As the fifty-third General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America prepares to gather in June for the third time in Louisville, Kentucky, a record number of overtures have been tendered. Of the ninety (adding one holdover from last year), many of the overtures (recommendations from a lower court) are redundant, and some will be routed to committees other than the Overtures Committee (OC). What does this mean and which are the most consequential? In this post, I will try to simplify the labyrinthine process and provide perspective, prioritizing those measures that may bear the potential to have the largest impact.
Comparing Proportions
To begin, let us examine the magnitude of the work before this year’s OC. Jared Nelson has helpfully graphed the number of overtures since 2005. From this, it may be seen that:
- The most recent twenty years averaged 33.5 overtures per year. Yes, this year’s submissions nearly triple that average. Surely, such magnitude begs some explanation.
- The past decade has averaged forty overtures per year. So why this sudden doubling or trebling of overtures?
Of course, the workload of the OC will be reduced when numerous overtures are rerouted or dismissed summarily. For example, five overtures request changes in physical presbytery boundaries (10, 44, 62, 70, and 87) and will be diverted to Mission to North America (MNA). Three overtures call for special Thanksgiving for the 250th anniversary of America’s founding, two overtures call for special prayer, and two other overtures call for study committees (one carryover from last year, which requests a study on Artificial Intelligence, and an overture recommending study of Critical [Race] Theory). These proposed ad interim study committees would require special approval, unless the two previous study committees complete their work. Moreover, the two overtures not approved by a presbytery (73, 86) have little chance of being confirmed or being discussed much.
That means that twelve to fourteen overtures will likely receive minimal attention, still leaving the OC an unusually large number to debate and vote. In addition, some will be deemed unconstitutional or in conflict with other parts of the Book of Church Order (BCO) by the Committee on Constitutional Business (CCB), whose report has not yet been made public. Although the CCB is advisory, their advice is often confirmed by the OC. As such, another dozen or so overtures may not be debated much. Notwithstanding, about sixty to sixty-five different ideas will be debated in a committee that is ordinarily filled with loquacious presbyters who wish to be heard (they “harangue long and very learnedly” as the Westminster divines were once described). Since there are so many overtures before the General Assembly (which could choose to refer some to a future meeting, but that might further compound the magnitude problem if this trend continues), surely the most substantive should receive the most attention.
The Most Substantive Proposals Impacting the Broader Church
Admittedly, this article may not identify every hot-button topic that deserves attention; nor is this preview exhaustive (and hopefully not exhausting). Some overtures are designed to make declarations or to signal approval of a notion. Such, often referred to as in thesi statements, may be good social or political statements by a single GA but hardly bring lasting change to either local churches or the gathered Assembly. Many other proposals make relatively minor adjustments to our ecclesiastical process—hardly influencing much more than the annual Assembly meeting which, for perspective, occupies 1 percent of the ministry year. Also, among the noncontroversial overtures will be some like 78–79 to codify electronic meetings, which is already ongoing and efficient, and 88 on formatting the BCO for ease of printing. While helpful, these are fairly easy and may not significantly change the landscape of GA or ministry. Another commonsensical overture proposes to raise the threshold reasonably (above a single voter) to 7 percent of commissioners (on an attendance around 2,200) to separate and discuss a motion that is proposed as part of a bundled (“omnibus”) recommendation.
Among the overtures that have the potential to have the largest effect on the Church are the following.
1. Broadening Diaconal Eligibility
This topic has received the most attention this year. There are twelve separate overtures (13.3 percent of all tendered) that seek either to address or limit the use of “deacon” to ordained officers or to expand either to allow explicitly for women to be ordained as officers (37), or to allow local church the option on this (38), or to create “commissioned” workers (74). Virtually every possibility is found in this year’s set of overtures, each of which would require two-thirds of the presbyteries to ratify, even if they make it out of committee or find approval by a majority of this Assembly—high hurdles that would require massive organizing for approvals. With that in mind, despite the zeal by some on this issue, it is possible that most will fail or the OC may bundle many of these various overtures together and answer something like, “No thanks to all of these related overtures . . . ,” leaving the BCO unaltered on this topic. It is even less likely that any overtures which seek to broaden the present male-only view will garner sufficient presbytery votes to become constitutional.
