WEBVTT
00:00:06.480 --> 00:00:08.240
Hello and welcome to Polity Matters.
00:00:08.320 --> 00:00:18.320
My name is Ben Ratliff, and I'm joined as always by Jared Nelson and Scott Edberg, and we are uh well, this is kind of our first episode since finishing the Book of Church Order.
00:00:18.399 --> 00:00:27.039
Uh, we're gonna treat it as like a happy birthday gift for Scott, because as we record, Scott is actively turning a year older, and um we can see it happening before our very eyes.
00:00:27.120 --> 00:00:28.320
Uh, what's going on, fellas?
00:00:28.480 --> 00:00:34.320
How's how's it feel to be older, wiser, moving on from the the constitutional parts of the book?
00:00:34.880 --> 00:00:36.079
Y'all y'all okay?
00:00:36.399 --> 00:00:39.359
Yeah, I woke up this morning and my back was hurting.
00:00:39.439 --> 00:00:46.240
There's a twinge in my back, and and so my own mortality has rained upon me on this birthday.
00:00:46.799 --> 00:00:47.920
Wait until you're 44.
00:00:48.159 --> 00:00:50.479
I was gonna say, how long ago were you 33, Jared?
00:00:52.320 --> 00:00:54.159
Snack in the middle of you guys, yeah.
00:00:54.640 --> 00:01:07.599
Well, we are uh before we start talking about the RAO, which will be uh as you're listening, folks, the next time uh you're with us, we'll be starting some introductory material with the rules of assembly operation.
00:01:07.920 --> 00:01:15.120
But before that, we want to do a little bit of sort of like current events, but it's more like preparing for the next season of Presbytery meetings.
00:01:15.280 --> 00:01:19.680
Uh the 53rd General Assembly sent down some BCO amendments.
00:01:19.760 --> 00:01:24.879
There are seven items in total um for the Presbyteries to vote on.
00:01:24.959 --> 00:01:29.920
Uh if you remember, BCO 26 uh instructs us how to amend the BCO.
00:01:30.079 --> 00:01:43.840
So we had a majority vote at GA to make these recommendations of the Presbyteries, and we need two-thirds of the PCA Presbyteries to uh vote in favor of these in order for them to return at the 54th General Assembly.
00:01:44.000 --> 00:01:46.079
Well, actually, I think it's just a subsequent GA, isn't it?
00:01:46.159 --> 00:01:47.840
It's not necessarily the very next one.
00:01:48.159 --> 00:01:50.239
Or does subsequent mean the very next one?
00:01:50.640 --> 00:01:55.680
They could refer it to the next GA if they don't feel they have a sufficient amount of Presbytery input.
00:01:56.000 --> 00:01:56.400
How about that?
00:01:56.560 --> 00:02:02.000
Anyway, it just needs a f and then it needs a majority vote at whatever GA it gets uh sent to.
00:02:02.159 --> 00:02:05.040
Um Presbyteries have to vote on these items as a whole.
00:02:05.120 --> 00:02:12.400
We can't split them up, so even if uh if an item is dealing with more than one section of the BCO, you can't split it up.
00:02:12.479 --> 00:02:15.439
You have to vote on the items uh on their own.
00:02:15.680 --> 00:02:22.400
Uh as we talk about them uh right now, I would refer you to the overtureslibrary.org.
00:02:22.719 --> 00:02:26.560
Um it's what we had set up for GA, and it's actually helpful now too.
00:02:26.639 --> 00:02:29.759
You can go look at the original um overtures that were sent.
00:02:29.840 --> 00:02:33.360
Uh a lot of these items were amended, but you can see what was there first.
00:02:33.599 --> 00:02:40.800
You can see votes from the OC, you can see what happened on the floor, and you can see some comments from me and and some of the other guys that we had on there.
00:02:40.879 --> 00:02:45.919
So if that's helpful, uh click through and it'll refresh your memory as we discuss these things.
00:02:46.000 --> 00:02:53.120
But um I d would do will one of y'all speak to maybe what our our goal is here today, talking through these things.
00:02:53.199 --> 00:02:55.439
You know, guys are gonna start seeing these at Presbyteries.
00:02:55.520 --> 00:02:57.680
What are we trying to do for folks?
00:02:58.400 --> 00:03:10.400
I think we're trying to just give them a primer or a uh a pre-prep guide for thinking through the items rather than getting to your Presbytery meeting and seeing that uh there are all these items.
00:03:10.479 --> 00:03:14.080
I believe there are seven this year, or seven items, and not knowing what they are.
00:03:14.240 --> 00:03:25.919
I think it's good for us to before that meeting understand what the text says, but perhaps also to have a little contextual flavor for why that text was proposed, passed, and needed.
00:03:26.080 --> 00:03:31.199
And so I hope we can perhaps get some of that nailed down as we work through the amendments.
00:03:31.680 --> 00:03:34.080
And hopefully Scott and I can give some context.
00:03:34.240 --> 00:03:39.439
Some of these were not debated on the GA floor, uh, but they were in OC, and Scott and I were there.
00:03:39.599 --> 00:03:43.759
Although Scott was busy with the screen, so um I don't know if he remembers it.
00:03:45.120 --> 00:03:50.240
Well the the flavor of the overtures committee this year was like slash it, slash it.
00:03:50.479 --> 00:03:52.879
And so we were just throwing everything in the wood chipper.
00:03:53.360 --> 00:04:04.719
Uh I was working through my document um that I maintained for the the screen, and if you just scroll through it really fast, basically it's just like negative, negative, negative, negative.
00:04:04.879 --> 00:04:12.319
Uh, you know, and so we there were a lot of proposals, but just because there are a lot of proposals doesn't mean there are a lot of good proposals.
00:04:12.560 --> 00:04:20.560
Um and so we we really killed a vast majority of the items proposed to us, which made my life easy.
00:04:20.720 --> 00:04:26.480
You know, the guy that's responsible for amending things on the fly doesn't have to amend a lot of no things.
00:04:26.879 --> 00:04:38.160
And so it was actually a pretty easy and relaxing, uh, though there was a lot of work, it was my my hope was when we saw the the docket that I wouldn't have to do a lot of work because there's too much on the docket.
00:04:38.319 --> 00:04:39.920
And that came to be true, I think.
00:04:40.000 --> 00:04:44.720
Um there's a lot of debate, but not a lot of amending um in the midst of that.
00:04:45.120 --> 00:04:48.879
After General Assembly, this seven items just feels like too few.
00:04:49.040 --> 00:04:53.680
I just have I just have this desire, this uh appetite now for many, many things.
00:04:55.600 --> 00:04:59.600
This feels feels like a little snack compared to what we had in June.
00:04:59.759 --> 00:05:05.680
Alright, we're just gonna work through each one uh and kind of uh dissect a little bit.
00:05:05.759 --> 00:05:23.759
So item one is uh going to be uh what was given to us from Overture 57, uh and it is dealing with BCOs 12, 13, 25 requiring congregational meetings and the the minutes of such meetings to be included in session records.
00:05:24.000 --> 00:05:29.920
Um this was surprisingly a little more controversial than I expected it to be.
00:05:30.160 --> 00:05:32.480
Uh, and especially considering the vote on OC.
00:05:32.720 --> 00:05:38.639
I don't have it, uh I should pull up the numbers, but I think it was close to 60% uh approved by the OC.
00:05:38.959 --> 00:05:46.879
Um Jared, maybe you want to jump in and just kind of explain it a little for us or or tell us what the discussions surround it or uh whatever works for you.
00:05:47.199 --> 00:05:53.199
You'll have a link to this doc that will be sent to the Presbyteries on the episode so people can follow along.
00:05:53.519 --> 00:05:54.240
Yeah, I can I can.
00:05:54.480 --> 00:05:57.040
If this is a public document, I can I'm more than happy to put it out there.
00:05:57.439 --> 00:05:57.600
Yeah.
00:05:57.759 --> 00:05:59.040
I think it's public enough.
00:05:59.839 --> 00:06:00.160
Yeah.
00:06:01.439 --> 00:06:07.920
Well, uh 57 had to do with uh congregational meetings and submitting those in your minutes.
00:06:08.079 --> 00:06:16.399
So when you have sessions that are submitting their minutes to the Presbytery for review, uh of course they are going to submit the minutes of the times that they've met.
00:06:16.720 --> 00:06:22.720
Uh, but some do apparently and some don't include their congregational meeting minutes.
00:06:22.879 --> 00:06:29.680
Uh typically you're gonna have a congregational meeting to uh do the budget or to elect new officers.
00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:33.600
And um actually when this came up, I was a little surprised.
00:06:33.759 --> 00:06:35.519
I just thought everybody already did this.
00:06:35.680 --> 00:06:42.240
Our presbytery requires that and will ask us for it if we don't have it in there, um, which it might be part of our bylaws, I don't know.
00:06:42.399 --> 00:07:03.519
Uh but this would include that, even though congregational meetings are not session meetings, uh they are uh under the authority of this session, but there's things that come up that uh may be relevant to the presbytery at those meetings, electing of new officers, and it could be relevant whether they've uh done that properly.
00:07:03.680 --> 00:07:10.959
Uh, if there's a complaint against that that comes to the presbytery, um, do we have the you know the documents from that or not?
00:07:11.199 --> 00:07:17.519
So there's a lot of information that's in the congregational meetings that are relevant to presbytery's checking.
00:07:17.680 --> 00:07:20.639
Uh, you know, you have a new guy that shows up on your session minutes.
00:07:20.720 --> 00:07:24.160
Oh, he was elected at the last congregational meeting, and let's see what happened there.
00:07:24.399 --> 00:07:29.279
Um, so there's relevant things there, and that's part of the reason that that was put in there.
00:07:29.360 --> 00:07:42.639
Uh, I think there's been a few cases in which there's been a complaint about something that happened at a congregational meeting, and so it'd be good to have that in the records uh that are on file uh for the presbytery to already have uh in front of them uh for that.
00:07:42.800 --> 00:07:48.639
I think it was negative, just like anytime that you ask people to do something more, uh they may not want to do it.
00:07:48.800 --> 00:07:59.519
That and I think some of the argument was from um there's somebody that had an interpretation that uh the congregational meetings are not uh subject to review by presbytery.
00:07:59.680 --> 00:08:03.519
Well, there's certain actions that are subject to review, even if not everything is.
00:08:03.759 --> 00:08:07.040
So um, yeah, that was the back and forth a little bit on that.
00:08:07.600 --> 00:08:13.439
Yeah, my general sense was that I had the same inclination as Jared did.
00:08:13.600 --> 00:08:35.759
Um, that it seems obvious that the minutes for congregational meetings would be reviewed by a presbytery, because the pre the the church does a lot of PCA, BCO constitutional things within the context of congregational meetings, calling pastors, calling elders, calling deacons, um and presenting the budget to the congregation.
00:08:35.840 --> 00:08:42.639
There, there's a lot of uh framework for the congregational meeting itself within the BCO.
00:08:42.799 --> 00:08:55.519
And so it would be odd to me that though the BCO structures congregational meetings, the the presbytery then is not subject to review and to ensure that those procedures are actually being followed.
00:08:55.679 --> 00:09:06.720
Uh, how do you even determine if there's an irregular election of an elder or a deacon or a pastor if you do not have access to the proceedings of that meeting?
00:09:06.960 --> 00:09:11.440
And so it's it's necessary to ensure that the constitution is being followed.
00:09:11.519 --> 00:09:21.360
Uh the church itself could have its rights um um stripped in many ways by how they um care and lead the congregational meeting.
00:09:21.440 --> 00:09:31.039
And so I think it preserves the the the lowest denominator there of the congregation's voice in ensuring that um these minutes are reviewed.
00:09:31.200 --> 00:09:49.600
And so um it doesn't come from like Westminster or like some you know ultra-conservative location, it it comes from South Texas, and and so I think this could be a unifying overture, um, but people don't always like being asked to do more.
00:09:49.679 --> 00:09:59.440
Aaron Powell What do y'all make of the of the kind of the the low number vote at OC, and then we didn't have an outright debate on the floor of the GA.
00:09:59.600 --> 00:10:04.480
Do we anticipate this being something controversial at the presbytery level?
00:10:05.120 --> 00:10:12.559
I think the first two items are the ones that had the lowest, and so they're probably the ones that'll get debated if any items get debated at your presbytery.
00:10:12.799 --> 00:10:19.360
And I'm sure it's going to be on the level of um creating more work to have to put those minutes in.
00:10:19.600 --> 00:10:24.399
And then I think I don't know, just uh reticence to have somebody review your work.
