, OC 8 Amend RAO 8-4.i to Set the Deadline for Floor Nominations 24 Hours Earlier REVISED April 2026 AFFIRMATIVE A simple but effective change in the reporting procedures of the Nominating Committee, grounded in technological advances. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 468, item G. Pacific Northwest CCB, OC 5 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 9 Amend RAO 8-4.i to Highlight Proportionate Representation of Presbyteries by Floor Nominations NEGATIVE The aspiration of proportional representation of Presbyteries on Assembly Committees is a worthy cause but, of the proposal’s two means proposed to that end, one is already being done (identifying the nominee’s presbytery) and the other is vague and unfairly burdens the floor nomination with something not required of other nominees (offering “an explanation of how this nomination contributes to the General Assembly’s goal of proportionate representation of all Presbyteries as set forth in BCO 14-1.9”). NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 468, item H. Hills and Plains CCB, OC 10 Change the Boundaries of Pittsburgh Presbytery and The Ohio Presbytery AFFIRMATIVE, if approved by Committee of Commissioners. MNA recommends answer in the AFFIRMATIVE. CH, 813, item 6. Ohio MNA 11 Amend RAO 4-21.d to Require Assessment Data from MNA NEGATIVE MNA recommends negative CH, 812, line 14. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 469, item I. Ohio CCB, OC, MNA 12 Amend BCO 21-4.a to Allow Alternatives to a Bachelor’s Degree for Ordination NEGATIVE BCO 21-4.a. already provides for exceptions to the stated requirements, allowing the Presbytery to judge the conditions on a case-by-case basis. The proposal would add specific alternatives allowed by rule, but the BCO does not need to be amended every time there is a new educational effort. Further, the various specifications of additional years of work experience appears arbitrary. Wiser to leave the whole matter to the discretion of those nearest at hand. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 469, item J. Chesapeake CCB, OC 6 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 13 Amend BCO 15-2 Regarding Session Commissions NEGATIVE In general, prudence suggests that Sessions should not appoint Commissions. In my 14 years as a Ruling Elder and 36 years as a Teaching Elder I have never served on, nor seen, a commission of a Session. However that may be, the proposed amendment is defective in its wording. If you allow a commission to be made up of 2 members, the quorum proposed would allow one member act as the commission. The Session is a deliberative governing body. A commission is a smaller body acting for the whole for a particular purpose. One person is not a smaller portion of the body nor can he be a deliberative body. The BCO clearly implies this conclusion when it asserts, “ if there is only one ruling elder, he does not constitute a Session, but he should take spiritual oversight of the church . . . and should report to the Presbytery any matter needing the action of a Church court.” (12-1) NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 469, item K. Great Lakes CCB, OC 14 Amend BCO 7-3, 74, 9-2, and 9-7 to Regarding Titles and Offices for Unordained People See also Overtures 36, NEGATIVE PCA polity is clear on the matters in question. The proposed extensive elaboration of things that cannot be done, does not exhaust the possibilities of wrongdoing, which possibilities will likely be searched out, and thus, following this path, another amendment listing errors will be needed. The proper path in this matter is not to encumber the BCO with lists of forbidden words and Southwest Florida CCB, OC actions, but rather to employ personal brotherly engagement and persuasion, and, failing that, to take up judicial proceedings with respect to alleged miscreant(s). NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS UNCLEAR. CH, 469, item L. 15 Amend BCO 42-4 and 43-3 to Clarify the Deadline for Filings AFFIRMATIVE A reasonable proposal. It embodies the virtues of claritas and brevitas, clarifying an import point in judicial process, while eliminating extraneous words! NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 469, item M. Southwest Florida CCB, OC 16 Amend BCO 43 to Clarify Circularizing the Court AFFIRMATIVE A needed adjustment, as demonstrated by the rationale and as confirmed in SJC proceedings. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 469, item N. Southwest Florida CCB, OC 17 Amend BCO 5-2 Regarding the Dissolution of Mission Churches NEGATIVE The addition is unnecessary. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS UNCLEAR. CH, 469-470, item O. Westminster CCB, OC 7 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 18 Amend BCO 5-4 to Allow a Mother Church to Call a Church Planter NEGATIVE The proposal is unnecessary and would make an already complicated matter more so. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS UNCLEAR. CH, 470, item P. Westminster CCB, OC 19 Amend BCO 5-8 to Include Ecclesiastical Government NEGATIVE It is not the case that a mission church enjoys the same status as particular churches in relation to ecclesiastical government. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 470, item Q. Westminster CCB, OC 20 Add to BCO 5 a Section ‘C. Churches Without a Governing Body’ NEGATIVE Overall, the provision proposed is unnecessary. If it were, it does not belong in Chapter 5. And if it were, it encumbers an already complicated circumstance with needless procedures. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 470, item R. Westminster CCB, OC 21 Amend BCO 13-6 to Clarify Exams for Ministers from Another Denomination NEGATIVE The amendment is unnecessary. BCO 13-6.b. specifically refers to examination as required by the trials of BCO 21-4. The only matter that fits examination trials in that provision is BCO 21-4 c. (1). NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 471, item S. Westminster CCB, OC 22 Amend BCO 13-8 to Apply Only to Churches from Outside the PCA NEGATIVE When presbytery boundaries are changed by the General Assembly, churches that may find themselves in a new presbytery are not being “received” by the new presbytery, they have been placed in that presbytery by the authority of the Assembly. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 471, item T. Westminster CCB, OC 23 Restructure and Renumber BCO 14 for Clarity and Ease of Reference NEGATIVE I do not find the chapter as it is unclear or difficult cite; I do not find the proposed changes more clear or easier to cite. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. But it is surely not worth the time, the resources, and the loss of continuity with respect to citations, both in historical documents and in contemporary references, to make this cosmetic change. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 471, item U. Westminster CCB, OC 8 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 24 Amend BCO 15-2 to Clarify that Presbytery Itself Must Conduct Ordination Exams NEGATIVE The sentence in question is perfectly adequate to convey that “Presbyter itself shall conduct the previous examination.” NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS UNCLEAR in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 471, item V. Westminster CCB, OC 25 Restructure and Amend BCO 21-1 through 21-4 for Clarity, Consistency, and Ease of Reference NEGATIVE See comments on Overture 23. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 471, item W. Westminster CCB, OC 26 Amend BCO 26-2 to Only Count Presbyteries Who Submit Votes NEGATIVE BCO 26-2 is sufficient and has served the PCA well. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 471, item X. Westminster CCB, OC 27 Amend BCO 34-1 Regarding GA Assuming Original Jurisdiction NEGATIVE The current provision for assuming original jurisdiction is of dubious standing so far as due process is concerned. The proposed amendment would only make matters worse. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS UNCLEAR. CH, 472, item Y. Westminster CCB, OC 28 Add BCO 41-7 to Provide a Right to Complain when a Presbytery Acts on a Reference NEGATIVE It is in the nature of the case that a Reference changes rights and responsibilities with respect to that case. Attempts to try to overcome that reality will serve to complicate the complaint process considerably. Further, the proposed provision would contradict the standing requirements of BCO 43-1: Church members are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Presbytery. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 472, item Z. Westminster CCB, OC 29 Amend BCO 42 to Clarify Between Verbal and Written Notice of Appeal NEGATIVE The language of BCO 42-4 is adequate. “Notice of appeal” allow for any means of communication: Why restrict it to verbal? Further, in BCO 42-6, to qualify the notice as suspending the judgement for 30 days is superfluous. If the written appeal is not timely filed, there is no appeal to be adjudicated, and thus the judgment of the court stands. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution, although it is said to be incoherent. CH, 472, item AA. Westminster CCB, OC 9 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 30 Amend BCO 46-6 to Require the Recording of the Reception of One Dismissed to Another Presbytery NEGATIVE The second “Whereas” is dubious, and thus the proposal unnecessary. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 472, item AB. Westminster CCB, OC 31 Amend BCO 58-5 to Specify that Ruling Elders Shall Distribute the Elements See also Overture 60 NEGATIVE As the Ad Interim Study Committee for the Directory of Worship is reporting to this Assembly, it would be unwise to propose amendments at this time. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS UNCLEAR. CH, 472, item AC. Westminster CCB, OC Amend RAO 14-3 for the Review of Committee and Agency Standing Rules and Manuals AFFIRMATIVE An excellent proposal of itself, the parallel drawn with CRPR is compelling. AC recommends referring back to Presbytery. CH, 507, line 30. CC recommends NEGATIVE. CH, 1708, line 40. Westminster CCB, OC, AC, CC, CDM, CTS, Geneva, MNA, MTW, PCAF, 32 CDM recommends referring back to Presbytery. CH, 705. CTS recommends referring back to Presbytery. CH, 1829. Foundation recommends referring back to Presbytery. CH, 2004. Geneva recommends referring back to Presbytery. CH, 1906. MNA recommends referring back to Presbytery. CH, 812. MTW recommends referring back to Presbytery. CH, 915. RH recommends referring back to Presbytery. CH, 2102. RUF recommends referring back to Presbytery. CH, 1006. RH, RUF NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS UNCLEAR. CH, 472-473, item AD. 33 Amend RAO 16-7.h Regarding Minority Reports from RPR NEGATIVE The proposed language, “who voted in the minority on the Presbytery as a whole,” is either confusing or mistaken. CRPR reports include multiple recommendations with respect to a presbytery’s records. One might properly have voted in a minority on one recommendation and yet have voted to approve the records of the Presbytery as a whole. This surely would not be disqualifying. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS UNCLEAR. CH, 473, item AE. Westminster CCB, OC 34 Amend BCO 9-2 Regarding the Expectation of the Establishment of a Diaconate NEGATIVE The principles of biblical polity set forth in the BCO clearly require that a congregation have deacons (see Appendix II). The language proposed will not advance that cause, and in its terse phrasing may cause confusion. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 473, item AF. Savannah River CCB, OC 10 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 35 Amend BCO 31-2 to Establish a Deadline for the Issuing of an Indictment NEGATIVE This is a solution looking for a problem. I know of but one case of abuse with respect to issuing an indictment and one instance does not warrant changing the BCO. Further, remedy fatally open ended: What happens if the next prosecutor fails to file in a timely fashion, and so ad infinitum? NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS UNCLEAR in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 473, item AG. Illiana CCB, OC 36 Add BCO 8-11 and 9-8 Regarding the Exercise of the Duties and Authority of Elder and Deacon See also Overtures 14, NEGATIVE PCA polity is clear on the matters in question. The proposed elaboration of things that cannot be done, does not exhaust the possibilities of wrongdoing, which possibilities will likely be searched out, and thus, following this path, another amendment listing errors will be needed. Further, the ambiguity some of the terms used for forbidden behavior will do more harm than good. The proper path in this matter is not to encumber the Catawba Valley CCB, OC BCO with lists of forbidden actions, but rather to employ personal brotherly engagement and persuasion, and, failing that, to take up judicial proceedings with respect to alleged miscreant(s). NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 473-474, item AH. 37 Amend BCO 9-3 to Allow Women to Serve as Ordained Deacons NEGATIVE The burden of proof is on the proposer. The “Whereas” potion of the Overture does not even attempt to make a serious attempt at a Scriptural case for the proposed change (the mere assertion that there is “strong evidence” in Romans 16:1, without any explanation of what that evidence is, is nothing to the point). All that is offered in the proposal’s favor are lists of various denominations, scholars, and theologians who hold the view, which could easily be rebutted by lists of denotations, scholars and theologians who think to the contrary. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS in conflict with Scripture. CH, 474, item AI. Pacific CCB, OC 11 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 38 Amend BCO 7-3 and add 9-8 to Allow Sessions Flexibility Regarding the Diaconate NEGATIVE Though this proposal at least attempts to present a little more of a Scriptural case than Overture 37, it too suffers from dependence upon lists of various denominations, scholars, and theologians who hold the view, which could easily be rebutted by lists of denotations, scholars and theologians who think to the contrary. Much is made of BCO 7-2, “The office of deacon is not one of rule, but rather of service. . . .” However, “rule” in this sentence must be understood as “rule in general” in the church which belongs to the elders. According to Acts 6, the Deacons (note: “pick out from among you seven men”) were appointed to have authority to see to the equitable distribution of the widows. Almost all the duties enumerated in BCO 9-6 require some authoritative judgments in their accomplishment. Thus, in the particular sphere of his ministry the deacon does have authority. It is for this reason the promise in BCO 24-6 requires no modification when the subject is a deacon. “do you promise to yield him all that honor, encouragement and obedience in the Lord to which his office, according to the Word of God and the Constitution of this Church, entitles him?” The deacon is entitled to that obedience that belongs to his sphere of ministry. And it is for this reason that 1Tim. 2:12 governs with respect to the office of deacon as well. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 474-475, item AJ. Metro Atlanta CCB, OC 39 Amend BCO 22 to Affirm the Consent of the Governed for Assistant Pastors NEGATIVE Though I have served as an assistant pastor, I have only the faintest support for the existence of such an office. However, as the assistant pastor clearly does not govern in the sense of Preliminary Principle 6 (the mention of Presbytery and General Assembly is nothing to the point), he need not have the consent of the not-governed to that end. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 475, item AK. Central Florida CCB, OC 40 Amend RAO 4-9 to Set Calendar Year Terms for Stated Clerk and Coordinators NEGATIVE The “Whereas” portion of the Overture sets forth a clear and eloquent statement of a serious problem, but the solution proposed is inadequate. See Overture 43 for a better remedy. AC recommends answer in the NEGATIVE. CH, 507. CDM recommends answer in the NEGATIVE. CH, 706. MNA recommends answer in the AFFIRMATIVE. CH, 812. MTW recommends answer in the NEGATIVE. CH, 915. RUF recommends answer in the NEGATIVE. CH, 1006. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 475, item AL. Savannah River CCB, OC, AC, CDM, MNA, MTW, RUF 12 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 41 Amend RAO 4-9 to Require 2/3 Majority to Elect Stated Clerk and Coordinators NEGATIVE The Overture sets forth a number of virtues belonging to the proposal that are attractive, but I fear that a 2/3 requirement will undermine leadership in these positions by making reelection contingent upon being “manpleasers” (Col. 3:22-24). AC recommends answer in the NEGATIVE. CH, 508. CDM recommends answer in the NEGATIVE. CH, 706. MNA no advice. CH, 812. MTW recommends answer in the NEGATIVE. CH, 915. RUF recommends answer in the NEGATIVE. CH, 1007. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 475, item AM. Savannah River CCB, OC, AC, CDM, MNA, MTW, RUF 42 Restore the Reference to the Westminster Standards at the end of BCO 29-1 AFFIRMATIVE The carefully framed Rationale is well-argued. Unless someone can contest the evidence that the phrase was inadvertently lost, it should be restored by majority vote of this Assembly. NOTE: In the opinion of the CCB, after consultation with the PCA Historical Center, the change proposed by Overture 42 is an editorial correction restoring the language adopted for BCO 29-1. CH, 475, item AN. Northern California CCB, OC 43 Amend RAO 4-9 so that Coordinators of Committees are Elected to 4-year Terms AFFIRMATIVE The Overture addresses a critical problem (see also Ov. 20 for a clear and eloquent statement need) with a remedy that will do much to overcome the weakness of our current state of affairs. AC recommends answer in the AFFIRMATIVE. CH, 508. CDM recommends answer in the NEGATIVE. CH, 706. MNA recommends answer in the AFFIRMATIVE. CH, 812. MTW recommends answer in the AFFIRMATIVE. CH, 916. RUF recommends answer in the AFFIRMATIVE. CH, 1007. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 475, item AO. Pacific Northwest CCB, OC, AC, CDM, MNA, MTW, RUF 44 Divide Covenant Presbytery into Two Presbyteries AFFIRMATIVE, if approved by Committee of Commissioners. MNA recommends answer in the AFFIRMATIVE. CH, 813, item 7. Covenant MNA 13 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 45 Amend RAO 8-4.i to Require that Floor Nominations for Committees and Agencies Come from Previously Submitted Presbytery Nominees See also Overture 47 NEGATIVE There are a number of defects in this proposal, but the most telling is that it would make impossible the nomination from the floor of one who had previously served in the position, but who was not, for whatever reason, nominated by his presbytery. The Assembly should have the freedom to act as it sees fit. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 475, item AP. Covenant CCB, OC 46 Add BCO 29-5 on Public Allegations without Prior Reporting to the Court of Jurisdiction as Probable Violations of the Ninth Commandment NEGATIVE Though having considerable sympathy for the concern raised, BCO 29-1 and LC 144-145 already make such behavior an offence. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 476, item AQ. New York State CCB, OC 47 Amend RAO 8-4.i to Require that Floor Nominations for Committees and Agencies Come from Previously Submitted Presbytery Nominees NEGATIVE See comments on Overture 45. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 476, item AR. Suncoast Florida CCB, OC 48 Amend BCO 7-2 and 7-3 Regarding Commissioning and Titling of Unordained Persons NEGATIVE The resolution does not appear to follow from the “Whereas” portion of the Overture. Cf. Overture 74. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 476, item AS. Northwest Georgia CCB, OC 49 Amend BCO 13-1 and 14-2 to Increase Ruling Elder Representation at Presbytery and GA NEGATIVE I cannot see how adding one more entitlement will increase RE participation when it seems churches are not using the entitlements they now have. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 476, item AT. Northwest Georgia CCB, OC 50 Call for a Day of Fasting and Prayer for Revival and Renewal of the Church AFFIRMATIVE A thoughtful, Scriptural proposal that should be heartly embraced. Mississippi Valley OC 14 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 51 Amend BCO 5 to add a Section on ‘Assisted Churches’ NEGATIVE The proposed addition is thoughtful and well drafted, but I would have supposed that most presbyteries are already doing these things under the responsibilities that are laid out in the BCO as it stands. In any case, this does not appear to fit in a chapter entitled “The Organization of a Particular Church.” There might be a place for something like this around BCO 13-10. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 476-477, item AU. Mississippi Valley CCB, OC 52 Add BCO 7-4 Prohibiting the Creation of Ecclesiastical Offices REFER Refer the Overture to the study committee recommended with respect to Overture 74. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 477, item AV. Mississippi Valley CCB, OC 53 Amend RAO 16 to Prohibit Members of RPR from Participating in GA Debate on the RPR Report AFFIRMATIVE This proposal ought to be adopted for the same reason that the Strategic Planning Committee recommended, and the Assembly approved, it for the new Overtures Committee, to wit, “Proposed change seeks to insure that the non-Overtures commissioners are able to participate fully in debate.” Experience has confirmed the usefulness of the rule to widen deliberation on the floor of the Assembly. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 477, item AW. Great Lakes CCB, OC 54 Amend BCO 42-2 to Clarify that a Person Judged Contumacious has the Right of Complaint Not Appeal NEGATIVE A person censured for contumacy does not have the right to file a complaint because such a person is not a member in good standing (BCO 43-1). NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 477, item AX. Hills and Plains CCB, OC 55 Amend BCO 22-3 and 23-1 Concerning the Tenure of Assistant Pastors NEGATIVE See comments on Overture 39. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 477, item AY. Southwest Florida CCB, OC 15 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 56 Amend BCO 32-19 to Limit Representation in Judicial Process to Officers NEGATIVE The current provision, to expand representation, has just recently been approved by an overwhelming majority of the Presbyteries. It would be imprudent to make so quickly a change to restrict representation, unless there was some compelling Scriptural reason demanding such a change. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 477, item AZ. Southwest Florida CCB, OC 57 Amend BCO 12-7, 13-9, and 25-5 to Explicitly Require Minutes of Congregational Meetings Be Included in Session Records NEGATIVE Presbytery has no jurisdiction over a congregational meeting and thus has no review responsibilities with respect to the minutes. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 748, item BA. South Texas CCB, OC 58 Amend BCO 10-4 to Specify that Clerks Must Be Elders NEGATIVE CF 1.6, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture. . . . Nevertheless, we acknowledge . . . that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” What is the point of the citation here? That which is set down in Scripture, expressly or by implication, is absolute; that which is circumstantial and prudential, should never be made absolute. Apart from mere procedural regulations, in anything that is materially a part of government and worship, the words, “in most cases” or “ordinarily” and the like, should always qualify such regulations. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 748, item BB. Calvary CCB, OC 16 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 59 Amend BCO 38-3.a to Recognize the Non-Punitive Removal of Individuals from Membership Roll NEGATIVE There is no problem here to be solved. A church member does not have the right to have his church membership dissolved immediately. All the church member needs to do is find a new church home and then ask for the dissolution. It is fitting that the session retain jurisdiction until the matter is settled, as there would be no guarantee that the new body would be some other branch of the visible church, or that there would be a new body at all. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 748, item BC. Calvary CCB, OC 60 Amend BCO 58-5 to Specify that Only Men Lawfully Ordained Shall Distribute the Elements NEGATIVE See comments on Overture 31 NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 748, item BD. Calvary CCB, OC 61 Declare the ‘Danvers Statement’ as a Biblically Faithful Declaration NEGATIVE I love the Danvers Statement! So, what’s with the “N”? The Overture confirms my doubts, expressed when we dealt with the “Nashville Statement”. PCA members, like I, can cheerfully endorse such statements, but why impose that on the whole denomination? Neither of these statements add anything to the PCA’s Confessional understanding and witness. But, in the eyes of some of us, there may be things that they doubt, or would have said otherwise. Why impose it upon them? It is not our part of the Church’s calling to hear and endorse statements of other parts or institutions. We have enough to do to care for our own house. Calvary OC 62 Divide Tennessee Valley Presbytery into Two Presbyteries AFFIRMATIVE, if approved by Committee of Commissioners. MNA recommends answer in the AFFIRMATIVE. CH, 813, item 8. Tennessee Valley MNA 63 Amend RAO 19-4 to Establish Preference in Recognition for an Objector to an In Gross Motion AFFIRMATIVE The “Whereas” portion of the Overture ably and convincingly sets forth its case. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 748, item BE. South Texas CCB, OC 17 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 64 Amend BCO 23-2 to Establish Associate Membership for Honorably Retired TEs NEGATIVE Associate membership offers no privilege or benefit that the retired minister doesn’t have simply by regular attendance at worship. On the other hand, the word “provided” in the last sentence appears to make his membership in presbytery contingent up associate membership. Are we really going to defrock a retired minister if he does not agree with the idea of associate membership. The overture nowhere offers a Scriptural warrant for such an imposition. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 478, item BF. Canada West CCB, OC 65 Amend BCO 38-1 re Confessions and Cases without Process NEGATIVE The provision in question already requires the confessor to “come forward,” which clearly implies that his doing so under the weight of his own conscience and not the prompting of a public accusation. The proposed closing paragraph seems to say that the court can properly compel through threat a confession in what appears to be a slightly veiled plea bargain. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 478-479, item BG. Canada West CCB, OC 66 Issue a Declaration of Thanksgiving on the Occasion of the 250th Anniversary of the Nation’s Founding See also Overtures 76, 89 AFFIRMATIVE A thoughtful and well-craft proposal, in the main. I should note that it is unfortunate that the “Therefore" cites Larger Catechism 191, “that the Church may be . . . countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate,” without any explanatory comment. This is misleading. I am confident that the Americans in 1789 meant, "countenanced and maintained” just as any other institution of social well- Philadelphia OC being. That is the only construction of the phrase that fits the changes they made to the Confession of Faith. The naked statement sounds a bit like Establishment, and the American revisionists wanted nothing to do with that hangover from the Old Country. 67 Amend BCO 40-5 to Clarify a Court Shall Make Two Determinations before Citing a Lower Court NEGATIVE The proposed amendment does not provide any substantive improvement over the current language of the BCO and thus there is no reason to undo the well-established history of judicial construction with respect to that provision. Potomac CCB, OC NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 479, item BH. 18 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 68 Amend BCO 14-1 to Make AC Members Appointed by Committees and Agencies Non-voting Members NEGATIVE The alleged potential confusion in “Whereas” 4 is unconvincing, given so many years of experience. Otherwise, the Overture’s argument is “precise” without attention to context. Every representative of permanent committees and agencies has been elected to, and is responsible to, the Assembly. The Administrative Committee deals with matters that are essential to their calling. Thus, the PCA has provided them a full seat at the table in the Committee appointed to deal with those matters. It might be thought that each committee and agency should, by right, present their own budgets to the Assembly. But wisdom suggested, and experience has confirmed, that such matters should be coordinated in one body. But that wisdom would be vitiated should the same be excluded from the actual decision-making process. AC makes no recommendation. CH, 509, line 18. CC recommends NEGATIVE. CH, 1710, line 19. CTS recommends NEGATIVE. CH, 1829, line 45. MNA no advice. CH, 812, line 11. RH recommends NEGATIVE. CH, 2103, line 4. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS UNCLEAR. CH, 479, item BI. Catawba Valley CCB, OC, AC, CC, CDM, CTS, Geneva, MNA, MTW, PCAF, RH, RUF 69 Amend BCO 32-18 and 42-5 to Clarify the Contents of the Record of the Case in Judicial Cases AFFIRMATIVE This is proposal is an outstanding remedy to a serious and debilitating defect in our rules of procedure. The Rationale effectively makes the case. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 479, item BJ. Southwest Florida CCB, OC 70 Expand Korean Northwest Boundaries AFFIRMATIVE, if approved by Committee of Commissioners. MNA recommends answer in the AFFIRMATIVE. CH, 813, item 9. Korean Northwest MNA 71 Amend BCO 5-9.e, 92, and 9-7 to Allow Session to Directly Administer Diaconal Ministry NEGATIVE The principles of biblical polity set forth in the BCO clearly require that a congregation have deacons (see Appendix II). NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 480, item BK. Northern California CCB, OC 72 Add a new BCO 12-8 to Require Recording of Session and Diaconate Members in Session Minutes AFFIRMATIVE Regardless of our current controversies, this is a reasonable requirement for Session record-keeping and for Presbytery oversight (see also Appendix II). NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 480-481, item BL. Ascension CCB, OC 19 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 73 Amend RAO 4-9 to Require 2/3 Majority to Elect Stated Clerk and Coordinators after 3 Consecutive Years of Service NEGATIVE See comment on Overtures 40, 41, 43. AC recommends answer in the NEGATIVE. CH, 509. MNA recommends answer in the NEGATIVE. CH, 812. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 481, item BM. TE Cody Hooper CCB, OC, AC, CDM, MNA, MTW, RUF 74 Add a New Chapter BCO 17A ‘Of Commissioning for Non-Ordained Ministry’ REFER THE MATTER TO A STUDY COMMITTEE Charge to the Committee: to study the matter of commissioning for non-ordained ministry; Scripture warrant; history of use in Reformed church; and, if warranted, prepare an amendment to the BCO to be presented to the Assembly. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 481, item BN. Eastern Carolina CCB, OC 75 Amend BCO 42 to Clarify the Process for Filing an Appeal NEGATIVE See comments on Overture 29. Here is the point: The notice, at the meeting, prevents the court from enacting the judgment. Without that notice, the court may enact the judgment before the written appeal can be filed within the 30-day window. To avoid this, there would need to be a rule that the judgment could not be enacted for 30 days. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 481, item BO. Central Florida CCB, OC 76 Issue a Declaration of Thanksgiving for the USA on the 250th Anniversary of the Nation’s Founding See also Overtures 66, 89 AFFIRMATIVE See Overture 66. Calvary OC 77 Amend RAO 4-9 so that Coordinators and the Stated Clerk are Elected to 4-year Terms REFER See comment on Overtures 40, 41, 43, 73. MNA recommends answer in the AFFIRMATIVE. CH, 812. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 482, item BP. Southeast Alabama CCB, OC, AC, CDM, MNA, MTW, RUF 20 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 78 Amend RAO 4-21 to Authorize Electronic Meetings for GA Committees and Commissions AFFIRMATIVE Grudgingly. The Overture is correct that Robert’s has capitulated on this point, and that the practice has already become customary among us, and thus ought to be regulated according to Robert’s, but, in my judgment, more will be lost than gained in our capacity for true deliberation should our committees and agencies make impersonal meetings the standard way of attempting to transact business as part of the body of Christ. MNA recommends answer in reference to overture 79. CH, 812, line 40. