The Overture bears the burden of showing why the PCA’s Constitution must be changed to permit sessions to admit young persons to the Lord’s Supper and to prevent them from voting in the congregational election of church officers. The Overture has not met this burden. Neither the biblical nor the constitutional-historical arguments proposed in the Overture are persuasive.

Introduction

The Book of Church Order affords communicant members not under particular censure “all the rights and privileges of the Church” (BCO 6-4). Those who have been admitted to the Lord’s Supper, therefore, have the right to vote for church officers in congregational elections. No congregation has Constitutional authority to abridge this right (see BCO 25-7). This was the conclusion of the Standing Judicial Commission in a recent Decision, Psiaki v. PNW (Case 2023-11).⁽¹⁾

Overture 22 seeks to amend the Constitution to permit a congregation to “establish a rule setting a minimum voting age.” The effect of this amendment would be to permit sessions to admit young persons to the Lord’s Supper and then to prevent them from voting on ecclesiastical matters in congregational elections. Accompanying Overture 22 is a lengthy rationale that advances many arguments in support of the proposed amendment. These arguments fall in two basic categories—biblical and constitutional-historical.

In my judgment, Overture 22 fails to make the case that the Constitution should be amended at this point.⁽²⁾ In what follows, we will respond to some of the leading arguments advanced by the Overture.

Biblical Arguments

The Equivalency Argument

The Overture responds to what it calls “the Discernment Equivalency Assertion or DEA,” namely, “if a child has the discernment necessary to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper, he thereby has the discernment necessary to vote on any church matter” (p.2, ll. 33, 31-32, emphasis original). But, the Overture reasons, even if a young person can “make a genuine profession of faith in [Jesus]” and is “sufficiently discerning to partake of sacramental meals” (p.3, ll.3, 5-6), it does not follow that they are competent to choose church officers (p.3, l.31). In fact, the selection of church officers is said to require “a greater level of discernment” than it does “to receive Christ as Savior” (p.3, l.30, cf. ll. 32,34).

Part of the difficulty with this claim is that the Overture does not spell out its understanding of the criteria requisite for the admission of a covenant child to the Lord’s Supper. It assumes a lesser degree of discernment required to come to the Lord’s Supper than that required for the selection of church officers. But this supposition requires argument, and it is just such an argument that is lacking in the Overture. Given the high Confessional standard that is set for a right participation in the Lord’s Supper (see WLC 170-5), one would have expected the Overture to advance some argument in support of its claim. For this reason, the Overture’s claim here fails to persuade.

The Undue Influence Argument

The Overture furthermore expresses the concern that parents exercise undue influence over their children when it comes to voting at church meetings (p.4, ll.13-18). But this concern is a hypothetical one. The Overture has not produced examples from congregational meetings where this has happened. Nor does it follow from the Fifth Commandment that parents may lawfully exercise the kind of influence that concerns the Overture.

The Old Covenant Franchise Argument

The Overture also argues that, under the Old Covenant, “the only unambiguous parties involved in formally selecting … eeclesiastical and civil leaders were adults,” correlate with these persons’ “responsibility to support, materially, both the ministry and the civil government” (p.4, ll.42-43-p.5, l.1; p.5, ll.3-4). Since that responsibility continues under the NT, and “no passage requires that minors be granted voting privileges, it is reasonable for churches to follow the only Biblical pattern [and] confine voting to those adults who may generally be expected to underwrite the ministry” (p.5, ll. 6-8).

Read More