Understanding Overture 4 from Central Indiana Presbytery
By Dan Barber | January 5, 2024
Please note that the Editorial Board of Presbyterian Polity does not necessarily endorse all views expressed on the blog of this site, but the editors are pleased to present well-crafted position papers on issues facing Presbyterian churches and denominations. What follows is one such paper for our readers’ consideration. ~ The Editors
Reflecting on How We Amend Our Constitution
I have been reflecting on the work of the Overtures Committee (OC) of our beloved PCA. One of the first steps in crafting an overture is research. Before writing up an overture, aspiring authors should ask questions like, Has this been attempted before? If so, what was the result? etc. This year, I’ve been asking those questions and getting ‘yes’ answers. The kind of substantial changes such as the ones I hope for the PCA to ultimately propose (more below) have been accomplished at least twice before in our history: once in 1989, when the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) was formed and it adopted its first manual, and once when the Assembly approved a significant rewrite of the Rules of Assembly Operation (RAO) in 2006.[1] This tells me that what I hope to propose can be done.
Reflecting on how these significant changes were accomplished, I submit that there are two broad commonalities. First, the Assembly recognized a clear need for the work; and second, the bulk of the work was accomplished by a group of individuals. Moreover, in both cases the individuals who drafted these changes were named ahead of time[2] to do the work that was subsequently ratified by the Assembly.
More recently, we have seen a raft of judicial overtures (among others) come through, some even authored by yours truly. Some have made it through (or appear to be making it through) with minor changes. Others, however, have been met with much less success. Why has this been the case, one might wonder? Is there some common thread connecting the various stories of failure (and success) that can help us understand the recent actions of the Assembly?
Let’s examine three case studies in overtures from the last few years.
Overture 2022-8 Regarding Original Jurisdiction (49th General Assembly). Overture 8 from Houston Metro Presbytery proposed changing the standard by which a higher court may assume original jurisdiction from a lower court. That overture was ultimately defeated. Nearly every presbyter with whom I dialogued—regardless of their vote for and against—agreed that the language of BCO 33-1 and 34-1 would benefit from further clarity and a better standard. What ultimately doomed the overture was disagreement about how exactly to accomplish that change. what is the right standard? ‘Failure to indict,’ or some other kind of ‘failure to act’? And what threshold of lower courts (i.e., sessions-to-presbyteries, or presbyteries-to-SJC) should make such an appeal in order for it to succeed? Should the threshold be 5%? Should it be 10%? In a large presbytery 10% is much more than the current standard, but in small presbyteries it was actually lower than the current standard.
Overture 2021-40 in Response to the DASA Report (49th General Assembly). The much-needed report of the Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault committee brought many questions regarding judicial process in cases of alleged abuse to the forefront as the PCA seeks to put in place measures to prevent abuse and seek justice for victims of abuse. How do we provide protections for victims? How can we care for them by minimizing the risk of further trauma while working to ascertain the truth during an arduous judicial process? Overtures were brought and vigorously debated on the floor of the OC. For hours. Initially the OC voted to postpone consideration another year by a vote of 94-34 (74%). A minority report was forthcoming.
What happened over the next 48 hours can only be described as a work of the Holy Spirit. A small working group formed to try to gather a consensus rather than file a minority report: TE David Strain and myself were on OC; TEs Tim LeCroy, David Richter, and Fred Greco were observers (Tim was the Chairman of the DASA committee). We huddled and talked, along with a few others, over and over again. I spent hours upon hours in my hotel room editing and revising BCO 35—to the point where we ended up substantially revising BCO 35 §1–5, creating a better overall structure in the process of introducing new, additional content to the chapter at the same time. When we presented it to the OC, it once again was bogged down in debate, but ultimately hearts were convinced, and it passed OC by a vote of 120-0—a reversal of direction only possible by the work of the Spirit. It then came to the floor of GA, and was unanimously approved by a voice vote, and is now constitutional today.
Sexuality Overtures (48th, 49th, and 50th General Assemblies; including now Item 2 before the presbyteries before ratification by the 51st General Assembly). We are in our third year (seems like longer?) of overtures, and it appears now that Item 2—Lord willing—will pass and become constitutional. Many, many iterations were debated over these three years. Behind the scenes, many, many individuals worked together to develop what you see before you today in the form of Item 2 being considered by the presbyteries—long before it even came to the Overtures Committee. What now stands before us represents years and years of collegial work, give and take, and, I think, has produced a standard by which the majority will agree and make it constitutional.