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 482, item BQ. Southeast Alabama CCB, OC, AC, CDM, MNA, MTW, RUF 79 Amend RAO 4-21 to Authorize Electronic Meetings for GA Committees and Commissions AFFIRMATIVE See comments on Overture 78. MNA recommends answer in the AFFIRMATIVE. CH, 813, line 1. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 482, item BR. Calvary CCB, OC, AC, CDM, MNA, MTW, RUF 80 Erect Ad Interim Committee on Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory NEGATIVE See 52nd GA 2025-49, below. A further observation: Overture 80 has taken the opportunity to offer an extensive study of the matter, knowing that it will be necessarily published to the whole Assembly, in the “Whereas” portion of the Overture, so it appears that no further labor is necessary, at least from their point of view. Though I share that point of view, such a proposal strikes me as an abuse of the Overture process. Finally, it strikes me as untoward to use a “Whereas” in an Overture to refer to a brother PCA member that might be construed as an allegation of censurable views (see footnote 8). Calvary OC, AC 81 Amend RAO 1-1 to Require Serving Wine and Grape Juice for the Lord’s Supper at General Assembly AFFIRMATIVE The “Whereas” portion of the Overture soundly makes the case for its adoption. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 482, item BS. Potomac CCB, OC 21 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 82 Amend BCO 12, 13, and 25 to Clarify the Right of the Congregation to Give Consent to those who Exercise Authority Over Them NEGATIVE The Overture misunderstands Preliminary Principle 6 and its role in Presbyterian law since 1789. On this misunderstanding it proposes changes that will severely disable sound government, particularly with respect to BCO 13-9. Time and time again this argument has been put before the General Assembly, and each time it has been soundly repudiated. That wholesome stand should be maintained. In particular, though it is true that the “act for,” “act on” and “act against” language was approved by a General Assembly, when the same was proposed to be put into the BCO it was soundly rejected. Legitimate concerns about property rights, which are clearly protected in the BCO, should not lead us to distort and undermine the Christ-appointed authority structure with respect to church courts that is set forth in historic presbyterian polity: BCO 11-4, “ Every court has the right to resolve questions of doctrine and discipline seriously and reasonably proposed, and in general to maintain truth and righteousness, condemning erroneous opinions and practices which tend to the injury of the peace, purity, or progress of the Church. Although each court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters especially belonging to it, the lower courts are subject to the review and control of the higher courts, in regular gradation. These courts are not separate and independent tribunals, but they have a mutual relation, and every act of jurisdiction is the act of the whole Church performed by it through the appropriate organ.” NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. However, CCB offers a number of arguments against the proposal. CH, 482483, item BT. Rocky Mountain CCB, OC 83 Require Courses on Scripture and Doctrine at Covenant College and Covenant Seminary Be Taught by Ordained Elders NEGATIVE The Overture fails to distinguish academic teaching and ecclesiastical teaching. In the former the teacher has mastered a subject (e.g., the Bible) and conveys information that the hearer takes or leaves as he will. The only accountability is to have learned the material. An atheist could get an A in Bible while remaining an atheist. In the latter the teacher has mastered a subject (e.g., the Bible) and with the authority of Christ conveys information that the hearer is obliged to receive and live by or face church discipline. According to the Scripture a woman may not engage in ecclesiastical teaching, but that it no impediment to a woman engaging in academic teaching. CC recommends __________. CH, ?, item ?. CTS recommends NEGATIVE. CH, 1831, item 9. Northwest Georgia CC, CTS 22 # SUBJECT POSITION PRESB COC 84 Amend BCO 12 and 13 to Require Annual Attestation of Officer’s Views NEGATIVE The Overture would have the PCA adopt an inquisitorial system that is utterly alien to the judicial procedures of the BCO. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 483, item BU. Northwest Georgia CCB, OC 85 Add BCO 44 on Objections NEGATIVE There is no evidence that there is a malady in the current text that is in need of remedy. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 483, item BV. Northwest Georgia CCB, OC 86 Amend BCO 43 to Rename Complaints as Inquiries NEGATIVE There is no warrant for such an extensive change in the Rules of Discipline and the proposed terminology will cloud not clarify the procedure in question. NOTE: CCB reports the proposed amendment IS NOT in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. CH, 483, item BW. Session of Grace Covenant Church CCB, OC 87 Change the Boundaries of Pittsburgh Presbytery and the Ohio Presbytery AFFIRMATIVE, if approved by Committee of Commissioners. MNA recommends affirmative CH, 813, item 6. Pittsburgh MNA 88 Instruct the AC to Format the BCO for Ease of Printing AFFIRMATIVE, if approved by Committee of Commissioners. AC recommends affirmative CH, ?, item ?. Siouxlands AC 89 Issue a Declaration of Thanksgiving for the United States of America on the 250th Anniversary of the Nation’s Founding See also Overtures 66, 76 AFFIRMATIVE See Overture 66 Fellowship OC 23 APPENDIX I Some Thoughts on the Consideration of Overtures1 In considering an Overture before the General Assembly, the Elders of the Church have a high privilege and responsibility, before our Lord, before the Lord’s people, and before a watching world. The calling to uphold the will of the Lord of the Church as revealed in Scripture, to love for the brethren, to reasonable engagement in a collegial spirit, and to seek not the good of a party, but the good of the church, would be hopelessly burdensome but for the promise of our Lord to work in and through our efforts at faithfulness. Over many years of pursuing this calling, I have been guided by a number of principles that I offer for the encouragement of my brothers in this labor. 1. Providence prevails—the Lord orders our business, and though we know not for what particular end, we do know that it comes as a summons to trust, obey, and rejoice, knowing that all is for one’s spiritual and eternal good.2 2. Concerning majority rule—The Presbyterian Church does not hold “the theory that majorities are wise and should rule, but that the Church comes to see together the mind of Christ by counseling together in love. While, from practical necessity, the majority prevails when there is a difference of judgment, this difference of judgment, after deliberation, is simply a failure of men to work out the rule of Christ. And the members of a majority ought to grieve more over the difference of judgment than rejoice over carrying the decision their way.”3 3. Look to the Word of Christ, as delivered in the Scriptures, as the rule for settling all substantial matters; exercise prudence and good sense in all matters merely circumstantial; and have the wisdom to so distinguish. 4. Those who overture the Assembly are “Fathers and Brethren” and should be treated as such with dignity and kindness. 5. Proposals should be considered with a sense of fair play, integrity and charity, putting aside selfishness, pride or party spirit, in order to glorify Christ in His Church and edify His people. 6. The burden of proof is on the proposer: To prevail a proposal must offer evidence and a rationale that is compelling, while displaying the virtues of “brevitas et claritas”. 7. The Book of Church Order is not a detailed collection of rules and regulations covering every circumstance, nor are amendments to the same a means for settling all controversies in the church. The BCO is a document of governmental structures and principles, in all that is necessary rooted in Scripture, while “there are some circumstances concerning the . . . government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” (CF 1.6.) 1 For thoughts on the nature and practice of debate see my “Twenty Principles of Effective argumentation,” https://newhopefairfax.org/resources/ . 2 An adaptation of J.I. Packer, New Geneva Study Bible, p. 957. 3 F.P. Ramsay, An Exposition of the Form of Government and the Rules of Discipline of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (Richmond: The Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1898), p. 92. 24 8. There is a general objection to any proposed change in The Book of Church Order: Any new language will include undiscovered ambiguities that might well have disastrous unintended consequences, consequences that will only appear when the provisions are tested in cases by sharp and contending minds seeking possible meanings to their advantage. Thus, unless the change proposed is clearly necessary, the old language is to be preferred, because it has already been long-tested in cases, and persuasive precedents guide the church as to its meaning. Appendix II DOES THE BCO (AND THUS THE PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL POLITY SET FORTH THEREIN) REQUIRE THAT A CONGREGATION HAVE DEACONS? YES, DEMONSTRABLY Dr. David F. Coffin, Jr. I. CHRIST, THE KING AND HEAD OF THE CHURCH Jesus gives “all offices necessary for the edification of His Church and the perfecting of His saints.” BCO Preface, I.4 Christ has ordained “His system of doctrine, government, discipline and worship, all of which are either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom; and to which things He commands that nothing be added, and that from them naught be taken away.” BCO Preface, I. “The ordinary and perpetual classes of office in the Church are elders and deacons. . . . In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only.” BCO 7-2. “The office of deacon is set forth in the Scriptures as ordinary and perpetual in the Church. . . .” BCO 9-1. “Its [the particular church’s] officers are its teaching and ruling elders and its deacons.” BCO 4-2. “To the office of deacon . . . shall be chosen men. . . .” BCO 9-3. QED: For a minister and/or Session to hold as policy that there shall be no ordained deacon in a congregation is to say that Jesus has not given the diaconate as necessary to the edification of the church and the perfection of His people and is to take away from his commands concerning the church’s ordinary and perpetual officers. II. THE DOCTRINE OF VOCATION “Ordinary vocation to office in the Church is the calling of God by the Spirit, through the inward testimony of a good conscience, the manifest approbation of God’s people, and the concurring judgment of a lawful court of the Church.” BCO 16-1. 4 Emphasis added throughout. 25 “Upon those whom God calls to bear office in His Church He bestows suitable gifts for the discharge of their various duties.” BCO 16-3 “Those who have been called to office in the Church are to be inducted by the ordination of a court.” BCO 17-2. “Ordination is the authoritative admission of one duly called to an office in the Church of God. . . .” BCO 17-3. QED: For a minister and/or Session to hold as policy that there shall be no ordained deacon in a congregation is to deny that God by the Spirit may call a man from that congregation to the office of deacon, or is to deny a man called and gifted of God by the Spirit his right to be elected and ordained to the office and exercise his gifts in the diaconal labor for which they were given. III. THE POWERS OF THE CHURCH “The officers of the Church, by whom all its powers are administered, are according to the Scriptures, teaching and ruling elders and deacons.” BCO 4-1. “This power, as exercised by the people, extends to the choice of those officers whom He has appointed in His Church.” BCO 3-1. QED: For a minister and/or Session to hold as policy that there shall be no ordained deacon in a congregation is to deny the congregation the Christ-appointed administrator of part of the church’s power, and to deny the right of the people to exercise their power in choosing deacons. IV. THE RIGHTS OF MEMBERS SEVERALLY AND THE CONGREGATION AS A WHOLE “At such times as determined by the Session, communicant members of the congregation may submit names to the Session, keeping in mind that each prospective officer should be an active male member who meets the qualifications. . . .” BCO 24-1. “All communing members in good and regular standing . . . are entitled to vote in the election of church officers. . . .” BCO 24-3. “If one-fourth (1/4) of the persons entitled to vote shall at any time request the Session to call a congregational meeting for the purpose of electing additional officers, it shall be the duty of the Session to call such a meeting on the above procedure.” BCO 24-1. “The number of officers to be elected shall be determined by the congregation after hearing the Session’s recommendation.” BCO 24-1. QED: For a minister and/or Session to hold as policy that there shall be no ordained deacon in a congregation is to transgress the rights of communicant members to nominate candidates for the diaconate and to vote on their election if found qualified; and to deny the right of the 26 congregation to require the Session to hold an election for the diaconate, as well as the right of the congregation to set the number of deacons to be elected. V. REASONS WHY A CONGREGATION MIGHT NOT HAVE DEACONS “In a church in which it is impossible for any reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the ruling elders.” BCO 9-2. What reason might make it “impossible”? a. Jesus calls no man to be a deacon (possible, but unlikely). b. No man is found qualified by the Session to be a deacon. c. The Congregation recognizes no man as called of God to be a deacon. But according to the BCO the pastor and/or the Session cannot antecedently decide, as a matter of policy, that there shall be no deacons. This is to violate the rights of Jesus, the rights of men called by Him to the office, and the rights of members severally, and of the congregation as a whole. Further, the required remedy in each case of impossibility is to pray that the Lord would provide what is “necessary for the edification of His Church and the perfecting of His saints,” and to labor diligently to see to it that the means of grace are so employed that men become suitably spiritual, are recognized as such by the people, and thus are nominated, trained, elected and ordained to serve as deacons. 27 1 2 Comments on 83 of the 90 Overtures to the 53rd GA in Louisville -May 18 ver. 3 4 RE Howie Donahoe 704-907-7479 howiedonahoe@gmail.com 83 are referred to OC = 20 RAO, 55 BCO & 8 misc. Titles are paraphrased. 6 Overtures are hyperlinked on their numbers. * Indicates 10 for which CCB found some conflict. 7 7 of 90 overtures are referred only to MNA (10, 44, 62, 70, 87) and one each to AC (88) and CC/CTS (83). 8 "All" (below) indicates referred to 11: AC, CC, CDM, CTS, GBG, MNA, MTW, PCAF, RH, RUF, OC. 9 Below is a summary of what is recommended in this commentary. 16 Y = Affirmative 2025-49, 4-6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 42, 43, 51, 63, 67, 69, 78, 81 (7 BCO, 7 RAO, 2 misc.) 11 10 Am = Yes, if Amended 3, 7, 9, 13, 30, 35, 45, 50, 66, 85 (5 BCO, 3 RAO, 2 misc.) 12 26 N = Negative 1, 11, 20, 26-29, 31, 32, 37, 46*, 49, 54*, 55-59, 64*, 65*, 68, 75, 80, 82, 84, 86 13 11 RB = Refer Back 2*, 17-19, 21-25, 33, 61 14 20 R# = Reference to # 9 diaconal (14, 34*, 36*, 38*, 48, 52, 71*, 72*, 74) +39, 40, 41, 47, 53, 60, 73, 76, 77, 79, 89 Readers should also consider comments of other brothers who prepare commentaries, like Dave Coffin, Steve 16 Tipton, Jim Eggert, and a joint one by David Nelson and Scott Edburg, especially since we each often disagree. 17 Y 2025-49 Pacific NW Appoint Study Committee on Artificial Intelligence All 18 N 1 Potomac BCO 23-1 Assoc/Asst Pastor Succeeding Sr. Pastor OC 19 RB 2 Wisconsin * BCO 5-4 Mission Church Members' Consent for Church Planter MNA, OC Am 3 NY State BCO 32-20 Add Procedural Steps Before Dismissing Charges OC 21 Y 4 Pacific NW prayer Prayer of Thanks for Adult Professions of Faith OC 22 Y 5 Pacific NW RAO 5-1 11 AC Members Must Be from Different Presbyteries AC, OC 23 Y 6 Pacific NW RAO 14-9 10% Vote to Remove Item from Omnibus OC 24 Y 7 Pacific NW RAO 16 RPR Report to GA -Fewer Recommendations OC Y 8 Pacific NW RAO 8-4.i Earlier Deadline for Floor Nominations (24 hrs. earlier) OC 26 Am 9 Hills & Plains RAO 8-4.i Info on Floor Nominations Re "Presbytery Proportionality" OC 27 -10 Ohio MNA Boundaries of Pittsburgh & Ohio Pbys -no churches effected MNA 28 N 11 Ohio RAO 4-21 Require Assessment Data from MNA MNA, OC 29 Y 12 Chesapeake BCO 21-4.a Allow Alternative to B.A. Prerequisite for Ordination OC Am 13 Great Lakes BCO 15-2 Session Commissions OC 31 R37 14 SW Florida BCO 7-3 Restricting Titles for Non-Ordained People OC 32 Y 15 SW Florida BCO 42-4 Clarify Deadline for Filing Complaints and Appeals OC 33 Y 16 SW Florida BCO 43 Clarify "Circularizing" the Court OC 34 RB 17 Westminster BCO 5-2 Dissolution of Mission Churches OC RB 18 Westminster BCO 5-4 Allow Mother Church to Call Church Planter OC 36 RB 19 Westminster * BCO 5-8 Include "Ecclesiastical" Government OC 37 N 20 Westminster * BCO 5 Add Section on Churches Without a Governing Body OC 38 RB 21 Westminster BCO 13-6 Clarify Exam for TEs from Other Denominations OC 39 RB 22 Westminster BCO 13-8 Churches Joining from Outside PCA OC RB 23 Westminster BCO 14 Renumber and Restructure BCO Chapter 14 OC 41 RB 24 Westminster BCO 15-2 Require Full Pby to Conduct Ordination Exam OC 42 RB 25 Westminster BCO 21 Restructure BCO 21-1 through 21-4 OC 43 N 26 Westminster BCO 26-2 Abstaining Pbys Won't Count as NO Votes on BCO amendments OC N Westminster BCO 34-1 GA Assumption of Original Jurisdiction OC N Westminster BCO 41-7 Allow Church Member Complaint in Session-Referenced Matter OC N Westminster BCO 42 Clarify Difference between Oral and Written Notice OC Am Westminster BCO 46-6 Recording TE Dismissed to Another Pby OC N Westminster BCO 58-5 Only TEs & REs Serve Bread & Cups to Multiple Communicants OC N Westminster RAO 14-3 Require Permanent Comm & Agency Board Rules & Manuals All RB Westminster RAO 16-7 RPR Minority Reports OC R37 Savannah Riv * BCO 9-2 Require a Diaconate OC Am Illiana BCO 31-2 Establish Deadline for Issuing Indictments OC R37 Catawba Vly * BCO 8-11 Add Two Paragraphs about Elder & Deacon Duties OC N Pacific * BCO 9-3 Allow Women to be Ordained as Deacons OC R37 Metro ATL * BCO 7-3 Allow Flexibility Re the Diaconate OC R55 Central FL BCO 22 Limit Asst P to 5 yrs; then either Associate or Call Dissolved OC R43 Savannah River RAO 4-9 Jan 1 to Dec 31 Terms for Stated Clerk & Coordinators All R43 Savannah River RAO 4-9 Require 2/3 to Elect Stated Clerk & Coordinators All Y? N. California BCO 29-1 Restore Reference to Westminster Standards at the End OC Y Pacific NW RAO 4-9 4-Year Terms for 4 Coordinators + Stated Clerk (cf. 77) AC, etc., OC -Covenant MNA Divide Covenant into Two Presbyteries (Arkansas) MNA Am Covenant RAO 8-4.i Floor Nominee Only if Pby Submitted to Nom Com first OC N NY State * BCO 29-5 Public Allegations and the 9th Commandment OC R45 Suncoast FL RAO 8-4.i Floor Nominee Only if Pby Submitted to Nom Com first OC R37 NW Georgia BCO 7-2,3 Disallow Commissiong & Titling of Non-Ordained Persons OC N NW Georgia BCO 13-1 Increase a Church's RE Representation at Pby and GA OC Am MS Valley prayer Urge a Day of Fasting and Prayer for Revival and Renewal OC Y MS Valley BCO 5 Add Section on "Assisted Churches" (i.e., lost Session quorum) OC R37 MS Valley BCO 7-4 Prohibit Creation of "Ecclesiastical Offices" OC R7 Great Lakes RAO 16 Prohibit RPR Members from Floor Debate on RPR Report OC N Hills & Plains * BCO 42-2 Give Person Deemed Contumacious the Right to Complain OC N SW Florida BCO 22-3 Tenure of Asst Pastors OC N SW Florida BCO 32-19 Limit Representation in Judicial Process to Officers OC N South Texas BCO 12-7 Require Minutes of Congregational Mtg to be in Session Records OC N Calvary BCO 10-4 Specify Session & Presbytery Clerks Must be Elders OC N Calvary BCO 38-3.a Allow Removal from Membership Roll at Member's Request OC R31 Calvary BCO 58-5 Only Ordained Men May "Distribute/Serve" the Bread and Cups OC RB Calvary statement Declare the Danvers Statement as Biblically Faithful OC -TN Valley MNA Divide Presbytery MNA Y South Texas RAO 19-4.f Commissioner Who Removed from Omnibus to Speak First OC N Canada West * BCO 23-2 Establish Associate Memberships for Honorably Retired TEs OC N Canada West * BCO 38-1 Confessions & Cases without Process OC Am Philadelphia statement Lengthy Thanks on 250th Anniv. of Nation's Founding (cf. 76) OC Y Potomac BCO 40-5 Court Shall Make 2 Determinations Before Citing Lower Court OC N Catawba Valley BCO 14-1 Committees and Agency Appointees Nonvoting AC Members All Y SW Florida BCO 32-18 Clarify Contents of the Record of the Case in Judicial Cases OC 1 - 70 Korean NW MNA Add AK, HI, OR and WA to Presbytery MNA 2 R37 71 N. California * BCO 5-9 + 9.2 & 9-7; Allow Session to Administer Diaconal Ministry OC 3 R37 72 Ascension * BCO 12-8 Require Sessions to Report Elders and Deacons in Minutes OC 4 R43 73 TE Hooper RAO 4-9 2/3 to Elect Coordinators + Stated Clerk after 3 years of Service All R37 74 E. Carolina BCO 17 New Chapter on Commissioning for Non-Ordained Ministry OC 6 N 75 Central FL BCO 42 Clarify Process for Filing an Appeal OC 7 R66 76 Calvary statement Lengthy Thanks on 250th Anniv. of Nation's Founding (cf. 66) OC 8 R43 77 SE Alabama RAO 4-9 Elect Coordinators and Clerk to 4-yr Terms (cf. 43) AC, etc. OC 9 Y 78 SE Alabama RAO 4-21 Authorize Electronic Perm Comm Meetings AC, etc. OC R78 79 Calvary RAO 4-21 Authorize Electronic Perm Comm Meetings (cf. 77) AC, etc. OC 11 N 80 Calvary AIC Erect AIC on Critical Race Theory AC, OC 12 Y 81 Potomac RAO 1-1 Require Wine & Juice at GA Lord's Supper OC 13 N 82 Rocky Mtn BCO 12+ Clarify Right of Congregation to Consent to Leaders OC 14 - 83 NW Georgia policy Doctrine + Scripture Classes Can Only Be Taught by Elders CC, CTS N 84 NW Georgia BCO 12+ Require Annual Attestation of Officer Vows OC 16 Am 85 NW Georgia BCO 44 Add Chapter on Objections OC 17 N 86 Grace Session BCO 43 Rename Complaints as Inquiries OC 18 - 87 Pittsburgh MNA Boundaries of Pittsburgh & Ohio (cf. 10) MNA 19 - 88 Siouxlands AC Format BCO for Ease of Printing AC R66 89 Fellowship statement Lengthy Thanks on 250th Anniv. of Nation's Founding (cf. 66) OC 21 Introductory Thoughts -This commentary recommends answering 12 BCO overtures in the Affirmative (or 22 Affirmative as Amended) and the same for 10 RAO amendments and 4 miscellaneous. And recommends 23 24 answering the other 57 in the Negative, or by Reference to another, or by Referring Back to the Presbytery. For the last 6 years, the Assembly has averaged 33 Overtures referred to the Overtures Committee ("OC"). This year there are at least 83, which is 2.5 times the annual average. The OC simply does not have enough time 26 to debate 83 Overtures. Last year there were 132 men on OC. And it takes a three-fourth's (3/4) majority to "call 27 28 the question" in OC (RAO 15-6.g). Many of this year's 83 overtures will need to be referred back to Presbyteries because there is not enough time to consider them. The OC has about 13 hours for business, beginning work 29 Monday at about 11 am, meeting Monday night, and adjourning at 4:00 pm Tuesday. 31 Granted, RAO 15-3 stipulates the OC can be off the floor during GA business. But it's not fair or prudent to require 130 OC members to be off the floor to consider Overtures that are not critical or have little chance of being 32 approved by 58 presbyteries. It's not reasonable to expect 130 men to debate 83 Overtures in 13.5 hours, many of 33 34 which deal with controversial topics. Such a workload will not ordinarily promote excellence. In addition, the Assembly does not have enough time to debate recommendations on 83 Overtures. And with that number, this year's Assembly could have a historic number of OC Minority Reports ("MR"). It only 36 takes 10% of the OC members to file an MR. And each MR could take 90 minutes of floor time (RAO 15-8.g.) 37 38 With 83 on the OC docket, the potential for several MRs should be concerning to all. And there's only about 16.5 hours of Assembly floor time each year available for business (+ 2.5 hours for the 15-minute programs of 5 Perm 39 Comms and 5 Agency Boards.) So, a single OC minority report could use 9% of the Assembly's total debate time. 41 Hopefully, this GA will be fondly remembered as the "Refer Back" Assembly. It's been a long time since any Assembly has done business on Friday morning. It would be unwise to consider important business on Friday 42 morning when Commissioner attendance will surely have decreased significantly. 43 44 While many of the RAO overtures could save the Assembly time if adopted, there are 55 Overtures proposing BCO changes. It would be unwieldy to send even half of those down to the Presbyteries for their votes. Finally, it's highly doubtful any of the 10 Overtures dealing with titles, diaconates, deacons, deaconesses, 46 etc., would be approved by 58 Presbyteries. For that reason, and some others, this commentary recommends 47 48 answering Pacific 37 in the Negative (which proposes allowing women to be ordained as deacons) and answering the other 9 by Reference to the Answer on Pacific 37. Y 2025-49 Pacific NW AIC Appoint Study Committee on Artificial Intelligence All The 2025 GA deferred this to 2026. The Overture has been referred to each of the 5 Permanent Committees and 5 Agency Boards for their advice, and we'd be wise to consider their advice. I wasn't present at the PNW meeting where this Overture was adopted, but I recently watched a newly released documentary in the titled: "The AI Doc: How I Became an Apocaloptimist." It's both scary and encouraging. We should realize AI is changing so fast, that many studies will be outdated before they're published. Nonetheless, below are links to three of the more recent highly regarded peer reviewed articles. International AI Safety Report 2026 The AI Risk Repository: A Comprehensive Meta-Review The Science and Practice of Proportionality in AI Risk Evaluations N 1 Potomac BCO 23-1 Revise the Rule for Assoc/Asst Pastor Succeeding a Sr. Pastor OC Negative. The current paragraph already provides the most important safeguard, i.e., "Presbytery needs to determine if the dissolution of the pastoral relationship with the senior pastor was brought about in Christian love and good order on the part of the parties concerned." Granted, it could accomplish this without needing an 80% congregational vote, but there have been few instances where the current paragraph hasn't sufficed. RB 2 Wisconsin * BCO 5-4 Mission Church Members' Consent for Church Planter MNA, OC Refer Back. While it's important to consider any advice offered by the MNA Permanent Committee, CCB advises this conflicts with BCO 25, which only applies to particular churches. However, the Overture addresses a potential problem and could be helpful if revised. This Overture addresses the less-likely situation where a Presbytery appoints a Temporary Session for a Mission Church that receives members before Presbytery ever approves the call of a church planter. Or this situation could occur during the period after the first church planter leaves and another planting pastor is called. The Overture's proposed addition is underlined below. 5-4. Pastoral ministry for the mission church may be provided: a. by a minister of the Presbytery called by Presbytery to serve as pastor, or b. by stated, student, or ruling elder supply (BCO 22-5, -6), or c. by a series of qualified preachers approved by the temporary government (BCO 12-5.e). If members of the mission church have been received according to BCO 5-5 at the time the Presbytery calls a minister to serve as pastor for the mission church under BCO 5-4.a, the members must give their consent to the pastor by a majority vote at a congregational meeting held according to BCO 25. This consent must be reported to the Presbytery prior to its calling a minister as pastor. Note, however, that BCO 5-4.b allows the mission church Temporary Session to ask Presbytery to approve a Stated Supply for one year (renewable) without needing congregational approval, and the Overture does not address that. Also, in the proposed change a Presbytery would act to "call" a minister pending congregational approval, rather than vice versa. So, Presbytery might consider amending the last sentence to replace "its calling" with "its installing." Am 3 NY State BCO 32-20, -21 Add Procedural Steps Before Dismissing Charges OC Approve, if amended. The Overture's proposal is shown below. 32-20. The accused or a member of the court may object to the consideration of a charge, for example, if he thinks the passage of time since the alleged offense makes fair adjudication unachievable. The court should shallconsider factors such as the gravity of the alleged offense as well as what degradations of evidence and memory may have occurred in the intervening period along with any other relevant factors. 1 all new BCO 32-21 No charge within an indictment shall be dismissed without a hearing of the 2 court where both parties are able to present arguments for or against dismissal. Statements offered 3 by either party shall be narrowly focused on the reasons for dismissal and not stray into 4 testimony. If the motion to dismiss is on the grounds of the memory of the witnesses, each witness shall be interviewed by the court and a ruling made on their ability to recall the facts in question. 6 An amendment to the last sentence of the proposed new BCO 32-21 would help. The amendment below shows 7 two phrases from the Overture stricken and two new clauses shown underlined in italics. 8 amended Overture 3 -... If the motion to dismiss is on the grounds of the memory of the witnesses, 9 each witness shall be interviewed by the court under oath by both parties and the court, and a ruling made on their ability to recall the facts in question. whether their testimony will be 11 admissible at trial. 12 A weak recollection alone does not ordinarily disqualify a witness, but it often affects the weight that will probably 13 be given to his testimony. In many U.S. criminal cases there might be pre-trial "Competency" hearing regarding 14 the memory of a witness. [There could also be other pretrial hearings: Evidentiary/Admissibility (e.g., motions in limine, hearsay disputes), Suppression (e.g. of certain evidence), Expert Witness Qualification (e.g., scientific 16 credibility, relevance, Daubert hearing), Reliability of Certain Evidence (e.g., coerced statements), and Privilege 17 Hearings (e.g., spousal). In these hearings, the parties can be cross-examined, and the sworn testimony would be 18 entered into the trial record.] 19 Regarding memory and the proposed new BCO 32-21, the defense or prosecution could file a pre-trial motion asking the court to limit or exclude a witness’s testimony. Either party could argue the witness lacks personal 21 knowledge, the memory is too unreliable, prior statements contradict current claims, or the testimony would 22 mislead or confuse the court. 23 But the Overture's proposed sentence has the court directly questioning the memory of the witness and not the 24 prosecutor or defense counsel. It's unclear whether our courts would know enough about the facts in question before the trial -to know the best questions to ask. Not all judges will have been part of the investigative team, 26 even at the Session level. So, it seems the prosecutor and defense counsel (or defendant) should be the ones to 27 question such witnesses pre-trial, under oath, in the presence of the court. And the questioning should be limited 28 to helping the court decide whether the witness or evidence will be admissible. It certainly benefits the parties to 29 know -before the trial -which of their witnesses and pieces of evidence will be admissible. Y 4 Pacific NW --
