If our documents do not accurately reflect the way we want to conduct the business of Christ’s church, then we should amend them to conform to our desired practice. If the text as written and adopted does not accomplish that which we know to be the original intent of the Assembly, then we need to bring our text in conformity to our original intent. We have a robust and well-understood process for doing so. But what we must not do is set aside the plain reading of the text in favor of uncertain and disputable understandings of original intent. Put another way, we must not disregard our documents in order to accommodate counter-textual practices.

During the proceedings of the 49th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), we saw two examples of historical precedent being invoked to support a decision of the moderator that appeared to be contrary to the plain language of the Book of Church Order (“BCO”) or Rules of Assembly Operation (“RAO”). In this article, it is not my intention to reargue those points or to cast aspersions against the presbyters who argued on either side.  I take it for granted that all involved were acting in good faith and seeking to serve the Church to the best of their abilities. Rather, it is my intention to argue that such a historicist approach to constitutional interpretation is flawed, and that instead the PCA should follow a strict textualist approach — resorting to historical and extrinsic evidence only where the text of the BCO or RAO is ambiguous.
Twice at the 49th Assembly, we saw the following scenario play out: A commissioner seeks to assert his rights or the rights of another to speak or take an action, based on the text of the BCO or RAO, and is then told he may not, based on what appears to be a counter-textual interpretation of the rule. The counter-textual interpretation is supported by reference to some historical precedent or other, perhaps from many years ago. Sometimes these precedents are based on prior language that has since been amended.
First Instance: Filing an Objection to a Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) Case
First, during the morning session of the Assembly on Thursday, June 23, 2022, TE Jerid Krulish of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery came to a microphone and asked to lodge a protest or objection against the decision of the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) in the Herron case 2021-06.
Moderator RE John Bise interrupted TE Krulish’s speech and conferred with Stated Clerk Emeritus TE L. Roy Taylor. TE Bise then ruled that only those individuals entitled to vote on a matter may lodge a protest, so TE Krulish, who was not a member of the SJC, could not do so. TE Krulish then asked to raise it as an objection: “It is my understanding than an objection may be raised by any member of the court who did not have the right to vote.” RE Bise again conferred with TE Taylor. RE Bise then reported, “The parliamentarians advise me that at the 41st General Assembly this matter was considered and it was adjudicated that an objection is not allowable sir.  I appreciate your concern but there is no path for that.”
TE Jared Nelson then rose and challenged the ruling of the chair.
RE Bise then yielded to TE Taylor for some additional historical information that could be useful to the Assembly. TE Taylor stated that only the members of the SJC who were disqualified from voting could raise and objection. TE Taylor cited the minutes of the 41st General Assembly, page 39, for the proposition that only members of the SJC could register an objection to a decision in a case adjudicated by the SJC.  He stated that after that ruling was made at the 41st Assembly, the moderator’s ruling was challenged and sustained.[1]
In the ensuing debate, TE Jacob Gerber cited BCO 45-4 where “objection” is defined. In full, that provision reads:
45-4. An objection is a declaration by one or more members of a court who did not have the right to vote on an appeal or complaint, expressing a different opinion from the decision of the court and may be accompanied with the reasons on which it is founded.
TE Gerber then argued that the SJC is a commission of the GA, not a court.  The GA is the court, so members of the GA have the right to raise an objection to a decision rendered by the SJC.  TE Gerber noted that this understanding is based on what BCO 45-4 actually says. He made a textual argument.
The ruling of the chair was then sustained by a vote of 1051-548.  This colloquy can be found on the live stream video for the Thursday morning session between 2:26:00 and 2:35:30 here.[2]
Second Instance: Presenting a Minority Report
The second example of a counter-textual ruling was when Moderator RE John Bise ruled against my attempt to bring the Committee on Constitutional Business (CCB) minority report to the floor. TE David Coffin, after being accorded the privilege of speaking first, made an argument based on historical practice that appeared to be contrary to the plain language of RAO 19-2. In fact, he did not directly address BCO 19-2. The opening sentences of TE Coffin’s speech were as follows:
For context, it is important to recall that in the past, the Committee on Constitutional Business (CCB), under a different name, did report its advice on Constitutional issues as recommendations for ratification by the General Assembly (GA). The process had become highly controversial, enormously time-consuming, and the outcome was not binding upon anyone. The process was revised by the work of an ad interim committee and the proposed CCB was created by the Assembly as an exclusively advisory committee presenting no recommendations for action by the Assembly.“