00:10:24.559 --> 00:10:27.120
And maybe some of that's just your attitude of that your presbytery.
00:10:27.200 --> 00:10:33.919
I love my presbytery, I love the feedback I get from them, so I'm I'm fine with them reviewing things and giving me help in those areas.
00:10:34.000 --> 00:10:38.000
Uh if you have a contentious presbytery, maybe it's like I want to give you as little as possible.
00:10:38.159 --> 00:10:39.759
That that's just my take on it.
00:10:40.240 --> 00:10:46.639
My sense is it'll be a it'll be drawn on the lines of presbyteries that are already doing this and not doing this.
00:10:46.879 --> 00:10:51.440
And so we might get like an actual like Ileana, I don't think we're gonna even debate this.
00:10:51.519 --> 00:10:53.440
Well, it's already included, you know?
00:10:53.600 --> 00:10:57.120
And so it's like, well, okay, you know, we're just clarifying what's already done.
00:10:57.279 --> 00:11:06.080
So I guess the my sense is we'll know what presbyteries are actually reviewing their congregational minutes by how they vote on this item.
00:11:06.240 --> 00:11:08.000
That's kind of my sense.
00:11:08.480 --> 00:11:27.759
I I think it was largely debated in the negative why there's such a large minority on the Overtures Committee is that the SJC has had some debates internally on using these minutes in their own reviews for cases and and the limits and extensions of that.
00:11:27.919 --> 00:11:33.759
And so there has been some SJC intramural debates on congregational meeting minutes.
00:11:33.919 --> 00:11:41.519
Um, but just because the SJC has an intramural debate on something doesn't mean we can't perfect our record, so they no longer have to have those debates.
00:11:41.840 --> 00:11:50.320
If it's clearly in our constitution, then it resolves that issue and you could just move on and have these minutes officially subjected to review.
00:11:50.559 --> 00:11:58.720
But uh it's a to me, it's a no-brainer because of the nature of constitutional actions being taken by the church within those meetings.
00:11:58.879 --> 00:12:00.799
They have to be reviewed, in my mind.
00:12:01.279 --> 00:12:03.840
Do you think the SJC also does intermural frisbee?
00:12:04.080 --> 00:12:08.879
Like they've got the debates, but then they they take a break to go play some ultimate, you know, on the side?
00:12:10.480 --> 00:12:11.440
There's 24 of them.
00:12:11.679 --> 00:12:12.799
I could have a few teams, right?
00:12:12.879 --> 00:12:13.279
I mean, yeah.
00:12:15.600 --> 00:12:36.399
Well, if y'all are good, we'll go on to item number two, which is uh uh it's uh it's adding a section to BCO twelve, uh section it would add section eight, and then adjust uh eight to nine and nine to ten, uh requiring session and diaconate members to be listed um in uh annually in the session records.
00:12:36.639 --> 00:12:40.559
Um this again got got sort of debated.
00:12:40.639 --> 00:12:44.000
Uh it has sixty percent approval from the OC.
00:12:44.159 --> 00:12:44.960
It was amended.
00:12:45.039 --> 00:12:46.720
You guys might have to remind me what the amendment is.
00:12:46.799 --> 00:12:51.279
I'll have to pull up the original overture, but then it did get it got adopted by the General Assembly.
00:12:51.440 --> 00:12:55.759
There was no debate uh from what I can tell, and it just is cruising down.
00:12:55.919 --> 00:12:58.399
So um Y'all got any thoughts?
00:12:58.480 --> 00:13:00.080
Maybe this is worth comparing to the original.
00:13:00.559 --> 00:13:02.000
I think Jared may have been the amender.
00:13:02.320 --> 00:13:02.559
Overture.
00:13:02.720 --> 00:13:03.600
Oh, did you amend it?
00:13:03.759 --> 00:13:04.159
I thought that.
00:13:04.399 --> 00:13:05.279
I actually did, yes.
00:13:05.519 --> 00:13:07.679
Jared was we've got him in the room.
00:13:07.840 --> 00:13:08.399
Here we go.
00:13:09.279 --> 00:13:18.639
Well, the way it reads now, it's just every session shall annually record in its minutes a list of all persons who comprise the session and the diaconate.
00:13:18.960 --> 00:13:26.399
Uh so this would be a role of those people who are ordained and serving on those boards included in your minutes.
00:13:26.639 --> 00:13:34.799
Uh originally there's an extra line on there on if the if the duties of the diaconate are falling on somebody else to say who that is and what they're doing.
00:13:35.039 --> 00:13:44.480
Uh CCB had a problem with that because it said it already says that if it's if the diaconate doesn't exist, those duties are supposed to be done by the session.
00:13:44.639 --> 00:13:47.600
So you're suggesting that it could be done by somebody else.
00:13:47.919 --> 00:13:50.159
So either you could change the wording or delete it.
00:13:50.399 --> 00:13:52.159
I think it's just cleaner to delete it.
00:13:52.320 --> 00:13:57.120
Um this is partly coming from some of the debates around surrounding the diaconate.
00:13:57.519 --> 00:14:02.799
And you know, there are some churches that will not have a ordained diaconate and have other people that are doing it.
00:14:03.120 --> 00:14:08.559
Um deleting that last line takes it a little bit out of that sort of debate, though.
00:14:09.039 --> 00:14:13.120
Um I I think it was uh Coffin even on this.
00:14:13.360 --> 00:14:20.480
He said, uh, regardless of current controversies, this is a reasonable requirement for session record keeping and for presbytery oversight.
00:14:20.799 --> 00:14:25.759
And the reason for that is um this was debated in my presbytery because we sent it up.
00:14:26.320 --> 00:14:31.120
The reason is uh a lot of our churches have term elders and deacon boards.
00:14:31.600 --> 00:14:36.080
And so we don't even know like who is supposed to be on here for having a quorum.
00:14:36.320 --> 00:14:39.679
Uh who is who is allowed to vote and not vote in in something.
00:14:39.759 --> 00:14:44.720
If somebody shows up who's not on the board, you know, if he makes a motion, that there's a problem there, right?
00:14:45.120 --> 00:14:52.879
Um so it helps with actually knowing like quorums for it, who can vote and who can't, and make a motion uh in your minutes.
00:14:53.120 --> 00:14:54.720
Uh it becomes helpful too.
00:14:54.799 --> 00:15:06.159
Like uh some presbyteries already have this in their directories, but this would help put it in the minutes and put it before them uh to say, hey, we reviewed this church and they're down to one elder.
00:15:06.480 --> 00:15:22.559
And maybe Presbytery needs to step in to tell them this is getting to be an emergency and you need to, you know, uh figure out if there's somebody else that is uh qualified to serve, or do we need to have some sort of a um a help with a um borrowed session, something like that, if something were to happen.
00:15:22.639 --> 00:15:27.039
Uh or some if a church doesn't have a diaconate, you can ask the question why?
00:15:27.200 --> 00:15:30.960
Maybe they don't they've never functioned with one, they need some help in getting uh one.
00:15:31.279 --> 00:15:34.080
Um so there's a lot of it can also encourage cooperation.
00:15:34.159 --> 00:15:37.519
Okay, these diaconids now know who each other are in these different churches.
00:15:37.840 --> 00:15:40.480
Um they can get along and and work with each other.
00:15:40.639 --> 00:15:49.919
So it started as a it almost started as a review control type act, and then um at least in my mind, then it becomes kind of a help and cooperate.
00:15:50.320 --> 00:15:59.679
Uh this is just helpful in knowing um how to review the rest of the minutes and if there's something that's going on where this church needs some help.
00:15:59.840 --> 00:16:11.440
Uh again, if if you have an attitude towards the presbytery that they're there uh for your benefit, this could be helpful for uh sessions to include this uh in their in their minutes every year.
00:16:11.759 --> 00:16:13.360
Is there anything else to say, Scott?
00:16:13.840 --> 00:16:23.600
I think Jared, I mean the general debate again is kind of similar to the last item where it's uh requiring more of churches, right?
00:16:23.840 --> 00:16:32.799
Now in yearly reviews, if we adopt this, we'll have to you know check for it to ensure that uh local churches are actually submitting those names.
00:16:33.039 --> 00:16:49.519
Um with the original overture, I think some in the PCA thought that it was trying to um more focus, get more focus on uh women's ordination within the context of the PCA with diaconates or other bodies within the church.
00:16:49.759 --> 00:16:59.360
And so that's perhaps why there is some division in the OC itself is thinking along those sort of quote unquote party lines on an issue.
00:16:59.919 --> 00:17:08.640
Yeah, it was 67%, and part of it was this was during the same debate as uh debates on the diaconate and those other overtures.
00:17:09.039 --> 00:17:10.640
And so it was kind of put in that.
00:17:10.720 --> 00:17:20.880
Although deleting the last line makes it more of a long-lasting, just good uh I idea, I think, in in putting this uh just a list.
00:17:20.960 --> 00:17:28.799
All you gotta do is put who's on your session and who's on your diaconate um to know whether or not they need to look for a diaconate minutes, and if you don't have one right now, they don't need to look for that.
00:17:28.880 --> 00:17:36.960
Um so if you can take this out of the deaconate debate, um then I think you can it would probably get more uh support.
00:17:37.359 --> 00:17:37.680
All right.
00:17:38.960 --> 00:17:45.680
Well, item number three deals with uh BCO fifteen uh about session commissions.
00:17:45.839 --> 00:17:48.000
So but let's see, we should remind listeners.
00:17:48.079 --> 00:17:59.279
So the difference between a commission and a committee, commissions are uh appointed by a court of the church to deliberate and conclude business.
00:17:59.519 --> 00:18:07.119
So uh most commonly you would see Presbytery commissions doing things like installing or ordaining uh teaching elders.
00:18:07.359 --> 00:18:13.839
Um you might have it's it's it's less common, I think, to see a session having a commission to install ruling elders or deacons.
00:18:13.920 --> 00:18:15.119
They usually do it as a whole.
00:18:15.440 --> 00:18:25.119
But you might have a commission of a session conduct a trial or an investigation or something like that, and you want them to be able to do it and conclude the business.
00:18:25.279 --> 00:18:40.319
Uh uh BCO 152 would be amended in this case, uh uh establishing the parameters, I guess the lowest common denominator, quorum, etc., for a session commission.
00:18:40.880 --> 00:18:43.599
Um y'all can correct me if I'm wrong.
00:18:43.759 --> 00:18:54.880
It seems that the intention is to prevent a session from delegating uh commission power to an individual elder, uh or or a very small portion at least.
00:18:55.119 --> 00:19:07.920
Um and so this would this would make it uh every commission has to be at least two elders with a any combination of teaching or ruling, and the quorum is the greater of two elders or one half the membership of the commission.
00:19:08.079 --> 00:19:11.599
So the context here is a little more than that.
00:19:11.839 --> 00:19:25.680
It includes um there this was not clear what consists of a session commission, what how many, and there had been some advice given that it should mirror a presbytery commission.
00:19:25.920 --> 00:19:47.440
Well, the problem with such uh a presumption is that uh presbyteries often have a whole litany of teaching elders that are required to be on the commission, and in a church context, there might be only one teaching elder on staff, and so if you if that is the setting for your commission, then you can never have a commission because there's only one pastor.
00:19:47.759 --> 00:20:06.720
Um, and so this was to perhaps grant some clarity on if you are to do a commission in the local church, no, it doesn't need to mirror the composition of the presbytery because the presbytery has a larger pool of individuals, and so you may be very easy to find two teaching elders and two ruling elders.
00:20:06.799 --> 00:20:17.359
Um, but in the context of a local church, my own church, um, if you were to take that analogy and apply it, which was advice given, then you can never do it.
00:20:17.519 --> 00:20:25.599
And so this just clarifies that no, it just needs to be two elders, um, and the quorum for that is uh explained there.
00:20:25.759 --> 00:20:34.799
And so it's meant to provide clarity where there was a lack, that you don't need to have the same sort of expectation from the presbytery to the local church.
00:20:35.200 --> 00:20:44.960
Yeah, it g it maintains plurality in that you need to have at least two, but give some flexibility so that it's not those those sort of uh quorum requirements of the presbytery.
00:20:45.200 --> 00:20:52.079
So uh in the end it ended up getting eighty eighty-five percent uh once those those things were clarified.
00:20:52.319 --> 00:20:56.880
So uh this was not as contentious once once those things were resolved.
00:20:57.519 --> 00:21:02.799
Yeah, I think I was not a fan of this, uh, but then once it was resolved, it was a little bit easier to jump on.
00:21:03.200 --> 00:21:09.359
Yeah, though there were some amendments here that kind of cleared up, made it a little clearer what its intention was.
