Book of Order amendments 24-A and 24-C were passed with substantial super-majorities by both the General Assembly and presbyteries across the country. That action was a significant step forward in affirming the gifts and calling of people of all gender identities and sexual orientations. Unfortunately, CON-04, which will come before the Constitutional Interpretation committee this Wednesday, threatens to undo that progress, complicate the church’s practices, and harm LGBTQIA+ people.
Overture CON-04 is a solution in search of a problem. I was present for the entire (lengthy!) debate on Amendments 24-A and 24-C at the 2024 assembly; this overture raises no new issues or questions. Indeed, the final language of amendments 24-A and 24-C represented a compromise that proponents and opponents came to agree addressed the very concerns this overture seems to have about “freedom of conscience.” Rehashing the same questions is unnecessary and unhelpful, especially less than a year after the new language was implemented.
Related reading: “Clarity and oversight sought after passage of ‘Olympia Overture’” by Blake Brinegar, Outlook reporting
The majority of the church finds no disagreement or uncertainty about what F-1.0403 and G-2.0401 say: We are committed to avoiding discrimination, and we must consider the meaning of that commitment in making ordination decisions. Freedom of conscience is already explicitly preserved in the text itself and in other parts of the Book of Order (like G-2.0105).
Moreover, the overture’s proposed solution – a special committee making recommendations to a future General Assembly – would do far more harm than good. Special committees are costly in both financial resources and institutional attention. This one would direct denominational energy toward relitigating settled constitutional questions rather than forwarding our witness and mission.
Passing the overture would also undermine the authority of amendments 24-A and 24-C, potentially casting presbyteries and sessions into a strange limbo of waiting to be told what to do, rather than exercising the faithful discernment our system entrusts to them. And if further interpretation truly is required, we already have a process for seeking authoritative interpretations through the General Assembly or judicial process.
Related reading: “A pastoral safety net for all: Why we need CON-04” by Wesley Pak
Finally, passing CON-04 would once again say to LGBTQIA+ Presbyterians that their lives are to be examined and dissected, rather than celebrated and affirmed. It places the intellectual comfort of the privileged over the message that our church is open to the gifts and leadership of all.
However well intentioned, CON-04 would be an unhelpful – and potentially damaging – step in the church’s ongoing discernment around the full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people. It should be disapproved.
