Five Overtures Ruled Unconstitutional

An Appraisal of the PJC Report
on Overtures to Amend G.9-3A

By Yvonne Chapman
RE, Central South Presbytery

Editor’s Note: In a deeply divided decision, the Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) ruled that five proposed overtures that would forbid the ordination of homosexuals were unconstitutional. (PJC Report, Concurrences, and Minority Materials Regarding the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest G.9-3A Overture). In addition, the rulings produced a minority report signed by three members of the PJC (See pp. 10-14 of the above PJC Report). In this article, RE Yvonne Chapman explains why the PJC ruling is both “remarkable and meaningless.” A professional trial lawyer, Chapman served two terms on the PJC and moderated that body for four years.

Executive Summary: There was no unanimous decision by the PJC. The PJC examined the proposed amendments under the “three Cs” test (Clarity, Consistency, Compatibility) and determined by a slim majority — which included a member of the AIC serving on the PJC — that the overtures coming out of five presbyteries were neither consistent in language nor compatible with other provisions of the EPC Constitution. Here is the breakdown of the votes on the PJC examination of each amendment:¹

Amendments proposed by:	Does the amendment satisfy the requirement of clarity of language?	Does the amendment satisfy the requirement of consistency of language?	Does the amendment satisfy the requirement of compatibility with other provisions of the EPC Constitution
AIC	Yes. Vote: 7-2.	Yes. Vote: 8-1	Yes. Vote: 8-1
Pacific Northwest	Yes. Vote: 4-3, with one abstention.	No. Vote 5-3	No. Vote: 5-3.
West	Yes. Vote: 8-1.	No. Vote: 5-4.	No. Vote: 5-4.

Despite these findings, the PJC made no recommendation to the General Assembly on either accepting or rejecting any of these amendments, including that of the AIC. Furthermore, in the matter of the PNW overture, members of the PJC issued not only a Majority Report, but two Concurring with the majority reports, plus a Minority Report with a Concurring with a minority report. None of this is customary practice and creates an extra obstacle for these overtures to reach the floor of the Assembly for consideration. The PJC report was not only ambiguous and conflicting but provided little or nothing in the way of cogent recommendations.

Remarkable and Meaningless

It is difficult to respond to the conclusions reached by the Permanent Judicial Commission. This is because so much about the process and results of examining these proposals by the PJC is, on the one hand, remarkable, and, on the other hand, meaningless. As a very wise man said:

I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind. For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow. (Ecclesiastes 1:17-18)

Nevertheless, in order to make sense of it all the reader must accept that the PJC report is not the main issue — and may be the least important factor to consider at the 46th General Assembly. In this article, I offer reasons why the PJC report is deeply flawed and offer some recommendations on what to do about the PJC report and its subject: the proposed amendments.

What Issue Led to the PJC Report?

“The EPC is currently considering whether individuals who identify as homosexual and experience ongoing same-sex attraction may be ordained to leadership in the church. The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is an unnatural desire and contrary to God’s design for his creation. Those who struggle with same-sex attraction deserve our compassion and pastoral care, but they must not be ordained to leadership in the church.”²

This issue is now before the EPC because the Ad Interim Committee (AIC), appointed by the 44th General Assembly,³ determined in its proposed amendments to the Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality that homosexual candidates who experience same sex attraction⁴ may be considered for ordination in the church.⁵ See this affirmation also in the AIC Final Report.⁶

The possibility that any church or presbytery within the EPC would permit ordination of homosexuals is of crucial importance to every person within the denomination who believes that Holy Scripture, “The Bible, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks.”⁷

This crisis prompted several presbyteries⁸ to propose amendments to the Book of Government section 9-3A. Currently, G.9-3A provides as follows:

According to Scripture, those who bear office in the Church should exhibit certain characteristics of life. This includes being above reproach, sound in the faith, wise in the things of God, and discreet in all things. Persons who fill this office should exhibit a lifestyle that is an example to all, both in and outside the Church. A congregation preparing to elect persons to this holy office should carefully study appropriate passages of Scripture relating to the Ruling Elder and be very prayerful in selecting persons to this office.

