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 216th 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 215th 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,
211th, 212th, 213th, and 215th
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 215th 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 216th
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.
