The first overture called for a ‘means of grace’ alternative to the proposed Strategic Plan; the second called for a recognition of the sufficiency of our constitution to govern offices and ordination in the church.

On Saturday May 22, the Northwest Georgia Presbytery (NWGP) convened in a called meeting to consider two overtures from the Session of Grace PCA in Douglasville, Georgia. Over 20 presbyters had signed the request for the called meeting, and we were gratified with the attendance (33) on this Saturday morning, with more Ruling Elders (19) than Teaching Elders present. These overtures, which present no BCO amendments and thus need not be reviewed by the Committee on Constitutional Business, will be conveyed immediately (along with the minutes showing approval) to the Stated Clerk’s office in a timely manner and should be properly before this General Assembly.

The first overture called for a ‘means of grace’ alternative to the proposed Strategic Plan; the second called for a recognition of the sufficiency of our constitution to govern offices and ordination in the church, along with a call to conform our practices to those objective standards until or unless the constitution is amended. We understand that several other constitutional amendments will be properly before our Assembly and presbyteries in the coming year; our overtures, calling for respect to our written covenant, do not exclude any of these from proceeding to the presbyteries for consideration.

Nor does our overture endorse nor oppose the AC recommended funding method. While various presbyters may like or dislike the proposed method, as a presbytery we are encouraging votes among presbyteries on issues like this. We think those debates and discussions will take place in safe place, already constituted, and will give voices at those discussions to those ordained by congregations.

In fact, the strength of our overtures may be their reliance on those lawfully constituted presbyteries (instead of a single Assembly) to serve as the determiners of practice for the PCA.

I learned several things from this debate and will share a few things below. In the main, however, I think it might be helpful for the broader church to listen in on some of our discussion of these overtures. Below is a point-counterpoint of some of the queries raised and points discussed in a Frequently Asked Question form. The answers to some of the questions raised from the floor are, I think, helpful for others who consider. Of course, our voice is but one of many, and we welcome correction and other opinions as well.

1. “Don’t impugn the integrity or motives of the CMC; these are fine leaders. Does our presbytery wish to send a message of disrespect?” ANSWER: The overture, in its opening, affirmed that the CMC was “well-intentioned” (an overt reference to good motive) and had worked “diligently to set forth a proposal that they believe will make the PCA a stronger, healthier denomination.” Far from impugning motives or abilities, our presbytery action simply disagrees with the ideas and plans set forth in the proposal. We did read the plan, our Ruling Elders were especially opposed, and there is not a single personal reference or impugning of motive in our overture. It only discusses ideas and takes a differing position from some. May a presbytery not disagree with ideas of a committee? Surely, we are not to the point where mere disagreement over ideas is construed as disloyal or tantamount to personal attacks.

2. “This Plan is not to be voted on at this Assembly; it is only for information as an exemplary set of concepts. How can we oppose these guidelines?” ANSWER: I might have agreed with that, except a few days prior to our meeting the Commissioners Handbook arrived. And on page 311, as a recommendation of the Administrative Committee, it is precisely that this “General Assembly approve the Three Themes, the Goals, the General Means, and the Specific Means specified” in the proposed plan. Further, if approved, the Administrative Committee is to “direct and authorize responsible entities and persons to proceed with implementation to the accomplishment of the Goals.”

To our presbytery that looks like a train leaving the station. Moreover, in the proposed plan itself, numerous dates and assignments are given, which if approved this year, are to be implemented before the next General Assembly, thus making it virtually impossible not to have the train leave the station. These presbyters respectfully suggested that the engines be cooled for a while and that the church not be in a position of being pulled where it might not wish to go.

3. “We may have questions, but if we adopt these overtures, aren’t we calling ‘Foul’ before a foul ball occurs?” ANSWER: To that, one ruling elder answered perceptively that shepherds and parents need to be proactive, not merely waiting until after misdeeds occur. Another ruling elder on a Permanent Committee stated that this was exactly the path that the PCUSA went down. Yet another ruling elder argued that as soon as a church prohibits correction in safe places, historically that has led to intolerance of traditional views. We teaching elders learned much from our fellow ruling elders on this day. And one teaching elder noted that since the past two Assemblies had ruled against study committees on gender issues, that the CMC should not have re-injected this topic of expanding women’s roles anywhere in the plan. I have to ask: “Aren’t our presbyteries to speak to the Assembly politely and give their advice before train wrecks occur? Or is it only certain committees that can speak in this way?”