The work of Overtures is designed by its very nature to force us to come together, to listen to one another, talk with one another—to come to consensus.
The Work of Overtures: A Hypothesis
Reflecting on this, what have we learned? Here’s my hypothesis: collaboration across the ideological spectrum of the PCA is essential to achieving meaningful, substantial, lasting constitutional change. Yes, we can change a jot here and a tittle there; but to do something really significant—that requires extensive and time-consuming collaboration. Such an effort is often fostered along by a group of brothers who, though they may vehemently disagree on some areas where there is freedom (Preliminary Principle 5), come together for the benefit of the body as a whole, recognizing the need for constitutional change.
Substantial Judicial Change: A Proposal from Central Indiana
This brings us to the heart of the issue in Overture 4 from Central Indiana Presbytery (CIP): how can we accomplish this regarding significant overhaul of portions of the BCO? The thought from CIP—I am speaking as a member of, but not on behalf of, presbytery; these thoughts are my own—is that we can make a good attempt at doing such by formalizing otherwise informal efforts over the course of two assemblies instead of the five or six it would usually take to accomplish in piecemeal fashion, while preserving the ability of the Assembly to give input through thorough debate and process.
To these ends, on November 10, 2023, CIP passed the following overture in an attempt to give the PCA an opportunity to do something . . . substantial:
Be it resolved that the 51st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America postpone consideration of all overtures touching Book of Church Order (BCO) chapters 27–46 (“Rules of Discipline”) and refer all such proposed overtures to a Study Committee for review and recommendation to the Overtures Committee of the 52nd General Assembly. Quorum shall be three Ruling Elders and three Teaching Elders; all members shall be from differing presbyteries. The committee shall be self-funded: each committee member shall bear his own expenses and be allowed to submit these expenses to his church or presbytery. The Moderator of the 51st General Assembly shall have discretion to fill any vacancies by an officer of the same order (BCO 7-2).
The committee shall produce in its report recommendations on overtures referred to it. The Committee’s report shall be submitted to the Stated Clerk by the deadline listed in the Rules of Assembly Operation (RAO) for Overtures. Though the ad-hoc committee shall strive for unanimity where at all possible, for any overtures recommended by the committee, a minority report recommending an alternative shall be allowed if the minority includes at least two Ruling Elders and two Teaching Elders. Nothing herein shall prevent the committee from recommending germane amendments to any overtures referred to it by this Assembly.
Be it further resolved that the 51st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America suspend RAO 9-4, limiting committee membership to seven (7) members, and compose this study committee of eleven elders from different presbyteries, with at least four Ruling Elders and four Teaching Elders, with one alternate each, respectively, as follows, listed in alphabetical order (each member has given his assent to serve in this capacity, should the Assembly pass this overture):[3]
- TE Per Almquist (Northern New England)
- RE Dan Barber (Central Indiana)
- RE Howie Donahoe (Pacific Northwest)
- TE Jacob Gerber (Platte Valley)
- TE Fred Greco (Houston Metro)
- TE Larry Hoop (Ohio Valley)
- RE Trevor Laurence (Piedmont Triad)
- TE Paul Lee (Korean Northeastern)
- RE E. J. Nusbaum (Rocky Mountain)
- RE Bryce Sullivan (Nashville)
- (Alternate) TE Steve Tipton (Gulf Coast)
- RE Richard Wolfe (Arizona)
- (Alternate) RE Jim Wert (Metro Atlanta)
In the event that the Overtures Committee does not recommend that the 51st General Assembly suspend RAO 9-4, or the Assembly itself declines to approve a recommendation to suspend, then this Overture recommends that the Moderator of the 51st General Assembly appoint seven (7) men to this Study Committee from this list of eleven (11), with the rest as advisory members, and appoint its convener.
Originally, Overture 4 was designed to be passed alongside the proposed changes currently being considered by CIP, but we had other, more important work which needed to take precedent.
So in February, the Central Indiana Presbytery will take up what is currently drafted as 36 pages of overtures aimed at proposing systemic and substantial changes to the “Rules of Discipline” regarding BCO 31, 32, 35, and 41, along with some other items. These changes were initially constituted as 24 separate overtures, because as any experienced Overturist (Overturian?) knows, two things kill overtures: length and complexity. As I began receiving feedback on the changes, however, the question kept being asked: what do you envision the end product to look like? And so, even though lengthier and more complex overtures are difficult, in the end, it is the only way to bring about significant, systematic change on a scope as large as an entire BCO chapter—or even across BCO chapters in unison.
