Session Resource: Annotated Commentary on Overture 33

Comments from PCA TE Fred Greco, overture 33's author and strategist:

'This Overture was rejected by my Presbytery on a close vote for a number of reasons, most prominently the view that “we already do this.” Another objection is that “we don’t want to micromanage Sessions.” Both of these arguments are unpersuasive, and so I carried this Overture directly to the Assembly (RAO 11-10).

The Overture does not mandate specific questions, length of examination, or any other matter that could be considered “micromanaging.” Further, if Sessions are already covering the subjects set forth in the Overture, there is no harm in spelling that out.

It would be a help to the members of churches to know what the broad parameters are in examination for admission to the sealing ordinances. Some had suggested to me more detailed language that was helpful and Biblical, but I wanted to keep this addition as simple as possible.

I began thinking about this Overture after being made aware of what would become Overture 22. I remain concerned (despite the assurances of Overture 22’s author) that if Overture 22 passes, Sessions will be more likely to admit very young children to the Lord’s Supper, secure in the knowledge that they can be prohibited from voting in congregational meetings. CCB advises that the proposed amendment is not in conflict with the Constitution. CH, 375'

[source]   [Overture 22 passed btw]

“This Overture was rejected by my Presbytery…”

This goes against the "grass roots" of Presbyterian government: rejected on the Presbytery level; approved for consideration at national committee.

“Both of these arguments are unpersuasive…”

Arguments called unpersuasive have defeated many an overture.

“[not] micromanaging.”

Top-down rules are in fact micromanaging, even without defining what is a “credible profession of faith”—which is already the Session’s discretion.

“…no harm in spelling that out.”

The harm in spelling it out, besides unnecessary redundancy, is making it more difficult for “young” (not defined) children to come to the Table. Why?

“Some had suggested to me more detailed language that was helpful and Biblical, but I wanted to keep this addition as simple as possible. ”

Simple rather than Biblical??

“I remain concerned... Sessions will be more likely to admit very young children to the Lord’s Supper ”

What's wrong with admitting very young children to the Lord’s supper?*
*There's the rub... the root issue not even addressed in the rationale for this overture.