Bills & Overtures Committee

Bills & Overtures Committee

December 8, 2016

The Bills & Overtures Committee met on Thursday, December 8, 2016 via conference call to review the proposed amendments to the Constitution and make recommendations to the Presbytery on whether or not to pass each one. The Presbytery will be asked to vote on the overture and not on the committee’s recommendation.

Members: Bill Bottomley (RE, John Calvin), Layne Brubaker (TE, YAV Site Coordiantor – Ex-Officio), Nannette Cagney (RE, St Andrew), Barry Chance (TE, First-Hammond - Chair), & Zach Sasser (TE, First-Lafayette).

# / Name / Committee
Vote / Analysis of Proposed Amendment
16-A / Child & Youth Protection Policy / YES
4-0 / This amendment adds the words “and youth” to G-3.0106 which requires that councils write a child protection policy.
Rationale FOR:

This action clarifies that child protection policies should also cover youth

Rationale AGAINST:

Youth would reasonably be considered to already be included as they are legally children until the age of 18 so this clarification is not needed.

16-B / Parity in Committees / YES
4-0 / One of the historic fundamentals of our polity is parity. The current Form of Government calls for parity but shows a slight preference for members of congregations over teaching elders when there is an uneven number of members on committees of councils higher than the session. This amendment would simply call for those committees to be populated “as nearly equal as possible.”
Rationale FOR:

This amendment removes the preference for members of congregations and restores the principle of parity.
This amendment provides flexibility to councils when populating committees.

Rationale AGAINST:

Less precise language regarding representation allows councils more leeway to present unbalanced slates for nomination.

16-C / Ministers of the Word & Sacrament / Each of the eight changes in 16-C are presented for separate votes. All of them have the same purpose: to change the terms by which Teaching Elders (TE) and Commissioned Ruling Elders (CRE) are called and to replace them with Minister of Word & Sacrament (MWS) and Commissioned Pastor (CP), respectively.
The current Book of Order currently uses TE & MWS interchangeably but with a clear preference for the historic term Teaching Elder that highlights the parity amongst presbyters. While this language is historic, the denomination only reclaimed its use in 2011 when the current Form of Government was implemented so the term has been new to a generation of Presbyterians who grew up with “Minsters of the Word & Sacrament” and before that “Minsters of the Word.” Some of the proposed amendments make additional editorial changes to the text around them which will be noted in the section for each below. This note is focused on the larger rationale for making the change from Teaching Elder to Minster of Word & Sacrament.
Rationale FOR:

Some pastors have felt that their “pastoral authority” has been compromised by the shift in language.
The term, while useful within the denomination, is unfamiliar outside of it and creates confusion in ecumenical settings.
The term “teaching elder” focuses on teaching at the expense of other areas of ministry.

Rationale AGAINST:

This language was reclaimed in order to restore parity between ruling and teaching elders. Over the years, our culture has enhanced “Pastoral Authority” in ways that increased the role of Ministers of Word and Sacrament and decreased the role of Ruling Elders. This change was not consistent with Presbyterian polity and returning to this language was an attempt to restore the balance.
The terms are already used interchangeably in the Book of Order so the change is not needed as MWS can currently be used in ecumenical settings or within the denomination as desired.
The use of the term “teaching elder” links us to the historic principles of our polity and is not intended to describe all of the possible ministries in which an individual is engaged. Those ministries are described in greater detail in G-2.05.

The Committee is recommending passage of 16-C.6 because we find the change in language for Commissioned Ruling Elders to be helpful. The Committee is recommending disapproval of the other, related overtures. If this pattern is followed by a majority of presbyteries, this section will refer to Ministers of Word and Sacrament while all others refer to teaching elders. While this may create some confusion, the terms are already used interchangeably so there would be no larger impact on the polity.
Commissioners are encouraged to note that 16-C.6 inadvertently removes Ministers of the Word and Sacrament engaged in non-pastoral ministries from the list of those for whom the presbytery has a pastoral responsibility. The committee felt that the advantage of the language change for Commissioned Ruling Elders was greater than the problem caused by this error. We further recommend that the presbytery overture the General Assembly to correct this oversight should this amendment pass a majority of presbyteries and become effective.
16-C.1 / Ministers of the Word & Sacrament / NO
1-3 / In addition to swapping Teaching Elder (TE) for Minister of Word & Sacrament (MWS) this amendment further changes the word “measure” to “guide” in describing the role of ruling elders and adds the phrase “teaching the faith in word and in deed” to the description of the role of TEs/MWSs. These changes have no practical effect but it does slightly confuse the metaphor of measuring rulers that is part of the term “ruling elder.”
16-C.2 / Ministers of the Word & Sacrament / NO
1-3 / This amendment has no additional changes except to rearrange the sequence in which the different orders of ministry are listed.
16-C.3 / Ministers of the Word & Sacrament / NO
1-3 / No additional changes
16-C.4 / Ministers of the Word & Sacrament / NO
1-3 / In addition to the TE/MWS change, this amendment makes the following additions to the section:

Requires that TE/MWS teach the faith “in word and in deed.”
Adds the language “show forth” and “in word and action” to describe what a TE/MWS is doing when serving the sacraments.