Four presbyteries proposed to amend G.9-3A with identical language. Collectively, these are referred to as the PNW amendment. The Presbytery of the West (PoW) proposed an almost identical overture to amend G.9-3A, merely omitting the adjective “unnatural” preceding the word “desires.”

Both the PNW and PoW overtures would disqualify any homosexual — including one claiming to be celibate with continuing attraction to the same sex, which the AIC would consider ordaining — from holding office in the church.

By contrast, the AIC is proposing its own amendments to the Book of Government, Sections 9-3A, 9-3B, 12-2.B, 12-3A, 12-3B.1, and 12-6 (collectively, the “AIC Amendments)⁹

All three competing proposals are restated in the tables below.

What is Remarkable About the PJC Report?

1. The PJC did not recommend whether to accept or reject any or all of the competing proposals to amend the Book of Government.

The PJC Report provided no guidance to the Assembly about three competing proposals that may be considered for debate on the floor. Elders commissioned to participate and vote must be able to maneuver through complicated parliamentary procedures set forth in the Rules for Assembly and Robert’s Rules of Order to speak on and consider a preferred amendment.

2. The division indicated by the breakdown of voting within the PJC rendered a recommendation prohibitive.

There was no unanimous decision by the PJC, which is remarkable in itself due to its historic rarity. Clearly, the members of the PJC show a division of opinion similar to that which currently exists in the EPC.

Clearly, there are only two sides in this debate: one advocating for consideration of some homosexuals for ordination and the other advocating against any homosexuals for ordination. Of course, the pro side claims it would consider only the homosexual who claims celibacy although he continues to identify as a homosexual and entertains thoughts of attraction to the same sex.

3. A member of the AIC, who is also a member of the PJC, participated in deliberations and voting on these proposals.

It is apparent from the PJC report that the single member of the AIC who serves also on the PJC participated in deliberating and voting on these overtures, despite there being a conflict of interest. Given the breakdown of the voting members of the PJC shown above, all nine (9) members of the PJC voted on both the AIC and POW overtures; this particular member also deliberated and voted on the PNW overture with seven other members of the PJC — obvious by the submission of his Concurring Opinion to the Report.

In my experience as a former moderator, I would have requested that the conflicted member recuse himself altogether and not attend the deliberation, much less vote, where the conflict is this obvious. We are not privy to the reasons why a recusal was not observed in this instance.¹⁰

This observation is not intended to cast dispersions on that member, nor on the moderator or the PJC as a whole, but to call attention to this remarkable factor as Commissioners make their own assessment on the validity of the PJC report.

4. The PJC failed to fulfill its ministerial role in service to the General Assembly.

The PJC serves within the church and, as such, has a ministerial role just as any other committee or court within the denomination. Therefore, its members serve a ministerial function.¹¹ In that role, the PJC has a duty to help presbyteries and committees in getting proposals to the floor of the Assembly for consideration.¹² The Book of Government specifically provides more than one means for the PJC to fulfill its ministerial role.

The first is that after the PJC examines a proposed amendment for clarity and consistency of language and for compatibility with other provisions of the Constitution, it “shall report its findings to the General Assembly along with its recommendations, which may include an amended version of any proposed constitutional changes as well as advice to accept or decline the proposals referred to the Commission.” G.21-3D.2.b.

In this case, the PJC failed in this ministerial duty. If the PJC had provided an amended version of the five presbyteries combined proposals to amend G.9-3A, the General Assembly would be better equipped to debate on two competing proposals, rather than wasting its time and effort arguing over the meaning of words. That approach would have shown respect to 30 percent of the presbyteries in the EPC, set a clear path on what to debate on the floor, and reduced the frustration and anger among the Commissioners attending the 46th Assembly. In addition, that approach would have returned to the PJC the high regard it once held when it did fulfill its ministerial role.

The second method is found in “Recommendations to the General Assembly” in G.21-3D.4:

The Permanent Judicial Commission shall have the authority to make recommendations of its own to the General Assembly concerning wording, changes, amendments, additions, or other matters relating to the Constitution of the Church.

On its own accord, the PJC could have submitted its own amendment to address this vital issue coming before the Assembly due to the resulting work of the AIC, including its recommended Pastoral Letter and Position Paper.