00:21:10.000 --> 00:21:22.319
Um the two elders or one half of the membership was confusing until um I think it was Steve Tipton made some amendments to actually clarify the structure uh of what it's trying to communicate.
00:21:22.400 --> 00:21:26.240
And so after that was done, it in my mind it became really easy.
00:21:26.480 --> 00:21:31.440
But we shouldn't expect Presbytery commission requirements to be imposed upon local sessions.
00:21:31.519 --> 00:21:33.519
I think that is too much of a burden.
00:21:33.599 --> 00:21:35.839
And so this this is a good addition.
00:21:36.319 --> 00:21:43.119
But besides judicial commissions, where would have you guys heard of or seen sessions using commissions for other purposes?
00:21:43.519 --> 00:21:44.880
Um membership interviews.
00:21:45.039 --> 00:21:55.440
You might you know, you might say, Okay, the pastor's gonna meet with one ruling elder in a family for a profession of faith for maybe a little girl or a family that's coming in.
00:21:55.519 --> 00:21:56.960
I think that's probably the most common.
00:21:57.519 --> 00:22:10.160
It could also be to appoint somebody to go to Presbytery or something like that, but then you could be like, okay, clerk and chair, you guys can uh if if that needs to change, you guys can work it out and appoint somebody different for Presbytery.
00:22:11.119 --> 00:22:14.640
If you have a super large church, you probably have more opportunities.
00:22:15.359 --> 00:22:21.039
You know, if you have a a session of 30, you probably have a lot of opportunities to do commissions.
00:22:21.599 --> 00:22:24.720
I was gonna say we so there's there's 10 of us on our session.
00:22:25.039 --> 00:22:27.039
And we do send out for some work.
00:22:27.119 --> 00:22:28.400
Usually we do committee stuff.
00:22:28.480 --> 00:22:29.680
We don't do commissions, you know.
00:22:29.759 --> 00:22:36.240
Even for new members, it's like, hey, you guys go interview them, but then come back next week and let us know and we'll we'll do it approve it on our own.
00:22:36.400 --> 00:22:37.519
But yeah.
00:22:37.680 --> 00:22:43.759
Yeah, I'm sure there's a once you get to a certain size, you can send people out to take care of business.
00:22:44.240 --> 00:22:45.599
All right, let's look at number four.
00:22:45.759 --> 00:22:50.000
Item number four dealing with uh BCO 32 and 42.
00:22:50.240 --> 00:22:54.640
This is clarifying the contents of a record of the case in judicial cases.
00:22:54.799 --> 00:23:12.079
Um so those of you who have been involved in uh judicial cases, you know there's a document called the record of the case or the ROC that is assembled um for the the review of the courts dealing with the the matters coming up, and so this just uh adjusts it a little bit.
00:23:12.319 --> 00:23:18.960
Um Scott, you might be able to recall off the top of your head or at least look through it faster than me and tell us what it's adding.
00:23:19.839 --> 00:23:24.480
Um Jared, or I can read for a second.
00:23:25.599 --> 00:23:27.680
We're all we're all oblivious to this.
00:23:27.920 --> 00:23:29.039
We're all reading.
00:23:29.440 --> 00:23:43.519
Instead of just having some of uh the materials, this would include the minutes that you've taken uh to make sure that you have a full record of the case uh when it comes, especially if it's going to be reviewed if it becomes part of a trial at um higher levels.
00:23:43.680 --> 00:23:57.599
Um I was just looking at um people who were on the standing judicial commission, and it seemed like they all seemed to be pretty positive to this, and they probably gotten partial records of the case where they needed something that they didn't send to them.
00:23:57.759 --> 00:24:02.640
So this is just including uh more of what it is they're gonna need in order to make a review of it.
00:24:02.880 --> 00:24:06.240
In the end, it didn't end up being very controversial.
00:24:06.319 --> 00:24:09.200
Uh it was 94% of the uh overtures committee.
00:24:09.680 --> 00:24:12.480
There's four people who didn't like it that voted against it.
00:24:12.720 --> 00:24:15.839
So um uh yeah.
00:24:16.400 --> 00:24:21.279
Sometimes when I see like someone vote against something like this, I'm just like, do they like fall asleep at the wheel?
00:24:21.359 --> 00:24:24.640
Do they like accidentally vote against this?
00:24:24.960 --> 00:24:35.519
Because it's uh I mean it's just a simple clarification to include all the records rather than you know individual parts of the records that were most germane, like no, just all the records.
00:24:36.000 --> 00:24:36.160
Yeah.
00:24:39.200 --> 00:24:39.680
You need that.
00:24:40.079 --> 00:24:43.599
With digital records, it's just about pulling files over anymore, anyway.
00:24:44.000 --> 00:24:51.920
Well, it said record of the testimony, and they changed that to proceedings, um, and then they listed some stuff, citations, documents, all this kind of stuff.
00:24:52.160 --> 00:24:57.759
I mean the general rule I would think is that the more information you can have in cases of process, the better.
00:24:57.920 --> 00:25:08.720
Especially for uh a higher court reviewing something come up from the lower, they they need more uh help understanding all the pieces, and so it it's not a bad idea to have more information.
00:25:08.799 --> 00:25:15.759
And to Jerry's point, we have much of it available so easily, why not just have it stuck in the record?
00:25:16.079 --> 00:25:20.480
Of course the SJC already deals with multi-thousand page records of the case.
00:25:20.559 --> 00:25:23.039
There's no telling what this is gonna turn it into in the long run.
00:25:23.119 --> 00:25:26.880
But I think this is more of a like a change without a distinction.
00:25:26.960 --> 00:25:42.559
I think they kind of try to get all this information already, and this kind of just gives a little clarity on the the front end so that a clerk submits all of his stuff rather than you know part of it, and then they gotta go back and say, hey, do you have this?
00:25:42.640 --> 00:25:43.440
Hey, do you have that?
00:25:43.599 --> 00:25:43.759
Yeah.
00:25:43.920 --> 00:25:49.279
I think it's meant to ease up that process because I think they collect most of this, if not all, already.
00:25:49.599 --> 00:25:50.799
Cool, cool, cool, cool, cool.
00:25:50.880 --> 00:25:53.759
Item five amends BCO 34.
00:25:54.160 --> 00:25:56.000
This comes from Overture 27.
00:25:56.480 --> 00:26:14.160
Um this was it was amended by the Overtures Committee and adopted by the assembly, um, which would well, one of y'all might have to get into this because I think this was one of the ones that I didn't like, but then they amended it, and I don't understand how the amendment worked, and so Well, thirty four numbers.
00:26:14.240 --> 00:26:18.079
I was told there would be no math when I went to seminary, so this is ridiculous.
00:26:18.480 --> 00:26:30.000
So uh 34-1 was was something that we had voted to amend, and it fell just short in the Presbyteries to get that done a couple years ago.
00:26:30.480 --> 00:26:39.359
And 34-1 originally was a provision that's new to the PCA that comes from experiences that we had uh in the main line.
00:26:39.599 --> 00:26:47.839
There was a professor who was uh basically teaching out downright heresy in regards to Christology and things like that at Union.
00:26:48.000 --> 00:26:56.240
Um, and they realized that because of the structure of the BCO, if that if that presbytery wanted to protect that person, you couldn't get at it.
00:26:56.720 --> 00:27:07.759
And so this was put in there to say if there is a presbytery that's gone rogued is protecting somebody that is is teaching rank heresy, um, or there's maybe they're protecting somebody because of a moral matter, who knows?
00:27:07.839 --> 00:27:17.119
Uh that there is a a mechanism that other presbyteries can say, no, the standing judicial commission is going to get this because you've refused to act.
00:27:17.680 --> 00:27:21.839
The problem had been refuse to act became okay, what is refuse to act?
00:27:22.000 --> 00:27:31.119
Refuse to find them guilty, refuse to do an investigation because after a while you could just say, well, we looked into it, or we did an investigation and said there's no strong presumption of guilt.
00:27:31.599 --> 00:27:32.960
And so we acted.
00:27:33.279 --> 00:27:36.960
And so this became useless in our in our BCO.
00:27:37.519 --> 00:27:39.680
It really hasn't been uh used before.
00:27:40.240 --> 00:27:43.519
Um it was attempted before, I think, with 10%.
00:27:44.720 --> 00:27:47.759
Uh now it's being tried again by 20%.
00:27:48.960 --> 00:27:56.079
And instead of refuses to act, would be fine, no uh strong presumption of guilt or otherwise, declines to indict.
00:27:56.400 --> 00:28:00.319
So there's something that they're not going to try that everybody thinks they should.
00:28:00.960 --> 00:28:04.400
And um now you need to get 20% of other Presbyteries.
00:28:04.640 --> 00:28:06.960
That's a lot higher than the other one that we have tried.
00:28:07.440 --> 00:28:32.319
But some of this came from I I don't know if I can get too much into the backroom uh uh talkings, but I I mean you saw Mel and Howie and and Steve Tipton talking, and there was there's kind of this um attitude that like if you put it at 20%, that's gonna have to be something really big, like something that everybody else in the in the entire denomination says that's wrong, and for some reason this presbytery's gone rogue.
00:28:32.720 --> 00:28:34.319
This would actually make it functional.
00:28:34.640 --> 00:28:36.480
Um it changes, refuses to act.
00:28:36.559 --> 00:28:45.200
It has a really high bar, but the the calculus I think was this would actually make it function versus it's just functionless.
00:28:45.440 --> 00:28:55.039
So we'll take it even with a very high bar of 20% uh presbyteries have to uh request um versus just having something that's non-functional.
00:28:55.200 --> 00:28:58.000
Uh the original author of this did not like that.
00:28:58.079 --> 00:29:12.400
He wanted it lower, although some of the context of it didn't work when we tried it lower uh can tell you a little bit why on OC it was 92% to do this, because they said, let's try to do something that functions rather than just have a um a broken part of our BCO.
00:29:12.799 --> 00:29:15.920
Yeah, and there could be further tinkering in the future, right?
00:29:16.000 --> 00:29:27.200
Like just because we have this provision now, maybe it proves too high of a threshold, and there's a heinous sin that we can only, you know, only 15% of the Presbyteries reach out.
00:29:27.279 --> 00:29:29.519
Well, that might lead to change then.
00:29:29.759 --> 00:29:50.880
And so it I think the the sheer clarifying the refuses to act, what it's meant by it by finding no strong presumption of guilt is a worthy clarification, even if it makes the overall amendment um you know less less used, because it'll certainly be less used, maybe never used.
00:29:50.960 --> 00:29:52.720
I don't think we've ever used this anyway.
00:29:52.960 --> 00:29:55.359
So yeah.
00:29:56.079 --> 00:30:03.359
If if uh if Howie and and Mel can agree on something, then maybe it's worthy of consideration for the rest of us.
00:30:03.759 --> 00:30:04.079
Wow.
00:30:06.160 --> 00:30:06.720
Yeah.
00:30:07.279 --> 00:30:09.119
Was it not awful until I said something?
00:30:09.279 --> 00:30:09.440
Okay.
00:30:09.920 --> 00:30:10.880
Am I not allowed to say it?
00:30:10.960 --> 00:30:14.079
Sometimes I find out after the fact that I'm not allowed to say something.
00:30:14.480 --> 00:30:15.680
You can say whatever you want.
00:30:15.839 --> 00:30:22.720
I mean I I I have to before we jump into item six, I have to tell a story on Scott.
00:30:22.880 --> 00:30:37.359
He texted me the day about um we were in a we were in a chat group with some guys and we were gonna start uh interacting on a more regular basis, and Scott's comment was I only want to interact this much if we're also having a podcast out of this thing.
00:30:39.440 --> 00:30:42.640
I only I only want to see you this often if we're gonna produce something.
00:30:42.720 --> 00:30:45.599
I don't need to see you that much uh if if not otherwise.
00:30:45.839 --> 00:30:46.799
It made me laugh.
00:30:47.039 --> 00:30:51.200
It may it reminded me the only reason we have podcasts is uh in order to make friends.
00:30:51.279 --> 00:30:53.039
That's the only that's the only purpose of being here.
00:30:55.839 --> 00:30:56.960
I hope it works one day.
00:30:57.119 --> 00:30:58.000
Uh you know.
00:30:58.640 --> 00:31:14.960
Item number six would amend BCO 42 and 43 by really what only adding a couple of words in here uh in order to clarify deadlines for filing uh in matters of appeal and complaint.
00:31:15.359 --> 00:31:19.440
Uh and so it would be 30 days of written notification.