Neither of these changes significantly change the meaning of the section. They seem to be aimed as highlighting an active view of ministry that the original authors of the overture felt was diminished by use of the term “teaching elder.”
16-C.5 / Ministers of the Word & Sacrament / NO
1-3 / No additional changes.
16-C.6 / Ministers of the Word & Sacrament and Commissioned Pastors / YES
3-1 / In addition to the TE/MWS swap, this amendment seeks to change the term “Commissioned Ruling Elder” to “Commissioned Pastor.” In doing so, the amendment also seeks to simplify the language by referring to both as “pastors.” Because “pastor” is a particular type of ministry done by TEs/MWSs, this change effectively removes those persons engaged in other ministries (Hospital Chaplains, Military Chaplains, Campus Ministers, etc.) from the list of those for whom the presbytery has a pastoral responsibility.
Rationale FOR:

The term “Commissioned Ruling Elder” is cumbersome and confusing, especially in ecumenical settings.

Rationale AGAINST:

The term “Commissioned Ruling Elder” is precise. Like with the terms TE & MWS, it is constitutional language and not necessarily a job title which can be set by the congregation as appropriate.
The wording of this section inadvertently removes the responsibility of presbyteries to provide support for those engaged in ministry outside of congregations.

16-C.7 / Minister of the Word & Sacrament and Commissioned Pastor / NO
3-1 / This amendment seeks to replace all instances of Teaching Elder and Commissioned Ruling Elder in the Directory for Worship and the Rules of Discipline with Minster of Word & Sacrament and Commissioned Pastor, respectively.
16-C.8 / Minster of Word & Sacrament / NO
3-1 / No additional change.
16-D / Relationship to the PCUSA of a Person Who Has Renounced Jurisdiction of the Church / In 2015 the Book of Order was amended to provide a lifetime ban from working within a PCUSA congregation for anyone who renounces jurisdiction. Some raised concerns that this ban was inconsistent with our Rules of Discipline as it provided no path for reconciliation. The two amendments listed below are aimed at correcting that inconsistency.
The committee was conflicted on these two overtures. All members understood the need for a path to reconciliation but also worried about the undermining of due process that could happen if time limits were removed or the avoidance of discipline if they were not. In the end, the committee tied 2-2 and so makes no recommendation.
16-D.1 / Relationship to the PCUSA of a Person Who Has Renounced Jurisdiction of the Church / TIED
2-2 / This amendment includes a path to reconciliation by adding the language “unless and until the person rejoins the church, comes forward and resubmits to the disciplinary process.”
Rationale FOR:

This amendment provides a path to reconciliation which is consistent with our principles of discipline.

Rationale AGAINST:

The passage of time and the renunciation itself are likely to complicate any disciplinary proceeding and make it difficult to apply those principles fairly.

16-D.2 / Relationship to the PCUSA of a Person Who Has Renounced Jurisdiction of the Church / TIED
2-2 / This amendment adds a new section (d) to D-10.0401 which removes all time limits on filing charges in cases where the person renounced jurisdiction during a disciplinary proceeding but later returned and submitted to discipline. Outside of this context, a charge must be filed within five years after the alleged offence unless the alleged offence is sexual abuse in which case there is no time limit.
Rationale FOR:

This amendment provides a path for reconciliation but does not allow a person to “wait out” charges by renouncing jurisdiction
The Rules of Discipline establish no time limit for accusations of sexual abuse and thus establish that in certain circumstances, time limits may be a hindrance to justice. This amendment establishes that renunciation of jurisdiction is such a circumstance.

Rationale AGAINST:

The Rules of Disciple provide time limits on filing charges to ensure fairness for the accused in recognition of the fact that over time memories fade and witnesses and evidence become unavailable thus making a just decision difficult. This amendment disregards those concerns for fairness.