4. “Let’s don’t just say ‘no’ to something (mainly a response to the gender roles overture), and shouldn’t we also say what women CAN do in the church?” The drafters of the overture sought to be as positive and irenic as possible. Both of these overtures are viewed by us as saying “Yes” to something; and what we are saying “yes” to is our biblical and constitutional standards. We simply remain unpersuaded that things are so bad, or that such a crisis exists, or that some emergency requires us to depart from our present standards. Yes, we believe they are sufficient (certainly improvable and not perfect), and the public process for improvement is provided (BCO 26-1) and should be a normal, calm procedure. We view ourselves as saying ‘yes’ to the great hallmarks of the Reformed faith. Trusting in the working of the Holy Spirit, through his means of grace, armed with the sufficiency of Scripture, we believe God’s church has a bright, wonderful future.

5. “These overtures do not describe the ‘how;’ isn’t this alternative more of a call to spiritual tools that we all love and not so much a strategic plan?” Here, our NWGP is on record as affirming that we believe that there is more efficacy in those ‘old paths,’ such as preaching, family worship, missions, worship, and unabashedly Christ-centered corporate life than in selective sociological findings or corporate strategizing, even from friends and the finest of leaders. While we do not believe that our friends on the CMC deny these means, neither would it be helpful to mangle our overture by amending to have these 17 points ‘alongside’ of the Strategic Plan—that is precisely the opposite of our overture. We are attempting to say no to the ideas in the Plan, and Yes, we believe God is doing just fine guiding his church through ordinary officers and members. We also believe that he wants us to spend more time evangelizing, sending missionaries, discipling our converts in the culture than in consuming a few years of debate on this plan. May we not, as a presbytery, believe that more growth, more addition, and more planting of churches would occur if all PCA churches and missions devoted three years to these ministerial tasks than to years of wrangling over these concepts? NWGP may be criticized for attempting to be fools for Christ. Fine.

6. (This question came up after the vote but is included here for continuity of reasoning): “The first motion is in essence what is called a motion to reaffirm. The PCA gets one of these per year on average from some presbytery. Every year, we vote against them because it is consider a waste of the assembly’s time to come together and endlessly re-affirm things. As one parliamentarian on the web states, “Motions to ‘reaffirm’ a position previously taken by adopting a motion or resolution are not in order. Such a motion serves no useful purpose because the original motion is still in effect; …and if such a motion to reaffirm failed, if would create an ambiguous situation.” In response to the suggestion that a ‘motion to reaffirm’ is not in order, that is exactly correct if the motion is to reaffirm some previous action of a deliberative body. But this does not apply to our overture. A careful reading of the overture from Northwest Georgia Presbytery reveals that it is not something that a previous assembly has adopted that is being called for. What our overture calls for is for the 17-points to be sent down and studied by the lower courts. Moreover, this is an alternative to what another Committee is proposing [so it is in order to suggest different opinions]. Furthermore, our overtures do not fall under the putative interpretation in that they also call for this view, if adopted by the 38th Assembly, to be disseminated by our leaders as the view of this year’s assembly–something that is certainly not being done. And, finally, our overture calls for future proposals to structure to arise from the presbyteries rather than from the Cooperative Ministries Committee. In short, the overtures from NWGP are definitely in order as they call for new action and for different substance as compared to any previous assembly action.

On the second overture, our presbytery (after relatively short debate) approved a fine overture that may give the PCA a way forward. Certainly, it may not be strident, it will not solve all issues, and it allows for all BCO amendments approved by our assembly to proceed apace. As such, our overture provides strong, interim advice, reminding all to practice nothing other than what all officers at this time have foresworn to uphold. Might that not bring some needed peace and relief from tension? And if adherents wish to know where the church stands, a surer method of ascertaining that than all the studies and safe discussions in the world is to formulate a clear idea, have it voted on, and let the chips fall where they may. Surely, our presbytery thinks, we are all men enough to do such. As men, we have also vowed to submit to our brethren in the collective pronouncements of the church. That, too, is good and necessary for all of us.

So our presbytery had a good, succinct debate. All was temperate and respectful. Some of our ruling elders voiced sentiments (somehow, I almost think that their voices may be more accurate clues to the church than pronouncements that are overwhelmingly from the professional class) that were more emphatic than these overtures, which really are quite moderate and pursuing the peace and unity of the church.

We commend these to our church, along with our prayers for God’s blessings on our leaders, our churches, and the upcoming General Assembly. We hope many will join in such hopeful and positive sentiments.
_____________________
David W. Hall is pastor of Midway Presbyterian Church in Powder Springs, Ga.