00:31:19.599 --> 00:31:32.480
Uh you'd have to file within 30 days of written notification, and then um it it adjusts to say that notification uh occurs on a particular day and is not deemed to have occurred on a particular particular day.
00:31:32.720 --> 00:31:36.480
Scott, is this similar to the one that you sent up from Iliana?
00:31:36.799 --> 00:31:38.720
Or is it it's too disconnected?
00:31:39.200 --> 00:31:42.960
Yeah, that went down in fiery flames about that.
00:31:43.279 --> 00:31:43.680
Okay, sorry.
00:31:43.839 --> 00:31:46.160
Sorry, happy birthday.
00:31:46.319 --> 00:31:49.359
Um just for these kind providences.
00:31:49.839 --> 00:31:54.640
Eggert convinced me that 15 was a good one to support, and and so I did in the long run.
00:31:54.720 --> 00:31:57.519
Uh that's where this overture came from, overture 15.
00:31:57.680 --> 00:31:59.680
Um you guys have any thoughts on it?
00:31:59.759 --> 00:32:01.039
You want to talk about it at all?
00:32:01.359 --> 00:32:17.119
I I think it it just it's a really small change that that does help clarify the the outer ends of when a court can reject or receive um uh a complaint.
00:32:17.279 --> 00:32:22.319
Um, and so I think that's all this really, these deadlines are just clarifying.
00:32:22.400 --> 00:32:26.079
Well, is it when the person receives it or is it when it's mailed?
00:32:26.400 --> 00:32:29.359
That's really like the question for it.
00:32:29.440 --> 00:32:32.880
And so it just simplifies that notes when it's mailed.
00:32:32.960 --> 00:32:42.559
It just has to have the right postage date on it, not necessarily the reception date, which allows a little latitude in the mailing of that document.
00:32:42.640 --> 00:32:53.200
And so just because it's 30 days um or whatever, doesn't it may it may be actually 40 days uh given that the reception might be a little further out.
00:32:53.680 --> 00:33:01.839
I think it's a simple it's taking the UP USPS error out of it, you know, something gets lost in the mail or something like that.
00:33:02.000 --> 00:33:06.880
It allows for a little more liberty to receive these sorts of correspondence.
00:33:07.519 --> 00:33:20.240
Yeah, I'll just note that it was 87% in the overtures committee, and then looking through you had Eggert, you had uh Donahoe, you had Coffin, and you had Ratliff uh all uh thinking that it was a good clarification.
00:33:20.319 --> 00:33:21.839
So I wasn't at first.
00:33:21.920 --> 00:33:23.920
Eggert called me and had a conversation with me.
00:33:24.079 --> 00:33:25.680
He's like, you need to change your opinion on this.
00:33:25.839 --> 00:33:26.480
I was like, why?
00:33:26.640 --> 00:33:28.640
And then he taught he explained it and I was like, no, you're right.
00:33:28.799 --> 00:33:29.839
Okay, cool.
00:33:30.240 --> 00:33:30.960
Thank you.
00:33:31.359 --> 00:33:32.880
Yeah, no, it's worthy.
00:33:33.119 --> 00:33:34.960
It's a good simple solution.
00:33:35.200 --> 00:33:35.839
Yeah.
00:33:36.160 --> 00:33:46.640
Alright, last one on here is item number seven to amend uh BCO 33 in a couple of places to clarify what it means or to circularize the court.
00:33:46.960 --> 00:33:59.119
So uh until now there's been this statement at the end of 43.2 uh that says no attempt, which has to deal with complaints, no attempt should be made to circularize the court to which complaint is being made by either party.
00:33:59.359 --> 00:34:08.960
Um and so that I've run into situations where I have guys saying, like, wait, there's a complaint being made to our Presbytery and we're gonna deal with it, but we're not allowed to talk about it, which is kind of what this sentence implies.
00:34:09.119 --> 00:34:25.280
And so we moved it down further, so that there should be no attempt, we moved that whole line to the end of 43.3, if we approve this, that it actually has to do with when you're move when you're moving up through the courts, you shouldn't try to circularize the courts above you based on you know your opinion or whatever, especially with the SJC.
00:34:25.360 --> 00:34:29.360
And so it just sticks it in the right place, more or less, and gives us a good definition.
00:34:29.519 --> 00:34:31.760
But you guys should should jump in and say what you think here.
00:34:31.840 --> 00:34:33.679
Um I'm a fan of this move.
00:34:34.000 --> 00:34:34.800
Yeah, there is.
00:34:34.960 --> 00:34:46.960
I mean, I every Presbyterian I'm in, there's always this like um boogeyman uh that's always said during a controversial thing, like, we gotta be careful that we don't circularize the court here.
00:34:47.119 --> 00:34:51.360
And it's like, well, you can't circularize the court in which we're debating an item.
00:34:51.519 --> 00:34:52.000
Yeah, yeah.
00:34:52.159 --> 00:35:02.159
Um, and so it I think this is a very, very, very helpful clarification that the business before the court is the business before the court, and it's okay to debate it.
00:35:02.239 --> 00:35:06.400
It's okay to talk about it, it's okay to have conversations about it, even private conversations about it.
00:35:06.559 --> 00:35:22.159
What is not okay is after the court makes a decision on something and there's an appeal, that you reach out to all of your like SJC friends or your Presbytery friends, if it's your local church, and try to sway them before the matter is properly before them.
00:35:22.320 --> 00:35:28.000
And then that's why I think it fits really well with whenever you have a friend from the SJC talking about something.
00:35:28.159 --> 00:35:29.760
They always have this clarifying statement.
00:35:29.840 --> 00:35:39.920
I think Mel loves making the clarifying statement when he's on the SJC that you know this is not related to anything pending or impending a case before the SJC.
00:35:40.079 --> 00:35:41.599
That that's like what this is getting at.
00:35:41.679 --> 00:35:49.119
It's getting at that idea of a man being swayed before businesses properly before their jurisdiction.
00:35:49.199 --> 00:35:57.199
It's okay to have debates and interlocking discussions, even private discussions on a matter that's justly before the court.
00:35:57.360 --> 00:36:06.880
It's a whole other thing to try to sway a bunch of friends before the matters properly before them and to poison the well, as it were.
00:36:07.199 --> 00:36:08.079
Well said.
00:36:08.320 --> 00:36:11.039
Yeah, this was 95% in Overture's committee.
00:36:11.119 --> 00:36:13.760
I think it was the same four guys that voted against it.
00:36:13.840 --> 00:36:14.159
I don't know.
00:36:14.320 --> 00:36:22.320
They were just a little um paperclip on the no, which I can respect on their voter, you know.
00:36:22.960 --> 00:36:24.960
So that's hilarious.
00:36:25.199 --> 00:36:33.760
Well, listeners, these seven items, uh if you're if you're a if you're an elder in the PCA, these seven items will be hitting your presbyteries uh in the the near future, probably.
00:36:33.840 --> 00:36:38.000
I think we we usually deal with ours at either October or January meeting in Covenant.
00:36:38.159 --> 00:36:40.079
Um we were speculating ahead of time.
00:36:40.159 --> 00:36:47.280
Uh it's possible, possible that some Presbyteries may have dealt with this already, but the document, as we record, has only been out for a couple weeks anyway.
00:36:47.519 --> 00:36:56.880
So um if you've met in the last, you know, the first couple weeks of August, uh maybe you have already voted on these, and this episode is of no use to you.
00:36:57.119 --> 00:37:04.559
But um there is there is one item, there is one item that's not for vote that we will have before us for information.
00:37:05.280 --> 00:37:06.800
I wasn't even gonna deal with it because it doesn't matter.
00:37:07.280 --> 00:37:09.519
Yeah, it doesn't matter because it's already part of the Constitution.
00:37:09.760 --> 00:37:27.679
But there there was an overture this year to re-add something to our Constitution that was never justly removed um in BCO 29.1 on at the very end of it, as it uh adding um that which cannot be proved to be from such scriptures as interpreted in these standards.
00:37:27.840 --> 00:37:35.840
That last little phrase um in 29.1 uh was removed at some point clerically on accident.
00:37:36.079 --> 00:37:39.679
Um and so there was a debate on overture on accident.
00:37:39.760 --> 00:37:40.559
Yeah, that's right.
00:37:41.280 --> 00:37:42.480
Air quotes on accident.
00:37:42.800 --> 00:37:44.079
Oh, I did not do air quotes too.
00:37:44.159 --> 00:37:45.360
Oh no, I never did such a thing.
00:37:45.679 --> 00:37:47.199
Very new, nefarious.
00:37:47.440 --> 00:37:52.159
Someone nefariously removed the that phrase from from the VCO.
00:37:52.320 --> 00:37:54.719
And so we had an overture on to re-add it.
00:37:54.800 --> 00:38:04.239
Uh, but the overtures committee um with Guy Waters determined that it's moot, that it should just be automatically re-added constitutionally because it was never removed.
00:38:04.480 --> 00:38:11.039
Just because it didn't have a presence within our current book doesn't mean that um it shouldn't be in future books.
00:38:11.119 --> 00:38:15.760
Um, it was an error somewhere along the lines, and it's it's a long-standing error.
00:38:15.840 --> 00:38:20.400
It wasn't something it was newly found, um, but uh it was never actually removed.
00:38:20.480 --> 00:38:26.880
And so there's just a point of information in the document that if you look at it, it's that's why it's there.
00:38:26.960 --> 00:38:33.920
It's because it's already part of our constitution, but it's unique in that it hasn't been in our written constitution for some time.
00:38:34.239 --> 00:38:39.360
So keep an eye on your Presbyterian agendas, uh dockets, make sure you're there ready to vote.
00:38:39.440 --> 00:38:45.840
Uh if you're if your church is sending ruling elders, guys, make sure you're uh sending all that you can.
00:38:46.159 --> 00:38:48.000
Go vote on these things.
00:38:48.400 --> 00:38:51.119
And um yeah, let us know.
00:38:51.280 --> 00:39:02.880
We will uh Scott, we'll I'll find a link, but your your uh original uh tracker is now a part of the AC's work, and so there's a part on the AC website where folks can go track BCO amendments.
00:39:03.039 --> 00:39:05.840
Um we'll make sure that we've got a link there.
00:39:05.920 --> 00:39:07.679
And uh yeah.
00:39:08.159 --> 00:39:09.440
I think that's it.
00:39:09.679 --> 00:39:13.679
Um as the birthday boy would say, this podcast is over.
00:39:13.920 --> 00:39:19.920
If you're interested in learning more about what we've talked about, you can check out the show notes in your podcast player or at Politymatters.org.
00:39:20.079 --> 00:39:26.800
If you've enjoyed the show, consider following us on Twitter and Facebook at Polity Matters, and be sure to be subscribed in your podcast app of choice.
00:39:27.119 --> 00:39:29.119
There's a link below to support our work.
00:39:29.280 --> 00:39:38.960
Uh I I wonder if some of the listeners have been uh uh thinking through whether they should pull their support because we were finishing the Book of Church Order, and I just want to say we're not done.
00:39:39.199 --> 00:39:42.480
We uh we've we in many ways we feel like we're just getting started.
00:39:42.639 --> 00:39:44.320
So uh please support our work.
00:39:44.400 --> 00:39:46.159
It really does help keep the lights on.
00:39:46.320 --> 00:39:55.360
Um we we would like to expand in some ways that we're considering, and some of that will require financial support, and uh so uh please do that.
00:39:55.519 --> 00:40:00.239
There's a if you'd like to support, uh, get connected through buymeacoffee.com.
00:40:00.320 --> 00:40:01.679
The links down below, you can find it.
00:40:01.760 --> 00:40:09.920
But what we do have available on a regular basis is a signal chat group only for supporters, uh, our Polity Nerds chat, and we have a good time in there.
00:40:10.000 --> 00:40:18.159
Uh you can you can ask questions of all the other guys that are that are interested in Polity and get some thoughts and help from all different aspects of the PCA.
00:40:18.239 --> 00:40:22.880
So uh jump in there if that interests you and help support the work of Polity Matters.
00:40:22.960 --> 00:40:27.440
If you've got questions or comments, you can contact us at Politymattersfeedback at gmail.com.
00:40:27.519 --> 00:40:31.840
You can also find our personal accounts on Twitter and uh and you can you can connect with us there.
00:40:31.920 --> 00:40:33.840
So that's all I've got to say for today.
00:40:33.920 --> 00:40:35.760
Thanks again for spending your time with us.
00:40:35.920 --> 00:40:38.320
Until next time, say goodbye, gentlemen.
00:40:38.800 --> 00:40:40.400
Goodbye, goodbye.
00:40:40.639 --> 00:40:41.920
Y'all take care.