2. Limiting Coordinators
Several overtures either wish to fix the terms (43, 77) for Coordinators (the GA-elected leader of a permanent committee) or to require a supermajority for election (41). The polite PCA is loath to show a Coordinator the door short of scandal, but there is also a growing sense that there are many capable leaders. Term limits have been suggested before and are always rejected arguing: “We may elect someone else any year (it is actually nearly impossible to nominate a Coordinator from the floor under the present rules) and we want our best leaders.” As above, an amendment to limit the Coordinators would be hard to pass two-thirds muster, but changes to the Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO) have a better chance of succeeding since those only need a majority vote. If any of these are approved, this would be a major change.
3. GA Attendance Formula to Include More Ruling Elders
A little-discussed overture is the attempt to permit (not mandate) an increase for ruling elder participation by 50 percent at both presbytery and GA. This overture (49) is a simple change to the BCO, which could lead both to more revenue at GA and to increased participation if the PCA wishes to include more voices. It could also alter the present balance of power, which finds Teaching Elders outnumbering Ruling Elders three to one. This overture has potential to offset some of the unintended clericalism that has evolved since 1973. It would be impressive to see some servant-leadership on this issue to help rebalance the scales.
4. Oversight of Committee Operations
One potentially impactful overture (32), which faces an uphill struggle (since this is being referred to every permanent committee) seeks to require the operating Manuals of each permanent committee to be public, transparent, and approved by the Assembly. Should this one pass, howling might ensue from some quarters.
5. Clarifying Assistant Pastors
Several overtures attempt to have congregations give their assent to Assistant Pastors, who presently may be called without congregational approval (cf. 39). Another seeks term limits (55, as does 39) for Assistant Pastors, unless there is a supermajority to retain him. In each of these, there is both a pursuit of consistency for the pastoral office (to discourage second-class pastoral statuses) and an attempt to permit congregations a voice in these calls if the Assistant Pastor status is retained. The exact quantities prescribed may be a stumbling block for these, unless modified.
6. Limiting Floor Nominations
This idea has been attempted several times in the past. Overtures 45 and 47 seek to restrict floor nominations to prohibit nominees unless they have first been nominated by their own presbytery. A noble-cloaked argument is made for this idea in that the lower courts know best, but, invariably, some groups proposed this idea when their favorites were not elected. One overture (8) seeks to shorten the window to proffer floor nominations, and another (9) seeks to require more diversity representation. Should any of these pass, they would probably not cure the ill perceived, and the PCA seldom wishes to restrict things. Interestingly, any of these RAO changes can evade the two-thirds requirement of a BCO change, seeking merely to change by majority vote the procedures that govern an Assembly,
7. Other Potentially Impactful Overtures Seeking Change
- Overture 1 seeks to provide more flexibility for Associate pastors to succeed a Senior pastor. Instead of the present rigid supermajorities, this BCO amendment would allow more collaboration with less defined rigor, although it has already become fairly common for churches where there is pastoral harmony to achieve smooth transitions.
- Overture 26 contains one potentially significant change: to count only the presbyteries that convey their votes on BCO overtures, instead of the total number of eligible presbyteries. Some presbyteries do not report their votes, which is tantamount to a negative vote to reach the two-thirds supermajority for BCO amendment.
- Overture 27 is the perennial attempt to amend the formula by which the GA may assume original jurisdiction. This has been attempted many times, has strong reasoning behind it (namely, to prevent a tiny sliver from coercing extra review), proposes merely raising the quorum for this assumption from two to three presbyteries, and one day will succeed at some threshold.
- Overture 67 calls for a two-step process before a higher court can cite a lower court in normal review. The recent proliferation of attempts to use BCO 40-5 as a hail Mary or third swing at the same pitch could find some of those abuses corrected if this is approved. Such would better define an important error (rather than the present “credible” report being left largely to the subjective eye of the beholder), thus sparing the higher courts redundant filings on the same or very similar concerns while also helping to unclog Review of Presbytery Records and the Standing Judicial Commission.