As it stands proposed today in CIP, these changes would restructure much of the aforementioned chapters, as well as add new additional elements, and clarify existing ones. The pages represent hundreds of hours of research, thought, experience, and conversation with others over the years. But, let me be clear . . .
. . . these overtures are imperfect. Let me tell you what I told the CIP during our discussion of what you now see in Overture 4: I know these proposed changes need work. I know that. We all know that. They need a lot of work. And that’s exactly why I wrote (thanks to some wise counsel) an overture to form a study committee. Because as I reflected on how lasting change has occurred within the PCA, it has happened by consensus. These overtures need the work of the men proposed on this committee. 100%. In fact, so much so, that I originally told CIP that it was my intent to have all of our overtures passed as a “package” because the whole point is to get judicial changes into the hands of the study committee to make them better for everyone. Instead of going back and forth for years and years on various points, perhaps we can make a concerted effort between two assemblies and accomplish something substantial that will benefit us for years to come.
. . . and these overtures are incomplete. Admittedly, not many, if any, of us has time to sit around and research and compose constitutional amendments all day. It’s a difficult undertaking, especially in regard to judicial matters. These overtures are incomplete because they need what your presbytery wants to propose. The question immediately asked by people I know was What are these changes referenced in Overture 4? Because of course, CIP just passed this one single overture. Again, we will, Lord willing, clarify that in the future. But in God’s good providence, we postponed our consideration until February, while passing this broader overture. Why? Two reasons, again, in God’s goodness: 1) it gives presbyteries time to draft their own changes to submit to the 51st General Assembly, for possible referral to the committee (e.g., who’s going to resubmit an overture on Original Jurisdiction?); and 2) it gives presbyters time to begin drafting their own proposals free from the influence of what CIP is already thinking, much in the same way that a Pastor will withhold his opinion on a matter until the rest of his Session has debated so as to not insert his own ideas right from the start.
What Overture 4 Aims to Accomplish
Simply put, the Overtures Committee (OC) is not set up to enable the kind of systematic and/or lengthy emendation process for systemic constitutional changes; given the size of our body now (if it was true in 1989 and 2006, how much more true is it today?), such proposals must be done by subgroup of people and brought back to the body for ratification. Our thought in CIP was to bring it back to OC, rather than directly to the Assembly on the floor, to give ample opportunity for input through our normal deliberative (and presbyterian) processes.
But again, we aim to accomplish this together with all our brothers within the Presbyterian Church in America. I would personally encourage each of you: propose your changes. I say this with a modicum of trepidation, for the work that it might create: please, flood the study committee with proposals. We will work collegially, diligently, and wisely to recommend changes that will empower us to more visibly and spiritual represent King Jesus, the Head of our Church, in this world. Until He comes again, and we pray, Come quickly, Lord Jesus.
Postscript
There are more than a few questions already that you have, I’m sure—because I’ve heard them already. Here are some answers.
Question: Has everyone on the committee seen a draft of the proposed changes that CIP is considering?
Answer: Absolutely. It was important for them to know what was potentially going to be asked of them in the case that such an overture were to pass the Assembly in the coming year. I related to you, with his permission, the words of one of the proposed committee members, which I also read to the CIP:
I have read your proposed Overtures, I will pray that Central Indiana will pass all [36 pages] so that the General Assembly will have the opportunity to act. You have pointed out areas in the Rules of Discipline that are either inadequate or confusing. Those areas cannot be fixed with simple or single-subject overtures. It will require some comprehensive overtures that propose systematic fixes. The denomination would be well served if the concerns raised by the overtures were addressed. I have prayed for your upcoming meeting.
Question: What does it mean that the committee is “self-funded”?
Answer: In the past, the issue of committee size—and even the formation of other proposed study committees—centered around funding, which is ordinarily provided by undesignated giving to the Administrative Committee, which as anyone will tell you, is not exactly plentiful. RAO 9-3 says that funding should not “primarily” be the burden of the members of the committee, but it also says that any proposed study committee should include a proposal for funding. In this case, each of the proposed members of this committee knew in advance that the proposal would be for a self-funded committee where each member would bear his own expenses; that was an important reason to propose such a committee beforehand. And, strictly speaking, the overture does not propose the member himself to bear his expenses out of his own pocket, but rather he may choose to bear it himself, or he may choose to reimburse it from his church or presbytery, which we believe meet the requirements of RAO 9-3. In full transparency, I envision that much of the work that will be done by the committee may be done via Zoom and other mechanisms, minimize travel expenses; the biggest cost to be borne by the committee members themselves is the cost of time invested.