16-E / Certified Service Requirements / YES
4-0 / This amendment provides a minor change to the section on Certified Service to reflect that national certifying organizations increasingly keep their requirements online instead of in a handbook.
16-F / The Ministry of Members / NO
0-4 / This amendment adds “Caring for God’s creation” to the list of ways in which members of congregations are called upon to participate in Christ’s mission.
Rationale FOR:

This amendment elevates the status of creation care by explicitly listing it within the section on the Ministry of Members.

Rationale AGAINST:

Creation Care is already included explicitly within the Confessions and may be inferred in G-1.0304 without this amendment.
This amendment continues the trend of treating the Book of Order like a handbook instead of as a Constitution, a trend from which we tried to move away with the passage of the current Form of Government.

The committee’s recommendation to disapprove this amendment is not a vote against creation care. Instead, it is a belief that creation care is already a possible expression of the ministry of members that this overture would elevate from one expression of ministry to an expectation for all.
16-G / Access to the Lord’s Table / YES
4-0 / This amendment changes the language of the Directory for Worship to remove the requirement that persons must be baptized in order to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table. It further changes the section regarding sacramental education for children shifting it from mandated:
Baptized children who are being nurtured and instructed in the significance of the invitation to the Table and the meaning of their response are invited to receive the Lord’s Supper.
To strongly recommended
In cases where baptized children who have not yet begun to participate in the Lord’s Supper
express a desire to receive the Sacrament, the session should provide an occasion to welcome them to
the table in public worship. Their introduction to the Lord’s Supper should include ongoing instruction
or formation in the meaning and mystery of the Sacraments.
The new language about sacramental education is both less forceful and more detailed. Access to the Table for children is also expanded as it no longer requires that they be receiving instruction in order to receive the sacrament stating instead, “All who come to the table are offered the bread and cup, regardless of their age or understanding.”
Rationale FOR:

The Lord’s Table is a place where we receive grace. The grace received at the Table may lead that individual to seek baptism.
In a post-denominational age, many congregations have already been inviting unbaptized people to the table by practice if not by rule.
There is a difference between the visible and invisible church. This amendment allows for all to come to the table guided by their own conscience (F-3.0101) as to whether they should come or not acknowledging that those come unworthily eat and drink their own judgement (1 Corinthians 11:26-29)

Rationale AGAINST:

This amendment breaks with the church’s historic practice regarding baptism and the Lord’s Table and puts us at odds with the historic witness of the church as expressed in the confessions and as held by our ecumenical partners.
This amendment weakens the expectation that congregations will provide sacramental education to children.

16-H / Directory for Worship / YES
4-0 / This proposed Directory for Worship (nDfW) would replace the entire current directory for worship. The committee charged with writing this revision was tasked to produce a document that was shorter, better organized, more accessible and helpful, culturally appropriate, and authentically Reformed. They have presented a revised Directory that, in the spirit of the new Form of Government approved iv 2011, is shorter and more nimble as it reduces the number of mandated/SHALL requirements from 102 to 25 in order to allow for greater flexibility for different styles of worship while still maintaining certain standards.
The proposed directory is shorter (18,000 words instead of 27,000) and is written on a 10th Grade reading level (as opposed the 12th Grade level of the current directory). Fans of the narrative (as opposed to bulleted) style of the new Form of Government will rejoice as that is carried over into the nDfW while those who lamented that change will lament here as well. Readers will also note a shift from “they” language to “we” language to describe the people of God.
Two items of note:

The committee was not charged with changing the language about marriage in the current Directory for Worship so it remains unchanged.
The directory follows the council of the 2019th General Assembly and includes language inviting unbaptized persons to the Lord’s Table (this language is also contained in 16-G). Passage of 16-H includes passage of the language of 16-G regardless of the outcome of the vote on 16-G. Those opposed to inviting unbaptized persons to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper will need to decide if their opposition to that is sufficient to oppose the whole document because the two cannot be separated.

Rationale FOR:

The nDfW is shorter, easier to read, and more flexible to allow for different forms of worship.
The nDfW continues the trend started by the passage of the nFoG to shift the Book of Order back to being a constitution instead of a handbook.

The nDfW invites unbaptized persons to the Lord’s Table as an expression of God’s grace.

Rationale AGAINST:

The last several General Assemblies have shown that our culture has not changed in such a way that has prevented us from proposing or passing amendments that will turn the Book of Order back into a handbook instead of a Constitution. This new directory will reverse those edits of the past without addressing the culture that created them.
The nDfW breaks with the church’s historic practice regarding Baptism and the Lord’s Table and puts us at odds with the historic witness of the church as expressed in the confessions and as held by our ecumenical partners.