- Overture 68 seeks to correct an over-representation on the Administrative Committee (AC), presently awarding Permanent Committee (PC) appointees 45 percent of the voting seats to the AC, while such also already have representation on the Cooperative Ministries Committee. Both are not needed for mere coordination. Under this, PC ex officio members could still participate and seek to persuade, which seems adequate.
What Does This Mean?
Two polar theories are being proffered for the burgeoning quantity of overtures, but an alternative may be more explanatory.
- Some view this larger set of overtures as Right flexing. To be sure, calls to keep permanent committees and staffs from carrying out work prior to Assembly approval is a classic instance of seeking grassroots accountability. Of course, the various overtures to prevent females from ordination or from acting ordained emanate from the right side of the PCA. Several overtures that call for declarations, if not Right flexing, would certainly seem distasteful or unnecessary to the left. The attempt to increase ruling elders is viewed as a boost for traditionalists. So, yes, there is some Right flexing.
Worth noting, about 45 percent of the overtures came from a few largely right-leaning or centrist presbyteries as below.
Westminster Presbytery: 17 (overtures 17–33 mainly address recording or procedural glitches; many of these would help!)
Calvary Presbytery: 7
Pacific Northwest Presbytery: 6
Southwest Florida Presbytery: 6
Northwest Georgia Presbytery: 5
Five other presbyteries: 41
Overtures from right-leaning presbyteries, thus, are a greater percentage than most previous years.
- Others spy Left flexing in this passel of overtures. There is, to be sure, some Left flexing with overtures to broaden the diaconal office or create the local option to do so, with the call to restrict floor nominations (first requiring presbyteries to nominate) or shorten the opportunity to make such, and the lowering of undergraduate education requirements for ordination (12).
The overtures on broadening the diaconal office certainly arise from presbyteries that are more progressive.
- Still, while the raw numbers are considerably higher than normal, an alternative theory is that—minus the ideological attempts to force an expansion of the office of deacon—perhaps we are better off seeing the bulk of these as expressing interest in improving procedures, access, and transparency. For example, if the outlier overtures from the left and on the right are retired (and likely will not be approved by the constitutional process), the numerous other overtures are attempts to fine-tune the operations of the PCA Assembly.
What might really be healthy is to have principled, honest, and robust discussions about major topics and then to give all courts a rest after votes are taken, submitting to the brethren. Outcomes of this Assembly could perhaps settle some matters, sparing continued advocacy for the near term.
As one wag put it: “After all is said and done, more is said than is done.” There will be much debate for sure—some fiery—and it is always worthwhile to study these overtures and reach one’s own opinions. Discussions among fellow presbyters is a virtue not a vice.
And for a process idea? A church could do worse than the Orthodox Presbyterian Church which entertains BCO amendments only every five years. Not only could moving beyond the annual BCO-palooza deliver the PCA from being mocked for having a three-ring binder constitution, but such could also shorten GAs by at least 25 percent (a large cost saving for smaller churches if desired) and provide more edification and fellowship in other years. Then, again, the PCA may have over one hundred overtures next time around if the enthusiasm for procedural improvement continues.
©David Hall. All Rights Reserved.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
David Hall
Reverend David W. Hall is married to Ann, and they are parents of three grown children and grandparents of nine grandchildren. He retired as the Senior Pastor of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA) in 2026 where he served since 2003. Previously, he served as Pastor of the Covenant Presbyterian Church in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (1984–2003) and as Associate Pastor at the First Presbyterian Church in Rome, Georgia (1980–1984). He was ordained to pastoral ministry in 1980, educated at Covenant Theological Seminary, and is the editor and author of several volumes, including Irony and the Presbyterian Church in America. You can find him on his Substack “Cheering Folly’s Demise.”
More by David Hall ›
I think this is why the Lord wrote those letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2 particularly to the Church of Ephesus.
It is a helpful article!
A slight correction, at least as I understand it:
The article say, “A church could do worse than the Orthodox Presbyterian Church which entertains BCO amendments only every five years.”
Revisions to the OPC BCO only go into effect in years ending in a 0 or 5 (every 5 years), but changes to the BCO can be “entertained” (proposed, debated, voted on, etc) at every GA.
Helpful article! However, RAO ammendments require a 2/3 supermajority (RAO 20). They only need to pass one vote at GA, though, whereas BCO ammendments need to pass three different votes.