Question: Are you proposing a group to rewrite the Rules of Discipline?
Answer: By no means! First, I doubt that many of the men in this list would have agreed to such a large undertaking in light of their current ministry loads. Second, the proposal is specific in its narrowness: only items proposed and referred to this study committee—along with germane amendments—may be considered. Which is also why it is important for presbyteries to submit proposed changes.
Question: Why are you trying to name these specific people to the committee?
Answer: As stated in the rationale of the overture itself, the proposed membership of this committee had three broad criteria: 1) it should represent the broad spectrum of views within our fellowship; 2) it should be comprised of individuals who have a proven history of collegiality and effective collaboration; and 3) it should bear a variety of levels of competency—each person with some experience, but not necessarily filled with all SJC or CCB members, for example has been carefully selected to broadly represent the variety of views within our fellowship
I have not heard any real objections to the men proposed in the overture themselves (though I’m guessing there will likely be some); in fact, most often the phrase that has been said to me is, paraphrasing, of course, “That’s a really great representative group there.”
Question: Is naming committee members in an overture allowable, or even Presbyterian?
Answer: This is perhaps the biggest question I’ve been asked, and it was a point of discussion in CIP. My argument for it can be summarized in three points:
1) The objection I usually get is, “this should be done by the Moderator.” And indeed, it may yet still be. However, there is nothing inherently un- or anti-Presbyterian about the way we have done it within this overture. We name nominees to permanent committees at General Assembly. In our Sessions and Presbyteries, when we form committees, very often we immediately follow the passing of that motion with the opening of nominations from the floor to fill the committee. This is inherently Presbyterian because we are putting it before the body to discuss, recommend, and approve.
2) It was important in this overture to name the committee as part of the overture itself (versus being a suggestion in the rationale) because of the self-funded nature of the committee: each man here knows what he is signing up for, and what it will likely entail. To have a Moderator appoint someone to a committee where each member bears his own cost could is, I think, precisely why the RAO says that funding shouldn’t primarily be a committee member’s responsibility, since it could potentially hinder the Moderator in making his appointments.
3) The reason that we normally empower the Moderator at General Assembly to fill committees and commissions, as I understand it, is because it can become unwieldy on the floor if we had a debate to fill a committee at our size. It is my hope that, by proposing a good, representative group, and by gaining their assent ahead of time, that while an individual presbyter may not have everyone they want on the committee, there will be some individuals on it they do want—and that this will ultimately engender trust in the work product of the committee when it is presented at the 52nd General Assembly. It is also my hope that the proposed membership of the committee will also be, to the extent they feel comfortable, vocal evangelists leading into the General Assembly, marshalling support and having discussions ahead of time, so that the Overtures Committee can come together in a strong consensus to present to the body.
[1] https://www.pcahistory.org/bco/pca/pcachanges.html
[2] The task of creating the manual fell to the men appointed to the SJC. The motion in 2005 to form the ad interim committee is here: “12. That an ad interim Committee of the General Assembly (“RAO” Article VIII) be constituted for the purpose of presenting the final report and recommendations of the Strategic Planning Committee directly to the Thirty-fourth General Assembly. The following seven persons would compose the ad interim Committee: Frank Barker, Joel Belz, Frank Brock, Bryan Chapell, Dave Clelland, David Coffin, and Ligon Duncan. The other current and advisory members of the SPC would serve as advisory members on the ad interim Committee: Will Barker, Sam Duncan, Bebo Elkin, Glenn Fogle, Harry Hargrave, Wayne Herring, Eliot Lee, Bill Lyle, Roy Taylor, Jack Williamson and Mike Wilson. The Committee shall be erected with the proviso that no need for additional funds is anticipated, but should such additional funds be necessary, they would be raised by interested parties through voluntary designated contributions distributed through the AC (“RAO” 4-18), not to exceed $10,000” (M33GA, 341).
[3] Proposed committee member biographical sketches are included in the rationale.
Dan Barber is a PCA Ruling Elder serving on the session of Fountain Square Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis, IN.