Overtures 20, 21, 25, and 26 all call for changes to disciplinary procedures. Tennessee Valley also sent Overture 26, which proposes an amendment to BCO 32-19. Currently, when a person is charged with an offense and tried by his session or, in the case of a minister, by his presbytery, he may be represented before the court by anyone who is a member of the church or (in the case of a minister) another member of his presbytery. This overture proposes that the person charged would be allowed representation by any member in good standing in a PCA church. Tennessee Valley argues that small congregations or presbyteries may not include members who are well versed in PCA disciplinary procedures and so under the current provision might be underrepresented in a trial. The proposal does not alter the prohibition against employment of professional counsel.
In the PCA, an overture is ordinarily a proposal from a lower church body to a higher body requesting the higher body to take some particular action. We’ve reviewed the first 19 overtures sent to the 51st General Assembly here and here. Since that time, 16 additional overtures have been sent to the GA.
Two of these new overtures address the subject of previously submitted overtures. Overtures 23 and 24 would amend BCO 13-6, 21-4, and 24-1 to require background checks as part of examinations for ordination to office and transfer of ministers into a presbytery, an issue already addressed in Overtures 6, 16, and 17.
The proposed changes in Overture 24, from South Texas Presbytery, are identical to those proposed in Overtures 16 and 17, outlined in the previous update. This proposal calls for each presbytery to order and review background checks for minsters seeking transfer from other presbyteries and denominations, and for candidates for ordination under “specific rules and policies” for such background checks. Each session would be required to do the same for candidates for ruling elder and deacon. While the proposal does not specify details of the “specific rules and policies,” the overture does include suggested policies that presbyteries or sessions could adopt. The background checks would serve as part of the candidate’s/transferring minister’s examination in Christian experience (in the case of a candidate transferring from one presbytery to another or of a candidate for ruling elder or deacon) or acquaintance of experiential religion (in the case of a candidate for ordination as a teaching elder or a man transferring from another denomination).
Overture 23 from Missouri Presbytery differs in that it includes items covered in the suggested policy of Overture 24 (who received the background check and who pays for it) in the proposed BCO amendment itself, as well as specifying that the background check be state and federal and fingerprint based.
Overtures 20, 21, 25, and 26 all call for changes to disciplinary procedures.
Overture 20 proposes the most extensive changes, virtually reframing BCO 31, 32, and 35. The details of the proposed changes are too extensive to report in detail here, but the rationale for the overture summarizes them as retaining most of the current text with some additions throughout, relocating various items, and adding several new paragraphs concerning matters such as impartiality, reporting allegations, reporting the results of investigations, imposing non-censure suspension, and adopting closed session.
Overture 20 was proposed by the session of Fountain Square Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis to Central Indiana Presbytery which rejected it. The Fountain Square Session then forwarded it to the GA under the provisions of the Rules of Assembly Operation (RAO) 11-10 which allows a session or individual to send an overture rejected by their presbytery to the GA provided it is accompanied by an extract from the minutes of the presbytery showing its rejection.
Central Indiana Presbytery did approve and send Overture 21 to the GA, which would amend BCO 43-1 to extend the prohibition against complaints filed during a judicial case. The current BCO provision prohibits a complaint in a judicial case in which an appeal is pending. Overture 21 proposes this be extended to any point after the case has commenced (i.e., after the court has found a strong presumption of guilt), arguing that under the current provision complaints could delay a trial for a significant period of time.
Overture 25 from Tennessee Valley Presbytery would amend BCO 31-2 which concerns the investigation of reports concerning a member’s character. This proposal would allow presbyteries and sessions to utilize “experienced or specially qualified outside parties or consultants” in such investigations as the circumstances warrant. Tennessee Valley argues this would clarify the paragraph, as some have argued that it restricts involvement in investigations to the presbytery or session conducting it.
Tennessee Valley also sent Overture 26, which proposes an amendment to BCO 32-19. Currently, when a person is charged with an offense and tried by his session or, in the case of a minister, by his presbytery, he may be represented before the court by anyone who is a member of the church or (in the case of a minister) another member of his presbytery. This overture proposes that the person charged would be allowed representation by any member in good standing in a PCA church. Tennessee Valley argues that small congregations or presbyteries may not include members who are well versed in PCA disciplinary procedures and so under the current provision might be underrepresented in a trial. The proposal does not alter the prohibition against employment of professional counsel.
Overture 22 from South Florida Presbytery seeks to remedy a potential inconsistency between BCO 8-7 and 13-2. BCO 8-7 locates a minister’s membership in the presbytery where he labors; BCO 13-2 says he is a member of the presbytery in which he resides.