In fairness, TE Coffin indicated that had he had the opportunity to speak to the issue again, he would have addressed the application of RAO 19-2, but the topic clock ran out before he could do so. The relevant portion of RAO 19-2 reads as follows:
When a minority of a committee wishes to present a minority report, the member reporting for the minority shall have the privilege of presenting the minority report and moving it as a substitute for the portion of the majority report affected.
The plain language of this provision contradicts RE Bise’s ruling. The chair was narrowly sustained on this point by a vote of 970 to 856.  The debate can be found in the video of the Wednesday afternoon session between 1:40:28 and 2:02:47 here.
Ruled by Text or by Discerning Intent?
Both of these examples illustrate an approach to interpreting and applying our rules that requires special knowledge of the history of the PCA. It is an approach that treats the text of the BCO and RAO as secondary to supposed original intent deduced from a loose body of history and tradition. It is my argument in this article that such an approach is in error, and that the Assembly should adopt a textual approach to interpreting and applying our accepted rules.
In interpreting statutes and contracts, civil courts look first to the text. If the text of the statute or contract is clear and unambiguous, then the inquiry ends there and the text is given effect via its natural reading. Only if the text is ambiguous does a court then consider extrinsic evidence such as the negotiating history of a contract, the courts of dealing between the parties, or the legislative history of a statute.
Read More
[1] For a record of the cited actions of the 41st General Assembly, see the following:41-39 Report of the Standing Judicial Commission: RE John White led the Assembly in prayer and presented the Report of the SJC (Appendix T, p. 551). TE Andrew Barnes sought to register an objection to the decision of the Standing Judicial Commission on Case 2012-05, Hedman v. Pacific Northwest Presbytery. A point of order was raised by TE David Coffin that a General Assembly commissioner’s registering an objection to an SJC decision on a case is out of order because only a member of the Standing Judicial Commission who did not have a right to vote on a case may register an objection (BCO 15-4; 39-2; 45-4). The Moderator ruled the point of order was well taken because the only person who could file an objection to the SJC’s judgment on Case 2012-05, Hedman v. Pacific Northwest Presbytery, was an SJC member who was disqualified under BCO 39-2.4 The ruling was appealed, and the Chair was sustained (Minutes of the 41st Stated Meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, 39).
41-40 Report of Committee on Constitutional Business: TE Mark A. Rowden, Chairman, led the Assembly in prayer. TE David Coffin raised a point of order that the exception of substance to the March 6, 2013, minutes of the SJC (2012-06 Bethel vs. SE Alabama), (Appendix O, p. 364), is out of order because in them the CCB takes exception to an SJC case and to its decision and therefore violates the prohibitions in RAO 17-1, final paragraph. The Moderator declared the point well taken, and ruled that the lines be struck. TE Art Sartorious made a parliamentary inquiry as to whether point of order was premature since the report had not yet come before the Assembly. The Stated Clerk reviewed the proper order of procedure, explaining that if an exception is ruled out of order, it is taken “off the table.” TE Sartorius inquired as to whether the ruling to strike would apply also to the exceptions of substance to the September 6, 2012, and November 29, 2012 minutes. The Moderator said that the question was out of order because the Assembly was dealing only with the removal of specific lines. The Moderator’s previous ruling was appealed, and the Chair was sustained. Chairman Rowden proceeded to presentation of the report (Appendix O, p. 361) as information. TE Art Sartorius made a parliamentary inquiry regarding the other exceptions of substance to the SJC minutes (Appendix O, p. 365), “one of which,” he thought, had been “covered by the previous ruling.” He asked how these would be handled. The Stated Clerk replied that it would go to the SJC officers for a response. TE David Coffin suggested that the exceptions to the SJC minutes for September 6, 2012, and November 29, 2012, should be included in the Moderator’s ruling on the March 6, 2013 ruling. The Moderator responded that his previous ruling should cover all three exceptions. TE Coffin commented that he had not addressed the minority report because, as the minority report is not the report of the CCB, it could never, regardless of its opinion, become the occasion for someone to move that a case be reconsidered (Minutes of the 41st Stated Meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, 40).
[2] N.B. After the ruling, in private conversation others noted that the Herron case was still in process and an action (i.e., decision) had not yet been made in total that would allow for the objection. This would have been a clearer reason for ruling TE Krulish’s attempted objection out of order, but that reason (i.e., the absence of an action against which a commissioner could lodge an objection) was not discussed during the Assembly’s deliberations.
Related Posts:

What does it take to wake us up? Sadly it is often the case – for Christians just as much as non-Christians – that it takes some mega-tragedy or crisis or emergency to wake us up and remind us of the things that really matter. For example, some four or five years ago I often prayed that God would do something to radically wake us all up. I am sure many other believers prayed the same.

