Primer on Overtures and Concurrences

Prepared by Donald E. Stroud
Formatted by Jim Tiefenthal

[9-16-03]

Among the many legislative actions planned for the 216th GA (2004) in Richmond, Virginia, is an effort to get as many presbyteries as are willing to do so to concur with already existing Overtures to delete G-6.0106b. or to initiate their own Overtures to delete G-6.0106b.

Be aware that if you concur with an already existing Overture and your presbytery's Rationale is different from the one already submitted, your Concurrence along with your Rationale will be entered in the Reports of the 2004 GA. (If you pass an Overture that is the same or essentially the same as an already existing Overture, you will be asked if you are willing to withdraw your Overture or to concur with the already existing Overture.) Again, if you concur, your action will be entered in The Reports along with your Rationale if your Rationale is different from that of the Original Overture.) [The Standing Rules, Bc.(2)] If you choose to concur but do not want to write a new Rationale, the fact of your concurrence will be listed under the Overture with which your presbytery concurs.

The advantage of this provision for concurrences is that the appropriate GA Committee will have in front of it the various Rationales for deleting G-6.0106b. This written witness will be an important reference for the GA committee members, perhaps more than the few minutes several Overture Advocates will find it necessary to share when the committee considers the Overture.

What follows is the process for concurring with an already existing Overture.

If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them or try to find an answer from some one. Contact Don Stroud at dstroud@tamfs.org or 410-435-3031.

The Process for Concurring
with An Already Existing Overture

EXAMPLE: At its September 25, 2003 Stated Meeting, the Presbytery of Baltimore approved an Overture to the 216^th GA asking it to send to the presbyteries for their vote an amendment to delete G-6.0106b. from the Book of Order. (The text of the Baltimore Overture appears as Appendix A at the end of this document. A website reference is given as Appendix B for the wording of the 215^th GA "Des Moines Overture." There are also some recommendations concerning the wording of an Overture if some presbytery group is considering a two part Overture similar to the "Des Moines Overture.")

If your presbytery would like to register its support and affirmation of the Baltimore Overture, the easiest way to do so is to make a Motion to Concur with the Baltimore Overture at one of your presbytery's stated meetings. (Ask your Stated Clerk about the procedure followed in your presbytery!)

PAY ATTENTION TO THE DEADLINE!!!

Please, pay strict attention to the deadline for submitting concurrences to already existing Overtures, as well as submitting original Overtures, IF YOUR CONCURRENCE WITH AN OVERTURE OR YOUR ORIGINAL OVERTURE DEALS WITH A CHANGE TO THE BOOK OF ORDER!!! AN OVERTURE ASKING FOR AN AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION FALLS UNDER THIS EXACT SAME STANDING RULE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY! [Bc.(2)]

The Concurrence or Overture must be postmarked no later than 120 days prior to the convening of the GA.

(Note: Overtures requiring an Interpretation of the Constitution must also be submitted 120 days prior to GA.  An authoritative interpretation must meet this deadline of 120 days.)

The 2004 GA convenes in Richmond, VA, June 26, 2004. 120 days prior is Feb. 27, 2004!

Do not wait until the last possible date. Take your Overture or request for a Concurrence to a stated meeting of your presbytery as early as possible.

Remember that a ready resource in each presbytery is your presbytery office. The Stated Clerk of your presbytery should have copies of the minutes of all the previous General Assemblies. Go to these minutes to find the wording of other Overtures that have been submitted to the 210th, 211^th, 212^th, 213^th, and 215^th General Assemblies.

If your presbytery wants to concur with an already existing Overture without stating a different Rationale, it could do so and would simply be listed in The Reports as concurring. If your presbytery thinks it is important to record its Rationale, it could concur with a different Rationale and have the Concurrence and Rationale in The Reports. What Follows are sections B.5.c.(1), parts of (2), and parts of (4) of GA Standing Rules.

*Draft the overture in the following form:

"The Presbytery of --------- overtures the General Assembly of the PC(USA) to [state the specific action the GA is asked to take]."

To this shall be appended a Rationale, stating the reasons for submitting the overture.

NOTE: The "Submitting of Overtures" requirements also relate to Concurrences!

In the event that the assembly refers an overture to a GA entity for further consideration (and not simply for implementation), the presbytery or synod submitting the overture shall be invited by the Stated Clerk to designate an overture advocate for the assembly meeting at which the entity's response to the overture is presented.

APPENDIX A

An Overture From
The Presbytery of Baltimore

Approved at the September 25, 2003, Stated Meeting
of The Presbytery of Baltimore

The Presbytery of Baltimore overtures the 216th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to:

Direct the Stated Clerk to transmit to the presbyteries for their vote the following proposed amendment:

That G-6.0106b be stricken from the Book of Order.