Perhaps the PJC could have acted as mediator between the AIC and the presbyteries in crafting an amendment that would preserve the purity of the church and provide unity on this issue.

Five of our 16 presbyteries, representing 30 percent of the EPC, proposed amendments to prevent homosexuals from holding office in the churches — which has always been the position of the EPC and was the impetus for its founding.¹³ Within the concept of its own ministerial role, the AIC itself, comprised of seven Teaching Elders and two Ruling Elders, could exhibit pastoral compassion and seek to work with these presbyteries. Why did the AIC not seek to reach a compromise within the bounds of Scripture to prohibit ordination of homosexuals as officers in the church? Have the members of the AIC failed to consider the 330 signers of the Red Line Statement,¹⁴ many of whom represent presbyteries other than the five who have proposed overtures?

Commissioners to the General Assembly, including those who serve on its various committees, interim committees, and permanent committees have shared interests in matters coming before the Assembly. As such, they should be working to preserve the unity of the church and to avoid conflict before it reaches the floor of the General Assembly.

When appointed to participate in Presbytery or General Assembly, (the Ruling Elders) shall watch over the spiritual welfare and participate diligently in the workings of that portion of the Church to which they are commissioned, recognizing that the Evangelical Presbyterian Church is a connectional church. The Ruling Elder shares authority with the Teaching Elder in all of the courts of the Church, in both rights and duties. It is the first duty of the Ruling Elder to represent the mind of Christ, as that person understands it, in the various courts of the Church (G.9-8, emphasis added).

5. The PJC erroneously analyzed the PNW overture under a heightened standard and exceeded its authority by analyzing theological terms and the merits of a theological position.

When analyzing a proposed constitutional amendment, the PJC performs two tests: first, the PJC “shall examine the proposed amendment for clarity and consistency of language;” second, it shall examine the proposed amendment “for compatibility with other provisions of the Constitution.” G.21-3D.2.a.

As indicated in its opinion, and by the breakdown of votes, the PJC subjected the proposal to three tests, rather than two. The Minority Report of the PJC explains, “The PJC separated ‘clarity and consistency of language’ into two categories, and engaged in an extensive exegetical analysis of ‘consistency’ beyond a review of whether the language is in fact internally consistent.”¹⁵

If one reads the PJC opinion on the PNW overture without reference to the proposed overtures themselves, one would overlook the important recitals and preambles in the Overtures of the Pacific Northwest, Central Carolinas, Florida and the Caribbean, and New River. These recitals provide authoritative foundations to their proposals — though not part of the proposed amendment itself — from Holy Scripture, the Westminster Confession, the Westminster Larger Catechism, the EPC’s Position Paper on Homosexuality (1996), and the Position Paper on Human Sexuality (2017).

Although the majority opinion of the PJC declared its task was limited to evaluating the “three-C” criteria pursuant to G.21-3D.2.b and claimed it did not address the merits of the overtures, its extensive analysis of theological applications and interpretations of Scripture clearly did address the merits — matters best left to deliberations on the floor of the Assembly.

The opinion Concurring with the Report of the PJC,¹⁶ May 1, 2026 (TE Zachary Hopkins) recognizes that when, rather than seeking to clarify technical matters in a proposal, the PJC itself deliberates on the essence of the theological matter coming before the Assembly, it interferes and constrains with the deliberative process of the Assembly itself.

The opinion Concurring with the Report of the PJC,¹⁷ (RE Thomas C. Werner) thinks that the PJC did not go far enough in concerning itself with the matter of interpretation of Scripture. According to this opinion, the PJC should consider further whether a constitutional amendment that prohibited ordination of a homosexual would “bind the conscience” of a presbytery who has the right to examine, ordain and install its candidates¹⁸, or whether the PNW overture meets a Biblical standard that is required to be held in unity, and whether the Westminster Confession can determine whether ordination is an essential of the faith which unifies us, or is a non-essential in which we have freedom.

6. There is a PJC Minority Report that finds the PNW Overture compliant with the Constitution.

A minority opinion coming out of the PJC is rare, exceptional, and remarkable. Elders attending the 46th General Assembly should read the Minority Report of the PJC, which provides a reasonable examination of the PNW Overture and concludes:

In conclusion, upon examination, we believe that the PNW Overture is clear, consistent, and compatible, and should pass the 3-C examination, and should be commended to the General Assembly for due consideration with the blessing of the PJC.¹⁹

Why Is the PJC Report Meaningless?