Prayer of Thanks at GA for Adult Professions of Faith * OC 31 Approve. A reasonable proposal that's valuable and should only take about two minutes of GA floor time. 32 Be it resolved that the 53rd GA offer a prayer of thanks to God during the Assembly in Louisville for 33 the 5,656 adult professions of faith reported in the PCA Statistical Report, which reflects data from 34 the last annual report of the 1,723 churches shown. The data in the Overture was Accessed 8/12/25 from https://presbyteryportal.pcanet.org/Report/StatsReport. On 36 5/18/26, the updated Statistics of the "Last Submitted" church reports showed 1,748 churches whose last reports 37 totaled 5,882 adult professions of faith and 3,327 adult baptisms, but the Overture was not amended to show it. 38 Y 5 Pacific NW RAO 5-1 11 AC Members Must Be from Different Presbyteries -revised AC, OC 39 Approve. The amendment would add a sentence to RAO 5-1.a as shown below. RAO 5-1.a The Administrative Committee of General Assembly (AC) shall consist of twenty 41 (20) members: 42 a. Eleven members in classes elected through the standard nomination and election procedure;. 43 No person may be elected as one of the 11 members of the AC or as an alternate if there is 44 already a member from the same Presbytery; but if a person is elected and changes Presbytery, he may continue to serve his full term. 1 This change would only apply to elections hereafter, and not to any of the current 11 members. The proposed 2 amendment uses the same language as that in the BCO 15-4 (below) regarding the SJC membership. 3 BCO 15-4. "... No person may be elected [to the SJC] if there is already a member of the 4 commission from the same Presbytery; but if a person is elected and changes Presbytery, he may continue to serve his full term. ..." 6 It's reasonable that each of the 24 SJC members must come from different Presbyteries, and it's reasonable to 7 require the same of the 11 AC members. AC is unique amongst the Permanent Committees. 8 In addition, as Overture 9 from Hills & Plains rightly observes, when the GA Nominating Committee's 9 Supplemental Report is published the night before the GA floor elections, it does not mention the presbyteries of the current Committee members. Thus, it's possible a floor nominee might become the second or third member of 11 that Committee from the same Presbytery if he is elected from the floor. Contrast that with the Nominating 12 Committee, which knows every candidate's Presbytery and can easily comply with RAO 14-1.9 regarding 13 "proportional representation of all Presbyteries." But the GA Commissioners do not have that information readily 14 available when they vote on the floor elections. This might help explain how three floor nominees were elected to AC last year, even though AC already had members from the same three Presbyteries. 16 Y 6 Pacific NW RAO 14-9 150 Votes Required to Remove Item from Omnibus -revised OC 17 Approve. The proposed change is shown below. 18 RAO 14-9.d. The Moderator may put to the Assembly in gross all recommendations passed by the 19 committee, unless there is objection from the floor to the inclusion of specific recommendation(s), in which case such recommendation(s) shall be voted upon separately. a request from the floor to 21 remove a recommendation from the omnibus (the "en gross" package). In that case, the Moderator 22 shall put the removal question to the Assembly, without any debate. An item shall be removed from 23 omnibus if 150 commissioners vote in favor of the removal. 24 Our current RAO provision is unreasonable. No single GA commissioner out of 2,000 should be able to demand that a recommendation from a Permanent Committee, Agency Board, RPR, or the Overtures Committee be 26 debated on the floor. At present, this demand can be made even if the recommendation is unanimous from a 27 Permanent Committee and its Committee of Commissioners, or the 60+ member RPR, or 130+ member OC. That 28 defeats the purpose of having GA committees. This is a reasonable change and should help save time. The motion 29 to remove will be non-debatable and the GA Moderator will put the question on removal immediately to the floor. If there are 2,000 voting Commissioners, 150 equates to about 7.5% of that total. 31 If the OC considers the number 150 to be too high, it could amend it to 100 or even 50, which are better than 1. 32 Am 7 Pacific NW RAO 16 RPR Report to GA -Fewer Recommendations -revised OC 33 Approve. Below is the Overture's main part, without showing the conforming amendments (but which are still 34 proposed). After interacting with some long-term RPR members, I plan to propose the following amendment in the Overtures Committee (shown double-underlined in italics below). 36 RAO Article XVI -Review of Presbytery Records 37 16-7. Guidelines for Reporting on Presbytery Records 38 1. The Committee has authority: 39 a. To determine recommend the Assembly approve a Presbytery's minutes as being without any exceptions. 41 b. To determine an exception of form and inform the Presbytery of such. 42 c. To determine an exception of substance and cite ask the Presbytery to respond to the Committee. 43 d. To determine whether a Presbytery's initial response is satisfactory, and if not, cite ask the 44 Presbytery to respond again to the Committee. e. To recommend to the Assembly whether a second Presbytery response be judged satisfactory or 46 unsatisfactory (RAO 16-10.c). 1 f. To recommend to the Assembly whether the provisions of OMSJC 15 should be initiated in a 2 BCO 40-5 matter. 3 g. All the Committee determinations and recommendations above shall be reported to the Assembly, 4 but only the recommendations in (a), (e) and (f) are presented for Assembly action, and Minority Reports from Committee members can only be filed on those recommendations. 6 Here is some rationale. 7 1. A deliberative Assembly with over 2,000 commissioners cannot reasonably consider 500 recommendations 8 contained in a 215-page RPR Report that is posted online 12-days before the Assembly convenes. (ShareFile 9 indicates it was uploaded last year on 6/12/25.) 2 Last year, RPR's Report recommended 410 exception-of-substance citations for 73 Presbyteries, and 90 11 recommendations to find 32 Presbyteries' first responses Unsatisfactory. These 500 recommendations required 12 105 minutes of GA floor time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r345Hdcojo4. 13 3. In addition to the sheer number of recommendations, any can presently be removed from an omnibus motion 14 at the request of a single individual -even if the RPR vote was unanimous. Theoretically, the Chattanooga GA could have had 10 minutes of debate on all 500 RPR recommendations. Last year, the 60+ member RPR 16 committee was unanimous in its overall vote on over 70 Presbyteries. 17 4. This amendment does not decrease RPR authority, nor does it increase it much. The most important issue has 18 been and will remain judging whether a presbytery's second response is Satisfactory. And this would not delay 19 any decision on such. After this change, when RPR asks presbytery to respond to what initially appears to be an exception of substance, it's asking as a committee, and not as the GA. But the presbytery should still respond 21 to the RPR Committee. 22 5. RPR does not need to be a commission of the Assembly. If any presbytery declines to respond to the RPR 23 Committee, it could eventually come before the GA as an RPR recommendation to find the presbytery's second 24 non-response Unsatisfactory, which could then be referred to the SJC. 6. It's important to remember RAO 16-8 stipulates: "Neither the report of the [RPR] committee nor the General 26 Assembly’s approval or disapproval of this report establishes doctrinal precedent." 27 Y 8 Pacific NW RAO 8-4.i Earlier Deadline for Floor Nominations (24 hrs. earlier) -rev. rationale OC 28 Approve. It's a helpful amendment, setting the deadline just a day earlier. Below is the Overture's proposed 29 amendment to the final section of RAO 8-4.i. The deadline for these nominations is the close of the afternoon session of the first full day of the 31 Assembly 4:30 pm on the day the Assembly convenes. The Clerk’s office shall issue a supplement 32 to the Assembly’s Nominating Committee report during the second day’s business sessions before 33 noon the following day. 34 The current RAO deadline for floor nominations is end of business on the 2nd day of GA (normally 4:30 pm Wednesday) and the Nom Comm Supplemental Report with floor nominees is ordinarily uploaded to the GA 36 Sharefile late Wednesday night. Last year, the Committee Nominee v. floor nominee elections commenced early 37 Thursday at 09:30. That's not sufficient time to read competing bios of men in floor elections (60+ bios last year). 38 This Overture proposes the floor nomination deadline simply be backed up one day to 4:30 the day GA convenes 39 (Tuesday), which would allow the Nom Comm Supp Report to be uploaded to Sharefile by Noon on Wednesday, which would give Commissioners at least 20 hours more to review the Supp Report. The Stated Clerk's office has 41 confirmed it can upload the Supp Report by noon on Wednesday with this change. 42 All floor nominations were filed electronically last year, and 60 % of them (23 of 38) were filed before the GA 43 convened, which is what this Overture proposes. The Nom Comm Report is ordinarily uploaded to ShareFile by 44 mid-May (on 5/15 this year) so Commissioners have at least a month to electronically file any floor nomination. Am 9 Hills & Plains RAO 8-4.i Info on Floor Nominations Re "Presbytery Proportionality" OC 46 Approve, if amended. The goal is helpful, but the proposed mechanism should be amended. Underlined below 47 is what's proposed by the Overture, followed by a different solution to the problem. 7 1 RAO 8-4.i. Additional nominations may be submitted either (1) in writing or (2) electronically, in 2 either case on forms supplied by the Stated Clerk, which shall include consent of the nominee to 3 serve, if elected, and a brief statement regarding the nominee., and information regarding the 4 nominee’s Presbytery and an explanation of how this nomination contributes to the General Assembly’s goal of proportionate representation of all Presbyteries as set forth in BCO 14-1.9. 6 In its place, perhaps the Louisville OC and GA -by simple majority -could adopt instructions for the GA Nom 7 Comm to accomplish this in its annual Supp Report hereafter. The Overture could be amended without needing 8 any change to the RAO. Just ask GA to adopt instructions to its Nominating Committee like the following: 9 Amendment = The GA directs the Nominating Committee to note, in its 2027 Supplemental Report and thereafter, if a floor nominee's Presbytery already has a member or members on the 11 same Permanent Committee or Special Committee and if so, how many. 12 Instead of requiring the information to be on the Form submitted by the person making the floor nomination, the 13 information should be determined by the Nom Comm and included in its Supp Report to GA. Only the Nom 14 Comm members see the completed floor nomination forms, but all GA Commissioners see the Supp Report. If there are already members of a Permanent Committee or Special Committee from the same Presbytery as the floor 16 nominee, the Supp Report could footnote his name and indicate how many other members of his Presbytery are 17 already on that Committee (or some annotation like that). 18 BCO 14-9.1 says: "The Assembly's committees are to include proportionate representation of all presbyteries, 19 wherever possible." BCO 14-9.1 does not to refer to the five Agency Boards, which have a total of 84 members. AC, CDM, MNA, MTW, RUF, CCB, IRC, and TEC have a total of 107 members (91 primary and 16 alternates). 21 Those 107 slots divided by 87 Presbyteries equals 1.2 slots per Presbytery. 22 However, proportional representation should be more than just simple division. For example, the 2024 online 23 PCA Statistics show the churches of one Presbytery reported 10,692 communing members and another Presbytery 24 reported 236. One might argue that a Presbytery with 10,692 communing members should have 45 times the number of men on Committees as a Presbytery with 236. Assembly Committees are neither like the US Senate 26 (two senators per state) nor like the US House, where California has 40 seats while AK, DE, ND, SD, VT, and 27 WY each have one. 28 In addition, the phrase "wherever possible" should not be interpreted rigidly. If a man is nominated by a Presbytery 29 that already has a man on one of the Permanent Committees or Special Committees, it would not serve the PCA well to nominate a far less qualified man just because he is from a Presbytery that has no members on any of those 31 Committees. But it would certainly be "possible" to do so. BCO 14-9.1 should be understood as expecting 32 discretion and judgment to be applied by the Nom Comm and GA. 33 -10 Ohio MNA Boundaries of Pittsburgh & Ohio Pbys -no churches effected MNA 34 Not referred to OC. No existing churches are involved; just counties. N 11 Ohio RAO 4-21.d Require Assessment Data from MNA MNA, OC 36 Disapprove, unless MNA Permanent Committee recommends otherwise. The three Whereas clauses don't 37 demonstrate why this is needed. For example, one rationale clause says: "It is impossible for commissioners to 38 provide sufficient oversight without sufficient information and data." But that's one reason we elect men to 5 39 year terms on the 15-member MNA Permanent Committee and elect its Coordinator. Let them manage this. In 2027 when the new MNA Coordinator is elected, if he thinks this is prudent, he can implement it as he and the 41 MNA Committee deem best. 42 Y 12 Chesapeake BCO 21-4.a Allow Alternative to B.A. Prerequisite for Ordination 43 Approve. It seems wise and prudent to explicitly allow a Presbytery to consider accepting different educational 44 and experience-based avenues -other than a standard undergrad degree -for ordination requirements. Below is what's proposed. 1 BCO 21-4.a. An intern applying for ordination shall be required to present: 2 (1) a diploma of Bachelor or Master from some approved college or university, 3 (2) a diploma of Associate from some approved college or university together with credible 4 evidence of not less than three (3) years of full-time vocational work experience, demonstrating maturity, leadership, and communication skills relevant to gospel ministry, or 6 (3) a General Education Diploma together with credible evidence of not less than (10) ten years of 7 full-time vocational work experience, demonstrating maturity, leadership, and communication 8 skills relevant to gospel ministry; 9 and also a diploma of Bachelor or Master from some approved theological seminary or authentic testimonials of having complete a regular course to theological studies, or a certificate of 11 completion of and endorsement from a theological study program approved by the GA and one of 12 the Presbyteries of the PCA. ... 13 The BCO already allows alternatives for post-undergrad educational avenues, so it's reasonable to do the 14 same with undergrad avenues. Am 13 Great Lakes BCO 15-2 Session Commissions OC 16 Approve, if amended. It's reasonable to allow some Session commissions to have only RE members. But it would 17 be prudent to amend Overture 13 to bump the quorum to three REs for judicial matters, rather than the two 18 proposed in the Overture, because an odd number would be better for any Session trial commission. 19 R37 14 SW Florida BCO 7-3 Restricting Titles for Non-Ordained People OC This is the first of 10 Overtures seeking to change things regarding titles, deacons, deaconesses, diaconates, mercy 21 ministry, commissioning, etc. It's highly unlikely any can get approval from 58 Presbyteries. This commentary 22 suggests the OC recommend GA answer Pacific 37 in the Negative and answer the other 9 by Reference to Pacific 23 37 -including SWFL 14. CCB advises 6 of the 10 have some kind of constitutional conflict (noted by *). 24 14 SW Florida 14 BCO 7-3 Restricting Titles for Non-Ordained People 34 * Savannah River BCO 9-2 Require a Diaconate 26 36 * Catawba Valley BCO 8-11 Add Two Paragraphs about Elder & Deacon Duties 27 37 * Pacific BCO 9-3 Allow Women to be Ordained as Deacons 28 38 * Metro ATL BCO 7-3 Allow Flexibility Re the Diaconate 29 48 NW Georgia BCO 7-2,3 Disallow Commissiong & Titling of Unordained Persons 52 Mississippi Valley BCO 7-4 Prohibiting Creation of Ecclesiastical Offices 31 71 * N. California BCO 5-9 9.2 & 9-7; Allow Session to Administer Diaconal Ministry 32 72 * Ascension BCO 12-8 Require Noting Elders and Deacons in Session Minutes 33 74 E. Carolina BCO 17 add New Chapter on Commissioning Non-Ordained People 34 If the OC does not recommend answering Overture 14 by Reference to the Answer on Pacific 37, then 14 should be answered in the Negative. The Overture goes too far. The only restricted titles should be the ones used in the 36 BCO for ordained officers. For example, it says: “No churches may … designate any unordained individuals into 37 any ecclesiastical roles …” But the phrase “ecclesiastical roles” is undefined. Does it mean "roles that may only 38 have ordained men"? Or should a church “treasurer” also be considered as holding an ecclesiastical role? Director 39 of Church Ministries? If not, why not? Below are some points to consider. 41 1. In 2017, the GA Study Committee on "Women Serving in the Ministry of the Church" reported several 42 recommendations. Shown below are Recommendations 2, 6, and 7, which were among those adopted by the 43 45th GA in Greensboro, followed by the Committee's Rationale. (Drs. Ligon Duncan and. Harry Reeder were 44 among the Committee's 7 voting members and are recorded as voting for the Committee's Recommendations.) Rec 2: That sessions, presbyteries, and the General Assembly recognize that, from the founding of the 46 PCA, there has been a variety of views and practices regarding the ways in which women may serve the Lord and the church within scriptural and constitutional parameters, without ordination, and that such mutual respect for said views and practices continues. Rec 6: BCO 9-7 says: “It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need. These assistants to the deacons are not officers of the church (BCO 7-2) and, as such, are not subjects for ordination (BCO 17).” Thus, for the well-being of the church, the committee recommends that sessions and presbyteries select and appoint godly women and men of the congregation to assist the ordained diaconate. Committee's Rationale: BCO 9-7 presently provides for sessions to recognize the unordained women laboring in diaconal work alongside ordained deacons. These women have been given a variety of names, job descriptions, and roles (within the parameters of Scripture and the confession), and thus, it is appropriate for sessions to establish the role of unordained deaconess to assist the deacons in their labors. A way to recognize these women, following training and testing, is through commissioning. Commissioning is a general term, used for occasions when people are set apart for a particular task, usually accompanied by public prayer. Rec 7: That presbyteries and the General Assembly consider an overture that would establish formally the right of sessions, presbyteries, and the General Assembly to establish the position of commissioned church worker within the PCA for qualified and gifted unordained men and women. (emphasis added) Part of the Committee's Rationale: The minutes of the PCA’s First General Assembly in 1973 record the commissioning of six missionaries, three men and three women. The minutes record: The following new National Presbyterian Church missionaries were presented and commissioned in a service in which Ruling Elder Gerald Sovereign led in prayer, Ruling Elder Roger DeHaven read Scripture, and Teaching Elder Will McIlwaine pronounced the benediction: Mr. and Mrs. [Marie] John Lynch, Rev. Cecilio Woody Lajara, Dr. and Mrs. [Rebecca] Peter Jones, and Miss Ellen [Sue] Barnett (M1GA, 1973, item 1-56, p. 37). Note that the term “commissioned” is used. Messrs. Lajara and Jones were already ordained teaching elders. The minutes do not reflect whether Mr. Lynch was unordained, or if he were an ordained ruling elder or deacon. Mrs. Lynch, Mrs. Jones, and Miss Barnett were not ordained. The General Assembly publicly commissioned all six people as missionaries, those who were ordained along with those who were not ordained. 2. In 1982 when the RPCES joined the PCA, that denomination routinely used the title “deaconess” and those RP churches were received being allowed to retain that practice. Some RPCES churches even had ordained women deacons, and they were not forced to resign. The PCA allowed those ordained RP women deacons to continue serving but naturally attrit over time. See history here or at link below. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AjQngDROBa57bGNaxRFPfBd5cUeXC_QV/view?usp=sharing 3. The PCA has historically affirmed fraternal relations with denominations that ordain women deacons (RPCNA and ARP). However, our relationship with the CRC was treated differently. In 1995, the CRC Synod voted to permit women to hold the offices of minister and elder. That same year the 23rd GA in Dallas adopted a recommendation from its Interchurch Relations Committee and "instructed the IRC to use all due process afforded to them to remove the CRC from membership in NAPARC, if the CRC does not repent of and rescind the action of the 1995 Synod at the 1996 Synod." (M23GA, p. 167) At the NAPARC meeting in Pittsburgh on November 19-20, 1996, the PCA's IRC delegation moved "that NAPARC initiate the process to suspend the CRCNA from its membership.” (M25GA, p. 382) Seven months later, in June 1997 the Colorado Springs GA voted to suspend and then terminate fraternal relations, concluding that CRC’s action represented a departure from what the PCA understood to be biblical and confessional teaching on church office. We did not do the same for ARP or RPCNA. 1 The fact that we had such a different approach toward women elders vs. women deacons seems to imply we 2 saw a categorical difference between the two. RPCNA has allowed ordained women deacons for the last 138 3 years (since 1888). And the ARP has allowed the same for the last 57 years, since 1969. to allow women 4 deacons to be ordained. But there does not appear to have been any effort to downsize our fraternal relations with RPCNA or ARP or put any pressure on NAPARC regarding their memberships. 6 4. While not advocating for the ARP decision, below is an excerpt from the ARP's 20-year old paper: "Women in 7 the Life of the Church: A Position Paper Approved by the General Synod of the Associate Reformed 8 Presbyterian Church June 2005." Link 9 "Women in the Diaconate—As noted above, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in 1969 allowed the Session of each congregation to decide whether to allow women to stand for election to the 11 Diaconate. To be sure, there is some diversity of opinion (rooted in different exegetical conclusions 12 regarding particular texts and in somewhat differing theologies of office and ministry) within the church 13 on this matter, but we believe that both positions can be advocated in a manner that honors and affirms 14 the full authority of Scripture and the confessional standards of the church. Given the fact and character of this diversity of opinion, we believe that the current policy is one which promotes the peace and 16 purity of the church, and that it should be continued. We also believe that the biblical distinction between 17 the offices of elder and deacon, as affirmed by our Form of Government, should be recognized and 18 preserved." (p. 16 of 17) 19 Y 15 SW Florida BCO 42-4 & 43-3 Clarify Deadline for Filing Complaints & Appeals OC 21 Approve. This proposal helps avoid a semantical problem recently encountered in an SJC judicial case. The 22 proposal is below, which adds only one word: 23 BCO 42-4. Notice of appeal may be given the court before its adjournment. Written notice of appeal, 24 with supporting reasons, shall be filed by the appellant with both the clerk of the lower court and the clerk of the higher court, within thirty (30) days of written notification of the last court’s decision. 26 Y 16 SW Florida BCO 43 Clarify "Circularizing" the Court OC 27 Approve. It proposes moving the last sentence of BCO 43-2 to the end of the very next section, BCO 43-3 instead: 28 "No attempt should be made to circularize the court to which complaint is being made by either party." 29 Rationale makes it clear that the sentence belongs more appropriately in the second section of BCO 43. As the Overture explains, it's helpful rather than harmful to allow arguments to be circulated when the original court 31 hears a complaint. Such a complaint is essentially just a motion or request to the original court to rescind or amend 32 something previously adopted. Circularization should only be prohibited if the complaint goes to the higher court. 33 RB 17 Westminster BCO 5-2.c Dissolution of Mission Churches OC 34 Refer Back or Disapprove because what it proposes should already be understood. We note Overture 17 is the first of Westminster's 17 Overtures (15 on the BCO and 2 on RAO). If every Presbytery 36 did the same we'd have 1,479 Overtures this year. (My Presbytery, Pacific NW, filed 6 Overtures but none are 37 proposing BCO changes. Five of the six from PNW are RAO changes seeking to make GA more efficient and 38 one overture asks for a brief GA prayer of thanksgiving for adult professions of faith.) While there's no rule against 39 filing 17 overtures, it doesn't seem reasonable. Because Westminster didn't indicate which of the 17 it deemed most important to consider, the OC will probably need to triage. 41 This commentary suggests answering Westminster's #'s 30 in the Affirmative as Amended. But #'s 20, 26, 27, 28, 42 29, 31, and 32 should be answered in the Negative and eight Overtures should be referred back to Presbytery (17 43 19, 21-25, 33). If we decline to do so, it will probably invite excessive overture filing in future years. 44 1 RB 18 Westminster BCO 5-4 Allow Mother Church to Call Church Planter OC 2 Refer Back. But if it's considered, it should be Disapproved because a Session is already free to (1) recommend 3 that Presbytery create a new mission church and (2) recommend which TE should pastor that mission church. In 4 addition, the Overture seems to be proposing that a local Session sometimes be given the power to "call" the pastor of a mission church as an alternative to Presbytery doing so, which would be a significant change. 6 RB 19 * Westminster BCO 5-8 Include "Ecclesiastical" Government OC 7 Refer back. Or answer in the Negative because it is unnecessary. 8 N 20 * Westminster BCO 5 Add Section on Churches Without a Governing Body OC 9 Disapprove. The change is unnecessary. The matter addressed in the Overture was adjudicated in SJC's 22-1 Decision in Case 2024-20: Complaint of Fout v. Ohio Valley, which will be in the SJC's 2026 Report to the GA 11 in the GA Sharefile and in the GA Commissioner's Handbook by mid-May (CH, p. 2278). That Decision and its 12 Reasoning is sufficient to clarify the matter (and differs from what's proposed by the Overture). See also SJC's 13 22-0 Decision in Case 2024-07 PCA v. Columbus Metro. (CH, p. 2219) Overture 20 proposes four new BCO 14 paragraphs with 280 words. Ordinarily, and understandably, such a sizable revision faces a steep uphill climb regardless. See Approval recommendation of MS Valley Overture 51. 16 RB 21 Westminster BCO 13-6 Clarify Exam for TEs from Other Denominations OC 17 Refer Back. But if considered, it should be Disapproved because Whereas clauses don't demonstrate a need. 18 RB 22 Westminster BCO 13-8 Churches Joining from Outside PCA OC 19 Refer Back. But if considered, it should be Disapproved because Whereas clauses don't demonstrate a need. RB 23 Westminster BCO 14 Renumber and Restructure BCO Chapter 14 OC 21 Refer Back. But if considered, it should be Disapproved because Whereas clauses don't demonstrate a need. 22 RB 24 Westminster BCO 15-2 Require Full Pby to Conduct Ordination Exam OC 23 Refer Back. But if it's considered, it should be Disapproved because Presbyteries should retain the long-held 24 liberty to conduct part of an Ordination Exam by a Commission. RB 25 Westminster BCO 21 Restructure BCO 21-1 through 21-4 OC 26 Refer Back. But if considered, it should be Disapproved because Whereas clauses don't demonstrate a need. 27 N 26 Westminster BCO 26-2 Abstaining Pbys Won't Count as NO votes on BCO Amendments OC 28 Disapprove. Our current 2/3-majority-of-all-presbyteries should remain as the requirement to approve any change 29 to the BCO. This Overture proposes a significant revision which would lower the bar for BCO amendments to be approved. That would not be wise. There are some matters important enough to require recorded support from a 31 super-majority of members, not just a super-majority of those who vote. And that includes Constitutional changes. 32 Robert's Rules recognize that for certain very important matters, the entire membership needs to be factored 33 into a vote and not just those members who cast votes. (RONR (12th ed.) 44:9.b) The only time a two-thirds vote 34 of the "entire membership" is unwise is when the membership is in a "large organization." That would apply, for example, to a GA with 2,000 registered commissioners. But when Presbyteries vote on BCO amendments there 36 are only 87 voting entities, and thus, far short of the "large organization" voting numbers envisioned by Robert's 37 Rules. (RONR 56:55) Several Presbyteries, for example, have 87 voters at their stated meetings. It's wise to 38 maintain the requirement that two-thirds of our 87 Presbyteries intentionally affirm any change to the BCO. And 39 there are often different reasons why some Presbyteries decline to vote on a particular BCO amendment. If this Overture is adopted, and if 18 presbyteries choose to abstain from voting on some proposed BCO 41 amendments (as was the case in 2025) that would mean a BCO amendment could pass with support of only 46 of 42 our 87 presbyteries (i.e., two-thirds of the 69 voting). And 46 would only represent just 53% of our total 87 43 presbyteries. That is simply not enough affirmative support for a change to the Constitution. 1 N 27 Westminster BCO 34-1 GA Assumption of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) OC 2 Disapprove, UNLESS two significant amendments are made. And if made, it should be heartily supported. 3 For this to have a reasonable chance of getting approval from two-thirds of our 87 Presbyteries (i.e., 58), the 4 petitioning threshold needs to be increased from the proposed three (3) presbyteries to 20% of the presbyteries. The Overture proposes taking jurisdiction from a Presbytery based on the request of less than 4% of our 6 Presbyteries (i.e., only 3 of 87). 7 If a matter is important enough, then we should assume 18 Presbyteries (20%) would be willing to send a short 8 email to the GA Stated Clerk simply asking GA (i.e., the SJC) to assume original jurisdiction of a minister. No 9 "evidence" would need to accompany such a request. The SJC's first step would take would be to appoint a Panel that would commence an investigation. (SJC Manual Chapter 16) 11 With the suggested amendment to the Overture proposed below, any petitioning Presbytery simply needs to 12 credibly assert (1) there has been no indictment and (2) the alleged offense involves a doctrinal matter or is a case 13 of public scandal. If there aren't 20% of our Presbyteries interested in doing this, then it probably means the matter 14 does not warrant it. In addition, it would be vitally important to replace the phrase "refuses to act" with "does not indict" to remove 16 the subjectivity. The vague phrase "refuses to act" has never been defined. Thus, a better alternative is shown 17 below. This is probably the only version that could garner support from 58 Presbyteries. 18 (amendment to the Overture) BCO 34-1. Process against a minister shall be entered before the 19 Presbytery of which he is a member. However, if the Presbytery refuses to act declines to indict in doctrinal cases or cases of public scandal and two twenty percent (20%) of the other 21 Presbyteries request the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction (to first receive and 22 initially hear and determine), the General Assembly shall do so. 23 If Presbyteries are unwilling to revise BCO 34-1 in this way, assumption of original jurisdiction will continue to 24 be just an unrealizable aspiration. But there won't be 58 Presbyteries willing to adopt the change to BCO 34-1 in the form proposed by the Westminster Overture. 26 See here and the link below for a 12-page Legislative and Judicial History of BCO 34-1. 27 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UfhfQLFmtvuaWyYADQmgZafv2RMQUWps/view?usp=sharing 28 N 28 Westminster BCO 41-7 Church Member Complaint in a Session-Referenced Matter OC 29 Disapprove. Even in a referenced matter, a church member should not have standing to complain against a Presbytery action. That is reserved by Presbytery members, i.e., TE members or churches (through one of their 31 RE Commissioners to the meeting at which the action on the referenced matter is taken, or via their Session.) 32 N 29 Westminster BCO 42 Clarify Difference between Oral and Written Notice OC 33 Disapprove. This addresses an existing problem, but several amendments to the Overture would help. BCO 42 34 on appeals needs significant revision, including the area addressed by this Overture, but it would be better to propose a comprehensive change rather than piecemeal. See extended comments on Central Florida 75. 36 Am 30 Westminster BCO 46-6 Recording TE Dismissed to Another Pby OC 37 Approve, as amended. A proposed addition to the Overture is shown double underlined in italics below. 