00:00:06.480 --> 00:00:08.240
Hello and welcome to Polity Matters.
00:00:08.320 --> 00:00:18.320
My name is Ben Ratliff, and I'm joined as always by Jared Nelson and Scott Edberg, and we are uh well, this is kind of our first episode since finishing the Book of Church Order.
00:00:18.399 --> 00:00:27.039
Uh, we're gonna treat it as like a happy birthday gift for Scott, because as we record, Scott is actively turning a year older, and um we can see it happening before our very eyes.
00:00:27.120 --> 00:00:28.320
Uh, what's going on, fellas?
00:00:28.480 --> 00:00:34.320
How's how's it feel to be older, wiser, moving on from the the constitutional parts of the book?
00:00:34.880 --> 00:00:36.079
Y'all y'all okay?
00:00:36.399 --> 00:00:39.359
Yeah, I woke up this morning and my back was hurting.
00:00:39.439 --> 00:00:46.240
There's a twinge in my back, and and so my own mortality has rained upon me on this birthday.
00:00:46.799 --> 00:00:47.920
Wait until you're 44.
00:00:48.159 --> 00:00:50.479
I was gonna say, how long ago were you 33, Jared?
00:00:52.320 --> 00:00:54.159
Snack in the middle of you guys, yeah.
00:00:54.640 --> 00:01:07.599
Well, we are uh before we start talking about the RAO, which will be uh as you're listening, folks, the next time uh you're with us, we'll be starting some introductory material with the rules of assembly operation.
00:01:07.920 --> 00:01:15.120
But before that, we want to do a little bit of sort of like current events, but it's more like preparing for the next season of Presbytery meetings.
00:01:15.280 --> 00:01:19.680
Uh the 53rd General Assembly sent down some BCO amendments.
00:01:19.760 --> 00:01:24.879
There are seven items in total um for the Presbyteries to vote on.
00:01:24.959 --> 00:01:29.920
Uh if you remember, BCO 26 uh instructs us how to amend the BCO.
00:01:30.079 --> 00:01:43.840
So we had a majority vote at GA to make these recommendations of the Presbyteries, and we need two-thirds of the PCA Presbyteries to uh vote in favor of these in order for them to return at the 54th General Assembly.
00:01:44.000 --> 00:01:46.079
Well, actually, I think it's just a subsequent GA, isn't it?
00:01:46.159 --> 00:01:47.840
It's not necessarily the very next one.
00:01:48.159 --> 00:01:50.239
Or does subsequent mean the very next one?
00:01:50.640 --> 00:01:55.680
They could refer it to the next GA if they don't feel they have a sufficient amount of Presbytery input.
00:01:56.000 --> 00:01:56.400
How about that?
00:01:56.560 --> 00:02:02.000
Anyway, it just needs a f and then it needs a majority vote at whatever GA it gets uh sent to.
00:02:02.159 --> 00:02:05.040
Um Presbyteries have to vote on these items as a whole.
00:02:05.120 --> 00:02:12.400
We can't split them up, so even if uh if an item is dealing with more than one section of the BCO, you can't split it up.
00:02:12.479 --> 00:02:15.439
You have to vote on the items uh on their own.
00:02:15.680 --> 00:02:22.400
Uh as we talk about them uh right now, I would refer you to the overtureslibrary.org.
00:02:22.719 --> 00:02:26.560
Um it's what we had set up for GA, and it's actually helpful now too.
00:02:26.639 --> 00:02:29.759
You can go look at the original um overtures that were sent.
00:02:29.840 --> 00:02:33.360
Uh a lot of these items were amended, but you can see what was there first.
00:02:33.599 --> 00:02:40.800
You can see votes from the OC, you can see what happened on the floor, and you can see some comments from me and and some of the other guys that we had on there.
00:02:40.879 --> 00:02:45.919
So if that's helpful, uh click through and it'll refresh your memory as we discuss these things.
00:02:46.000 --> 00:02:53.120
But um I d would do will one of y'all speak to maybe what our our goal is here today, talking through these things.
00:02:53.199 --> 00:02:55.439
You know, guys are gonna start seeing these at Presbyteries.
00:02:55.520 --> 00:02:57.680
What are we trying to do for folks?
00:02:58.400 --> 00:03:10.400
I think we're trying to just give them a primer or a uh a pre-prep guide for thinking through the items rather than getting to your Presbytery meeting and seeing that uh there are all these items.
00:03:10.479 --> 00:03:14.080
I believe there are seven this year, or seven items, and not knowing what they are.
00:03:14.240 --> 00:03:25.919
I think it's good for us to before that meeting understand what the text says, but perhaps also to have a little contextual flavor for why that text was proposed, passed, and needed.
00:03:26.080 --> 00:03:31.199
And so I hope we can perhaps get some of that nailed down as we work through the amendments.
00:03:31.680 --> 00:03:34.080
And hopefully Scott and I can give some context.
00:03:34.240 --> 00:03:39.439
Some of these were not debated on the GA floor, uh, but they were in OC, and Scott and I were there.
00:03:39.599 --> 00:03:43.759
Although Scott was busy with the screen, so um I don't know if he remembers it.
00:03:45.120 --> 00:03:50.240
Well the the flavor of the overtures committee this year was like slash it, slash it.
00:03:50.479 --> 00:03:52.879
And so we were just throwing everything in the wood chipper.
00:03:53.360 --> 00:04:04.719
Uh I was working through my document um that I maintained for the the screen, and if you just scroll through it really fast, basically it's just like negative, negative, negative, negative.
00:04:04.879 --> 00:04:12.319
Uh, you know, and so we there were a lot of proposals, but just because there are a lot of proposals doesn't mean there are a lot of good proposals.
00:04:12.560 --> 00:04:20.560
Um and so we we really killed a vast majority of the items proposed to us, which made my life easy.
00:04:20.720 --> 00:04:26.480
You know, the guy that's responsible for amending things on the fly doesn't have to amend a lot of no things.
00:04:26.879 --> 00:04:38.160
And so it was actually a pretty easy and relaxing, uh, though there was a lot of work, it was my my hope was when we saw the the docket that I wouldn't have to do a lot of work because there's too much on the docket.
00:04:38.319 --> 00:04:39.920
And that came to be true, I think.
00:04:40.000 --> 00:04:44.720
Um there's a lot of debate, but not a lot of amending um in the midst of that.
00:04:45.120 --> 00:04:48.879
After General Assembly, this seven items just feels like too few.
00:04:49.040 --> 00:04:53.680
I just have I just have this desire, this uh appetite now for many, many things.
00:04:55.600 --> 00:04:59.600
This feels feels like a little snack compared to what we had in June.
00:04:59.759 --> 00:05:05.680
Alright, we're just gonna work through each one uh and kind of uh dissect a little bit.
00:05:05.759 --> 00:05:23.759
So item one is uh going to be uh what was given to us from Overture 57, uh and it is dealing with BCOs 12, 13, 25 requiring congregational meetings and the the minutes of such meetings to be included in session records.
00:05:24.000 --> 00:05:29.920
Um this was surprisingly a little more controversial than I expected it to be.
00:05:30.160 --> 00:05:32.480
Uh, and especially considering the vote on OC.
00:05:32.720 --> 00:05:38.639
I don't have it, uh I should pull up the numbers, but I think it was close to 60% uh approved by the OC.
00:05:38.959 --> 00:05:46.879
Um Jared, maybe you want to jump in and just kind of explain it a little for us or or tell us what the discussions surround it or uh whatever works for you.
00:05:47.199 --> 00:05:53.199
You'll have a link to this doc that will be sent to the Presbyteries on the episode so people can follow along.
00:05:53.519 --> 00:05:54.240
Yeah, I can I can.
00:05:54.480 --> 00:05:57.040
If this is a public document, I can I'm more than happy to put it out there.
00:05:57.439 --> 00:05:57.600
Yeah.
00:05:57.759 --> 00:05:59.040
I think it's public enough.
00:05:59.839 --> 00:06:00.160
Yeah.
00:06:01.439 --> 00:06:07.920
Well, uh 57 had to do with uh congregational meetings and submitting those in your minutes.
00:06:08.079 --> 00:06:16.399
So when you have sessions that are submitting their minutes to the Presbytery for review, uh of course they are going to submit the minutes of the times that they've met.
00:06:16.720 --> 00:06:22.720
Uh, but some do apparently and some don't include their congregational meeting minutes.
00:06:22.879 --> 00:06:29.680
Uh typically you're gonna have a congregational meeting to uh do the budget or to elect new officers.
00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:33.600
And um actually when this came up, I was a little surprised.
00:06:33.759 --> 00:06:35.519
I just thought everybody already did this.
00:06:35.680 --> 00:06:42.240
Our presbytery requires that and will ask us for it if we don't have it in there, um, which it might be part of our bylaws, I don't know.
00:06:42.399 --> 00:07:03.519
Uh but this would include that, even though congregational meetings are not session meetings, uh they are uh under the authority of this session, but there's things that come up that uh may be relevant to the presbytery at those meetings, electing of new officers, and it could be relevant whether they've uh done that properly.
00:07:03.680 --> 00:07:10.959
Uh, if there's a complaint against that that comes to the presbytery, um, do we have the you know the documents from that or not?
00:07:11.199 --> 00:07:17.519
So there's a lot of information that's in the congregational meetings that are relevant to presbytery's checking.
00:07:17.680 --> 00:07:20.639
Uh, you know, you have a new guy that shows up on your session minutes.
00:07:20.720 --> 00:07:24.160
Oh, he was elected at the last congregational meeting, and let's see what happened there.
00:07:24.399 --> 00:07:29.279
Um, so there's relevant things there, and that's part of the reason that that was put in there.
00:07:29.360 --> 00:07:42.639
Uh, I think there's been a few cases in which there's been a complaint about something that happened at a congregational meeting, and so it'd be good to have that in the records uh that are on file uh for the presbytery to already have uh in front of them uh for that.
00:07:42.800 --> 00:07:48.639
I think it was negative, just like anytime that you ask people to do something more, uh they may not want to do it.
00:07:48.800 --> 00:07:59.519
That and I think some of the argument was from um there's somebody that had an interpretation that uh the congregational meetings are not uh subject to review by presbytery.
00:07:59.680 --> 00:08:03.519
Well, there's certain actions that are subject to review, even if not everything is.
00:08:03.759 --> 00:08:07.040
So um, yeah, that was the back and forth a little bit on that.
00:08:07.600 --> 00:08:13.439
Yeah, my general sense was that I had the same inclination as Jared did.
00:08:13.600 --> 00:08:35.759
Um, that it seems obvious that the minutes for congregational meetings would be reviewed by a presbytery, because the pre the the church does a lot of PCA, BCO constitutional things within the context of congregational meetings, calling pastors, calling elders, calling deacons, um and presenting the budget to the congregation.
00:08:35.840 --> 00:08:42.639
There, there's a lot of uh framework for the congregational meeting itself within the BCO.
00:08:42.799 --> 00:08:55.519
And so it would be odd to me that though the BCO structures congregational meetings, the the presbytery then is not subject to review and to ensure that those procedures are actually being followed.
00:08:55.679 --> 00:09:06.720
Uh, how do you even determine if there's an irregular election of an elder or a deacon or a pastor if you do not have access to the proceedings of that meeting?
00:09:06.960 --> 00:09:11.440
And so it's it's necessary to ensure that the constitution is being followed.
00:09:11.519 --> 00:09:21.360
Uh the church itself could have its rights um um stripped in many ways by how they um care and lead the congregational meeting.
00:09:21.440 --> 00:09:31.039
And so I think it preserves the the the lowest denominator there of the congregation's voice in ensuring that um these minutes are reviewed.
00:09:31.200 --> 00:09:49.600
And so um it doesn't come from like Westminster or like some you know ultra-conservative location, it it comes from South Texas, and and so I think this could be a unifying overture, um, but people don't always like being asked to do more.
00:09:49.679 --> 00:09:59.440
Aaron Powell What do y'all make of the of the kind of the the low number vote at OC, and then we didn't have an outright debate on the floor of the GA.
00:09:59.600 --> 00:10:04.480
Do we anticipate this being something controversial at the presbytery level?
00:10:05.120 --> 00:10:12.559
I think the first two items are the ones that had the lowest, and so they're probably the ones that'll get debated if any items get debated at your presbytery.
00:10:12.799 --> 00:10:19.360
And I'm sure it's going to be on the level of um creating more work to have to put those minutes in.
00:10:19.600 --> 00:10:24.399
And then I think I don't know, just uh reticence to have somebody review your work.