Contrary to a statement in the opinion Concurring with the Minority Report (RE Gordon A. Miller),²⁰ while PJC decisions may resemble a “Court Function,” the PJC is not akin to the Supreme Court. While decisions of the Supreme Court are the final word on a legal case, the PJC is not the final word on issues coming before the General Assembly. The PJC has no authority to decide issues before the General Assembly; it is not a Court within the EPC.

The PJC has the authority to interpret provisions in the Book of Order (G.21-3D.1), examine proposals requesting amendment to the Constitution (G.21-3D.2), and make only preliminary judgments on matters of discipline referred to the General Assembly (G.21-3D.3). In each instance, the PJC shall give reasons for its conclusions on these matters and make a recommendation to the General Assembly. The Assembly itself makes the final decision. The Assembly may ignore any decision or recommendation made by the PJC — the PJC role is only advisory, not final.

What Do We Do About the PJC Report? Vote to Reject.

You are urged to vote to reject the PJC Report on all presbytery overtures proposing amendment to G.9-3A. You also should vote to reject the PJC Report on the AIC proposed constitutional amendments, which compete with the presbytery overtures. Only by voting to reject the PJC Reports can these proposed constitutional amendments be fully debated by Commissioners to the General Assembly.

Vote to reject because:

• The PJC made no recommendation in its opinion;
• The PJC members were profoundly divided in their opinions;
• The PJC permitted a member of the AIC to participate in deliberations and voting on the presbytery overtures and the AIC proposal;
• The PJC failed to fulfill its ministerial role although the Book of Government provides two specific methods to do so;
• The PJC exceeded it review authority by analyzing the theological merits of the proposals.

Conclusion

Commissioners are urged to reject the PJC Report. Commissioners must inform themselves, read the materials, meet with others and discuss the overtures.

Commissioners to the 46th General Assembly are encouraged to be familiar with the Book of Order²¹ and the Rules for Assembly²² regarding the procedures for amending the Constitution. Do not underestimate the role/responsibilities of the Standing Committees.

The choice is ours — let us choose wisely. Approach this duty with prayer and sincere devotion to God, with wisdom and discernment, keeping in mind our responsibility to the Body of Christ.

It is the first duty of the Ruling Elder to represent the mind of Christ, as that person understands it, in the various courts of the Church (G.9-8).

Proposed Amendments to the Book of Government

Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest Amendment (changes indicated in bold): According to Scripture, those who bear office in the church shall exhibit certain characteristics of life. This includes being above reproach, sound in the faith, wise in the things of God, and discreet in all things. Persons who fill these offices shall exhibit a lifestyle that is an example to all, both in and outside the Church. Therefore, persons eligible for church office shall conform in heart, mind, and conduct to God’s design for human sexuality, embracing with gratitude the calling of either chastity in singleness or fidelity within marriage between one man and one woman. Those who profess, persist in, or identify with unnatural desires or affections, contrary to God’s created order and condemned by Scripture as against nature, are disqualified from holding office in Christ’s Church.1 A presbytery or congregation preparing to elect persons to these holy offices shall carefully study appropriate passages of Scripture relating to the Teaching Elder, Ruling Elder, and Deacon, and be very prayerful in electing persons to these offices. 1 See Romans 1:26–27 on desires contrary to God’s created order; Genesis 1–2 on the creation of male and female; Westminster Larger Catechism Q.139 on the moral duties of Christians and the proper ordering of affections.