38 46-6. When a Presbytery shall dismiss a minister, licentiate or candidate, the name of the Presbytery 39 to which he is dismissed shall be given in the certificate, and he shall remain under the jurisdiction of the Presbytery dismissing him until received by the other. The dismissing Presbytery shall record 41 in its minutes the date of reception of the minister, licentiate, or candidate who was dismissed. 42 N 31 Westminster BCO 58-5 Only TEs & REs Give Bread & Cups to Multiple Communicants OC 2 Disapprove (and do the same with Calvary 60). It would not be wise to consider any changes to the current 3 Directory of Worship until after the GA has considered the recommendations of the Ad Interim Committee on 4 DoW, and after Presbyteries have voted on the DoW if it is sent down. Below is the Overture's proposal, which includes adding a sentence to 58-5 with a footnote. 6 58-5 ... Apart from extra-ordinary circumstances, ruling elders shall assist the minister in 7 distributing 1 the elements, for they share the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:19, cf. BCO 12-5.a). 81 Distributing refers to the act of handing the elements to multiple communicants. It 9 does not refer to the passive action of passing trays or elements down rows or pews. A similar proposal was disapproved by the Assembly last year. The 2025 Overtures Committee recommended the 11 GA approve Providence Presbytery's Overture 12, but the Assembly instead adopted an OC Minority Report 12 disapproving Overture 12 by vote of 1080-922 (54% majority). If such a proposal can’t be adopted at GA then it 13 surely can’t pass two-thirds of the Presbyteries. See 12-minute Minority Report at timestamp 1:31:20 at this link: 14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOBNhKlbWXs See also this six-page paper for additional rationale against this repeated proposal. (Link also below.) 16 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XaIGbus9_muAR5jXKYlVzrzMu5Ue84vd/view?usp=sharing 17 In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin wrote: 18 “But as for the outward ceremony of the action—whether or not the believers take it in their hands, 19 or divide it among themselves, or severally eat what has been given to each; whether they hand the cup back to the deacon or give it to the next person; whether the bread is leavened or unleavened; 21 the wine red or white—it makes no difference. These things are indifferent and left at the church’s 22 discretion.” (IV.xvii.43) 23 We should discourage raising similar matters year after year. Men should first seek to develop consensus outside 24 of the GA. Repeatedly raising the same matter is vexing at best, and counterproductive to developing consensus. N 32 Westminster RAO 14-3 Require Perm Comm & Agency Standing Rules & Manuals All 26 Disapprove. The Overture doesn't demonstrate any need for this and seems to misunderstand the nature of 27 Permanent Committees and Agency Boards. The GA's primary method of overseeing Perm Comms and Agency 28 Boards is through the GA's election of the 155 men who serve on those 10 Committees and Boards. And about 35 29 of those positions are up for election every year. RB 33 Westminster RAO 16-7 RPR Minority Reports OC 31 Reference to Answer on PNW 7. However, if it's considered, it should be Disapproved because it's common sense 32 and parliamentary ethics that nobody can sign a minority report unless they voted in the minority on the particular 33 recommendation, and that seems to be what this Overture seeks to codify. If that happened last year, then someone 34 on the RPR should have reported that the Minority Report failed to meet the requirement of RAO 16-7.h.(2). Then someone could have asked the Moderator to rule on the question. Below is Overture 33. 36 RAO 16-7.h.(2) The [RPR] minority report, from at least six (6) members of the committee who 37 voted in the minority on the Presbytery as a whole, must be filed with the chairman of the committee 38 and the office of the Stated Clerk of General Assembly not more than seven (7) days after the 39 adjournment of the RPR Committee meeting. At the same time, it's possible that when RPR votes on the recommendation for which an eventual MR is filed, 41 there is no recording of a counted vote or the names of those in the minority. So, we may just need to rely on the 42 integrity of those signing an MR that they voted in the minority on the matter. 43 R37 34 * Savannah River BCO 9-2 Expectation of Establishing a Diaconate OC 44 Answer by Reference to the answer on Pacific 37 or Refer Back to the Presbytery. Overture 34 is below. 1 BCO 9-2 ... In the discharge of their duties the deacons are under the supervision and authority of the 2 Session. In a church in which it is impossible for any reason to secure deacons, to secure the appointment 3 of a sufficient number of Deacons due to the absence of spiritually qualified men (BCO 9-3), the duties 4 of the office shall devolve upon the ruling elders, and not upon unordained persons within the church. However, if considered, it should be answered in the Negative. It's not reasonable to mandate that a Session fulfill 6 every duty related to mercy ministry when suitable non-ordained volunteers are available for work not requiring 7 ordained officers. For example, in a smaller church where Reformed and paedobaptist deacons can't be found, it's 8 reasonable for the Session to recruit other members to fulfill mercy ministry duties not requiring ordination. In 9 addition, the Overture would not necessarily accomplish what seems to be the goal. In addition, because the BCO does not mandate a quorum for a diaconate, a church could establish a diaconate of one ordained man and still 11 have a mixed gender, non-ordained mercy or benevolence team. This Overture has very little chance of getting 12 support from 58 Presbyteries. 13 Am 35 Illiana BCO 31-2 Establish Deadline for Issuing Indictments OC 14 Approve if amended. Below is the change to BCO 31-2 as proposed by the Overture (proposed changes underlined.) Following that is an amended version. 16 31-2. If such investigation, however originating, should result in raising a strong presumption of the guilt of 17 the party involved, the court shall institute process, and shall appoint a prosecutor to prepare the indictment 18 and to conduct the case. The prosecutor shall draft the indictment promptly, and the indictment shall be filed 19 with the clerk of the court within sixty (60) days following the meeting of the court. This prosecutor shall be a member of the court, except that in a case before the Session, he may be any communing member of 21 the same congregation with the accused. If the prosecutor neglects to file an indictment, he shall receive 22 proper rebuke by the court and shall be dismissed from his duties as the prosecutor of the case, and the court 23 shall appoint a new prosecutor to prepare an indictment and to conduct the case. 24 If the Overture's proposed 60 days expire without an indictment being filed, replacing the prosecutor could easily result in another 60-day delay as the new prosecutor gets up to speed. Rather than helping achieve a speedy trial, 26 appointing a new prosecutor would delay it further. If we really want teeth in this provision, then the court should 27 be required to dismiss the charges if an indictment is not filed by some constitutionally defined deadline, as done 28 in criminal process in most US jurisdictions. Below is an amendment to the Overture shown double underlined 29 and italicized, which proposes charges be dropped if an indictment is not served within 90 days. 31-2. If such investigation, however originating, should result in raising a strong presumption of the 31 guilt of the party involved, the court shall institute process, and shall appoint a prosecutor to prepare 32 the indictment and to conduct the case. The prosecutor shall draft the indictment promptly, and the 33 indictment shall be filed with the clerk of the court within sixty (60) ninety (90) days following the 34 meeting of the court. or the charges shall be dismissed. This prosecutor shall be a member of the court, except that in a case before the Session, he may be any communing member of the same congregation 36 with the accused. If the prosecutor neglects to file an indictment, he shall receive proper rebuke by the 37 court and shall be dismissed from his duties as the prosecutor of the case, and the court shall appoint a 38 new prosecutor to prepare an indictment and to conduct the case. 39 First, to protect an offended person from being unable to see his accusations considered at trial, if the 90-day 41 deadline isn't met for an indictment, the accuser still has freedom to write a BCO 40-5 letter to the court next 42 higher alleging an "important delinquency" and the higher court would determine if it's a "credible report." If it 43 is, the higher court would cite the lower court to appear and answer for why it found a strong presumption of guilt 44 but could not get an indictment filed within 90 days of that "strong presumption of guilt" finding. In addition, if Westminster Overture 27 is adopted on Assumption of Original Jurisdiction (in the amended version 46 proposed in this commentary) then a revised BCO 34-1 would make it possible for sufficient petitions to trigger 47 a higher court assuming original jurisdiction, issuing an indictment, and conducting judicial process. Dismissal of 48 a charge does not automatically trigger double jeopardy protections, even if we had such protections. If the OC 49 and GA wish to do so, the provision could be amended to say, "the charges shall be dismissed with prejudice." 1 While a prosecutor has primary responsibility of drafting the indictment, the court has primarily responsibility for 2 the prompt filing of an indictment. If a court finds a strong presumption of guilt based on strong and solid 3 evidence, then it should be relatively easy for a prosecutor to file the indictment within 90 days. But some of our 4 courts find a strong presumption of guilt based on information that is insufficient for prosecution, which makes it more challenging to promptly prepare a clear and sufficient indictment. 6 Whenever a recruited PCA prosecutor is not part of the investigation, he needs time to get up to speed. (That's a 7 plug for recruiting a prosecutor who was part of the investigative team.) Sometimes, investigative committees 8 don't "depose" potential witnesses under oath or ask them if they're willing to testify under oath at trial. And if the 9 prosecutor learns important witnesses are unwilling, that will delay his work. Granted, BCO 35-14 would apply to PCA witnesses: "An officer or private member of the church refusing to testify may be censured for contumacy." 11 But not all witnesses will be under PCA jurisdiction. 12 A court can always replace a prosecutor if it deems he is not giving sufficient attention to his task, and a rebuke 13 might not be necessary. And we need to remember that none of our prosecutors are paid, and many (perhaps most) 14 are first-time prosecutors. A Session or Presbytery might vote that there is a strong presumption of guilt, but the prosecutor needs to prepare the case, ensure witnesses will testify, collect evidence for trial, etc., and usually do 16 this in his "free" time. While Federal Law requires the federal government to file an indictment within 30 days of 17 arrest (1974 Speedy Trial Act), it's different because the alleged defendant is probably in jail, and the US 18 government has paid professional investigators and prosecutors for this. 19 The amendment proposed to the Overture is particularly important in the scenario where a Presbytery enacts the "non-disciplinary" suspension of BCO 31-10: "When a member of a church court is under process, all his official 21 functions may be suspended at the court’s discretion; but this shall never be done in the way of censure, and this 22 requires a two-thirds (2/3) majority." Rarely will the "non-disciplinary" BCO 31-10 suspension of a minister 23 look much different than a disciplinary suspension, especially when judicial process is delayed. It's one thing for 24 a ruling elder to be "administratively" suspended from office. An RE can be more patient because he doesn't lose salary, but it's likely a TE will lose some compensation while his church funds his replacement. Few churches can 26 financially afford to keep an administratively suspended pastor on staff a during prolonged judicial process. 27 R37 36 * Catawba Valley BCO 8-11 Add Two Paragraphs about Elder & Deacon Duties OC 28 Answer by Reference to the answer on Pacific 37 or Refer Back to the Presbytery.. 29 N 37 * Pacific BCO 9-3 Allow Women to be Ordained as Deacons OC Negative. 31 R37 38 * Metro ATL BCO 7-3 Allow Flexibility Re the Diaconate OC 32 Answer by Reference to the answer on Pacific 37 or Refer Back to the Presbytery. 33 N 39 Central Florida BCO 22 Limit Asst Pastor to 5 yrs; then Associate or Dissolve His Call OC 34 Answer by Reference to Answer on SW Florida 55 (which hopefully will be Negative). R43 40 Savannah River RAO 4-9 Set Jan 1-Dec 31 Terms for Stated Clerk & Coordinators OC 36 Answer by Reference to Answer on PNW 43, unless each of the 5 GA-elected Permanent Committees see wisdom 37 in this. In the meantime, the rationale does not demonstrate this would be wiser than our present procedure. 38 R43 41 Savannah River RAO 4-9 Require 2/3 to Elect Stated Clerk & Coordinators All 39 Answer by Reference to PNW 43 or Disapprove. This would require these 5 men to be approved annually by (1) a majority of the Permanent Committee, (2) approved by majority of the Committee of Commissioners, and then 41 (3) by two-thirds of GA. And unless RAO is revised as proposed by PNW Overture 43, these three approvals 42 would be required every year. Few CEO's would accept such terms of employment. And it's unlikely many 43 ministers would ever take a call with such a provision -i.e., two-thirds approval required at every annual 44 congregational meeting, or else the call is dissolved -on the spot! 1 Y? 42 N. California BCO 29-1 Restore Reference to Westminster Standards at the End OC 2 Approve. A simple and wise proposal for reasons outlined in the Overture. Below is the proposed change. 3 BCO 29-1. ... Nothing, therefore, ought to be considered by any court as an offense, or admitted as a 4 matter of accusation, which cannot be proved to be such from Scripture as interpreted in these Standards. However, it's possible this proposed change can be accomplished by fixing an earlier clerical error, which 6 caused the deletion of that five-word phrase. 7 Y 43 Pacific NW RAO 4-9 4-Year Terms for 4 Coordinators + Stated Clerk AC, etc., OC 8 Approve, but consider advice from the Perm Comms and Agency Boards. Below is the proposed change. 9 RAO 4-9. The four program Committees shall nominate annually a coordinator for election by the General Assembly for a four-year term. The Administrative Committee shall also nominate annually 11 a Stated Clerk for election by the General Assembly for a four-year term. These men may serve 12 multiple, successive terms if reelected to such. If the nominee has not been examined by the 13 Theological Examining Committee, such an examination must take place prior to the election when 14 it is a first time employment. A After election, a new coordinator or Stated Clerk shall assume office at the end of the Assembly meeting, or at such time thereafter as designated by the General Assembly. 16 1. It's more reasonable to elect men to these leadership positions for 4-year terms rather than one year. (The 17 members of those five Permanent Committees are each elected to 5-year terms.) 18 2. Some of these men need to live near the PCA office -or visit it frequently -in order to do their job, and it's not 19 reasonable to relocate their family for a job that requires re-election by GA every year. 3. RAO does not require the Presidents or Executive Directors of our 5 Agencies to be reelected every year, and 21 they have no set term of office (Covenant College, CTS, Geneva Benefits, PCA Foundation & Ridge Haven). 22 4. In the rare instance where a man needs to be replaced for cause prior to the end of his term, the Permanent 23 Committee can still recommend such to the General Assembly. This change does not prevent that. 24 5. This change would be effective at the 54th GA in Milwaukee for the four Program Committees (CDM, MNA, MTW, RUF). In other words, those four Permanent Committees would nominate a Coordinator next year for 26 a four-year term. However, it would be effective this year for the AC's nomination of a Stated Clerk; his term 27 would expire in June 2030. 28 6. Initially, the terms would expire for the 4 Perm Comm Coordinators at the 2031 GA. However, over time these 29 would likely stagger as men leave those roles of their own volition prior to the expiration of their terms. -
44 Covenant MNA Divide Covenant into Two Presbyteries (new "Arkansas" Pby) MNA 31 Not assigned to OC. The Mississippi River would be the dividing line between Covenant and the new "Arkansas" 32 Pby, which would have 9 churches and 1 mission church, with 1,200 total communing membership. The new Pby 33 would include all of Arkansas except 5 of the 75 Arkansas counties. 34 Am 45 Covenant RAO 8-4.i Floor Nominee Only if Pby Submitted to Nom Com first OC Approve if amended as shown below. (Suncoast 47 is same as Covenant 45.) Some concerns have been raised 36 about various scenarios, and those concerns are remedied in the italicized amendment below. 37 1. Late Vacancies -The following italicized amendment should be added to the Overture to address this: 38 RAO 8-4.i Such additional nominations shall only be considered valid if the individual nominated was 39 previously submitted by a Presbytery for consideration by the Nominating Committee but was not included in the Committee’s final report. This requirement would not apply to men who are nominated 41 from the floor for vacancies that arose after the deadline for Presbyteries to file nominations. 42 The amendment to the Overture would address the situation where a Committee or Agency Board vacancy arises, 43 for whatever reason, after the Presbytery filing deadline. (This year it was February 23). For example, if a member 44 of the XYZ Committee resigns from the Committee in mid-April, the Nominating Committee would not ordinarily 1 meet to add a nominee to the Nominating Committee Report, and a floor nominee would be needed. Granted, 2 Nom Comm could convene a Zoom, but that's awkward with 75+ Presbytery reps. The amendment above would 3 alleviate that. Two other scenarios are addressed below, but neither would require an amendment to the Overture. 4 2. Presbytery Clerk Mistake -Sometimes, a Presbytery Clerk fails to file the Form 059 by the deadline. In that instance, if this Overture passes, the Nom Comm would not consider the man even though nominated by his 6 Presbytery. To remedy this, perhaps the Stated Clerk's office could stagger the deadlines for Form 060 (Nominee's 7 Form) and Form 059 (Presbytery Clerk's Form). We could keep the third week of Feb as the Nominee's deadline 8 but delay the Clerk's Deadline to the second week of March. (Nom Comm presently meets last Saturday of March.) 9 When the nominee submits his Form 060 in late Feb., we could add a box where he attests that his Presbytery nominated him. And he would be added to the list of nominees. Then, the Presbytery Clerk's deadline could be a 11 few weeks later. About 70 of our 87 Presbyteries have stated meetings in January or February, but this year's 12 deadline for Clerks submitting Form 059 and nominees submitting Form 060 was February 23. There could be 13 situations where a man has been nominated by his Presbytery, but his Clerk failed to file the Form 059 listing all 14 that Presbytery's nominees, even though the man filed his Form 060 by the deadline. 3. Nominee Mistake -If GA adopts Overture 45, and Presbytery nominates a man, but he fails to file his Form 060 16 by the late Feb. deadline, then the Nom Comm would not consider his name. And he will have lost the right to 17 be a floor nominee, but that's on him. The Form is very simple, only one-page, and can be filed online or emailed. 18 N 46 * NY State BCO 29-5 Public Allegations and the 9th Commandment OC 19 Disapprove. It's a reasonable attempt at addressing what many believe has become a significant and widespread problem. But mandating that such statements "shall be considered a probable violation" implies that a strong 21 presumption of guilt exists. And that might go too far. Some investigation would seem prudent. If a strong 22 presumption of guilt exists (i.e., there's already a "probable violation"), then the next step would ordinarily be to 23 appoint a prosecutor to prepare an indictment, not to investigate. There also might be some scenarios where it 24 would be unwise to expect or require an abused person to follow the exact steps of Matthew 18 (which is presumably why the word "ordinarily" is in the Overture). At the same time, it would ordinarily be inappropriate 26 for a person alleging abuse to make public allegations against a PCA member without first seeking redress from 27 the court having jurisdiction over that person. 28 R45 47 Suncoast FL RAO 8-4.i Floor Nominee Only if Pby Submitted Name to Nom Com First OC 29 Answer by Reference to Answer on Covenant 45, which proposes the same thing. R37 48 NW Georgia BCO 7-2, 3 Disallow Commissiong & Titling of Unordained Persons OC 31 Answer by Reference to the answer on Pacific 37 or Refer Back to the Presbytery. 32 N 49 NW Georgia BCO 13-1 Increase a Church's RE Representation at Pby and GA OC 33 Disapprove. This is the least helpful proposal this year. The current BCO representation provision already affords 34 smaller churches a disproportionately large ratio on representation. Below is some data reported in ByFaith online in a January 20, 2026 article: 36 Half of all PCA churches have membership of 125 or fewer. Of the 1,716 churches reporting 37 statistics, 68% have below 200 members. Any church with 500 or more members would be in the 38 top 10% of churches, with only 47 churches having more than 1,000 members. 39 Our current rule of 2 RE commissioners per church is quite sufficient representation for the 860 PCA church with 125 communicant members or less. And 2 RE Commissioners is still disproportionately large representation for 41 churches under 200 communicant members (i.e., for 68% of our churches). 42 At present, a church with 125 communing members has the equivalent of one RE rep for every 63 members. But 43 a church twice that size, with 349 communing members, only has one RE rep for every 175 members. And a 44 church with 1,800 members has one RE rep for every 450. As written, this Overture would greatly increase that disproportionality. 1 There's no Biblical reason why smaller churches should have higher proportional representation than larger ones. 2 Small churches already have disproportionate representation in Presbyteries and GA, and small Presbyteries have 3 disproportionate representation on RPR & Nominating Committees, as well as on each GA Committee of 4 Commissioners and the Overtures Committee. One of our English-speaking Presbyteries has 400 communing members, and another has 11,800, and yet both have equal weight vote on BCO amendments sent down, and 2 6 slots on the GA Overtures Committee, and one on RPR. We have 13 Presbyteries with less than 1,000 communing 7 members and 16 Presbyteries with more than 5,000. This Overture will increase the imbalance. 8 Am 50 MS Valley prayer Urging a Day of Fasting and Prayer for Revival and Renewal OC 9 Approve, if amended by changing one verb (italicized below). While it would be great to designate a particular day, it could be done without urging (pleading, beseeching, imploring) Presbyteries to convene a meeting. So, 11 the part of the Overture's proposal where Presbyteries are "urged to hold a solemn convocation" could be amended 12 to say: "Presbyteries are urged encouraged to consider holding a solemn convocation." 13 14 Y 51 MS Valley BCO 5 Add Section on "Assisted Churches" -i.e., lost Session quorum OC Approve. Below is the proposed addition, which would be an all new BCO 5-11. 16 BCO 5-11 (all new) 17 a. An assisted church is a church that has only one ruling elder and no pastor and has been assigned by 18 Presbytery a BCO 15-1 commission to serve as a temporary Session of that church (cf., BCO 5-3.c). 19 The church’s one ruling elder shall be a member of that temporary Session. b. In such cases, the Presbytery shall acknowledge the condition of the church as an assisted church and 21 shall determine one or more of the following courses of action, as it deems most conducive to the 22 peace, purity, and progress of the church: 23 1. To encourage and assist the church toward the election and training of additional ruling elders; 24 2. To recommend dissolution, merger, or other reorganization of the church, should such action appear necessary (BCO 13-9.f). 26 c. The Presbytery shall review the status of an assisted church at least annually and shall record its actions 27 and determinations in its minutes. 28 First, a Presbytery can already do what the Overture proposes. Nevertheless, it might help to create an explicit 29 third category in addition to Particular and Mission churches. A church whose Session loses its quorum does not revert to mission church status, despite what some assert. 31 Granted, if a Session loses its quorum it can no longer govern and Presbytery automatically becomes the 32 Temporary Session (BCO 13-9). That's been the historical understanding and practice of US Presbyterianism at 33 least since 1879. For example, no congregational meeting can be called for any purpose unless a Temp Session 34 calls it. And no prospective elders can get on any ballot without approval of a Temp Session. See recent SJC Decisions in Cases 2024-07 PCA v. Columbus Metro and 2024-20 Fout v. Ohio Valley. (CH, pp. 2217 & 2278) 36 R37 52 Mississippi Valley BCO 7-4 Prohibit Creation of "Ecclesiastical Offices" OC 37 Answer by Reference to the answer on Pacific 37 or Refer Back to the Presbytery. Overture 52 proposes we add 38 the following new 138-word paragraph. 39 all new BCO 7-4. Courts of the church are warranted by the general principles of the Word of God and the dictates of Christian prudence to make use of qualified men and women in a variety of un-ordained 41 ministry positions. However, since Christ, as King and Head of the church, has given officers to His 42 Church, and has appointed His system of church government in Holy Scripture, church courts are not 43 free to create ecclesiastical offices. Neither may a court of the church vest any part of the church power 44 granted to officers by the rite of ordination in any un-ordained person, or intrude such persons upon the church or the consciences of its members, whether by means of popular election, or the use of vows not 46 mandated by the Word of God and the constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America. 1 2 Whereas #1 references WCF 1.6 and sees allowances for "permitting the church to employ qualified men and 3 women in various forms of un-ordained Christian service according to the dictates of Christian prudence." Agreed. 4 Whereas #2 contends that "the church is not free to invent offices." Also agreed, as long as we are only referring to the ordained office of Elder and Deacon. 6 Whereas #3 contends that "BCO 3-2 [makes] it clear that, apart from the power to choose its officers, which power 7 resides in the people (BCO3-1), the exercise of ecclesiastical power is placed in the hands of the officers alone." 8 No dispute. But does everyone agree on how should we define the phrase "the exercise of ecclesiastical power"? 9 What might be the difference between (a) a court delegating some of its authority along with the commensurate "power" to complete the task and (b) "vesting church power granted only to officers .. in [some] unordained 11 person"? For example, below is BCO 12-5.e. describing some of the "church power granted only to officers." 12 The church Session is charged with maintaining the spiritual government of the church, for which 13 purpose it has power: ... e. To exercise, in accordance with the Directory for Worship, authority 14 over the time and place of the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments, over all other religious services, over the music in the services, ... (emphasis added) 16 In the exercise of its ecclesiastical power, couldn't a Session delegate some of that power and authority to the 17 Minister to choose the music in the service each week? Presumably it could, and very often does. And 18 presumably, th Session or the Minister could further delegate some of that power and authority to a Director of 19 Music. It does not delegate responsibility, because that always remains with the Session. But it can surely delegate some power and authority. 21 Whereas #4 -It's unclear what role besides the ordained office of TE, RE, or Deacon would constitute an 22 "ecclesiastical office." The Overture doesn't give examples of any "ecclesiastical offices" that presumably have 23 been created and which, presumably, this Overture seeks to outlaw. Perhaps the 4th Whereas gives an example 24 when it says: "no officers may be imposed upon the church, and only those offices ordained by God in Holy Scripture may serve in the government of the church." I don't think anyone would dispute that assertion. But that 26 prompts the question: What is an example of an "officer" imposed on the church and "serving in the government 27 of the church"? What does Whereas #4 have in mind? 28 Whereas #5 -This contends that "to impose invented officers upon the church, without the warrant of the Word 29 of God, is to violate the consciences of the people." Most would probably also agree with that assertion. But the Overture avoids naming or describing the way any Session might be doing this. It would be more helpful to 31 specifically describe what the Overture seeks to outlaw, rather than use relatively vague language that different 32 people might interpret differently. 33 Would Church Treasurer be regarded as an ecclesiastical office? Ministry Coordinator? Supervisor of Counseling? 34 Director of Small Groups? Music Director? The BCO vests budgetary authority solely in the Session. Could the Session-appointed Chair of the Budget Committee or the Finance Director be a non-ordained person? Wouldn't 36 that important role have some "part of church power granted to officers"? 37 38 R7 53 Great Lakes RAO 16 Prohibit RPR Members from Floor Debate on RPR Report OC 39 Answer by Reference to Pacific NW 7 re the RPR's Report. If GA adopts PNW 7, Overture 53 is probably moot. However, if PNW 7 is not adopted, Overture 53 might still have problems. Disallowing an RPR member from 41 speaking on the floor might encourage that member to recruit 5 others in the RPR minority at the May RPR 42 meeting to file a minority report instead, and each MR can take one hour of GA floor time (RAO 16-7.g.2). 43 Overture 53 might actually increase the time needed to finish debating the RPR Report. 44 Approving PNW's Overture 6 would probably solve the same problem identified in Great Lakes 53. PNW 6 would require 150 voting commissioners to remove an item from an omnibus, which pertains to most RPR 46 recommendations. 47 1 N 54 * Hills & Plains BCO 42-2 Give Person Deemed Contumacious the Right to Complain OC 2 Disapprove. Below is the revision proposed by the Overture. 3 42-2. The only parties entitled to an appeal are those who have submitted to a regular trial, those 4 appealing a censure in a BCO 38-1 case without process, and those appealing a BCO 34-10 divestiture without censure. If the court has dealt with the party as contumacious, the party may 6 not appeal but may complain against the court. 7 First, the Overture doesn't seem to address the most common way people are deemed contumacious -i.e., they 8 willfully ignore a 2nd citation to plead at an arraignment. If that person is allowed to complain against that 9 automatic finding of contumacy, it could postpone adjudication of underlying charges for almost a year. BCO, BCO 43-1 was revised last year and now includes the following: "... If, at any time after process has commenced, 11 a BCO 43-1 complaint is timely filed, the court’s adjudication [of the complaint] shall be delayed until after the 12 judicial case has been completed, or, if an appeal is filed, after it has been fully adjudicated or withdrawn. ..." 13 If the accused believes the initial charge is unwarranted, then he should (1) have his defense representative move 14 to dismiss the charge, or (2) should plead not guilty at the arraignment and submit to the trial. If this Overture passes, it's likely more accused persons will ignore arraignment citations and then file a complaint if they're found 16 contumacious. They have nothing to lose by doing so and it will delay prosecution. 17 If a Session or Presbytery allegedly errs in finding a person contumacious, and in censuring him on that ground, 18 perhaps BCO 40-5 provides an avenue by which he or anyone else could seek higher court review. 