Rationale

The peace, unity, and purity of the PC (USA) has been ruptured by the presence of G-6.0106b in our Book of Order. Rather than solving the issue of ordination standards, this addition has created a hostile and divisive environment in our Church that is contrary to God's reconciling love. Numerous judicial cases have been brought to governing bodies over issues of ordination from individuals who are unaware of the calls and gifts of ministry of those against whom they file complaints. These judicial actions have cost individuals, congregations, and governing bodies untold time and money to defend those who have been accused. There is no longer any possibility of honest and open dialogue on this issue without fear of retribution. Section G-6.0106b does serious harm to our church by forcing the appearance of consensus and depriving the church of the benefit of discussion.

The wisdom expressed in G-60106a is sufficient in setting standards for ordination. The strength of the PC (USA) lies in its ability to hold freedom of conscience and church order in tension, and its trust of the governing body closest to those it ordains (G-6.0108b). Sessions and presbyteries have the responsibility to weigh the confessions, to determine which segments reflect essential tenets of the faith, and to judge the gifts and qualifications of those candidates who come before them.

The effects of G-6.0106b are contrary to our Constitutional call to "seek the grace of openness in extending the fellowship of Christ to all persons"(G-5.0103). Instead it has the explicit and implicit effect of targeting one category of people, defined as "self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons", and of denying to them the full rights and privileges of active membership within the PC(USA) (G-5.0202). Through this constitutional ban, G-6.0106b disregards the fact that a pluralism of methods of biblical and theological interpretation currently exists within the PC(USA) concerning homosexuality. Among these methods is the strongly held belief among many conscientious Presbyterians that homosexual practice is not a sin per se and that both heterosexual and homosexual relationships are capable of being either faithful and life-affirming or sinful and destructive. G-6.0106b, and its predecessor "definitive guidance" and subsequent affirmations, delineates human sexuality in categories more narrowly defined than the scriptures seek to claim. For example, while Christians disagree on the interpretation of the limited biblical references to homosexuality, most acknowledge that the Bible is silent on the issue of life long faithful homosexual partnerships. In contrast, the Bible is clear in its themes of covenant: the covenant between God and humanity, and the human covenants made before God. Removal of G-6.0106b from our Constitution would allow presbyteries and sessions to follow their understanding of the Holy Spirit's leading in making decisions about candidates for ordination/installation by the application of a common ethic of faithfulness and fidelity within human covenantal relationships. This return to a mutual trust in each ordaining/installing presbytery's or session's ability to make individual judgments concerning the fitness of a candidate for ordination/installation would restore to the presbyteries and sessions their traditional duty and prerogative to approve, ordain, and install persons whom, after due examination, they deem gifted, worthy, and called by God through the voice of the people.

APPENDIX B

To find the wording of the 215^th GA "Des Moines Overture" with which Baltimore concurred in 2003 go to: www.pcusa.org/ga215/business/overtures/ovt0307.htm

After much discussion about the various options for wording an Overture, the writing team for the proposed Baltimore Overture decided that it was best to submit an Overture like the previous "Milwaukee" and "Northern New England" Overtures, i.e. simply: "Shall G-6.0106b. be stricken from the Book of Order?" If you would like more information concerning the reasons this wording of the Overture was chosen, please write to dstroud@tamfs.org or call 410-435-3031.

For any presbytery group that might be considering an Overture similar to the "Des Moines Overture," the following points may be of interest to you.

First, look up the wording of the "Des Moines Overture."

Mike Smith, Des Moines' Overture Advocate, and Don Stroud, Baltimore's Overture Advocate for its concurrence with "Des Moines," agree on the following.

If you are thinking of writing a two part Overture similar to "Des Moines," under Part 1, eliminate section b. that asks for the addition of a sentence to the present G-6.0106a. This sentence is redundant and thus it is not needed. The present wording in what is referred to as G-6.0106a. is sufficient. Thus Part 1 would simply ask: Shall G-6.0106b. be stricken from the Book of Order?

The following is the thinking of Don Stroud.

If you are thinking about having a Part 2, asking for an "authoritative interpretation," (AI) you want to use words that make it clear that the AI is not dependent on an affirmative vote on the deletion of G-6.0106b. by the presbyteries. For example:

2. Approve the following authoritative interpretation, which shall take effect immediately upon the affirmative vote of the 216^th GA.

I would recommend that the wording of the AI end with the words "…shall be given no further force or effect; …" that appear in the present "Des Moines Overture."

The rest of the paragraph beginning with "…and Section G-6.0106a. of the Form of Government …" to the end is not needed.