Presbytery of the West Amendment (changes indicated in bold): According to Scripture, those who bear office in the church shall exhibit certain characteristics of life. This includes being above reproach, sound in the faith, wise in the things of God, and discreet in all things. Persons who fill these offices shall exhibit a lifestyle that is an example to all, both in and outside the Church. Therefore, persons eligible for church office shall conform in heart, mind, and conduct to God’s design for human sexuality, embracing with gratitude the calling of either chastity in singleness or fidelity within marriage between one man and one woman.1 Those who profess, persist in, or identify with desires or affections contrary to God’s created order and condemned by Scripture as against nature, are disqualified2 from holding office in Christ’s Church.3 A presbytery or congregation preparing to elect persons to these holy offices shall carefully study appropriate passages of Scripture relating to the Teaching Elder, Ruling Elder, and Deacon, and be very prayerful in electing persons to these offices. 1 See Westminster Confession of Faith 24:1. 2 While these individuals are disqualified from ordination, repentant believers with such ongoing yet not embraced unnatural desires are true believers and included in Christ’s church. Likewise, by the redemption of Jesus Christ, such desires and the resulting disqualification may be removed in this life. 3 See Romans 1:26–27 on desires contrary to God’s created order; Genesis 1–2 on the creation of male and female; Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 138-139 and 150-151 on the moral duties of Christians and the proper ordering of affections, especially for those in church leadership and be very prayerful in electing persons to these offices.

 ____________________

¹ The PJC did not issue separate decisions regarding the other three ascending overtures (Central Carolinas, Florida and the Caribbean, and New River), since the language of the proposed amendment is the same, but simply made reference to the Pacific Northwest decision.

² “A Letter from Andrew Brunson,” Presbyterian Plumb Line, Volume 2 Issue 2.

³ See Act of Assembly 24-05, also set forth verbatim in the AIC Final Report.

⁴ In its Pastoral Letter, the Ad Interim Committee uses the phrase “latent propensity.” The Cambridge dictionary defines these words as follows: latent (adjective) – present, but not yet active, developed, or obvious; propensity (noun) – a tendency to behave in a particular way.

⁵ See “Our Counsel to Pastors, Session, and Presbyteries” Pastoral Letter chapter on Homosexuality and Same Sex Attraction, p. 11, lines 3-6.

⁶ AIC Final Report, p. 3.

⁷ Essentials of Our Faith, p. iv.

⁸ See Ascending Overtures to Amend G.9-3A from Central Carolinas Presbytery, Florida and the Caribbean Presbytery, New River Presbytery, Pacific Northwest Presbytery, and Presbytery of the West.

⁹ The AIC’s proposed revisions are available at https://epconnect.org/adinterimonssa/

¹⁰ See Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed.) §45:4 — Abstaining from Voting on a Question of Direct Personal Interest. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances.

¹¹ See also, RE Gordon A. Miller opinion Concurring with the Minority Report, p. 15.

¹² In fact, the PJC noted that in its report on the AIC amendments that it permitted the AIC to make changes to its text before a final decision was reached on the “consistency of language” test. See footnote 2 in the PJC Report, p. 1.

¹³ “Yes, It’s Sodomy” by TE Nate Atwood, Presbyterian Plumb Line, Volume 2 Issue 3.

¹⁴ https://sites.google.com/view/epcopenletter/redlinestatement

¹⁵ Minority Report of the PJC, pp. 10-14.

¹⁶ PJC Report, Concurrences, and Minority Materials Regarding the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest G.9-3A Overture: “Concurring with the Report of the PJC” p. 7.

¹⁷ Concurring with the Report of the PJC, pp. 8-9.

¹⁸ See G. 25-2A. The Church may make no laws to bind the conscience with respect to the interpretation of Scripture. No person may be rejected for membership or ordination because of such matters of conscience unless that matter has been officially declared a heresy by the Church or unless it obstructs the constitutional governance of the Church. However, those seeking ordination in the EPC, either initially or by transfer, voluntarily limit their free exercise of conscience to the lawful bounds of the Essentials of Our Faith, the Westminster Standards, and the Book of Order of the EPC (see G.13.2).

¹⁹ Minority Report of the PJC, pp. 10-14.

²⁰ Concurring with the Minority Report of the PJC, p. 15.

²¹ See G.21-3D.2 (PJC responsibility regarding proposals to amend Constitution) and G.23-1 (procedures for amendments).

²² See Rules for Assembly, 2016-2025, Chapter VII, Proposed Amendments, esp. Sections 7-4, 7-5, 7-6, 7-7; Chapter IX Standing Committees (all sections), Chapter XIV, Parliamentary Procedure, Chapter XV, Amendment or Suspension of Rules.