19 N 55 SW Florida BCO 22-3 Tenure of Asst Pastors OC Disapprove. (Central FL 39 should be answered by Reference to SWFL 55.) First, 5 years is arbitrary. Why not 21 3, or 7? Second, the rationale doesn't demonstrate why the freedom of Sessions and congregations should be 22 limited in this way. It's reasonable to assume many congregations, their Sessions, and even their assistant pastors 23 are happy with the status quo. Third, the Overture makes an important and unwarranted assumption. The rationale 24 equates "indefinite assistant pastorates" with "ongoing pastoral authority without congregational election." But that is certainly not always the case. For many jobs, assistant pastors do not have and do not need the same 26 "pastoral authority" as Session members. An assistant pastor serving as a Youth Pastor or as a Pastor to Seniors 27 does not have "pastoral authority" over the congregation, so there is no reason he must be on the Session. 28 In addition, there are many examples in the PCA, and in SJC Decisions, of complications arising when a Session 29 deems that an Associate Pastor should seek another call. The requirement that the congregation must weigh in on the dissolution of an Associate's call often results in disrupted peace, that is, unless the Associate already has 31 another call that he genuinely prefers to his current one. This Overture will only exacerbate that problem. That 32 alone is reason enough to allow congregations and Sessions to hire long-term Assistant Pastors. 33 N 56 SW Florida BCO 32-19 Limit Representation in Judicial Process to Officers OC 34 Disapprove. Last year, the PCA amended BCO 32-19 to allow expanded representation, but this Overture does not demonstrate that recent change has created problems. Between the 2024 and 2025 GAs, the Presbyteries voted 36 64-5 for the change. We realize SW Florida was one of the five voting against it, but it's not a good practice to 37 undo a recently amended BCO provision without giving it more time to demonstrate its wisdom or folly. 38 N 57 S. Texas BCO 12-7 etc. Require Minutes of Congregational Meeting to be in Session Records OC 39 Disapprove. The Overture proposes revisions to BCO 12-7, 13-9.b, and 25-5. Below is the one for 12-7. 12-7. Every Session shall keep an accurate record of its proceedings, and the proceedings of 41 congregational meetings, which record shall be submitted at least once in every year to the 42 inspection of the Presbytery. 1 Congregational meeting minutes are not part of Session/court records -and don't need to be. For example, a 2 congregation may wish to have a meeting at which disaffiliation from the PCA is discussed. And it might prefer 3 that the Presbytery not be apprised of that meeting, at least for a time. That should be the congregation's choice. 4 The SJC has ruled that congregational actions are not reviewable. Only the actions of a court are. So, in the Wilson and Psiaki cases against Pacific NW, the congregational voting age restriction was unreviewable until 6 the Session installed elders who were elected with a voting age restriction. So, the SJC denied Wilson's complaint 7 and sustained Psiaki's complaint a year later. Those Decisions, and most others, can be found on the PCA 8 Historical Center site at https://www.pcahistory.org/pca/sjc/index.html. 9 https://www.pcahistory.org/pca/sjc/cases/2022-20_Wilson_v_PacificNW.pdf https://www.pcahistory.org/pca/sjc/cases/2023-11_Psiaki_v_PacificNW.pdf 11 12 N 58 Calvary BCO 10-4 Specify that Session & Presbytery Clerks Must be Elders OC 13 Disapprove. One Whereas rightfully argues: "PCA Clerks need to be accountable to the church courts in which 14 they serve because of their membership and delegated authority on behalf of the Court they serve." But a non- ordained church member is already directly accountable to that Session. Here's how the Overture's addition reads: 16 The clerk shall be a Ruling or Teaching Elder within the Presbyterian Church in America. 17 However, if a TE is a Session Clerk, he is not directly accountable to that court. Furthermore, the proposed addition 18 would allow a Session Clerk to be any RE or TE in the PCA and not necessarily an RE or TE that attends the 19 church at which he serves as Session Clerk. If the OC desires this rule, then perhaps it should be amended by adding the italicized clause shown here: "The clerk shall be a Ruling or Teaching Elder within the Presbyterian 21 Church in America and subject to the jurisdiction of the court for which he clerks." 22 N 59 Calvary BCO 38-3.a Allow Removal from Membership Roll, w/o Transfer, at Mbr's Request OC 23 Disapprove. This allows a person to administratively remove himself from membership in the universal Church 24 without transferring or reaffiliating. 38-3. a. When a member or officer in the Presbyterian Church in America shall attempt to withdraw from the 26 communion of this branch of the visible Church by affiliating with some other branch (BCO 2-2) or by 27 communicating his intent to affiliate with some other branch, if at the time of the attempt to withdraw he is 28 in good standing, the irregularity shall be recorded, his new membership or intentions acknowledged, and his 29 name removed from the roll. But if at the time of the attempt to withdraw there is a record of an investigation in process (BCO 31-2), or there are charges (BCO 32-3) concerning the member or minister, the court of 31 original jurisdiction may retain his name on the roll and conduct the case, communicating the outcome upon 32 completion of the proceedings to that member or minister. If the court does not conduct the case, his new 33 membership or intentions shall be acknowledged, his name removed from the roll, and, at the request of the 34 receiving branch, the matters under investigation or the charges shall be communicated to them. 36 R31 60 Calvary BCO 58-5 Only Ordained Men May "Distribute/Serve" the Bread and Cups OC 37 Refer to negative answer on Westminster 31 for the same reasons given on 31. Calvary 60 below differs slightly 38 from Westminster 31 (also later below). Both add something to the end of BCO 58-5. 39 Calvary 60: ... Only men lawfully ordained as elders or deacons (when there is not a sufficient number of elders present) shall assist the officiating minister in the distribution (or serving, as distinct from merely 41 passing) of the elements, for Christ our Lord has given to His specially called and ordained elders the 42 keys of His kingdom (Matthew 16:19; BCO 3-2; 12-5.a). 43 Westminster 31: ... Apart from extra-ordinary circumstances, ruling elders shall assist the minister in distributing 44 1 the elements, for they share the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:19, cf. BCO 12-5.a). 1 Distributing refers to the act of handing the elements to multiple communicants. It does not 46 refer to the passive action of passing trays or elements down rows or pews. 1 As mentioned regarding Westminster 31, a similar proposal was disapproved by the Chattanooga GA last year. 2 The 2025 Overtures Committee recommended GA approve Overture 12, but the GA adopted an OC Minority 3 Report disapproving the Overture by a vote of 1080-922 (54%-46%). 4 See the 12-minute Minority Report at timestamp 1:31:20 at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOBNhKlbWXs 6 If such a proposal can’t be adopted at the GA then it surely can’t be approved by 58 Presbyteries. And the same 7 matter should not be raised year after year. Overture writers should first spend time seeking to develop consensus 8 outside of the GA. Bringing the same matter up year after year is counterproductive to developing consensus. 9 RB 61 Calvary declaration Declare the Danvers Statement as Biblically Faithful OC 11 Refer Back to the Presbytery or Postpone Consideration Indefinitely 12 Seventeen years ago, the 2009 General Assembly in Orlando voted against a similar Overture on the Danvers 13 Statement filed by Grace Presbytery. (Overture 13, M37GA, p. 279) The 2009 Overtures Committee provided the 14 following Grounds: "The overture seeks to deal with matters of controversy with a lengthy statement whose complex propositions have not been examined in detail by the Church." That hasn't changed. Hopefully we can 16 be as clear thinking as the 2009 Assembly. 17 However, if it is considered, it should be Disapproved. There's no need to do this. There is no reason to declare 18 such things as the 1987 Danvers Statement to be "biblically faithful," unless we believe our Confession and 19 Catechisms are deficient. And if our Standards need additional statements, they should be drafted and incorporated into the Standards via the normal course. Any Presbytery is free to do what Calvary is proposing, but it's 21 unnecessary and unhelpful for the GA to do so. 22 One of the reasons Calvary Presbytery gives for this is: "7. the emergence of roles for men and women in church 23 leadership that do not conform to Biblical teaching but backfire in the crippling of Biblically faithful witness." 24 But declaring Danvers as "biblically faithful" will not likely help with the deacon questions prominent at this year's Assembly. Two of the most influential men in the crafting of the Danvers Statement affirm women in 26 diaconal roles. Below are a few quotes from John Piper and Wayne Grudem. 27 “We do not find in the New Testament a clear statement that women cannot be deacons.” (Piper & 28 Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991, p. 29 71). Bethlehem Baptist Church has women deacons. https://bethlehem.church/about/staff/campus/undefined/position/deacon/ 31 “There is evidence in the New Testament that women served as deacons in the early church.” 32 (Grudem, in RBMW, pp. 248–252 in discussion of Romans 16:1 and 1 Timothy 3:11) 33 “Phoebe is called a ‘deacon’ (diakonos) of the church at Cenchreae (Rom. 16:1)… This suggests 34 that women as well as men could serve as deacons.” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020, pp. 1089–1090) 36 “The qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3 do not clearly exclude women… therefore there is 37 no good reason to prohibit women from serving as deacons.” (Wayne Grudem, Evangelical 38 Feminism and Biblical Truth, 2nd ed., Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012, pp. 230–232) 39 In addition, the 1988 Danvers Statement has a strong “cultural crisis” tone that doesn't often lend itself to persuasion, at least not 38 years later. If a statement is needed, an updated tone would be better. 41 Several general concerns about Danvers that have been raised in the literature since 1988 include: 42 -Over-reliance on authority/submission language 43 -Ambiguity in how “male headship” is defined 44 -Insufficient ecclesiological precision 1 Danvers speaks broadly of male headship, but Reformed theologians and pastors like the Rev. Dr. Kevin DeYoung 2 (our current GA Moderator) have helpfully narrowed the practical claim by arguing that the decisive issue is male 3 eldership and pastoral office, not universal male authority across all civil or social spheres. (DeYoung, Men and 4 Women in the Church, (Crossways, 2021. DeYoung in italics here and below.) I don't assume Dr. DeYoung opposes Danvers or would urge others to vote against. He is on record as affirming 6 it, but based on my reading of him, he would probably agree that some of Danvers' statements could be improved 7 upon. So, let's do that instead of declaring Danvers to be biblically faithful. 8 Here is a link to a July 2022 article DeYoung wrote after his Men and Women in the Church book came out. I'd 9 be happier to adopt this article rather than Danvers. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/death-to-the-patriarchy Now to DeYoung and Danvers. 11 Danvers #1 says: “Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in 12 their manhood and womanhood.” DeYoung contends it would help if it also said something like: “Men and 13 women are equal in dignity and worth as image bearers of God.” 14 Danvers 7 says: “The Bible teaches that men should bear primary responsibility to lead the church.” That seems overly broad. A better and more ecclesiastically specific statement is one from DeYoung again: “Elders carry 16 out the ministry of the Word; deacons carry out the ministry of mercy.” 17 Danvers 8 says: “Husbands should love and lead; wives should affirm and support.” DeYoung emphasizes love 18 and restraint, softening hierarchical caricatures when he suggests: “Christian wives submit rather than usurp and 19 Christian husbands love rather than domineer.” Danvers 10 says: “We are convinced that denying these principles leads to destructive consequences.” DeYoung 21 again is more temperate and avoids the more alarmist tone sometimes associated with early complementarian 22 rhetoric. He writes: “When the church obscures biblical distinctions, confusion follows.” And he ties male 23 eldership to ordained authority structures rather than generalized male dominance. 24 Another reason given for the Overture is: "8. the increasing prevalence and acceptance of hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of Biblical texts." However, Danvers contributed somewhat to 26 the "eternal subordination of the Son" controversy, and thus we should use caution against grounding male–female 27 role distinctions in eternal authority structures within the Trinity. This is significant because some later 28 complementarian defenses (though not strictly in Danvers itself) leaned heavily on that Trinitarian analogy. 29 Finally, this proposed action has far fewer teeth than many suppose. A single Assembly "declaring something to be biblically faithful" is simply the opinion of that single Assembly. It has no binding impact on any Presbytery 31 or church in the PCA. Even if an Assembly adopted the Danvers Statement verbatim, nobody could say, "The 32 PCA adopted the Danvers Statement." 33 Bottom line: We don't need to, and shouldn't, adopt any position on Danvers. And if some statement is needed, a 34 better one can be crafted than this 38-year-old one. Declaring Danvers to be "biblically faithful" will simply demonstrate to the world that the PCA is lazy. 36 -62 TN Valley MNA Divide Presbytery MNA 37 Not referred to OC. After dividing, TVP would include 24 churches and 1 mission church, and the new Smokey 38 Mountain Presbytery would include 12 churches and 4 mission churches. Smokey Mountain would include 19 39 counties in TN and TVP would include 8 counties in TN and 5 in GA. 41 Y 63 South Texas RAO 19-4.f Allow Man Who Split Out from Omnibus to Speak First OC 42 Approve. A reasonable (but perhaps unnecessary) proposal (shown below). 43 RAO 19-4.f. (all new) Notwithstanding any other rule of recognition, when a commissioner objects 44 to the inclusion of an in gross recommendation, including an overture (as provided in RAO 14-9.d or RAO 15-8.b), the objecting commissioner shall have preference in recognition (see RONR [12th 46 ed.] 42:7) when debating the separated recommendation. 1 Common sense says that a man who requests a matter be removed from omnibus should have the opportunity to 2 thereafter speak first rather than recognizing someone, for example, who immediately rises to move the previous 3 question. Thus, perhaps we don't need to codify what should be common sense. For example, last year, a 4 commissioner successfully requested a matter be pulled out of omnibus, but before he could speak to the matter another TE moved the previous question at a mic, which received a 2/3 majority, and a vote was then taken without 6 debating the matter removed from omnibus. 7 Here's an excerpt from M52GA, p. 93. 8 "[After a removed matter was voted on without debate, a TE] raised a point of order that it is not 9 appropriate to call the question even before the man who pulled the item from the omnibus had an opportunity to speak to the matter. The Moderator ruled the point of order well taken. " 11 In other words, we might not need an RAO change for a mistake one Moderator made and admitted. 12 N 64 * Canada West BCO 23-2 Establish Associate Memberships for Honorably Retired TEs OC 13 Disapprove. Reasons are given after the Overture's proposal shown below. 14 23-2. The Presbytery may designate a minister as honorably retired when the minister by reason of age wishes to be retired, or as medically disabled when by reason of infirmity is no longer able to 16 serve the church in the active ministry of the Gospel. A minister medically disabled or honorably 17 retired so designated shall may continue to hold membership in his Presbytery, He may serve on 18 committees or commissions if so elected or appointed. with all the rights and privileges thereof, 19 provided that he also maintain an active associate membership (or its equivalent) in a faithful local church, subject to the same limitations as BCO 46-4. 21 It's unclear what is the problem the Overture seeks to solve. There might be examples where this change becomes 22 complicated. If such a minister moves to be near his adult children, he might worship at their church, which might 23 not have "associate membership (or its equivalent)." And if he becomes a regular member of that church, then 24 there would be overlapping jurisdictional authorities the local church leadership and his Presbytery. As currently written, BCO 23-2 precludes such duel jurisdictional authority. 26 Finally, there could be another problem. If this Overture is adopted, could a TE with associate membership in a 27 PCA church file a BCO 43 complaint against a Session action or decision, like other associate members? BCO 28 46-4 says: "An associate member shall have all the rights and privileges of that church, with the exception of 29 voting in a congregational or corporation meeting and holding an office in that church." (emphasis added) N 65 * Canada West BCO 38-1 Confessions & Cases without Process OC 31 Disapprove. Below are the proposed changes to BCO 38-1. 32 38-1. When any person shall come forward as the first witness in order to and make his offense 33 known to the court of his own volition, a full statement of the facts shall be recorded and judgment 34 rendered without process. ... In such cases where anyone other than the offender reveals his offense to the court, the court shall investigate into the veracity of the accusations and draw up a document 36 detailing the alleged offenses to serve as a written confession which the accused may sign if he 37 willfully confesses his guilt in regard to the alleged offenses. If the accused refuses to sign the 38 document, the court may proceed with process. 39 The first sentence of the Overture seems to unhelpfully imply such investigation is only needed when accusations come from someone other than those that are self-confessed. But a court needs to "investigate into the veracity." 41 No court should simply assume a confessing offender has confessed the whole story. 42 More importantly, the proposed change seems to describe a take-it-or-leave-it confession document drawn up by 43 the investigators. While it might be prudent for that to be an initial document, it need not be the only allowable 44 draft. Sometimes an accused offender could point out discrepancies in the document which, if remedied, could make it such that he could sign. Why not allow that option? The court never needs to agree to co-sign a document 46 if it does not believe it is acceptable as a sufficient confession. 1 Am 66 Philadelphia statement Lengthy Thanks on 250th Anniversary of Nation's Founding OC 2 Disapprove, unless significantly amended. First, the Resolution paragraph begins with: "Therefore, be it resolved 3 that the 53rd General Assembly issue a formal “Declaration of Thanksgiving ... by publishing the foregoing 4 statements together with this resolution, to be spread upon the minutes and published electronically by the Administrative Committee through byFaith ..." (emphasis added) 6 The "foregoing statements" presumably refer to the 15 Whereas clauses, containing over 1,100 words. Rarely has 7 GA been asked to officially "declare," as its own statement, 1,100 words and include them as the GA's position in 8 the Minutes and publicly feature them in our online magazine. 9 This Overture should be amended to simply propose: Be it resolved that the 53rd GA adopt the following statement: 11 "The 53rd PCA General Assembly declares its thanks to the Lord for the United States 12 of America as we approach the 250th Anniversary of the Nation’s Founding." 13 Debate on anything else might not be resolved until the 251st anniversary of our nation's founding ... 14 Y 67 Potomac BCO 40-5 Court Shall Make 2 Determinations Before Citing Lower Court OC Approve. A reasonable and very helpful proposal, as shown below. 16 BCO 40-5. When any court having appellate jurisdiction shall receive a credible report with respect 17 to the court next below of any important delinquency or grossly unconstitutional proceedings of 18 such court, the first step shall be to make two determinations: 19 1. Would the matter reported, if true, be judged to be an important delinquency or a grossly unconstitutional proceeding? 21 2. Is there sufficient evidence provided to support the allegation and is it reported by a 22 credible source (e.g. BCO 31-8)? 23 If the higher court determines the answer to both questions is Yes, then the higher court shall cite 24 the court alleged to have offended to appear before the higher court having appellate jurisdiction, or its commission, by representative or in writing, at a specified time and place, and to show what 26 the lower court has done or failed to do in the case in question. The citation to appear must specify 27 the instance(s) of important delinquency or grossly unconstitutional proceeding and show what 28 portion of the Constitution has been violated. 29 Answering those two questions will determine if the report is "credible" and warrants a citation to appear. 31 32 N 68 Catawba Valley BCO 14-1 10 Committees & Agency Appointees = Nonvoting AC Members All 33 Disapprove. Last year, by a 65% majority, the Assembly adopted the recommendation of the Overtures Committee 34 and referred Overture 9 back to James River Presbytery. Catawba Valley 68 proposes essentially the same thing. It isn't helpful to send up the same overture in consecutive years, unless the Overture reports it has worked to 36 develop consensus among the PCA for such a change. Otherwise, it can be a misuse of the Assembly's time. 37 An OC Minority Report was presented last year recommending James River 9 be approved, but a 65% 38 majority of the Assembly adopted the Overture's Committee's recommendation instead. (M52GA, p.92) 39 Repetition does not make a rejected idea wiser. In addition, last year 8 of 10 Committees of Commissioner for the 5 Permanent Committees and 5 Agency Boards recommended answering James River 9 in the Negative. (The 41 RUF CoC did not report a recommendation and the MTW CoC recommended Affirmative by vote of 29-21.) 42 Y 69 SW Florida BCO 32-18 Clarify Contents of Record of the Case in Judicial Cases OC 43 Approve. Helpful change. But one of the proposed additional phrases might benefit from clearer wording: 44 "... the citations and returns thereto ..." -70 Korean NW MNA Add AK, HI, OR and WA to KNW Presbytery MNA 2 Not assigned to OC. These four states are not geographically within any Korean Presbytery boundary, though 3 there are seven Korean PCA churches in those four states. If this proposal is approved, only Montana, Idaho, 4 Utah and New Mexico will be outside the boundaries of any Korean Presbytery. R37 71 * N. California BCO 5-9 + 9.2 & 9-7; Allow Session to Administer Diaconal Ministry OC 6 Answer by Reference to the answer on Pacific 37. However, if consensus develops over some form of this, it 7 might help resolve some of the tension and conflict over how diaconal ministry must be conducted. 8 R37 72 * Ascension BCO 12-8 Require Noting Elders and Deacons in Session Minutes OC 9 Answer by Reference to the answer on Pacific 37. Below is the paragraph proposed to be added: 12-8. Every Session shall annually record in its minutes a list of all persons who comprise the 11 Session and the Diaconate. If the local church has no Diaconate, then the Session's minutes shall 12 indicate why, and whether the duties have devolved upon the Session according to BCO 9-2. 13 The Committee on Constitutional Business advises that there is some constitutional conflict with what's being 14 proposed in Overture 72. R43 73 TE Hooper RAO 4-9 2/3 to Elect Coordinators + Stated Clerk after 3 years of Service All 16 Answer by Reference to Answer on PNW 43. This Overture was proposed to, but rejected by, Ascension 17 Presbytery. (TE Hooper is pastor of Berean Presbyterian Church in Ellwood City, PA.) Below is his proposed 18 addition to RAO 4-9: 19 RAO 4-9. "... If a nominee to the position of Stated Clerk or coordinator of a program Committee has served three consecutive years in the position for which he was nominated, then his nomination 21 shall require a two-thirds (2/3) vote of those present and voting in the General Assembly to secure 22 election for each successive year. ..." 23 R37 74 E. Carolina BCO 17 New Chapter on Commissioning for Non-Ordained Ministry OC 24 Answer by Reference to the answer on Pacific 37. Below is the proposed new Chapter to be added; all new below. It raises some interesting propositions. 26 BCO 17 -Of Commissioning for Non-Ordained Ministry 27 17-1. Definition. Commissioning is an act of the church, through a Session or Presbytery, publicly 28 recognizing and setting apart a qualified member of the church for a particular ministry role that does 29 not involve the exercise of the authority vested in the ordained offices of elder or deacon. 17-2. Biblical Basis. Commissioning reflects the pattern in Scripture whereby the church—while reserving 31 ordination for specific offices—also sends, authorizes, or sets apart individuals for ministry through 32 prayer and public recognition (e.g., Acts 23 13:1-3; Acts 15:22, 27, 32). 33 17-3. Nature of Commissioning. 34 a. Commissioning does not confer ecclesiastical office and does not authorize the exercise of the governing authority belonging to elders. 36 b. Commissioned individuals may serve in roles of teaching, discipleship, mercy, 37 leadership, administration, counseling, or other ministries under the oversight of the 38 Session or Presbytery. 39 c. Commissioning may be conferred upon men or women. 1 17-4. Authorization. The Session of a local congregation may commission individuals for congregational 2 ministries under its oversight. Presbyteries may commission individuals for presbytery-wide or 3 denominational ministries. 4 17-5. Process. a. Candidates for commissioning will ordinarily be members in good standing and examined in 6 those matters relevant to their ministry assignment (e.g., Christian character, doctrinal 7 understanding, spiritual gifts, and particular skills). 8 b. The commissioning act shall clearly distinguish it from ordination to office. 9 c. A written description of the ministry role, responsibilities, and limits of authority shall be adopted by the Session or Presbytery and communicated to the church’s or Presbytery’s 11 members. 12 17-6. Accountability. Commissioned individuals serve under the direct oversight of the Session or Presbytery 13 that authorized them and shall report on their ministry as required. Commissioning may be concluded 14 or revoked at the discretion of that court. 17-7. Safeguards. Commissioning shall not be used to create new ecclesiastical offices, to introduce ruling 16 or teaching authority apart from ordained office, or to blur the distinctions set forth in BCO 7 and 8 17 concerning church government. 18 N 75 Central FL BCO 42 Clarify Process for Filing an Appeal OC 19 Disapprove (unless significantly amended). This Presbytery has identified a real problem, and while changes are warranted to BCO 42 Appeals, the proposed solution doesn't seem the best. Below is Central Florida's proposal. 21 42-4. Notice of appeal may be given the court before its adjournment. Written notice of appeal, 22 with supporting reasons, shall Written appeal with supporting reasons must be filed by the appellant 23 with both the clerk of the lower court and the clerk of the higher court, within thirty (30) days of 24 notification of the last court’s decision. 42-5. It shall be the duty of the clerk of the lower court to file with the clerk of the higher court, not 26 more than thirty (30) days after receipt of notice of the written appeal with supporting reasons, a 27 copy of all proceedings in connection with the case, including the notice of appeal and reasons 28 therefor, the response of the lower court, the evidence, and any papers bearing on the case, ... 29 42-6. Notice of The filing of the written appeal shall have the effect of suspending the judgment of the lower court until the case has been finally decided in the higher court. However, the court of 31 original jurisdiction may, for sufficient reasons duly recorded, prevent the appellant from 32 approaching the Lord’s Table, and if an officer, prevent him from exercising some or all his official 33 functions, until the case is finally decided (cf. BCO 31-10; 33-4). This shall never be done in the 34 way of censure, and only when in the judgment of a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the court of original jurisdiction there is a risk of the appellant doing harm to the name of Christ and His church before 36 the case is finally decided. shall require a two-thirds (2/3) majority. 37 First, the PCA's appeal process has three steps (notice of appeal, written appeal, and appellant's brief) whereas 38 most US jurisdictions only have two (notice of appeal and later, the appellant's brief). Ours leads to confusion. 39 It's probably unwise for our BCO to say notice of intention to file an appeal must contain "supporting reasons." Those can be and should be reserved for the Appellant's brief. In almost all U.S. criminal cases, the notice of 41 appeal does not need to include the reasons or arguments for the appeal. The reasons and arguments for the appeal 42 are prepared later. And US States usually allow between 10 and 30 days to file notice of appeal. (Idaho is 42 days.) 43 Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 3), the notice of appeal is intentionally simple. It generally 44 must: (1) identify who is appealing, (2) specify the judgment or order being appealed, and (3) name the court to which the appeal is taken. That’s all. It’s a jurisdictional filing, not an argument. 46 Arguments come later in the Appellant's Brief. As I understand it, in Federal appeals courts, the Appellant's Brief 47 is limited to 13,000 words (FRAP Rule 2), which would be about 55 pages using 12-point Times New Roman 1 font, with one-inch margins, double-spaced. Most states have similar limits and allow an Appellant Brief, an 2 Appellee Brief, and an Appellant Response Brief (usually half the size of the Appellant Brief). 3 However, unlike in the PCA, giving notice of intention to file an appeal in most US States does not suspend the 4 sentence. The conviction is presumed valid unless overturned by a higher court. It's left to the discretion of the original court as to whether the sentence remains in effect during appeal. 6 If Central FL Overture 75 is approved as filed, a censured person who intends to appeal will be censured during 7 the 30-day filing period and the censure would not be suspended until the written appeal is filed. Granted, if the 8 censured person files quickly, the judgment and censure will be suspended quickly. But the provision could also 9 say that giving oral or written notice of intention to appeal would suspend the judgment and censure during that initial 30-day period. Then, if no written appeal is filed, the censure is enacted. But that is awkward also. 11 Regarding the optional "non-censure suspension of official functions" in BCO 42-6, there is currently nothing in 12 the BCO that prohibits the original court -immediately after the censure is announced -to vote by two-thirds 13 majority to "prevent him from exercising some or all his official functions" regardless of when the notice of appeal 14 or the written filing of an appeal occur. While this commentary doesn't propose any amendments to Overture 75, it might be worth considering some BCO 16 changes in the future. It might be helpful if our BCO said something like what's below (in some form or fashion): 17 1. Notice -Oral or written notice of intent to appeal, noted by the court, should be given to the court as soon 18 as possible, so the court can decide if the BCO 42-6 [non-censure] suspension from the Table or from 19 official functions is necessary. If such notice is given, the court can also begin initial preparation of the Record of the Case (including transcript) to assist the Clerk in filing the Record with the higher court. It 21 is this notice of intent to appeal that suspends the judgment and censure in the PCA. (Though I still wonder 22 about the wisdom of suspended those during an Appeal.) No "supporting reasons" should be required in 23 the notice of intent to appeal. 