Since that time, I’ve been thinking about why the overtures failed.  They passed overwhelmingly at General Assembly after all.  I don’t claim to be an expert at the way things work to get an overture passed.  I’ve been trying to bone up on that.  But something occurred to me recently.  Why didn’t all of the men who voted in favor of the overtures take the opportunity to speak up during the discussion?

Like many other conservative elders in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), I was discouraged that Overtures 23 and 37 failed to pass at the presbytery level. As a Ruling Elder (RE) I’m not able to attend as many presbytery meetings as Teaching Elders (TEs).  But I made it a point to attend this past meeting – not only to vote but also to speak in favor of the overtures.  Out of about 50 voters, the overtures failed in the presbytery at a rate of about 5 to 1.  It wasn’t even close.
Since we took the vote by counting hands, I looked around to see who voted in favor and who opposed.  I counted roughly 10 hands in favor, which were 7 more than the 3 conservative voters that spoke up during the floor discussion.  Our presbytery set apart about an hour of time for pre-voting dialogue/debate.  One spoke in favor, then one spoke in opposition, and each speaker had about 3 minutes to make his case. We didn’t use the full hour and I was only allowed one chance to speak per overture.  Since I was one of the first in line to speak, I couldn’t respond to those who spoke in opposition to the overtures.
As I mentioned, the overtures failed in my presbytery.  This was discouraging, but not shocking.  Then some days later I heard that the overtures failed to pass across the entire denomination, which was both discouraging and shocking – especially for an optimillenialist.
Since that time, I’ve been thinking about why the overtures failed.  They passed overwhelmingly at General Assembly after all.  I don’t claim to be an expert at the way things work to get an overture passed.  I’ve been trying to bone up on that.  But something occurred to me recently.  Why didn’t all of the men who voted in favor of the overtures take the opportunity to speak up during the discussion?
With Titus 1 in mind, I’d like to make a plea to those elders who were silent except for their afirmative vote.  Since the Lord Jesus Christ gave qualifications for REs and TEs in His own holy Word, that means I must turn to His word as I appeal to my fellow PCA elders.
Titus 1:9 speaks of those who are qualified for the office of elder this way: “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” 
Since I met resistance to my speech at my presbytery meeting, I know that at least some of the REs and TEs who voted against the overtures understand they need to speak up.  They saw an RE encouraging a yes vote to the overtures, and they stood up and said something.  But I return to my question: Why didn’t all of the men who voted in favor of the overtures take the opportunity to speak up during the discussion?  Surely all elders have studied Titus 1:9 as they were considering their own qualifications to become an elder.
I anticipate readers of this article may be those very elders across all the presbyteries in the PCA.  Here then is my reminder of the command of Christ.  The elder “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught…”  He must also “be able to give instruction in sound doctrine.” And when the rubber hits the road, as it did during the latest presbytery meetings, he must “also rebuke those who contradict it.”  If the under-shepherd won’t rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine, he is unqualified for the office of elder.
So then, to those who silently voted in favor of the overtures; why do you remain silent?  In our culture, a vote is considered such a personal and private thing, that many can hide behind their vote without worry of being confronted for it.  So you may have voted conservative, and no one questioned you about it. If you had spoken up to rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine, then you likely would get confronted.  And so what if that happened? We know that we are to fear God over men.  God calls for our faithfulness as shepherds.  And faithfulness means rebuking those who contradict sound doctrine.  Titus 1:9 does NOT read this way “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to cast a vote against those who contradict it.”
If God says we need to rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine, then we must do it.  It’s not an option.  It’s not reserved for those who don’t seem to care about burning bridges or eating their presbytery lunch by themselves.  We elders must be qualified to teach – which means that fear of speaking to a crowd is something that we’ve already gotten over.  God calls us not only to speak in front of a crowd, but also to speak what is necessary to the crowd – even to (and maybe especially to) a crowd of fellow elders.
Speaking words of rebuke to those who contradict sound doctrine is what we are called to do.  You must do it, not because some RE that you’ve never heard of says so, but because the qualifications for elder has been revealed in the perfect and infallible Word of our Lord.  If you maintain that you are qualified for the office of elder, but refuse to say something when you see something, then either Jesus is wrong or you’re wrong.
And so I ask the question a final time: Why didn’t all of the elders who voted in favor of the overtures take the opportunity to speak up during the discussion?  If you are a conservative elder in the PCA, are you not concerned that these overtures failed?  If you are not concerned, why did you vote in favor of the overtures?  If you are concerned, then what are you concerned about?  Are you concerned that some elders in the PCA are contradicting sound doctrine?  Then read Titus 1:9 again.
Matt Balocca is a Ruling Elder in Grace Presbyterian Church in Fresno, Calif.