00:10:24.559 --> 00:10:27.120
And maybe some of that's just your attitude of that your presbytery.
00:10:27.200 --> 00:10:33.919
I love my presbytery, I love the feedback I get from them, so I'm I'm fine with them reviewing things and giving me help in those areas.
00:10:34.000 --> 00:10:38.000
Uh if you have a contentious presbytery, maybe it's like I want to give you as little as possible.
00:10:38.159 --> 00:10:39.759
That that's just my take on it.
00:10:40.240 --> 00:10:46.639
My sense is it'll be a it'll be drawn on the lines of presbyteries that are already doing this and not doing this.
00:10:46.879 --> 00:10:51.440
And so we might get like an actual like Ileana, I don't think we're gonna even debate this.
00:10:51.519 --> 00:10:53.440
Well, it's already included, you know?
00:10:53.600 --> 00:10:57.120
And so it's like, well, okay, you know, we're just clarifying what's already done.
00:10:57.279 --> 00:11:06.080
So I guess the my sense is we'll know what presbyteries are actually reviewing their congregational minutes by how they vote on this item.
00:11:06.240 --> 00:11:08.000
That's kind of my sense.
00:11:08.480 --> 00:11:27.759
I I think it was largely debated in the negative why there's such a large minority on the Overtures Committee is that the SJC has had some debates internally on using these minutes in their own reviews for cases and and the limits and extensions of that.
00:11:27.919 --> 00:11:33.759
And so there has been some SJC intramural debates on congregational meeting minutes.
00:11:33.919 --> 00:11:41.519
Um, but just because the SJC has an intramural debate on something doesn't mean we can't perfect our record, so they no longer have to have those debates.
00:11:41.840 --> 00:11:50.320
If it's clearly in our constitution, then it resolves that issue and you could just move on and have these minutes officially subjected to review.
00:11:50.559 --> 00:11:58.720
But uh it's a to me, it's a no-brainer because of the nature of constitutional actions being taken by the church within those meetings.
00:11:58.879 --> 00:12:00.799
They have to be reviewed, in my mind.
00:12:01.279 --> 00:12:03.840
Do you think the SJC also does intermural frisbee?
00:12:04.080 --> 00:12:08.879
Like they've got the debates, but then they they take a break to go play some ultimate, you know, on the side?
00:12:10.480 --> 00:12:11.440
There's 24 of them.
00:12:11.679 --> 00:12:12.799
I could have a few teams, right?
00:12:12.879 --> 00:12:13.279
I mean, yeah.
00:12:15.600 --> 00:12:36.399
Well, if y'all are good, we'll go on to item number two, which is uh uh it's uh it's adding a section to BCO twelve, uh section it would add section eight, and then adjust uh eight to nine and nine to ten, uh requiring session and diaconate members to be listed um in uh annually in the session records.
00:12:36.639 --> 00:12:40.559
Um this again got got sort of debated.
00:12:40.639 --> 00:12:44.000
Uh it has sixty percent approval from the OC.
00:12:44.159 --> 00:12:44.960
It was amended.
00:12:45.039 --> 00:12:46.720
You guys might have to remind me what the amendment is.
00:12:46.799 --> 00:12:51.279
I'll have to pull up the original overture, but then it did get it got adopted by the General Assembly.
00:12:51.440 --> 00:12:55.759
There was no debate uh from what I can tell, and it just is cruising down.
00:12:55.919 --> 00:12:58.399
So um Y'all got any thoughts?
00:12:58.480 --> 00:13:00.080
Maybe this is worth comparing to the original.
00:13:00.559 --> 00:13:02.000
I think Jared may have been the amender.
00:13:02.320 --> 00:13:02.559
Overture.
00:13:02.720 --> 00:13:03.600
Oh, did you amend it?
00:13:03.759 --> 00:13:04.159
I thought that.
00:13:04.399 --> 00:13:05.279
I actually did, yes.
00:13:05.519 --> 00:13:07.679
Jared was we've got him in the room.
00:13:07.840 --> 00:13:08.399
Here we go.
00:13:09.279 --> 00:13:18.639
Well, the way it reads now, it's just every session shall annually record in its minutes a list of all persons who comprise the session and the diaconate.
00:13:18.960 --> 00:13:26.399
Uh so this would be a role of those people who are ordained and serving on those boards included in your minutes.
00:13:26.639 --> 00:13:34.799
Uh originally there's an extra line on there on if the if the duties of the diaconate are falling on somebody else to say who that is and what they're doing.
00:13:35.039 --> 00:13:44.480
Uh CCB had a problem with that because it said it already says that if it's if the diaconate doesn't exist, those duties are supposed to be done by the session.
00:13:44.639 --> 00:13:47.600
So you're suggesting that it could be done by somebody else.
00:13:47.919 --> 00:13:50.159
So either you could change the wording or delete it.
00:13:50.399 --> 00:13:52.159
I think it's just cleaner to delete it.
00:13:52.320 --> 00:13:57.120
Um this is partly coming from some of the debates around surrounding the diaconate.
00:13:57.519 --> 00:14:02.799
And you know, there are some churches that will not have a ordained diaconate and have other people that are doing it.
00:14:03.120 --> 00:14:08.559
Um deleting that last line takes it a little bit out of that sort of debate, though.
00:14:09.039 --> 00:14:13.120
Um I I think it was uh Coffin even on this.
00:14:13.360 --> 00:14:20.480
He said, uh, regardless of current controversies, this is a reasonable requirement for session record keeping and for presbytery oversight.
00:14:20.799 --> 00:14:25.759
And the reason for that is um this was debated in my presbytery because we sent it up.
00:14:26.320 --> 00:14:31.120
The reason is uh a lot of our churches have term elders and deacon boards.
00:14:31.600 --> 00:14:36.080
And so we don't even know like who is supposed to be on here for having a quorum.
00:14:36.320 --> 00:14:39.679
Uh who is who is allowed to vote and not vote in in something.
00:14:39.759 --> 00:14:44.720
If somebody shows up who's not on the board, you know, if he makes a motion, that there's a problem there, right?
00:14:45.120 --> 00:14:52.879
Um so it helps with actually knowing like quorums for it, who can vote and who can't, and make a motion uh in your minutes.
00:14:53.120 --> 00:14:54.720
Uh it becomes helpful too.
00:14:54.799 --> 00:15:06.159
Like uh some presbyteries already have this in their directories, but this would help put it in the minutes and put it before them uh to say, hey, we reviewed this church and they're down to one elder.
00:15:06.480 --> 00:15:22.559
And maybe Presbytery needs to step in to tell them this is getting to be an emergency and you need to, you know, uh figure out if there's somebody else that is uh qualified to serve, or do we need to have some sort of a um a help with a um borrowed session, something like that, if something were to happen.
00:15:22.639 --> 00:15:27.039
Uh or some if a church doesn't have a diaconate, you can ask the question why?
00:15:27.200 --> 00:15:30.960
Maybe they don't they've never functioned with one, they need some help in getting uh one.
00:15:31.279 --> 00:15:34.080
Um so there's a lot of it can also encourage cooperation.
00:15:34.159 --> 00:15:37.519
Okay, these diaconids now know who each other are in these different churches.
00:15:37.840 --> 00:15:40.480
Um they can get along and and work with each other.
00:15:40.639 --> 00:15:49.919
So it started as a it almost started as a review control type act, and then um at least in my mind, then it becomes kind of a help and cooperate.
00:15:50.320 --> 00:15:59.679
Uh this is just helpful in knowing um how to review the rest of the minutes and if there's something that's going on where this church needs some help.
00:15:59.840 --> 00:16:11.440
Uh again, if if you have an attitude towards the presbytery that they're there uh for your benefit, this could be helpful for uh sessions to include this uh in their in their minutes every year.
00:16:11.759 --> 00:16:13.360
Is there anything else to say, Scott?
00:16:13.840 --> 00:16:23.600
I think Jared, I mean the general debate again is kind of similar to the last item where it's uh requiring more of churches, right?
00:16:23.840 --> 00:16:32.799
Now in yearly reviews, if we adopt this, we'll have to you know check for it to ensure that uh local churches are actually submitting those names.
00:16:33.039 --> 00:16:49.519
Um with the original overture, I think some in the PCA thought that it was trying to um more focus, get more focus on uh women's ordination within the context of the PCA with diaconates or other bodies within the church.
00:16:49.759 --> 00:16:59.360
And so that's perhaps why there is some division in the OC itself is thinking along those sort of quote unquote party lines on an issue.
00:16:59.919 --> 00:17:08.640
Yeah, it was 67%, and part of it was this was during the same debate as uh debates on the diaconate and those other overtures.
00:17:09.039 --> 00:17:10.640
And so it was kind of put in that.
00:17:10.720 --> 00:17:20.880
Although deleting the last line makes it more of a long-lasting, just good uh I idea, I think, in in putting this uh just a list.
00:17:20.960 --> 00:17:28.799
All you gotta do is put who's on your session and who's on your diaconate um to know whether or not they need to look for a diaconate minutes, and if you don't have one right now, they don't need to look for that.
00:17:28.880 --> 00:17:36.960
Um so if you can take this out of the deaconate debate, um then I think you can it would probably get more uh support.
00:17:37.359 --> 00:17:37.680
All right.
00:17:38.960 --> 00:17:45.680
Well, item number three deals with uh BCO fifteen uh about session commissions.
00:17:45.839 --> 00:17:48.000
So but let's see, we should remind listeners.
00:17:48.079 --> 00:17:59.279
So the difference between a commission and a committee, commissions are uh appointed by a court of the church to deliberate and conclude business.
00:17:59.519 --> 00:18:07.119
So uh most commonly you would see Presbytery commissions doing things like installing or ordaining uh teaching elders.
00:18:07.359 --> 00:18:13.839
Um you might have it's it's it's less common, I think, to see a session having a commission to install ruling elders or deacons.
00:18:13.920 --> 00:18:15.119
They usually do it as a whole.
00:18:15.440 --> 00:18:25.119
But you might have a commission of a session conduct a trial or an investigation or something like that, and you want them to be able to do it and conclude the business.
00:18:25.279 --> 00:18:40.319
Uh uh BCO 152 would be amended in this case, uh uh establishing the parameters, I guess the lowest common denominator, quorum, etc., for a session commission.
00:18:40.880 --> 00:18:43.599
Um y'all can correct me if I'm wrong.
00:18:43.759 --> 00:18:54.880
It seems that the intention is to prevent a session from delegating uh commission power to an individual elder, uh or or a very small portion at least.
00:18:55.119 --> 00:19:07.920
Um and so this would this would make it uh every commission has to be at least two elders with a any combination of teaching or ruling, and the quorum is the greater of two elders or one half the membership of the commission.
00:19:08.079 --> 00:19:11.599
So the context here is a little more than that.
00:19:11.839 --> 00:19:25.680
It includes um there this was not clear what consists of a session commission, what how many, and there had been some advice given that it should mirror a presbytery commission.
00:19:25.920 --> 00:19:47.440
Well, the problem with such uh a presumption is that uh presbyteries often have a whole litany of teaching elders that are required to be on the commission, and in a church context, there might be only one teaching elder on staff, and so if you if that is the setting for your commission, then you can never have a commission because there's only one pastor.
00:19:47.759 --> 00:20:06.720
Um, and so this was to perhaps grant some clarity on if you are to do a commission in the local church, no, it doesn't need to mirror the composition of the presbytery because the presbytery has a larger pool of individuals, and so you may be very easy to find two teaching elders and two ruling elders.
00:20:06.799 --> 00:20:17.359
Um, but in the context of a local church, my own church, um, if you were to take that analogy and apply it, which was advice given, then you can never do it.
00:20:17.519 --> 00:20:25.599
And so this just clarifies that no, it just needs to be two elders, um, and the quorum for that is uh explained there.
00:20:25.759 --> 00:20:34.799
And so it's meant to provide clarity where there was a lack, that you don't need to have the same sort of expectation from the presbytery to the local church.
00:20:35.200 --> 00:20:44.960
Yeah, it g it maintains plurality in that you need to have at least two, but give some flexibility so that it's not those those sort of uh quorum requirements of the presbytery.
00:20:45.200 --> 00:20:52.079
So uh in the end it ended up getting eighty eighty-five percent uh once those those things were clarified.
00:20:52.319 --> 00:20:56.880
So uh this was not as contentious once once those things were resolved.
00:20:57.519 --> 00:21:02.799
Yeah, I think I was not a fan of this, uh, but then once it was resolved, it was a little bit easier to jump on.
00:21:03.200 --> 00:21:09.359
Yeah, though there were some amendments here that kind of cleared up, made it a little clearer what its intention was.