24 2. The "Appeal" -As I understand it, in US jurisdictions there is nothing akin to "the written Appeal" document described in BCO 42, which in our BCO is in addition to the "notice of Appeal." A convicted 26 person shouldn't need to file "supporting reasons" prior to his Appellant Brief. The Appeal is argued in the 27 Brief, not in some pre-Brief "Appeal" document. That Brief's argumentation is far more important than 28 any initial "supporting reasons." Part of the problem with the PCA requiring "supporting reasons" to be 29 filed within 30-days of notification of the last court's decision is that it's possible that sometime after that Appeal is filed, the Appellant could recruit an assistant who notices another error that could legitimately 31 be raised on appeal. That additional reason should be allowed in the Appellant's Brief, and considered by 32 the higher court, even though it wasn't initially included in the "supporting reasons" of the written 33 "Appeal," assuming it was raised in the original court. In other words, supporting reasons should just wait 34 for the Brief. For example, here's a summary of the sequence in Idaho: 36 1. File notice of appeal (usually within 42 days of judgment). 37 2. The Record and transcripts are prepared and filed, 38 3. Then a 35-day clock starts for filing the Appellant’s brief. 39 So, the Appellant's briefing deadline in Idaho can come weeks or even months after the notice of appeal, depending on how long it takes for the record prep and transcription. 41 3. BCO 42-6 -The original PCA court can vote to enact the BCO 42-6 [non-censure] suspension from the 42 Lord's Supper or from official functions at any time after the censure is announced, i.e., immediately or 43 any time during the course of the Appeal. 44 R66 76 Calvary statement Lengthy Thanks on 250th Anniversary of Nation's Founding OC 46 Answer by Reference to Philadelphia 66 (which needs to be amended heavily before approving.) 47 29 1 R43 77 SE Alabama RAO 4-9 Elect Coordinators and Clerk to 4-yr Terms AC, etc. OC 2 Answer by Reference to Pacific NW 43 (recommended approval) 3 Y 78 SE Alabama RAO 4-21 Authorize Electronic Perm Comm Meetings AC, etc. OC 4 Approve. Permanent Committees should be able to decide for themselves if an electronic meeting is wiser than an in-person meeting, given the time and cost of an in-person meeting. If the SJC has the freedom to choose to 6 conduct a called meeting electronically, so should GA Perm Comms -which have fewer members than the SJC. 7 R78 79 Calvary RAO 4-21 Authorize Electronic Perm Comm Meetings AC, etc. OC 8 Answer by Reference to recommended approval of SEAL 78. 9 N 80 Calvary AIC Erect Study Committee on Critical Race Theory AC, OC Disapprove. We don't need a Study Committee on this. Anyone is free to write a paper addressing the subject or 11 publish an annotated bibliography. The overturing Presbytery is certainly free to do so. Furthermore, it's unlikely 12 a Study Committee will make recommendations that an Assembly would adopt. Over the years, most study 13 committees simply publish on a subject, but don't make any recommendations that have teeth. And unless an AIC 14 recommendation proposes changing the Constitution, any "statement" that might be adopted by an Assembly is simply the statement of the commissioners at that particular Assembly -not the "PCA statement" on the matter. 16 Y 81 Potomac RAO 1-1 Require Wine & Juice at GA Lord's Supper OC 17 Approve. This is long overdue. I chaired the host committee for the 2003 GA in Charlotte, and we were told we 18 could only use juice in the Lord's Supper. Seemed odd then and still does. Nonetheless, this doesn't need an RAO 19 change if AC willing to use wine along with juice. Perhaps this should have also been referred to AC because if AC endorses the idea, we don't need to change the RAO. Granted, AC membership changes every year, and 21 perhaps AC might like this codified, so it doesn't get criticized for doing it. It would be my happy privilege to buy 22 the wine for the first Assembly that does this. 23 N 82 Rocky Mtn BCO 12+ Clarify Right of Congregation to Consent to Leaders OC 24 Disapprove. This creates more problems than it solves. Clarification regarding what happens when a church session cannot make a quorum can be found in two SJC decisions rendered in October 2025 and reported in this 26 year's Commissioner Handbook -Cases 2024-07 PCA v. Columbus Metro and 2024-20 Complaint of Fout v. Ohio 27 Valley. I wrote a Concurring Opinion in each, linked below. 28 2024-07 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YV9M2nO8_JPN8o0LQuQ3Pl-DuAoe-CK3/view?usp=sharing 29 2024-20 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-QGKSaC_vi1uksp0GOJm8Kkptr_SvBbk/view?usp=sharing -83 NW Georgia policy Doctrine + Scripture Classes Can Only Be Taught by Elders CC, CTS 31 Not referred to OC. Defer to recommendations from the Boards of Covenant College and Covenant Seminary. 32 N 84 NW Georgia BCO 12+ Require Annual Attestation of Officer Vows OC 33 Disapprove. The idea of annually reaffirming vows misunderstands the nature of vows. They do not need to be 34 repeated. The PCA elder vows I took in 1986 are as obligatory on me today as they would be if I had repeated them every year since. While some married couples might "reaffirm" their wedding vows, that is more ceremonial 36 than substantive, and most of us don't see the need for doing so. 37 Am 85 NW Georgia BCO 44 Add New Full Chapter on Objections OC 38 Approve, but only if significantly amended. The Overture proposes adding three sections to BCO 44 which is 39 shown now as "vacated." It would also delete all references to "Objections" in BCO 45. If I understand the Overture correctly, it would be much simpler to just add a sentence to BCO 39-2, in a different part of the BCO, 41 as shown below. 1 BCO 39-2. When the proceedings of a lower court are before a higher court, the members of the lower 2 court shall not lose the right to sit, deliberate and vote in the higher court, except in cases of appeal or 3 complaint. At the Presbytery level, after a complaint or an appeal is adjudicated that arose from a 4 Session act or decision, the Session members who were prohibited from voting on the matter in 5 Presbytery may file an objection to the action or decision on that complaint or appeal (BCO 45-4). 6 N 86 Grace Church Session BCO 43 Rename Complaints as Inquiries OC 7 Disapprove. The noun "inquiry" is less clear than the word "complaint" which this Overture seeks to replace. The 8 word inquiry denotes a question whereas the word complaint denotes an objection to something, which is what a 9 BCO 43 complaint is. This comes from Grace Covenant Church in Dallas, GA (NW GA Pby). 10 - 87 Pittsburgh MNA Boundaries of Pittsburgh & Ohio (cf. 10) MNA 11 See MNA recommendation. 12 - 88 Siouxlands AC Format BCO for Ease of Printing at Home AC 13 See AC recommendation. 14 R66 89 Fellowship statement Lengthy Thanks on 250th Anniversary of Nation's Founding OC 15 Answer by Reference to answer on Philadelphia 66 to answer in Affirmative, but only if significantly amended. Overtures Analysis & Recommendations for the 53rd General Assembly Introduction, Methodology, and Fallibility The 53rd General Assembly faces an unusually heavy docket, with more than eighty overtures submitted for consideration. That volume requires careful work from commissioners. When so many constitutional and procedural changes are before the church at once, the burden should rest on each overture to demonstrate not only that it addresses a real concern, but that its proposed language is necessary, clear, and unlikely to create greater difficulties than the problem it seeks to solve. Morton Smith’s observation is worth keeping in mind as we approach this docket: when a system of church government seems to operate with friction or error, “it is not necessarily the fault of the system, but of those seeking to implement it.” That does not mean the BCO should never be amended. It does mean that commissioners should distinguish carefully between defects in our constitutional language and failures in wisdom, discipline, courage, or ordinary Presbyterian practice. My aim in these notes is not to be needlessly negative. It is to be cautious in the proper sense. The peace, purity, and good order of the church are not served by hasty amendment, imprecise drafting, or constitutional language that answers one problem by creating several others. Even well-intentioned overtures can produce unintended consequences if their terms are unclear, overbroad, underdeveloped, or in tension with existing provisions of the Book of Church Order. I have tried to evaluate each overture according to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America. I have also consulted the report of the Committee on Constitutional Business, Morton Smith’s commentary on the BCO, and notes from other PCA presbyters. In preparing these notes, I sought to stress-test each proposal for ambiguous wording, constitutional tension, overbreadth or underbreadth, procedural confusion, and possible unintended consequences. Where I believe an overture addresses a legitimate concern but contains curable defects, I have suggested amendment strategies for the Overtures Committee to consider. In a docket this large, it is possible to miss a procedural nuance, a constitutional implication, or a pastoral consideration. If you believe I have misread a provision of the BCO, misapplied the Standards, overlooked a relevant precedent, or failed to see how an overture could be amended constructively, I would be grateful to hear from you. Email: ben.d.ratliff@gmail.com X:@_benratliff TL;DR: Overtures to the 53 General Assembly Description Rec Answer Rationale Lowering thresholds for assistant/associate pastor succession. Negative The heightened threshold protects congregations by ensuring internal succession proceeds only with overwhelming unity. Voting rights for members in mission churches before a pastor is called. Negative The proposed language lacks precision and appears to import too much of BCO 25 into BCO 5. Mandating specific procedural paths and witness interviews in judicial cases. Negative The amendments overcorrect for procedural deficiencies and undermine the discretion ordinarily entrusted to lower courts. Adding a time of prayer to the General Assembly docket. Affirmative While it could have been a simple request to the Stated Clerk, the author is prepared to approve it. Prohibiting more than one person from the same Presbytery on the AC Negative It elevates geographical representation over the Assembly's liberty to elect the most qualified presbyters. Restricting the ability of individual commissioners to pull items from omnibus. Negative It shifts the balance too far away from the deliberative rights and oversight responsibilities of individual commissioners. Expanding authority for the Committee on RPR. Negative It assigns a function belonging to a court or commission to a committee, potentially conflicting with BCO 40-5. Moving the deadline for floor nominations to Tuesday afternoon. Negative A Tuesday deadline prevents commissioners from responding to new information received during the Assembly itself. Requiring floor nominations to explain contributions to proportionality. Negative The overture introduces procedural uncertainty by failing to define what constitutes a "sufficient" explanation. Boundary change regarding Pittsburgh and Ohio Presbyteries. Affirmative It is a boundary change request with necessary consent provided by a companion overture. Requiring annual reporting from MNA on church-planting data. Affirmative Regular reporting will help commissioners evaluate MNA’s work with better objective data and less guesswork. Lowering educational requirements for Teaching Elders. Negative Lowering standards to an Associate’s degree or GED introduces subjectivity and departs from the ideal of a learned ministry. Establishing quorum standards for Session commissions. Affirmative, as amended The suggested amendment restores a Session's discretionary power to determine the quorum of its own commissions. Restricting staff titles and roles that imply ordained authority. Negative The proposed language is too expansive, subjective, and likely to generate more confusion than clarity regarding staff roles. Clarifying the 30-day deadline for filing appeals and complaints. Affirmative Creates a much brighter line by strictly tying the deadline to the dispatch or receipt of a formal written document. Relocating the prohibition against circularizing the court. Affirmative This relocation clarifies that the rule is needed for neutrality in higher courts while allowing godly conversation in lower courts. Extending BCO 25-10 property protections to mission churches. Negative It blurs the distinction between mission and particular churches, creating potential confusion over the control of assets. Allowing mother church Sessions to issue direct calls to church planters. Affirmative It provides a cleaner process for mother-daughter church planting relationships without weakening Presbytery oversight. Higher-court representation for mission churches. Negative This creates procedural problems as mission churches lack the permanent governing bodies required for such representation. Establishing a process for "transitory Sessions" in struggling churches. Affirmative, as amended Amendments are needed to ensure explicit congregational consent and regular annual review by the Presbytery. Refining transfer examination requirements for Teaching Elders. Affirmative This aligns constitutional language with actual practice while maintaining high standards for receiving ministers from other branches. Streamlining the process for churches transferring between Presbyteries. Affirmative This is a common-sense amendment that removes redundant procedural requirements for transferring churches. Reorganizing BCO 14 for easier citation and use. Affirmative The reorganization makes the chapter more intuitive to use and results in shorter, cleaner citations. Clarifying the conduct of "final trials" for ordination. Negative The phrase "final trials" is ambiguous and the proposal may unintentionally narrow discretion already granted by the BCO. Description Rec Answer Rationale Restructuring examination requirements for candidates and ministers. Affirmative This restructuring provides a clearer, better-organized framework that reduces redundancy and improves consistency. Changing the amendment threshold to two-thirds of voting Presbyteries. Negative This would lower the threshold for constitutional change and undermine the stability of the denomination's foundational documents. Making General Assembly assumption of original jurisdiction optional. Negative Weakening this mandatory protection would make the Assembly's responsibility to address serious scandals merely optional. Right of members to complain against Presbytery actions on local matters. Affirmative This makes explicit what is already allowable under current rules. Clarifying the suspension of a judgment during the appeal process. Affirmative, as amended The overture's two-step structure helpfully ensures that immediate temporary suspension is eventually tied to a formal filing. Presbytery responsibility for ministers in transfer. Affirmative A minister should remain the responsibility of his original Presbytery until the receiving Presbytery formally receives him. Revision of the Directory for Worship. Refer Back This should be referred back due to concurrent work being done by an Ad-Interim Committee on the same topic. Broadening requirements for reviewing governing and operating documents. Affirmative, as amended The language should be broadened to cover all relevant bylaws and manuals while limiting pre-Assembly mailings to minutes. Limiting minority reports from the RPR. Negative This could restrict the right of a committee minority to bring substantial disagreements on broader policy matters before the Assembly. Mandating the establishment of a diaconate. Negative The language creates confusion regarding the election of deacons and disrupts existing fallback arrangements for small churches. Establishing a 90-day deadline for filing an indictment. Affirmative, as amended A reasonable deadline protects both the purity of the church and the rights of the accused from indefinite delay. Preserving distinctions between ordained office and unordained service. Negative The proposal does not adequately account for existing provisions for unordained assistance and uses overly subjective language. Permitting local Sessions to ordain women as deacons. Negative Local Sessions do not have the authority to redefine constitutional qualifications for ordained office for the whole denomination. Permitting unordained persons to use the title "deacon". Negative This separates the title from the office, creating constitutional confusion and destabilizing the vocabulary of church office. Requiring assistant pastors to be considered for associate status after five years. Negative This mandate is too rigid for the variety of healthy pastoral relationships and may force congregations into unnecessary dilemmas. Mandating a six-month transition period for denominational coordinators. Negative Mandatory extensions for coordinators who have lost the Assembly's confidence could create instability and conflict. Requiring a supermajority vote for electing denominational executives. Negative A supermajority requirement could produce deadlocks and leave agencies without necessary leadership. Restoring an accidentally omitted phrase to BCO 29-1. Affirmative, as amended This should be treated as an editorial restoration by the Stated Clerk rather than a substantive constitutional amendment. Related to coordinator terms. With Ref to 77 This overture is addressed by the recommendation for Overture 77. Establishing the Arkansas Presbytery. Affirmative This represents years of labor and will provide better regional oversight and care for the involved churches. Restricting floor nominations to previously submitted names. Negative This shift in power away from the Assembly itself relies on an ambiguous definition of "previously submitted". Defining public accusations as probable offenses. Negative The sweeping language could interfere with investigation duties and pressure courts toward process without proper inquiry. Related to floor nominations. With Ref to 45 This overture is addressed by the recommendation for Overture 45. Prohibiting titles that "imply the authority" of ordained office. Negative The language is too subjective for objective application and introduces a needlessly accusatory tone into the BCO. Increasing Ruling Elder representation for congregations. Negative A flat increase does not address the actual vocational and financial obstacles that limit Ruling Elder attendance. Description Rec Answer Rationale Recommending a season of prayer and fasting. Affirmative This fits within the Directory for Worship and offers an opportunity for unity in repentance and supplication. Related to transitory Sessions. With Ref to 20 This overture is addressed by the recommendation for Overture 20. Prohibiting the creation of extra-constitutional offices. Affirmative This provides a necessary clarification that church offices are governed by Scripture and the Constitution, not local invention. Prohibiting RPR members from debating their own recommendations. Negative This would prevent the only men who have seen the primary evidence from participating in floor debate. Clarifying the right of appeal for those in contumacy. Negative The overture either strips rights from the convicted or is redundant with existing protections in the BCO. Related to assistant pastor status. With Ref to 39 This overture is addressed by the recommendation for Overture 39. Restricting judicial representatives to ordained officers. Negative This restriction is too narrow and could deprive parties of competent lay counsel, such as legally trained laymen. Requiring Sessions to submit records of congregational meetings. Affirmative It is reasonable for Presbyteries to access official records of congregational actions to fulfill their duty of oversight. Requiring all church court clerks to be ordained elders. Affirmative The role involves exercising joint power and should be reserved for those bound by vows. Administrative deletion for members with conscientious objections. Negative This would allow Sessions to bypass diligent pastoral care in favor of administrative convenience. Requiring deacons to distribute elements of the Lord's Supper. Negative Logistical means of distribution should not be elevated into mandatory constitutional requirements for worship. Commending the Danvers Statement as a pastoral resource. Affirmative The statement is a useful, non-binding resource that faithfully echoes the PCA's existing complementarian principles. Establishing the Smoky Mountain Presbytery. Affirmative Dividing the presbytery better enables elders to gather, deliberate, and shepherd effectively in that region. Giving preference in debate to commissioners who separate items. Affirmative, as amended Objecting commissioners should have the initial opportunity to explain why they pulled an item for separate debate. Allowing retired ministers to choose their court of membership. Negative This would effectively remove retired ministers from ordinary constitutional accountability and discipline. Mandatory mechanisms for testing the repentance of the accused. Negative The proposed standard is too rigid and risks creating a coercive mechanism that could compromise court impartiality. Recommending prayer for the propagation of the gospel. Affirmative It calls the churches to pray according to concerns already reflected in Scripture and the Standards. Adding language regarding "credible reports" for higher court action. Negative Existing BCO language already requires courts to evaluate the credibility and gravity of reports before acting. Making nine Administrative Committee members nonvoting. Negative This creates significant administrative confusion regarding quorum and the AC’s civil corporate capacity. Harmonizing language regarding the record on appeal. Affirmative Clear, consistent rules for assembling records serve both the appellant and the reviewing court. Supporting Korean Language Presbyteries. Affirmative This practical measure supports the growth and orderly connectionalism of these specific presbyteries. Creating substitute unordained diaconal structures. Negative This risks weakening the congregation’s constitutional authority to elect its own deacons as ordained officers. Requiring annual recording of Session and Diaconate composition. Affirmative, as amended This provides Presbyteries a clearer picture of the officer health and diaconal development of their churches. Related to executive elections. With Ref to 41 This overture is addressed by the recommendation for Overture 41. Formal commissioning for unordained persons. Negative Creating a formal rite of commissioning risks adding new quasi-offices that the Constitution does not define. Description Rec Answer Rationale Partial amendments regarding "notice of appeal". Negative Partial amendments are dangerous; changes to the Rules of Discipline should be comprehensive and consistent. Related to prayer for the propagation of the gospel. In Ref to 66 This overture is addressed by the recommendation for Overture 66. Establishing four-year terms for the Stated Clerk and coordinators. Affirmative Longer terms provide necessary vocational stability and bring these roles into alignment with Agency leadership. Related to electronic meetings. With Ref to 79 This overture is addressed by the recommendation for Overture 79. Formally authorizing electronic meetings. Affirmative This is a practical update that allows committees and commissions to conduct business efficiently between gatherings. Establishing a study committee on Critical Theory. Affirmative The proposal addresses an urgent pastoral and theological issue facing the churches with careful, confessional analysis. Mandating wine for the Lord's Supper at General Assembly. Negative A mandate may imply that congregations using grape juice offer a deficient expression of the sacrament. Allowing a single elder to receive new members. Negative This grants jurisdictional power to an individual elder, which is contrary to the principle of joint power. Requiring theology teachers to be ordained and accountable. Affirmative It is reasonable to ensure those teaching doctrine to future leaders are ordained and ecclesiastically accountable. Requiring annual theological view checks for officers. Affirmative This operationalizes existing vows and helps courts fulfill their responsibility to guard sound doctrine. Organizing dissents, protests, and objections into separate chapters. Affirmative This improves the structure and usability of the BCO while clarifying the specific function of objections. Replacing the term "complaint" with "inquiry". Negative Softening the name without changing the adversarial nature of the process creates more confusion than clarity. Boundary change regarding Ohio and Pittsburgh Presbyteries. Affirmative This mirrors Overture 10 and includes the necessary consent from both parties. Administrative mandates for CDM. Refer Back These concerns are better addressed through direct communication than an inflexible Assembly mandate. Related to prayer for the gospel. With Ref to 66 This overture is addressed by the recommendation for Overture 66. Overture 1 - Negative The overture would remove the requirement of a four-fifths congregational vote by secret ballot and lower the Presbytery’s required approval from three-fourths to two-thirds. The rationale argues that the current threshold unduly restricts congregational rights. I would argue the opposite: the heightened threshold protects the congregation by ensuring that an internal succession proceeds only when there is overwhelming unity. The BCO already recognizes the danger of pressing forward with a pastoral call when a large minority is opposed. BCO 20-5 and 24-5 instruct the moderator to seek to dissuade a majority from prosecuting a call in such circumstances. If that principle applies in ordinary elections, it is even more important in the unusual circumstance of an assistant or associate pastor succeeding a senior pastor. The rationale also notes that the PCA has not seen the feared abuse under the current rule. That may be evidence that the current rule is doing its work. High thresholds do not exist because every church is likely to abuse the process, but because the damage caused by a mishandled pastoral succession can be severe and long-lasting. I do not believe the case has been made for lowering this bar. Overture 2 - Negative I am sympathetic to the concern behind Overture 2. It seeks to provide voting rights for members who are already present in a mission church before a pastor is called. That is a real pastoral and procedural concern. The difficulty is that the proposed language appears to import too much of BCO 25 into BCO 5. BCO 5-5.a deals primarily with members joining a mission church where a pastor is already in place, while this overture addresses a different situation: members who are part of a mission work before a pastoral call has been issued. The phrase “according to BCO 25” needs more precision. If the overture means that the principles of congregational consent in BCO 25 should apply by analogy, that should be stated more carefully. Overture 3 - Negative Overture 3 seeks to address procedural deficiencies identified in a recent SJC case, but the proposed amendments appear to overcorrect. The result would be a more rigid process that may undermine the discretion ordinarily entrusted to the lower court. The central concern is the proposed movement from “should consider” to “shall consider,” along with the requirement of particular witness interviews before dismissal. BCO 39-3.3 already teaches that higher courts should ordinarily show great deference to lower courts in matters of discretion and judgment, including judgments about the comparative credibility of conflicting witnesses. The problem identified by the overture may be real, but it does not follow that the BCO should mandate a single procedural path for every case. A poor use of discretion in one case is not necessarily proof that discretion itself should be removed. Our courts need clear constitutional rules, but they also require spiritually mature presbyters who know how to apply those rules wisely. Overture 4 - Affirmative Luke 15:6-7 …’Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. 2 of 25 I am prepared to answer this overture in the affirmative, but it could have been an email to the Stated Clerk requesting a time of prayer be added to the docket. Overture 5 - Negative The proposed language elevates geographical representation over the Assembly's liberty to elect the most qualified presbyters. The overture's rationale relies heavily on BCO 14-1.9, which states that General Assembly committees are to include proportionate representation of all presbyteries “wherever possible”. By strictly prohibiting the election of more than one person from the same Presbytery to the Administrative Committee, the proposed amendment to RAO 5-1.a transforms a flexible, prudential constitutional principle into an absolute administrative mandate. If a single Presbytery has two exceptionally qualified men suited for the complex administrative, financial, and logistical work of the AC, the Assembly would be constitutionally barred from electing both. Overture 6 - Negative The concern for efficiency is understandable. Still, the proposed rule would shift the balance too far away from the deliberative rights of individual commissioners. The General Assembly is not merely an administrative gathering. It is a church court, and every commissioner, whether teaching elder or ruling elder, has a responsibility to participate in its judgments. A single commissioner may notice a constitutional or procedural issue that others have missed. The present ability of one commissioner to pull an item from an omnibus report preserves that possibility. Overture 7 - Negative Overture 7 raises concerns similar to Overture 6. It seeks to save Assembly time, but it does so by limiting the ability of commissioners to review and act on matters that properly belong to the court. The most serious concern is its possible conflict with BCO 40-5. The overture appears to permit the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records to determine whether a presbytery’s response to an exception of substance is satisfactory and, if not, to cite the presbytery to respond again to the committee. That is a significant grant of authority. Under BCO 40-5, the first step in addressing a delinquency or unconstitutional proceeding is citation before “the court having appellate jurisdiction, or its commission.” RPR is a committee, not a commission. If RPR is given authority to cite a lower court and judge the sufficiency of its response, the Assembly will be assigning to a committee a function that belongs to the court itself or to a properly constituted commission. The desire to save time is understandable, but it should not come at the expense of the Assembly’s responsibility to exercise review and control in a constitutionally proper way. Overture 8 - Negative Committees of Commissioners meet on Monday and Tuesday, and their reports may not be available until Wednesday. If a Wednesday report raises a significant concern about a Permanent Committee or Agency, the proposed Tuesday deadline for floor nominations would already have passed. That would prevent commissioners from responding to new information received during the Assembly itself. 3 of 25 The proposed deadline may also disadvantage first-time commissioners and those who are not connected to existing networks of denominational influence. The first twenty-four hours of General Assembly are often disorienting. Requiring floor nominations by Tuesday afternoon favors those who arrive with a preexisting plan rather than those who become persuaded during the course of the Assembly’s work. Finally, the overture would remove the written nomination option. Even if nominations are now normally submitted electronically, retaining a written option provides a simple constitutional backup in the event of a technological failure. Overture 9 - Negative Overture 9 would require a floor nomination to include an explanation of how the nomination contributes to geographic proportionality. The difficulty is that the overture does not define what counts as a sufficient explanation or who has authority to judge its sufficiency. Would a brief sentence satisfy the requirement? Could the Stated Clerk or Moderator reject a nomination as incomplete? If so, on what basis? The overture introduces procedural uncertainty into the nominations process. A principle that should guide the Assembly’s wisdom may become a point of confusion on the floor. Overture 10 - Affirmative Pittsburgh Presbytery has submitted a companion overture, Overture 87, which mirrors this request and provides the necessary consent. Overture 11 - Affirmative Overture 11 would amend RAO 4-21.d to require annual reporting from MNA regarding assessment and church-planting data. The Assembly’s oversight of its committees and agencies should be grounded in clear, objective information. Regular reporting of this kind will help commissioners evaluate MNA’s work with better data and less guesswork. Overture 12 - Negative Overture 12 is animated by a commendable desire: to broaden access to the ministry without lowering theological requirements. But the proposal introduces significant subjectivity into the ordinary educational requirements for Teaching Elders. (What exactly constitutes credible evidence of vocational work experience?) Historically, the PCA has maintained a high standard for a learned ministry, requiring both a broad liberal arts foundation and specialized theological training. Lowering the standard to an Associate’s degree or GED, even with additional vocational requirements, would represent a significant change in our ordinary expectations for the office. The BCO already contains a mechanism for unusual cases. BCO 21-4 allows Presbyteries to consider men who do not meet the ordinary educational requirements but whose gifts, experience, and circumstances warrant exception. In other words, the Constitution already gives Presbyteries flexibility without redefining the ordinary standard. 