Yes it is not much more than a cliché, but we do it all the time: we DO take things for granted. Worse yet, we take people for granted. Yesterday I was thinking about funerals, and how so many nice things are said about the deceased during the service. I wondered how many of these nice things were said about them and to them while they were still alive!
One need not be a Christian of course to think in these terms. Back in 1970 Joni Mitchell had this memorable line in her song Big Yellow Taxi: “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you got ‘til it’s gone?” If you want a refresher on what that tune from over a half century ago sounds like, you can check it out here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94bdMSCdw20
Yes, life is like that. We should not be taking things and people for granted. This is becoming so much more real for me of late, and that for several reasons. I turned 70 this year, so I am no spring chicken anymore. As you age you tend to spend more time reflecting on what went before than what lies ahead. You start realising that your days really are numbered, and you better make the most of the time you have left. And you reflect on past mistakes and shortcomings more.
Another reason for all this is the fact that my wife is dying. Yes, we are all dying, from the moment we were born. But not everyone reaches their threescore and ten. Some die prematurely because of various illnesses – including that dreaded scourge, cancer.
Pardon a bit of personal info here, but… Because hers is one of the rarest, harshest, most aggressive and least likely to be cured but only treated cancers, the initial time frame we were given (12-18 months) seems to be far too optimistic. It seems each week some new bit of horror news hits us. Recent CT scan showed even more growths and spreads, despite a year now of surgeries, radiation and chemo.
There was even a small spot found on her brain. So tomorrow she goes to another hospital to do an MRI to try to determine more accurately just how much cancer there is, and where it has now spread to. As I have said before, if you do not know what the word “metastasis” is, consider yourself incredibly blessed.
So obviously I now reflect a lot (as I sit alone in my empty house) about how good or bad of a husband I have been. It is mostly the latter it seems to me. There is so much I could have done better. So many wasted opportunities. So much self-centredness. So much focus on things that did not really matter.
The only good thing I suppose about her extended hospital stays is they are preparing me for the time when she never comes back home. Jilly dog and Possum cat help of course – and God is the ultimate comforter. He knows all about our pain and suffering. He is not distant and aloof. He suffers with us.
What does it take to wake us up?
Sadly it is often the case – for Christians just as much as non-Christians – that it takes some mega-tragedy or crisis or emergency to wake us up and remind us of the things that really matter. For example, some four or five years ago I often prayed that God would do something to radically wake us all up.
Read More
Related Posts:

Dear believer, how does Christ look upon you?
Do you fear that in his heart, Jesus secretly despises you and is frustrated with you and has just agreed to put up with you? Do you fear that when Jesus looks at you, he must be full of disappointment? Do you wonder whether he rolls his eyes in heaven when you open your mouth to pray?
Do you think you’re too sinful, too broken, for Christ? Have you convinced yourself that while Jesus may be merciful, your sin has exceeded his mercy?
Thomas Goodwin was a Puritan who wrote a book called The Heart of Christ, and in it Goodwin says that your “misery can never exceed his mercy.”
As an example of what I’m talking about, let’s look at the worst moment of Peter’s life that’s recorded in the New Testament. He denies Jesus three times in the courtyard of the high priest while Jesus is inside the residence being interrogated after the Gethsemane arrest. All four Gospels tell of Peter’s denials.
After Luke reports the three denials (Luke 22:56-60), his account adds a unique statement about Jesus: “And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, ‘Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.’ And he went out and wept bitterly” (22:61-62).
The Lord turned and looked at Peter. The verb for “turned” is used seven times in the Gospel of Luke, and Jesus is the subject of the verb in every case. Five of these occasions are before 22:61, and the final one occurs after it.

In 7:9, Jesus turned to a crowd and said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”
In 7:44, Jesus turned toward a woman and said to host of the home, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.”