00:21:10.000 --> 00:21:22.319
Um the two elders or one half of the membership was confusing until um I think it was Steve Tipton made some amendments to actually clarify the structure uh of what it's trying to communicate.
00:21:22.400 --> 00:21:26.240
And so after that was done, it in my mind it became really easy.
00:21:26.480 --> 00:21:31.440
But we shouldn't expect Presbytery commission requirements to be imposed upon local sessions.
00:21:31.519 --> 00:21:33.519
I think that is too much of a burden.
00:21:33.599 --> 00:21:35.839
And so this this is a good addition.
00:21:36.319 --> 00:21:43.119
But besides judicial commissions, where would have you guys heard of or seen sessions using commissions for other purposes?
00:21:43.519 --> 00:21:44.880
Um membership interviews.
00:21:45.039 --> 00:21:55.440
You might you know, you might say, Okay, the pastor's gonna meet with one ruling elder in a family for a profession of faith for maybe a little girl or a family that's coming in.
00:21:55.519 --> 00:21:56.960
I think that's probably the most common.
00:21:57.519 --> 00:22:10.160
It could also be to appoint somebody to go to Presbytery or something like that, but then you could be like, okay, clerk and chair, you guys can uh if if that needs to change, you guys can work it out and appoint somebody different for Presbytery.
00:22:11.119 --> 00:22:14.640
If you have a super large church, you probably have more opportunities.
00:22:15.359 --> 00:22:21.039
You know, if you have a a session of 30, you probably have a lot of opportunities to do commissions.
00:22:21.599 --> 00:22:24.720
I was gonna say we so there's there's 10 of us on our session.
00:22:25.039 --> 00:22:27.039
And we do send out for some work.
00:22:27.119 --> 00:22:28.400
Usually we do committee stuff.
00:22:28.480 --> 00:22:29.680
We don't do commissions, you know.
00:22:29.759 --> 00:22:36.240
Even for new members, it's like, hey, you guys go interview them, but then come back next week and let us know and we'll we'll do it approve it on our own.
00:22:36.400 --> 00:22:37.519
But yeah.
00:22:37.680 --> 00:22:43.759
Yeah, I'm sure there's a once you get to a certain size, you can send people out to take care of business.
00:22:44.240 --> 00:22:45.599
All right, let's look at number four.
00:22:45.759 --> 00:22:50.000
Item number four dealing with uh BCO 32 and 42.
00:22:50.240 --> 00:22:54.640
This is clarifying the contents of a record of the case in judicial cases.
00:22:54.799 --> 00:23:12.079
Um so those of you who have been involved in uh judicial cases, you know there's a document called the record of the case or the ROC that is assembled um for the the review of the courts dealing with the the matters coming up, and so this just uh adjusts it a little bit.
00:23:12.319 --> 00:23:18.960
Um Scott, you might be able to recall off the top of your head or at least look through it faster than me and tell us what it's adding.
00:23:19.839 --> 00:23:24.480
Um Jared, or I can read for a second.
00:23:25.599 --> 00:23:27.680
We're all we're all oblivious to this.
00:23:27.920 --> 00:23:29.039
We're all reading.
00:23:29.440 --> 00:23:43.519
Instead of just having some of uh the materials, this would include the minutes that you've taken uh to make sure that you have a full record of the case uh when it comes, especially if it's going to be reviewed if it becomes part of a trial at um higher levels.
00:23:43.680 --> 00:23:57.599
Um I was just looking at um people who were on the standing judicial commission, and it seemed like they all seemed to be pretty positive to this, and they probably gotten partial records of the case where they needed something that they didn't send to them.
00:23:57.759 --> 00:24:02.640
So this is just including uh more of what it is they're gonna need in order to make a review of it.
00:24:02.880 --> 00:24:06.240
In the end, it didn't end up being very controversial.
00:24:06.319 --> 00:24:09.200
Uh it was 94% of the uh overtures committee.
00:24:09.680 --> 00:24:12.480
There's four people who didn't like it that voted against it.
00:24:12.720 --> 00:24:15.839
So um uh yeah.
00:24:16.400 --> 00:24:21.279
Sometimes when I see like someone vote against something like this, I'm just like, do they like fall asleep at the wheel?
00:24:21.359 --> 00:24:24.640
Do they like accidentally vote against this?
00:24:24.960 --> 00:24:35.519
Because it's uh I mean it's just a simple clarification to include all the records rather than you know individual parts of the records that were most germane, like no, just all the records.
00:24:36.000 --> 00:24:36.160
Yeah.
00:24:39.200 --> 00:24:39.680
You need that.
00:24:40.079 --> 00:24:43.599
With digital records, it's just about pulling files over anymore, anyway.
00:24:44.000 --> 00:24:51.920
Well, it said record of the testimony, and they changed that to proceedings, um, and then they listed some stuff, citations, documents, all this kind of stuff.
00:24:52.160 --> 00:24:57.759
I mean the general rule I would think is that the more information you can have in cases of process, the better.
00:24:57.920 --> 00:25:08.720
Especially for uh a higher court reviewing something come up from the lower, they they need more uh help understanding all the pieces, and so it it's not a bad idea to have more information.
00:25:08.799 --> 00:25:15.759
And to Jerry's point, we have much of it available so easily, why not just have it stuck in the record?
00:25:16.079 --> 00:25:20.480
Of course the SJC already deals with multi-thousand page records of the case.
00:25:20.559 --> 00:25:23.039
There's no telling what this is gonna turn it into in the long run.
00:25:23.119 --> 00:25:26.880
But I think this is more of a like a change without a distinction.
00:25:26.960 --> 00:25:42.559
I think they kind of try to get all this information already, and this kind of just gives a little clarity on the the front end so that a clerk submits all of his stuff rather than you know part of it, and then they gotta go back and say, hey, do you have this?
00:25:42.640 --> 00:25:43.440
Hey, do you have that?
00:25:43.599 --> 00:25:43.759
Yeah.
00:25:43.920 --> 00:25:49.279
I think it's meant to ease up that process because I think they collect most of this, if not all, already.
00:25:49.599 --> 00:25:50.799
Cool, cool, cool, cool, cool.
00:25:50.880 --> 00:25:53.759
Item five amends BCO 34.
00:25:54.160 --> 00:25:56.000
This comes from Overture 27.
00:25:56.480 --> 00:26:14.160
Um this was it was amended by the Overtures Committee and adopted by the assembly, um, which would well, one of y'all might have to get into this because I think this was one of the ones that I didn't like, but then they amended it, and I don't understand how the amendment worked, and so Well, thirty four numbers.
00:26:14.240 --> 00:26:18.079
I was told there would be no math when I went to seminary, so this is ridiculous.
00:26:18.480 --> 00:26:30.000
So uh 34-1 was was something that we had voted to amend, and it fell just short in the Presbyteries to get that done a couple years ago.
00:26:30.480 --> 00:26:39.359
And 34-1 originally was a provision that's new to the PCA that comes from experiences that we had uh in the main line.
00:26:39.599 --> 00:26:47.839
There was a professor who was uh basically teaching out downright heresy in regards to Christology and things like that at Union.
00:26:48.000 --> 00:26:56.240
Um, and they realized that because of the structure of the BCO, if that if that presbytery wanted to protect that person, you couldn't get at it.
00:26:56.720 --> 00:27:07.759
And so this was put in there to say if there is a presbytery that's gone rogued is protecting somebody that is is teaching rank heresy, um, or there's maybe they're protecting somebody because of a moral matter, who knows?
00:27:07.839 --> 00:27:17.119
Uh that there is a a mechanism that other presbyteries can say, no, the standing judicial commission is going to get this because you've refused to act.
00:27:17.680 --> 00:27:21.839
The problem had been refuse to act became okay, what is refuse to act?
00:27:22.000 --> 00:27:31.119
Refuse to find them guilty, refuse to do an investigation because after a while you could just say, well, we looked into it, or we did an investigation and said there's no strong presumption of guilt.
00:27:31.599 --> 00:27:32.960
And so we acted.
00:27:33.279 --> 00:27:36.960
And so this became useless in our in our BCO.
00:27:37.519 --> 00:27:39.680
It really hasn't been uh used before.
00:27:40.240 --> 00:27:43.519
Um it was attempted before, I think, with 10%.
00:27:44.720 --> 00:27:47.759
Uh now it's being tried again by 20%.
00:27:48.960 --> 00:27:56.079
And instead of refuses to act, would be fine, no uh strong presumption of guilt or otherwise, declines to indict.
00:27:56.400 --> 00:28:00.319
So there's something that they're not going to try that everybody thinks they should.
00:28:00.960 --> 00:28:04.400
And um now you need to get 20% of other Presbyteries.
00:28:04.640 --> 00:28:06.960
That's a lot higher than the other one that we have tried.
00:28:07.440 --> 00:28:32.319
But some of this came from I I don't know if I can get too much into the backroom uh uh talkings, but I I mean you saw Mel and Howie and and Steve Tipton talking, and there was there's kind of this um attitude that like if you put it at 20%, that's gonna have to be something really big, like something that everybody else in the in the entire denomination says that's wrong, and for some reason this presbytery's gone rogue.
00:28:32.720 --> 00:28:34.319
This would actually make it functional.
00:28:34.640 --> 00:28:36.480
Um it changes, refuses to act.
00:28:36.559 --> 00:28:45.200
It has a really high bar, but the the calculus I think was this would actually make it function versus it's just functionless.
00:28:45.440 --> 00:28:55.039
So we'll take it even with a very high bar of 20% uh presbyteries have to uh request um versus just having something that's non-functional.
00:28:55.200 --> 00:28:58.000
Uh the original author of this did not like that.
00:28:58.079 --> 00:29:12.400
He wanted it lower, although some of the context of it didn't work when we tried it lower uh can tell you a little bit why on OC it was 92% to do this, because they said, let's try to do something that functions rather than just have a um a broken part of our BCO.
00:29:12.799 --> 00:29:15.920
Yeah, and there could be further tinkering in the future, right?
00:29:16.000 --> 00:29:27.200
Like just because we have this provision now, maybe it proves too high of a threshold, and there's a heinous sin that we can only, you know, only 15% of the Presbyteries reach out.
00:29:27.279 --> 00:29:29.519
Well, that might lead to change then.
00:29:29.759 --> 00:29:50.880
And so it I think the the sheer clarifying the refuses to act, what it's meant by it by finding no strong presumption of guilt is a worthy clarification, even if it makes the overall amendment um you know less less used, because it'll certainly be less used, maybe never used.
00:29:50.960 --> 00:29:52.720
I don't think we've ever used this anyway.
00:29:52.960 --> 00:29:55.359
So yeah.
00:29:56.079 --> 00:30:03.359
If if uh if Howie and and Mel can agree on something, then maybe it's worthy of consideration for the rest of us.
00:30:03.759 --> 00:30:04.079
Wow.
00:30:06.160 --> 00:30:06.720
Yeah.
00:30:07.279 --> 00:30:09.119
Was it not awful until I said something?
00:30:09.279 --> 00:30:09.440
Okay.
00:30:09.920 --> 00:30:10.880
Am I not allowed to say it?
00:30:10.960 --> 00:30:14.079
Sometimes I find out after the fact that I'm not allowed to say something.
00:30:14.480 --> 00:30:15.680
You can say whatever you want.
00:30:15.839 --> 00:30:22.720
I mean I I I have to before we jump into item six, I have to tell a story on Scott.
00:30:22.880 --> 00:30:37.359
He texted me the day about um we were in a we were in a chat group with some guys and we were gonna start uh interacting on a more regular basis, and Scott's comment was I only want to interact this much if we're also having a podcast out of this thing.
00:30:39.440 --> 00:30:42.640
I only I only want to see you this often if we're gonna produce something.
00:30:42.720 --> 00:30:45.599
I don't need to see you that much uh if if not otherwise.
00:30:45.839 --> 00:30:46.799
It made me laugh.
00:30:47.039 --> 00:30:51.200
It may it reminded me the only reason we have podcasts is uh in order to make friends.
00:30:51.279 --> 00:30:53.039
That's the only that's the only purpose of being here.
00:30:55.839 --> 00:30:56.960
I hope it works one day.
00:30:57.119 --> 00:30:58.000
Uh you know.
00:30:58.640 --> 00:31:14.960
Item number six would amend BCO 42 and 43 by really what only adding a couple of words in here uh in order to clarify deadlines for filing uh in matters of appeal and complaint.
00:31:15.359 --> 00:31:19.440
Uh and so it would be 30 days of written notification.