4 of 25 Overture 13 - Affirmative, as amended The overture is intended to resolve a supposed ambiguity, but in doing so it removes a Session's discretionary power over its own commissions. Currently, BCO 15-2 grants Presbyteries the flexibility to dictate the quorum of their commissions, stating that “the Presbytery at the time of the appointment of the commission shall determine what the quorum shall be”. By failing to include a similar provision for Sessions, Overture 13 traps local churches in a one-size-fits-all quorum standard, functionally giving Sessions less flexibility than Presbyteries possess when establishing commissions. I suggest adding the phrase “unless otherwise determined by the Session” to the end of the proposed addition to BCO 15-2, so that the proposed change reads: “Every commission appointed by a Session shall consist of at least two elders, with any combination of teaching or ruling elders. The quorum for such a commission shall be the greater of two elders or one-half of the membership of the commission, unless otherwise determined by the Session.” Overture 14 - Negative Overture 14 is motivated by a legitimate desire to safeguard the distinct nature of ordained office. That concern is important. As drafted, however, the overture attempts to solve the problem with language that is too expansive and too subjective for constitutional use. The proposed amendment to BCO 9-2 may offer a helpful clarification of ordained responsibility. But the additional changes to BCO 7-3, 7-4, and 9-7 risk turning the Constitution into a detailed list of prohibited titles, appearances, and implications. Several concerns stand out. First, the overture would prohibit unordained persons from using titles that include “minister.” While I generally favor reserving “minister” for Teaching Elders and would advise churches to avoid loose usage, titles such as Youth Minister, Music Minister, Children’s Minister, or Campus Minister are widely used in non-technical ways. The overture would immediately render a large number of ordinary staff titles constitutionally suspect. Second, the proposed BCO 7-4 would prohibit placing unordained persons into roles that “appear to exercise a general authority over adults in the congregation.” That language is too subjective. What appears to be general authority to one member may appear to another as administrative leadership, staff coordination, or gifted teaching under Session oversight. Third, phrases such as “might reasonably communicate or imply” and “appear to exercise” would invite complaints and reports over disputed perceptions. Constitutional language should be clear enough to guide churches and courts. This language would likely generate more confusion than clarity. Fourth, the proposed amendment to BCO 9-7 would forbid assistants to the deacons where there are no ordained deacons. But BCO 9-2 already states that, in a church without deacons, the duties of the office devolve upon the ruling elders. If the Session must carry those duties, it seems unwise to forbid them from appointing unordained men and women to assist in that work. The overture is stronger in concern than in draftsmanship. I would answer in the negative unless substantially narrowed and clarified. Overture 15 - Affirmative *revised from original May 22, 2026* My original assessment of O15 overlooked the overture's primary substantive addition: the insertion of the word “written” before “notification”. The current ambiguity in the BCO is whether an oral pronouncement of a censure or decision at a meeting is sufficient to start the 30-day appeal clock, or if the clock only starts once a written decision is delivered. By focusing on the removal of the legal “deeming” mechanism, my initial read missed that Overture 15 actually creates a much brighter line by strictly tying the deadline to the dispatch or receipt of a formal written document. Overture 16 - Affirmative Overture 16 helpfully moves the prohibition against circularizing the court from BCO 43-2 to BCO 43-3. That relocation clarifies where the rule is actually needed: in higher courts hearing complaints on appeal. When a complaint is first filed in the originating court, the court itself is already receiving the complainant’s reasons (BCO 43-2). It is difficult to see why members of that same court should be prohibited from discussing those reasons before the complaint is formally heard. In fact, if reconciliation is one of the purposes of the process, godly conversation among the members of the court should ordinarily be encouraged rather than chilled. The prohibition against circularization makes sense in a higher court, where the court is acting as an arbiter between parties and must preserve its neutrality. In that context, the rule protects the integrity of the appellate process. Getting the rules right matters, but the rules should serve truth, righteousness, reconciliation, and peace. Overture 16 is a useful clarification toward that end. Overture 17 - Negative The concern is understandable, but the overture blurs the constitutional distinction between mission churches and particular churches. A mission church is not yet a particular church. BCO 5-1 describes a mission church as lacking a permanent governing body and therefore being governed or supervised by others. That temporary and developmental status has real constitutional implications. The most serious practical concern involves church-planting property and assets. Mission churches are often funded, subsidized, or owned by a planting Presbytery or mother church. If a Presbytery determines that a mission work has failed and must be dissolved, extending BCO 25-10 protections to the mission church could create serious confusion over who has authority over the property and assets. A small number of members in a failed mission work could claim the right to withdraw from the PCA with property or funds supplied by the Presbytery or mother church. That could prevent the planting body from recovering resources and redeploying them for future mission work. The desire to protect members is right. But this overture risks assigning to mission churches rights that belong properly to particular churches. Overture 18 - Affirmative Overture 18 is a helpful clarification for mother-daughter church planting relationships. The mother-daughter model is often a fruitful and appropriate way to plant churches. Under the current language of BCO 5-4, however, a mother church that identifies a church planter may be forced into an awkward 6 of 25 workaround. The Session may call the man as an assistant pastor of the mother church and then send him to serve the mission congregation, even though the mission work is the field of labor he is actually called to shepherd. Overture 18 resolves that difficulty by allowing the Session of the mother church to issue a direct call to the church planter to serve the mission work. This fits naturally with BCO 5-3.b, which already recognizes the mother-daughter relationship as a valid way to provide temporary government for a mission church. The overture also preserves Presbytery oversight. The call must still be approved by Presbytery, just as other pastoral calls must be. This provides a cleaner process without weakening connectional accountability. Overture 19 - Negative Whether intended or not, the proposed change could extend higher-court representation to mission churches before they are particularized. That creates a serious procedural problem. If a mission church lacks ordained ruling elders, it cannot send a constitutionally qualified representative to Presbytery. If the evangelist or temporary governing commission is intended to represent the mission work, those men already have standing in Presbytery by virtue of their own office and membership in the court. The rationale claims that the absence of a permanent governing body does not diminish the rights of the congregation or the members of the mission church. That statement is too broad. Members of a mission church certainly have rights, but the mission church itself does not yet possess all the rights and capacities of a particular church. It does not yet govern itself through its own permanent Session, nor does it send its own representative elders to Presbytery. Overture 20 - Affirmative as amended Overture 20 addresses a real and difficult problem: what should be done when a particular church loses the ability to function through its own governing body? That situation needs clear constitutional guidance. As drafted, however, the overture needs amendment to protect congregational consent and to ensure ongoing Presbytery accountability. The most significant concern is BCO 16-2, which states that no man may be placed over a church in any office without the election, or at least the consent, of that church. Proposed BCO 5-11 would allow the Presbytery to appoint a transitory Session “at its discretion.” If the congregation’s consent is not required, the provision risks placing rulers over a church without the church’s consent. That concern can be addressed by replacing “at its discretion” with language requiring the explicit consent of the congregation. Suggested amendment: Replace “at its discretion” with “with the explicit consent of the congregation.” If consent is required before a transitory Session is appointed, then the later language in proposed BCO 5-12 about seeking concurrence after the fact becomes unnecessary and should be removed. A second amendment should provide regular review. Temporary remedies should not become permanent arrangements by inertia. The PCA already requires regular review in other temporary situations, including ministers without call, ministers laboring out of bounds, and stated supply arrangements. A transitory Session should receive similar annual review. Suggested addition to proposed BCO 5-11: The Presbytery shall review the status of the transitory Session at least annually and shall record its actions and determinations in its minutes. 7 of 25 Overture 21 - Affirmative The proposed refinement to BCO 13-6 brings the constitutional language into better alignment with actual Presbytery practice while maintaining the PCA’s high standards for the office of Teaching Elder. Transfer examinations must be serious and substantive, but our language should also reflect the particular nature of receiving a minister who has already been ordained in another branch of the visible church. Overture 22 - Affirmative Overture 22 is a common-sense amendment that removes redundant procedural requirements for churches transferring from one Presbytery to another. The transfer of a church from one Presbytery to another already requires proper ecclesiastical oversight and consent. This overture appears to streamline that process without weakening the connectional responsibilities of either Presbytery. Overture 23 - Affirmative By reorganizing the material, the chapter becomes easier to cite, easier to teach, and easier for commissioners and clerks to use. The overture rationale shows that adopting this proposal allows for more intuitive citations, replacing cumbersome strings like BCO 14-1.12.b.4 with the cleaner BCO 14-3.2.d. I am not convinced that “BCO 14-3.2.d” is less cumbersome, but it is shorter. Overture 24 - Negative As drafted, however, the overture introduces ambiguity and may conflict with existing constitutional provisions. The central problem is the phrase “final trials.” BCO 21 requires a multi-faceted process of examination, including written theological work, exegetical work in the original languages, and oral examination in several areas. The overture does not clearly define which parts of this process constitute the “final trials.” Does it refer to the final vote of Presbytery? Does it require the full Presbytery to evaluate written papers? Does it affect the preaching of the candidate’s sermon? The phrase needs precision before it can function as constitutional language. The overture also places a broad requirement concerning ordination examinations into BCO 15, a chapter dealing with commissions. If the Assembly wishes to clarify the conduct of ordination trials, BCO 21 is the more natural and appropriate location. There is also a possible conflict with BCO 21-4, which permits certain parts of the ordination trial, such as the preaching of the sermon, to occur before a committee upon the required vote of Presbytery. A blanket statement that the examination “must be sustained before the Presbytery itself” may unintentionally narrow a discretion the BCO already grants. Finally, the rationale seems to imply that the current language permits a commission to conduct the entire examination for ordination. But BCO 15-2 already states that when the ordination of a minister is committed to a commission, “the Presbytery itself shall conduct the previous examination.” The Constitution already prevents a commission from conducting the whole examination. 8 of 25 Overture 25 - Affirmative Overture 25 offers a helpful restructuring of the examination requirements for candidates and ministers. As one who serves in Credentials Committee work, I believe this kind of restructuring can genuinely assist Presbyteries. A clearer, better-organized framework reduces redundancy, improves consistency, and makes the requirements easier for candidates, committees, and courts to follow. (For those who desire to preserve the nearly fifty years of historical comments that rely on BCO 21 as it is, I suggest we take a longer view. Better to make BCO 21 beautiful in the early years of the PCA and not wait until we have one hundred and fifty years to correct.) Overture 26 - Negative Overture 26 would add the word “voting” to BCO 26-2, thereby changing the threshold for constitutional amendments from two-thirds of the Presbyteries to two-thirds of the voting Presbyteries. The current language establishes a high threshold based on the total number of Presbyteries in the denomination. That protects the stability of the Constitution by requiring broad, active consent from the church. Adding “voting” would lower that threshold by excluding non-reporting Presbyteries from the denominator. That could produce serious consequences. If a controversial amendment were sent down to the Presbyteries and only a small number submitted timely votes, the Constitution could theoretically be amended by two-thirds of that small group (even just one presbytery!) rather than by two-thirds of the Presbyteries as a whole. The amendment process would shift from requiring the documented advice and consent of the denomination to requiring only a supermajority of those who report. The rationale appeals to Robert’s Rules of Order regarding ordinary voting calculations, but constitutional amendment thresholds are not ordinary floor votes. The BCO uses a higher standard here precisely because constitutional change should require more than the approval of those who happen to vote. Overture 27 - Negative Overture 27 proposes several changes to BCO 34-1. I have significant concerns with both the substance and the possible consequences of those changes. First, the current language states that if the constitutional threshold is met, “the General Assembly shall do so,” meaning that the Assembly shall assume original jurisdiction. The proposed language changes this to “may assume original jurisdiction.” That weakens a mandatory protection for the purity of the church. If the required number of Presbyteries formally alleges that a Presbytery has failed to act in a case of serious doctrinal or moral scandal, the Assembly’s responsibility should not become merely optional. Second, the rationale argues that the original threshold represented a much larger percentage of the denomination at the PCA’s founding than it does today. That observation is mathematically true, but it does not settle the polity question. The formal action of even two Presbyteries is not a casual opinion poll. It represents the deliberative judgment of church courts and should be treated with gravity. Third, changing “refusing to act” to “fails to indict” is a significant alteration. “Refusing to act” describes a delinquent court neglecting its duty. “Fails to indict” could include a Presbytery that has investigated the matter and concluded that there is no strong presumption of guilt. Those are very different situations. Finally, if the General Assembly were effectively to force a Presbytery to indict a man whom that Presbytery has already determined should not be indicted, the resulting trial would be deeply compromised. The court responsible to prosecute the case would be the very court that had already judged the indictment unwarranted. 9 of 25 Overture 28 - Affirmative *revised from original May 25, 2026* Originally, I argued that since Overture 28 addresses a right that the BCO already secures, we should not need to codify it again. However, after several discussions (especially with RE Joshua Torrey), I am convinced that O28 is necessary if we want the provision. It can’t hurt to have it made explicit. However, I think it worth quoting a post from RE Torrey on May 25, 2026: “I think Chuck is correct that O28 is necessary if we want this provision. However, I disagree with the commentary that says congregants can have (or never had) standing before a presbytery. There have been exceptions to that in the past when a congregant filed charges and the presbytery refused to indict: 2010-16: Lyons v. Western Carolina; 2009-28: Ruff v. Nashville; 2016-09: Fordice v. Pacific Northwest. In summary from a dissent written on Case 2016-08 Doty v. Nashville: “Based on the standing granted Lyons, Ruff, and Fordice, Ms. Doty and the others gained standing to seek higher court review when they accused the minister of sins. When Presbytery declined to indict, the signers had standing to file a BCO 43-1 Complaint with Presbytery as the original court, seeking reconsideration of that dismissal. And if any were unsatisfied with Presbytery’s action on that Complaint, they would have standing to carry that Complaint to the SJC.”” (https://x.com/JoshuaTorrey/status/2058899377490407756?s=20) Overture 29 - Affirmative, as amended Overture 29 provides a helpful clarification regarding the suspension of a lower court’s judgment during the appeal process. The overture creates two levels of suspension. First, verbal notice of appeal would suspend the judgment of the lower court for thirty days. Second, the formal filing of the appeal would continue that suspension until the case has been finally decided by the higher court. A two-step structure ensures that temporary suspension is granted immediately, but that ongoing suspension is tied to the appellant actually filing the written appeal. The proposed language should be clarified slightly. I recommend changing “of the court’s decision” to “following notification of the court’s decision.” Overture 30 - Affirmative Under BCO 46-3, a church member remains under the care of the original Session until he forms a regular connection with another church. The same principle should apply to ministers transferring between Presbyteries. A minister should remain the responsibility of his original Presbytery until the receiving Presbytery formally receives him. Overture 31 - Refer back to the Westminster Presbytery I recommend that Overture 31 be referred back to Westminster Presbytery based on the concurrent work of the Ad-Interim Committee on Revision of the Directory for Worship. 10 of 25 Overture 32 - Affirmative, as amended I support the general aim of the overture, but the language should be clarified. First, the phrase “standing rules or manuals” should be broadened to ensure that all relevant governing and operating documents are covered. Replace “standing rules or manuals” with “all bylaws, standing rules, and operational manuals.” Second, the overture proposes changing “minutes” to “records” in the second sentence of RAO 14-3. A better solution would be to keep the mandatory pre-Assembly mailing requirement limited to minutes, while requiring the broader set of records to be made available to the Committee of Commissioners for review. Overture 33 - Negative Overture 33 would limit minority reports from the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records in a way that may unintentionally restrict legitimate Assembly debate. Under RAO 16-7.d, RPR may bring “any other recommendation to the Assembly.” Such recommendations are not always directed at a single Presbytery. They may involve broader procedural, constitutional, or policy matters arising from the committee’s work. If Overture 33 is read strictly, a minority of RPR could be prevented from filing a minority report on such a recommendation simply because the recommendation does not concern a “Presbytery as a whole.” That would unnecessarily narrow the right of a committee minority to bring a genuine disagreement before the Assembly. Minority reports should not be multiplied needlessly, but neither should they be restricted in a way that prevents the Assembly from hearing substantial concerns about recommendations placed before it. Overture 34 - Negative Overture 34 seeks to clarify that congregations should ordinarily establish a diaconate rather than indefinitely assigning diaconal work to the Session or to other members of the church. That is a worthy concern. As drafted, however, the overture creates confusion regarding Presbyterian principles of office and election. The first problem is terminology. Deacons are not appointed by a Session. They are elected by the congregation and ordained to office. Any constitutional language addressing the establishment of a diaconate should preserve that distinction clearly. The second problem concerns churches without ordained deacons. BCO 9-2 already states that when a church has no deacons, the duties of the office devolve upon the ruling elders. BCO 9-7 also allows the Session to appoint godly men and women to assist the deacons. The overture unintentionally disrupts this fallback arrangement by creating uncertainty about whether unordained assistants may help with diaconal work in the absence of ordained deacons. The Assembly should indeed encourage churches to seek qualified men for the office of deacon. But the Constitution should also preserve workable provisions for developing, small, or struggling congregations that do not yet have men qualified or available to serve. Overture 35 - Affirmative, as amended Overture 35 addresses an existing gap in the Rules of Discipline. BCO 31-2 provides the framework for investigation and the institution of process, but it does not specify a timeframe for the filing of an indictment once a court has determined that there is a strong presumption of guilt. 11 of 25 A reasonable deadline would protect both the purity of the church and the rights of the accused. The church should not allow serious charges to drift indefinitely, and an accused person should not be left under an open-ended cloud of suspicion without the process moving forward. I agree with the basic direction of the overture, but I would support the amendment suggested by RE Donahoe, extending the filing deadline from sixty days to ninety days and clarifying the consequence if the prosecutor neglects to file. Suggested amended language: If such investigation, however originating, should result in raising a strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved, the court shall institute process, and shall appoint a prosecutor to prepare the indictment and to conduct the case. The prosecutor shall draft the indictment promptly, and the indictment shall be filed with the clerk of the court within sixty (60) ninety (90) days following the meeting of the court, or the charges shall be dropped. This prosecutor shall be a member of the court, except that in a case before the Session, he may be any communing member of the same congregation with the accused. If the prosecutor neglects to file an indictment, he shall receive proper rebuke by the court and shall be dismissed from his duties as the prosecutor of the case, and the court shall appoint a new prosecutor to prepare an indictment and to conduct the case. This gives the prosecutor sufficient time to prepare carefully while preventing unnecessary delay. Overture 36 - Negative Overture 36 addresses a legitimate concern about preserving the distinction between ordained office and unordained service. I share that concern. As drafted, however, the proposed language does not sufficiently account for existing BCO provisions that already allow unordained persons to assist in the work of the church under proper oversight. The proposed BCO 8-11 does not adequately account for BCO 12-5, which gives the elders oversight of worship, or for BCO 50, which permits certain non-ordained participation in public worship, including the public reading of Scripture under the direction of the Session. The BCO also recognizes the public service of licentiates, interns, and candidates in appropriate ways. The proposed BCO 9-8 raises similar concerns. BCO 9-7 allows assistants to the deacons to help with diaconal work. BCO 9-2 also provides that, where there are no deacons, the duties of the office devolve upon the ruling elders. The overture should not create confusion about whether those existing provisions remain valid. The phrase “in any manner that implies parity with or equivalence to” ordained officers is also too subjective for constitutional language. Would appointing a woman to coordinate a meal train or food pantry imply parity with a deacon? Would a staff member leading an administrative ministry imply parity with an elder? Without clearer definitions, the proposed language could invite complaints over ordinary local-church decisions made under Session oversight. The Assembly should guard ordained office. But this overture, as written, would create more confusion than clarity. Overture 37 - Negative, as amended Overture 37 would fundamentally alter the PCA’s doctrine and practice regarding the office of deacon. I strongly oppose it. 12 of 25 As written, the overture may not present the question in its clearest form. If the Assembly is going to consider the issue, I believe the better course would be for someone to propose an amendment that presents the strongest version of the position, so that the Assembly may debate and reject the real question directly. Such an amendment might read: BCO 9-3. To the office of deacon, which is spiritual in nature, shall be chosen members of spiritual character, honest repute, exemplary lives, brotherly spirit, warm sympathies, and sound judgment. The Session of each congregation shall determine, in accordance with Scripture and the Standards of this Church, whether qualified women members shall be eligible to serve in the office of deacon. In this stronger form, the proposal should be rejected. The PCA is a connectional church. An ordained officer in one congregation is recognized throughout the denomination. If the BCO were amended to permit the ordination of women as deacons at the discretion of local Sessions, every Session, Presbytery, and General Assembly would be required to recognize the validity of female ordination to that office. That would bind the consciences of officers and courts who (rightly) believe Scripture restricts ordained office to qualified men. The rationale appeals to the PCA’s grassroots character and argues that local Sessions should be trusted to make decisions regarding congregational ministry. But this confuses administrative flexibility with constitutional standards for ordained office. Local Sessions have wide latitude in many matters of ministry administration. They do not have authority to redefine the qualifications for ordained office. Overture 38 - Negative Overture 38 seeks to permit local Sessions to structure diaconal ministry in one of several ways, including the use of commissioned or appointed men and women who are not ordained officers but may bear the title “deacon.” First, the rationale appeals to Christian liberty to defend local flexibility in the structure of the diaconate. But the definition of church office is not a matter of local preference. The offices of the church are constitutional and biblical matters, not merely administrative arrangements. Second, the overture redefines the term “diaconate.” The PCA understands the diaconate to consist of ordained and elected men serving in the office of deacon. To permit a “diaconate” composed partly or entirely of unordained persons would detach the term from its established constitutional meaning. Third, the overture introduces “commissioning” without defining it. The result would be a new category of church leadership with unclear vows, undefined authority, uncertain accountability, and no uniform process across the denomination. Fourth, by separating the title “deacon” from the office of deacon, the overture creates confusion throughout the BCO. When the Constitution refers to deacons, would it mean ordained officers, unordained commissioned persons, or both? Would the disciplinary provisions for officers apply? Would the election and ordination provisions of BCO 24 apply? Could commissioned persons called “deacons” serve on Presbytery or General Assembly committees under provisions that refer to deacons? The overture attempts to create peace by allowing local diversity, but it would do so by destabilizing the constitutional vocabulary of office. Overture 39 - Negative The proposal creates significant practical and constitutional difficulties. 