00:31:19.599 --> 00:31:32.480
Uh you'd have to file within 30 days of written notification, and then um it it adjusts to say that notification uh occurs on a particular day and is not deemed to have occurred on a particular particular day.
00:31:32.720 --> 00:31:36.480
Scott, is this similar to the one that you sent up from Iliana?
00:31:36.799 --> 00:31:38.720
Or is it it's too disconnected?
00:31:39.200 --> 00:31:42.960
Yeah, that went down in fiery flames about that.
00:31:43.279 --> 00:31:43.680
Okay, sorry.
00:31:43.839 --> 00:31:46.160
Sorry, happy birthday.
00:31:46.319 --> 00:31:49.359
Um just for these kind providences.
00:31:49.839 --> 00:31:54.640
Eggert convinced me that 15 was a good one to support, and and so I did in the long run.
00:31:54.720 --> 00:31:57.519
Uh that's where this overture came from, overture 15.
00:31:57.680 --> 00:31:59.680
Um you guys have any thoughts on it?
00:31:59.759 --> 00:32:01.039
You want to talk about it at all?
00:32:01.359 --> 00:32:17.119
I I think it it just it's a really small change that that does help clarify the the outer ends of when a court can reject or receive um uh a complaint.
00:32:17.279 --> 00:32:22.319
Um, and so I think that's all this really, these deadlines are just clarifying.
00:32:22.400 --> 00:32:26.079
Well, is it when the person receives it or is it when it's mailed?
00:32:26.400 --> 00:32:29.359
That's really like the question for it.
00:32:29.440 --> 00:32:32.880
And so it just simplifies that notes when it's mailed.
00:32:32.960 --> 00:32:42.559
It just has to have the right postage date on it, not necessarily the reception date, which allows a little latitude in the mailing of that document.
00:32:42.640 --> 00:32:53.200
And so just because it's 30 days um or whatever, doesn't it may it may be actually 40 days uh given that the reception might be a little further out.
00:32:53.680 --> 00:33:01.839
I think it's a simple it's taking the UP USPS error out of it, you know, something gets lost in the mail or something like that.
00:33:02.000 --> 00:33:06.880
It allows for a little more liberty to receive these sorts of correspondence.
00:33:07.519 --> 00:33:20.240
Yeah, I'll just note that it was 87% in the overtures committee, and then looking through you had Eggert, you had uh Donahoe, you had Coffin, and you had Ratliff uh all uh thinking that it was a good clarification.
00:33:20.319 --> 00:33:21.839
So I wasn't at first.
00:33:21.920 --> 00:33:23.920
Eggert called me and had a conversation with me.
00:33:24.079 --> 00:33:25.680
He's like, you need to change your opinion on this.
00:33:25.839 --> 00:33:26.480
I was like, why?
00:33:26.640 --> 00:33:28.640
And then he taught he explained it and I was like, no, you're right.
00:33:28.799 --> 00:33:29.839
Okay, cool.
00:33:30.240 --> 00:33:30.960
Thank you.
00:33:31.359 --> 00:33:32.880
Yeah, no, it's worthy.
00:33:33.119 --> 00:33:34.960
It's a good simple solution.
00:33:35.200 --> 00:33:35.839
Yeah.
00:33:36.160 --> 00:33:46.640
Alright, last one on here is item number seven to amend uh BCO 33 in a couple of places to clarify what it means or to circularize the court.
00:33:46.960 --> 00:33:59.119
So uh until now there's been this statement at the end of 43.2 uh that says no attempt, which has to deal with complaints, no attempt should be made to circularize the court to which complaint is being made by either party.
00:33:59.359 --> 00:34:08.960
Um and so that I've run into situations where I have guys saying, like, wait, there's a complaint being made to our Presbytery and we're gonna deal with it, but we're not allowed to talk about it, which is kind of what this sentence implies.
00:34:09.119 --> 00:34:25.280
And so we moved it down further, so that there should be no attempt, we moved that whole line to the end of 43.3, if we approve this, that it actually has to do with when you're move when you're moving up through the courts, you shouldn't try to circularize the courts above you based on you know your opinion or whatever, especially with the SJC.
00:34:25.360 --> 00:34:29.360
And so it just sticks it in the right place, more or less, and gives us a good definition.
00:34:29.519 --> 00:34:31.760
But you guys should should jump in and say what you think here.
00:34:31.840 --> 00:34:33.679
Um I'm a fan of this move.
00:34:34.000 --> 00:34:34.800
Yeah, there is.
00:34:34.960 --> 00:34:46.960
I mean, I every Presbyterian I'm in, there's always this like um boogeyman uh that's always said during a controversial thing, like, we gotta be careful that we don't circularize the court here.
00:34:47.119 --> 00:34:51.360
And it's like, well, you can't circularize the court in which we're debating an item.
00:34:51.519 --> 00:34:52.000
Yeah, yeah.
00:34:52.159 --> 00:35:02.159
Um, and so it I think this is a very, very, very helpful clarification that the business before the court is the business before the court, and it's okay to debate it.
00:35:02.239 --> 00:35:06.400
It's okay to talk about it, it's okay to have conversations about it, even private conversations about it.
00:35:06.559 --> 00:35:22.159
What is not okay is after the court makes a decision on something and there's an appeal, that you reach out to all of your like SJC friends or your Presbytery friends, if it's your local church, and try to sway them before the matter is properly before them.
00:35:22.320 --> 00:35:28.000
And then that's why I think it fits really well with whenever you have a friend from the SJC talking about something.
00:35:28.159 --> 00:35:29.760
They always have this clarifying statement.
00:35:29.840 --> 00:35:39.920
I think Mel loves making the clarifying statement when he's on the SJC that you know this is not related to anything pending or impending a case before the SJC.
00:35:40.079 --> 00:35:41.599
That that's like what this is getting at.
00:35:41.679 --> 00:35:49.119
It's getting at that idea of a man being swayed before businesses properly before their jurisdiction.
00:35:49.199 --> 00:35:57.199
It's okay to have debates and interlocking discussions, even private discussions on a matter that's justly before the court.
00:35:57.360 --> 00:36:06.880
It's a whole other thing to try to sway a bunch of friends before the matters properly before them and to poison the well, as it were.
00:36:07.199 --> 00:36:08.079
Well said.
00:36:08.320 --> 00:36:11.039
Yeah, this was 95% in Overture's committee.
00:36:11.119 --> 00:36:13.760
I think it was the same four guys that voted against it.
00:36:13.840 --> 00:36:14.159
I don't know.
00:36:14.320 --> 00:36:22.320
They were just a little um paperclip on the no, which I can respect on their voter, you know.
00:36:22.960 --> 00:36:24.960
So that's hilarious.
00:36:25.199 --> 00:36:33.760
Well, listeners, these seven items, uh if you're if you're a if you're an elder in the PCA, these seven items will be hitting your presbyteries uh in the the near future, probably.
00:36:33.840 --> 00:36:38.000
I think we we usually deal with ours at either October or January meeting in Covenant.
00:36:38.159 --> 00:36:40.079
Um we were speculating ahead of time.
00:36:40.159 --> 00:36:47.280
Uh it's possible, possible that some Presbyteries may have dealt with this already, but the document, as we record, has only been out for a couple weeks anyway.
00:36:47.519 --> 00:36:56.880
So um if you've met in the last, you know, the first couple weeks of August, uh maybe you have already voted on these, and this episode is of no use to you.
00:36:57.119 --> 00:37:04.559
But um there is there is one item, there is one item that's not for vote that we will have before us for information.
00:37:05.280 --> 00:37:06.800
I wasn't even gonna deal with it because it doesn't matter.
00:37:07.280 --> 00:37:09.519
Yeah, it doesn't matter because it's already part of the Constitution.
00:37:09.760 --> 00:37:27.679
But there there was an overture this year to re-add something to our Constitution that was never justly removed um in BCO 29.1 on at the very end of it, as it uh adding um that which cannot be proved to be from such scriptures as interpreted in these standards.
00:37:27.840 --> 00:37:35.840
That last little phrase um in 29.1 uh was removed at some point clerically on accident.
00:37:36.079 --> 00:37:39.679
Um and so there was a debate on overture on accident.
00:37:39.760 --> 00:37:40.559
Yeah, that's right.
00:37:41.280 --> 00:37:42.480
Air quotes on accident.
00:37:42.800 --> 00:37:44.079
Oh, I did not do air quotes too.
00:37:44.159 --> 00:37:45.360
Oh no, I never did such a thing.
00:37:45.679 --> 00:37:47.199
Very new, nefarious.
00:37:47.440 --> 00:37:52.159
Someone nefariously removed the that phrase from from the VCO.
00:37:52.320 --> 00:37:54.719
And so we had an overture on to re-add it.
00:37:54.800 --> 00:38:04.239
Uh, but the overtures committee um with Guy Waters determined that it's moot, that it should just be automatically re-added constitutionally because it was never removed.
00:38:04.480 --> 00:38:11.039
Just because it didn't have a presence within our current book doesn't mean that um it shouldn't be in future books.
00:38:11.119 --> 00:38:15.760
Um, it was an error somewhere along the lines, and it's it's a long-standing error.
00:38:15.840 --> 00:38:20.400
It wasn't something it was newly found, um, but uh it was never actually removed.
00:38:20.480 --> 00:38:26.880
And so there's just a point of information in the document that if you look at it, it's that's why it's there.
00:38:26.960 --> 00:38:33.920
It's because it's already part of our constitution, but it's unique in that it hasn't been in our written constitution for some time.
00:38:34.239 --> 00:38:39.360
So keep an eye on your Presbyterian agendas, uh dockets, make sure you're there ready to vote.
00:38:39.440 --> 00:38:45.840
Uh if you're if your church is sending ruling elders, guys, make sure you're uh sending all that you can.
00:38:46.159 --> 00:38:48.000
Go vote on these things.
00:38:48.400 --> 00:38:51.119
And um yeah, let us know.
00:38:51.280 --> 00:39:02.880
We will uh Scott, we'll I'll find a link, but your your uh original uh tracker is now a part of the AC's work, and so there's a part on the AC website where folks can go track BCO amendments.
00:39:03.039 --> 00:39:05.840
Um we'll make sure that we've got a link there.
00:39:05.920 --> 00:39:07.679
And uh yeah.
00:39:08.159 --> 00:39:09.440
I think that's it.
00:39:09.679 --> 00:39:13.679
Um as the birthday boy would say, this podcast is over.
00:39:13.920 --> 00:39:19.920
If you're interested in learning more about what we've talked about, you can check out the show notes in your podcast player or at Politymatters.org.
00:39:20.079 --> 00:39:26.800
If you've enjoyed the show, consider following us on Twitter and Facebook at Polity Matters, and be sure to be subscribed in your podcast app of choice.
00:39:27.119 --> 00:39:29.119
There's a link below to support our work.
00:39:29.280 --> 00:39:38.960
Uh I I wonder if some of the listeners have been uh uh thinking through whether they should pull their support because we were finishing the Book of Church Order, and I just want to say we're not done.
00:39:39.199 --> 00:39:42.480
We uh we've we in many ways we feel like we're just getting started.
00:39:42.639 --> 00:39:44.320
So uh please support our work.
00:39:44.400 --> 00:39:46.159
It really does help keep the lights on.
00:39:46.320 --> 00:39:55.360
Um we we would like to expand in some ways that we're considering, and some of that will require financial support, and uh so uh please do that.
00:39:55.519 --> 00:40:00.239
There's a if you'd like to support, uh, get connected through buymeacoffee.com.
00:40:00.320 --> 00:40:01.679
The links down below, you can find it.
00:40:01.760 --> 00:40:09.920
But what we do have available on a regular basis is a signal chat group only for supporters, uh, our Polity Nerds chat, and we have a good time in there.
00:40:10.000 --> 00:40:18.159
Uh you can you can ask questions of all the other guys that are that are interested in Polity and get some thoughts and help from all different aspects of the PCA.
00:40:18.239 --> 00:40:22.880
So uh jump in there if that interests you and help support the work of Polity Matters.
00:40:22.960 --> 00:40:27.440
If you've got questions or comments, you can contact us at Politymattersfeedback at gmail.com.
00:40:27.519 --> 00:40:31.840
You can also find our personal accounts on Twitter and uh and you can you can connect with us there.
00:40:31.920 --> 00:40:33.840
So that's all I've got to say for today.
00:40:33.920 --> 00:40:35.760
Thanks again for spending your time with us.
00:40:35.920 --> 00:40:38.320
Until next time, say goodbye, gentlemen.
00:40:38.800 --> 00:40:40.400
Goodbye, goodbye.
00:40:40.639 --> 00:40:41.920
Y'all take care.