13 of 25 First, it may force a congregation into an unnecessary dilemma. A church may love and value its assistant pastor in that role while not desiring to elect him as an associate pastor and member of the Session. Under this overture, after five years the congregation could be forced either to elevate him to a different office relation or see his call end. That is too rigid for the variety of healthy assistant pastor relationships in our Church. Second, the use of “ordinarily” is unclear. In the BCO, exceptions to ordinary rules are usually governed by some defined process or threshold. This overture does not state who determines whether a situation is extraordinary or how such an exception is granted. A Session or Presbytery could claim that a longer initial term is extraordinary and thereby bypass the overture’s intent. Third, the appeal to Preliminary Principle 6 should be handled carefully. The congregation does possess the power to elect its officers. But when the Session calls an assistant pastor to assist in its work, the Session acts as the congregation’s duly elected body of rule. The assistant pastorate is not identical to the pastoral relation of a senior or associate pastor called by the congregation. Overture 40 - Negative I am sympathetic to the concern behind the overture. A sudden transition in denominational leadership can be personally difficult and administratively disruptive. A six-month transition period may appear more humane and stable. The difficulty is that the overture would require a Committee or Agency to continue under the leadership of a coordinator who has publicly failed to receive the confidence of the Assembly. That could create unnecessary instability, confusion, or conflict during the transition period. The better solution is not to constitutionalize a mandatory extension of service, but for Committees and Agencies to adopt wise employment and transition policies. Severance arrangements, transitional contracts, and financial planning can provide appropriate care for outgoing executives without requiring the church to keep an unelected coordinator in office for six additional months. Overture 41 - Negative Denominational executives hold positions of significant influence, and it is reasonable to desire that they command broad confidence across the church. A supermajority requirement would ensure that such men serve with more than a narrow majority of Assembly support. The difficulty is practical. If the Assembly is divided over a candidate, a two-thirds requirement could produce a stalemate in which no nominee is able to secure election. That would leave a permanent Committee or Agency without an executive leader and could force an emergency provisional appointment. The PCA already has mechanisms for accountability through annual elections, committee oversight, and the Assembly’s power not to re-elect. I am not persuaded that the benefit of a supermajority threshold outweighs the risk of instability and deadlock. Overture 42 - Affirmative, as amended Overture 42 proposes to restore the phrase “as interpreted in these Standards” to BCO 29-1, so that an offense is defined as anything contrary to the Word of God “as interpreted in these Standards.” If the rationale is correct that the omission of this phrase was accidental, the Assembly should treat the matter as an editorial restoration rather than a substantive constitutional amendment. The Overtures Committee could 14 of 25 amend the resolution to direct the Stated Clerk to include the phrase in future printings of the BCO, while making clear that the action does not require the advice and consent of the Presbyteries under BCO 26-2. This would restore the intended wording without unnecessarily treating an editorial omission as a new amendment to the Constitution. Overture 43 - With reference to the answer given to Overture 77 Overture 44 - Affirmative As a member of Covenant Presbytery, I have seen the prayer and labor involved in the effort to establish an Arkansas Presbytery. This overture represents the fruit of that work and would provide better regional oversight and connectional care for the churches involved. Answer this overture in the affirmative and give thanks to the Lord for His faithfulness. Overture 45 - Negative The first problem is the phrase “previously submitted.” Does this mean submitted for the current General Assembly cycle, or submitted at any point in the past? Without a limiting modifier, a commissioner might argue that a nominee is eligible because his Presbytery submitted his name years earlier. That ambiguity undermines the stated goal of a clear and fair standard. The second problem is that the overture would restrict floor nominations to men who have already passed through the Nominating Committee process and were not selected. That shifts too much practical power away from the Assembly itself. The Nominating Committee is an important screening body, but the Assembly must retain meaningful freedom to elect its own servants. The rationale compares this proposal to RAO 11-10, which prevents personal resolutions from being brought to the Assembly unless they were first rejected by a Presbytery. But that is not a close analogy. A personal resolution initiates new business for the whole denomination. A floor nomination concerns the Assembly’s ordinary authority to elect men to serve on its own committees and agencies. Overture 46 - Negative The desire to discourage public accusation, slander, and disorderly process is commendable. The proposed language, however, is too broad and would interfere with the ordinary operation of BCO 31-2. Under BCO 31-2, a court must investigate to determine whether there is a strong presumption of guilt before instituting process. Overture 46 risks bypassing that careful inquiry by defining certain public statements as probable offenses in advance. That would pressure courts toward process before they have properly examined the circumstances, truthfulness, necessity, and context of the statement. The rationale appeals to WLC 144 and 145, and those commandments are certainly relevant. But they must be applied in full. WLC 145 forbids slandering, backbiting, detracting, and tale-bearing; WLC 144 also requires appearing and standing for the truth and freely and clearly speaking the truth. There may be circumstances in which public truth-telling is not a violation of the ninth commandment but a moral duty. The BCO already provides mechanisms for dealing with false, malicious, or disorderly accusations. Overture 46, as written, is too sweeping. 15 of 25 Overture 47 - With reference to the answer given to Overture 45 Overture 48 - Negative The phrase “imply the authority” is difficult to apply objectively. Without clearer definition, churches and courts would be left to determine whether a title, role, or ministry arrangement implies authority belonging to an ordained office. That could lead to complaints over ordinary local-church language and staff structures. The phrase “any other pretended office” is also unhelpful as constitutional language. It may describe a real concern, but it introduces a needlessly accusatory tone into the BCO. The Constitution should correct error clearly without using language that may turn ordinary pastoral or administrative mistakes into unnecessarily inflammatory disputes. Overture 49 - Negative The desire for greater Ruling Elder participation is commendable. The difficulty is that the constitutional cap is probably not the main factor limiting Ruling Elder attendance. In many cases, the larger obstacles are vocational, financial, and practical. Many Ruling Elders have work and family obligations that make travel to General Assembly difficult, even when they are constitutionally permitted to attend. If the Assembly wishes to address representation, I believe a more targeted approach would be preferable. Rather than a flat increase for every congregation, the Overtures Committee might consider a dynamic formula that accounts for the number of Teaching Elders called by a congregation. For example: Each congregation is entitled to two (2) ruling elder representatives for the first 350 communing members, plus one (1) additional ruling elder representative for every Teaching Elder called by that congregation beyond the first. That approach would better connect additional Ruling Elder representation to the number of Teaching Elders already connected to the congregation. As written, however, I am not convinced Overture 49 addresses the main causes of low Ruling Elder attendance. Overture 50 - Affirmative I believe this is a timely and appropriate overture. The Directory for Worship provides guidelines for corporate fasting and special seasons of prayer. Overture 50 appears to fit comfortably within those constitutional provisions and offers the Assembly an opportunity for unity in repentance and supplication. Overture 51 - With reference to the answer given to Overture 20 Overture 52 - Affirmative Overture 52 would clarify that church courts may not invent new ecclesiastical offices, vest ordained church power in unordained persons, or impose extra-constitutional offices through popular election, vows, or other practices not authorized by the Constitution. This is a helpful and necessary clarification. The offices of the church are not matters of local invention. They are governed by Scripture and by the Constitution of the PCA. A congregation or court may not create new 16 of 25 offices, attach officer-like authority to unordained persons, or bind the consciences of members through vows and structures not warranted by the church’s constitutional standards. This overture also protects liberty of conscience. Westminster Confession of Faith 20.2 teaches that God alone is Lord of the conscience and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men in matters contrary to or beside His Word. Preliminary Principle 7 similarly states that no church judicatory may make laws to bind the conscience. When a church invents new offices or requires submission to unordained office-like structures, it risks binding consciences where Christ has not bound them. Overture 53 - Negative While Overture 53 seeks to mirror the “Overtures rule” (RAO 15-8.f) to save time and prevent committee-level rehashes, the nature of the information at stake is categorically different. In the Overtures Committee, the business under discussion is published in the Commissioner Handbook and accessible to every man on the floor. However, in RPR, the business involves the original minutes and records of all the Presbyteries. These original records are not mass-distributed to the Assembly; only the members of the RPR committee (and the clerks of the respective Presbyteries) have actually examined the primary evidence behind a recommended exception. By prohibiting RPR members from participating in debate, the General Assembly effectively ensures that the only men permitted to speak on the floor are those who have not seen the original documents being debated. Overture 54 - Negative The overture does not clearly distinguish between two different uses of “contumacy.” One is procedural contumacy, where a person refuses to appear or participate in a trial. The other is substantive contumacy, where a person is formally charged, tried, and convicted of the sin of rebellious refusal to submit to the church’s authority. If the overture applies to a person formally convicted of contumacy after a regular trial, it would appear to strip that person of the ordinary right of appeal. That would be a serious problem. If, however, the overture applies only to a preliminary procedural finding of contumacy under circumstances where a person refuses to submit to trial, then the amendment seems unnecessary. BCO 42-2 already states that “the only parties entitled to an appeal are those who have submitted to a regular trial.” A person who refuses to submit to trial already lacks the right of appeal under the existing language. Overture 55 - With reference to the answer given to Overture 39 Overture 56 - Negative The overture intends to ensure that representatives understand the Rules of Discipline and can assist parties responsibly. That concern is reasonable, but the proposed restriction is too narrow. One practical problem arises when a case moves from Session to Presbytery. A member tried before his Session may have selected a trusted and competent lay representative. If the case is appealed, this overture would require him to replace that representative with an ordained officer. That could deprive the party of continuity of counsel precisely when the case has become more complex. 17 of 25 The overture also assumes that only ordained officers possess the knowledge and judgment needed to represent a party well. That is not always the case. A legally trained layman, a ruling elder candidate, or another mature communing member may be better equipped in a particular case than an available officer. Courts should be able to guard against disorderly or incompetent representation, but this overture excludes too many potentially qualified representatives. I would answer in the negative. Overture 57 - Affirmative Congregational meetings often involve highly consequential actions, including the election of ruling elders, deacons, and pastors. Those actions are governed by the BCO and should be recorded clearly. Since Presbytery has the duty under BCO 13-9.b to review the records of church Sessions, redress what may have been done contrary to order, and take care that churches observe the Constitution, it is reasonable for Presbytery to have access to the official record of congregational actions. Overture 58 - Affirmative This proposal reinforces our foundational Presbyterian polity and safeguards the peace and purity of the church against future jurisdictional confusion. First, RAO 3-5.a already mandates that the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly must be a teaching or ruling elder. Extending this requirement to all church courts ensures a consistent standard for those entrusted with the custody of official ecclesiastical records. Second, the role of a clerk is not merely mechanical but involves the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Under BCO 10-4, the clerk is responsible for authenticating extracts of records which then serve as “evidence to any ecclesiastical court”. Because the exercise of church power is a “joint power, to be exercised by presbyters in courts,” it is proper that the officer responsible for the court’s official testimony be an ordained presbyter himself. Third, requiring clerks to be elders ensures they are bound by ordination vows and subject to the direct accountability and discipline of the court. While smaller Sessions may occasionally utilize lay assistance for minute-taking, the formal office of Clerk should be reserved for those vetted by the church for spiritual integrity and committed to our Standards. Overture 59 - Negative First, BCO 38-3.a already provides an orderly, non-punitive process for members in good standing who are actually transferring their membership to another faithful branch of the visible church. Second, for the specific cases where a member develops “conscientious objections” and wishes to leave without having a new church home, BCO 38-4 is the correct and sufficient tool. When a member makes it known that they have “no intention of fulfilling the church vows” to the PCA, the Session is already mandated to exercise “pastoral discipline”. This existing process requires the Session to visit the member, remind them of their covenant, and attempt to resolve their disappointments. If the member persists, their name is “erased from the roll” as an “act of pastoral discipline... without process”. This is not a “punitive” judicial action, but a formal recognition that the member has renounced their covenantal obligations. Third, the proposed amendment inadvertently undermines the shepherding duty of the Session. Currently, BCO 38-4 and its supporting guidance in Appendix I encourage Sessions to “assist the member in locating a church of like faith and practice” before removal. Overture 59 would allow a Session to simply bypass this vital 18 of 25 shepherding work by administrative deletion as soon as “intent” is expressed. We should not trade a standard that mandates diligent pastoral care for one that prioritizes administrative convenience. Overture 60 - Negative Overture 60 is motivated by a proper desire to protect the solemnity of the Lord’s Supper. I share that concern. As drafted, however, the overture appears to elevate a logistical circumstance of distribution into a constitutional requirement. The Westminster Standards and the BCO reserve the authoritative administration of the sacrament to the lawfully ordained minister. That includes prayer, blessing the elements, setting them apart, and declaring the words of institution. The physical act of carrying trays through the aisles is different in kind. It is a logistical means of distribution, not the authoritative ministerial act of administration. I do not prefer the optics of unordained persons distributing the elements, and Sessions should think carefully about the practice. But constitutional language should not dogmatize every circumstance of worship. The modern practice of carrying trays through the aisles is shaped by architecture, seating, and local custom. It should not be read back into the Constitution as though Scripture or the Standards require a particular logistical arrangement. Overture 61 - Affirmative Supporting Overture 61 means commending the Danvers Statement as a highly useful, non-binding pastoral resource that faithfully echoes the complementarian principles already embedded in the PCA Constitution. Overture 62 - Affirmative When a division better enables churches and elders to gather, deliberate, examine, shepherd, and exercise review and control, it should ordinarily be supported. This overture appears to further those ends for the churches in Tennessee and Georgia. Plus, “Smoky Mountain Presbytery” sounds pretty cool. Overture 63 - Affirmative, as amended The basic principle is sound. If a commissioner objects to an item being handled in gross and that item is separated for debate, the objecting commissioner should ordinarily have preference in recognition for the initial opportunity to speak to the separated recommendation. That allows the Assembly to hear why the item was pulled and helps focus the debate. I would support the overture with a clarifying amendment to the proposed RAO 19-4.f: Notwithstanding any other rule of recognition, when a commissioner objects to the inclusion of an in gross recommendation, including an overture, as provided in RAO 14-9.d or RAO 15-8.b, the objecting commissioner shall have preference in recognition for his initial opportunity to speak when debating the separated recommendation. This preserves the purpose of the overture while making the language cleaner and easier to apply. Overture 64 - Negative Overture 64 would change the language regarding retired ministers from “shall” to “may.” That change appears small, but it creates a serious ecclesiastical problem. Teaching Elders are members of Presbyteries, not local churches. If a retired minister may choose not to hold membership in a Presbytery, he may be left without a court of original jurisdiction. That would effectively remove him from ordinary constitutional accountability and discipline without any formal process. Retirement from active ministerial labor should not mean retirement from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. A minister may no longer hold a call, but he remains a minister of the gospel and should remain under the oversight of a Presbytery. Overture 65 - Negative The overture risks misunderstanding the nature of the PCA’s judicial process. A court must remain impartial as it determines whether charges are proven, whether repentance is credible, and what censure is appropriate. The proposed language appears to put the court in the position of pre-judging repentance in a way that could compromise that impartiality. The overture also risks creating a coercive mechanism for testing repentance. Genuine repentance must be carefully evaluated by the court, but constitutional procedure should not pressure an accused person to confess in a particular way merely to satisfy a procedural expectation. Nor should the BCO create a standard that is so rigid that courts cannot exercise pastoral and judicial wisdom in complex cases. The goal is right: false repentance must not be allowed to defeat discipline. But the proposed mechanism is too dangerous. Overture 66 - Affirmative Overture 66 calls the Assembly to recommend prayer for the propagation of the gospel and for the church to be countenanced by the civil magistrate. BCO 14-6.k gives the General Assembly authority “to recommend measures for the promotion of charity, truth and holiness through all the churches under its care.” This overture fits within that authority. It does not bind the conscience unlawfully or alter constitutional doctrine. It calls the churches to pray according to concerns already reflected in Scripture and in the Westminster Larger Catechism’s exposition of the Lord’s Prayer. The church should pray that Christ’s kingdom would advance, that the gospel would spread throughout the world, and that civil authorities would not hinder but countenance the church in her lawful and spiritual work. Overture 67 - Negative BCO 40-5 already requires a higher court to receive a “credible report” concerning an “important delinquency or grossly unconstitutional proceedings” before taking action. Those words already require the court to evaluate both the credibility of the report and the gravity of the alleged delinquency. The Assembly should avoid adding words to the Constitution where the existing language already does the needed work. Overture 68 - Negative The CCB noted that the corporate bylaws of the PCA identify the members of the Administrative Committee as the Board of Directors. If the overture makes nine members of the AC nonvoting in their ecclesiastical capacity, it does not clearly address whether those same men would remain voting directors when the AC acts in its civil corporate capacity. The overture also creates uncertainty regarding quorum. BCO 14-1.12 and RAO 5-1 state that the AC consists of twenty members. If nine of those members become nonvoting, do they still count toward the quorum? Or is quorum calculated only from the eleven voting members? That uncertainty could create significant administrative confusion. Overture 69 - Affirmative Overture 69 provides a useful clarification regarding what must be assembled and delivered to the reviewing court in an appeal. The current language in the Rules of Discipline uses differing terms in various places, creating unnecessary work for clerks and higher courts as they determine what exactly belongs in the record on appeal. This overture would help harmonize that language and reduce confusion. Clear rules for assembling the record serve both the appellant and the reviewing court. They help ensure that appeals are reviewed on the proper materials and that clerks are not left to reconcile inconsistent terminology under pressure. Overture 70 - Affirmative Overture 70 is a practical measure that supports the orderly connectionalism and continued growth of the PCA’s Korean Language Presbyteries. Overture 71 - Negative The CCB has identified several conflicts, and those concerns are substantial. BCO 9-1 identifies the office of deacon as ordinary and perpetual in the church. The absence of deacons may be tolerated where qualified men cannot be secured, but it should not be normalized as an ordinary alternative structure. The overture also risks weakening the congregation’s constitutional authority to elect its own deacons. Under Preliminary Principle 6 and BCO 24-1, the power to elect officers belongs to the congregation. A structure that allows the Session to appoint unordained persons to carry out the diaconal ministry may functionally substitute Session appointment for congregational election. There is also tension with BCO 9-2 and 9-7. BCO 9-2 provides that, where there are no deacons, the duties of the office devolve upon the ruling elders. BCO 9-7 permits godly men and women to assist the deacons. Overture 71 appears to move beyond assistance and create a substitute diaconal structure through unordained appointees. Finally, the proposal may create competing spheres of responsibility. If one-fourth of the congregation calls for an election of deacons under BCO 24-1, and deacons are then elected, how would their authority relate to the already-appointed unordained persons carrying out the work? 21 of 25 Overture 72 - Affirmative, as amended Overture 72 offers a practical tool for denominational health and connectional care by requiring Sessions to record annually the composition of the Session and Diaconate. This kind of annual record would help Presbyteries understand the officer health of the churches under their care. It would also provide a clearer picture of churches that lack a diaconate and may need encouragement, assistance, or oversight in developing qualified men for that office. I would support the overture with a clarifying amendment. In the absence of a diaconate, the duties of the office devolve upon the Session according to BCO 9-2. The minutes should therefore indicate not only the absence of a diaconate, but also how that absence is being addressed constitutionally. Suggested amended language: BCO 12-8. Every Session shall annually record in its minutes a list of all persons who comprise the Session and the Diaconate. If the local church has no Diaconate, then the Session’s minutes shall indicate why, and whether the duties have devolved upon the Session according to BCO 9-2. Overture 73 - With reference to the answer given to Overture 41. Overture 74 - Negative The PCA already has clear categories for ordained office and for unordained service under the oversight of the church’s officers. Churches may appoint members to serve in many useful ways, and Sessions may recognize and encourage faithful service. But creating a formal rite of commissioning for unordained persons risks adding a new quasi-office or official ecclesiastical status that the Constitution does not define. That would create confusion rather than clarity. What vows, authority, accountability, or disciplinary status would attach to such commissioning? How would this commissioned status differ from ordinary appointment to service under Session oversight? Without careful definition, the overture risks creating a new ecclesiastical category while insisting that it is not doing so. Overture 75 - Negative BCO 32-18 and BCO 40-3 would continue to rely on “notice of appeal.” As the CCB noted, that leaves uncertainty about whether the remaining references should be read as references to the written appeal itself, or whether “notice of appeal” remains a distinct concept elsewhere in the Constitution. That kind of partial amendment is dangerous. If the Assembly wishes to clarify the distinction between verbal notice, written notice, and the appeal itself, it should do so comprehensively and consistently throughout the Rules of Discipline. Overture 76 - In reference to Overture 66 Overture 77 - Affirmative This change addresses several pressing practical concerns regarding the administrative health of the denomination. First, providing longer terms is a matter of basic fairness and pastoral care for our executive leaders and their families. These roles often require officers to relocate to be near the PCA’s administrative offices, a life-altering 22 of 25 decision that is difficult to justify when employment is technically subject to an annual popularity test. A four-year term provides the stability necessary for these families to labor effectively without the burden of constant vocational volatility. Third, this amendment brings the election process for these coordinators into closer alignment with the leadership of our Agencies. The Rules of Assembly Operation do not currently require the presidents or executive directors of our five Agencies to face annual re-election by the Assembly. Overture 77 removes this inconsistency and recognizes that the Stated Clerk and program coordinators occupy roles of similar gravity and executive responsibility. Finally, adopting four-year terms does not insulate leadership from accountability. In the rare instance where a man needs to be replaced for cause during his term, the respective Permanent Committee retains the authority to recommend such action to the General Assembly. Overture 78 - With reference to the answer given to Overture 79 Overture 79 - Affirmative Overture 79 provides a practical administrative update by formally authorizing electronic meetings where appropriate. The Assembly already functions under recognized parliamentary authority, and modern circumstances often make electronic meetings useful for committees, commissions, and other bodies that must conduct business between stated gatherings. Properly authorized electronic meetings can save time and travel expense while allowing the work of the church to proceed in an orderly way. Overture 80 - Affirmative The General Assembly should ordinarily be cautious about erecting Ad Interim study committees. Such committees require significant time, attention, and denominational resources, and they should not be created unless the need is substantial. Overture 80 presents a compelling exception. The proposal to establish a committee to study Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory addresses an urgent pastoral and theological issue facing the churches. These questions have generated confusion, disagreement, and concern across the broader evangelical world and within Reformed churches. The PCA would be well served by careful, constitutional, confessional, and pastoral analysis. Overture 81 - Negative The rationale speaks of wine as providing a “fuller expression” of the sacrament. If that language becomes the basis for a denominational mandate, it may imply that PCA congregations serving only grape juice are offering a lesser or deficient expression of the Supper. That could needlessly trouble consciences in local churches. Finally, the current arrangement already allows those responsible for Assembly worship to exercise prudence. The host presbytery and those planning the worship service may decide what is wise for the Assembly without a rigid administrative mandate. 23 of 25 Overture 82 - Negative The Committee on Constitutional Business determined that Overture 82 is not technically in conflict with the Constitution, but the overture raises serious ecclesiological concerns that commissioners should weigh carefully. The most significant problem concerns proposed BCO 12-1. The overture would allow a single remaining ruling elder, who expressly does not constitute a Session, to receive new members. The CCB rightly notes that receiving members into the communion of the church is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Under the PCA Constitution, jurisdiction is exercised jointly by presbyters in courts, not severally by an individual elder acting alone. Granting a single ruling elder authority to receive members would give him a kind of jurisdictional power that the BCO does not ordinarily assign to an individual ruling elder. It would also resemble certain powers of an evangelist, but without the limitations and safeguards attached to that office in BCO 8-6. The overture also appears to diminish Presbytery’s connectional authority by conditioning certain Presbytery actions upon local consent. In cases where a church lacks a functional Session, Presbytery must retain the ability to exercise proper oversight under the Constitution. The proposed language may make that oversight more difficult. The situation addressed by the overture is real, but the proposed remedy gives too much authority to a single elder and too little clarity to Presbytery’s role. I would answer in the negative. Overture 83 - Affirmative Overture 83 presents some execution difficulties, but I believe its underlying concern is sound. The overture affirms the PCA’s commitment to biblical complementarianism and seeks to ensure that institutions responsible for theological instruction reflect the church’s doctrine and polity. Scripture does not permit women to teach or exercise authority over men in the church, and the PCA Constitution reflects that conviction by limiting ordained office to qualified men. It is therefore reasonable for the denomination to ask whether those teaching Bible and theology in institutions connected to the church should be men who are ordained and ecclesiastically accountable. Ordained elders subscribe to the Westminster Standards and are subject to the oversight, review, and discipline of the church courts. That accountability matters, especially where instruction concerns Scripture, doctrine, and the formation of future ministers and church leaders. I recognize that the overture may raise practical questions about implementation. Still, its basic theological and ecclesiastical concern is legitimate and important. Overture 84 - Affirmative Overture 84 would require courts to ask officers annually whether their views remain unchanged. This would operationalize the vows officers have already taken and would encourage transparency in the handling of theological differences. The proposal fits within the ordinary responsibilities of Sessions and Presbyteries. Courts are charged with maintaining the spiritual government of the church, guarding sound doctrine, and watching over those under their care. Requiring officers to disclose changes in their views helps courts fulfill that responsibility in an orderly and uniform way. 24 of 25 This overture also supports the PCA’s practice of Good Faith Subscription. If an officer’s views have changed, the court should know that and be able to determine whether the change is acceptable, requires clarification, or constitutes a difficulty with his vows. Overture 85 - Affirmative Overture 85 is a useful organizational improvement to the Rules of Discipline. At present, BCO Chapter 45 groups dissents, protests, and objections together. The overture rightly recognizes that objections function differently from dissents and protests and should be treated with greater clarity. Moving these provisions into the currently vacated Chapter 44 would improve the structure and usability of the BCO. The overture also serves a practical purpose. The PCA’s Preliminary Principles recognize the importance of allowing elders to give public expression to matters of conscience. Clarifying the use of objections gives a member of a court a way to record disagreement and the reasons for it without necessarily initiating more burdensome judicial process. Overture 86 - Negative Overture 86 proposes replacing the term “complaint” with “inquiry.” The goal appears to be a more collegial and less adversarial process. That goal is understandable, but the proposed change creates more confusion than clarity. In ordinary English, an inquiry is simply a question or request for information. But BCO 43-1 describes something more formal: a written representation against an act or decision of a court, seeking redress and review by a higher court. Renaming that process an “inquiry” may obscure its actual constitutional function. The overture also does not remove the adversarial structure of the process. The proposed language still requires the lower court to defend its action and identifies the lower court as the respondent. In other words, the substance of the process remains a complaint even if the title is softened. The church should encourage charitable and brotherly conduct in all complaints. But changing the name of the process without changing its nature is unlikely to accomplish that goal and may make the BCO less precise. Overture 87 - Affirmative Ohio Presbytery has submitted a companion overture, Overture 10, which mirrors this request and provides the necessary consent. Overture 88 - Refer back to Siouxlands Presbytery Those concerns may be worth considering, but they are better addressed through direct communication with the Office of the Stated Clerk and CDM than through an inflexible Assembly mandate. Overture 89 - With reference to the answer given to Overture 66