CNP Positions on Constitutional Interpretation Committee Overtures Before the 227th General Assembly

In the weeks leading up to the 227th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), June 22 – July 2, 2026 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, CNP is sharing recommendations on key items of business coming before the Assembly. This post addresses overtures and committee recommendations being considered by the Constitutional Interpretation Committee (CON).

• Special Committee on Amendments 24-A and 24-C (Northwest Coast Presbytery)

  Committee Item: CON-04   Pre-file Reference: OVT-008

  This overture from the Northwest Coast Presbytery calls for the creation of a special committee to evaluate how Amendments 24-A and 24-C — the “Olympia Overture” amendments ratified by a majority of presbyteries in 2025 — affect freedom of conscience, and to offer guidance on implementing them in ways that avoid what the overture characterizes as harm. Amendment 24-A added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of categories protected from discrimination under F-1.0403. Amendment 24-C added examination on diversity principles as a component of ordination and installation. The overture frames both amendments negatively and explicitly seeks to constrain their implementation.

  CNP Recommendation: Strongly Oppose

  ▪  Amendments 24-A and 24-C were ratified by a clear majority at the 226th General Assembly and an overwhelming majority of presbyteries. The overture raises no new issues that were not already addressed, both at the General Assembly and in ensuing conversations around the country. Creating a special committee to re-evaluate those decisions is an unnecessary second-guessing of an unambiguous constitutional mandate.

  ▪  The overture’s framing consistently characterizes these amendments as harmful, and the intent and the effect of the overture is to undermine its implementation rather than to support or clarify it. Presbyterians have worked for decades to offer the protections for LGBTQIA+ Presbyterians enshrined in Amendment 24-A, and the language of Amendment 24-C, tempered with clarity about freedom of conscience, gives those protections meaning and effect. 

  ▪  Special committees are costly in both financial resources and institutional attention. This one would direct denominational energy toward relitigating settled constitutional questions rather than toward forward witness and mission.

  ▪  Freedom of conscience is already carefully addressed in the Book of Order (G-2.0105). This overture misrepresents the threat to conscience while overlooking the concrete harms that discrimination causes to LGBTQIA+ members and officers.

  ▪  The newly amended F-1.0403 and G-2.0106b have been in effect for less than a year. It is far too early to assume the risk or unclarity that the overture assumes. Presbyteries are still deciding how they will implement the changes, and no judicial cases have yet created need for additional interpretation. The overture is, at best, premature.

• Authoritative Interpretation Adding Monogamy Standard for Officers (Sierra Blanca Presbytery)

  Committee Item: CON-10   Pre-file Reference: OVT-044

  This overture from Sierra Blanca Presbytery seeks two actions: first, directing the Stated Clerk to add an authoritative interpretation to the Book of Order requiring that any officer “engaged in any relationship of a sexual nature” must do so within a monogamous relationship; and second, commending ACSWP to develop pastoral resources for those exiting polyamorous or polygamous situations. As written, the proposed constitutional language most clearly applies its monogamy standard to Ministers of the Word and Sacrament serving in active ministry roles specifically, creating an inconsistency with expectations for other ministers or for those serving in other ordered ministries (ruling elder, deacon).  

  CNP Recommendation: Oppose — and urge referral to ACSWP for consideration within its comprehensive study on the ethics of sexuality (GEN-09/COM-036)

  ▪  The overture is poorly written and poorly conceived, maliciously targeting a relatively small number of Presbyterians with misunderstanding, misrepresentation and misinformation. 

  ▪  The proposed authoritative interpretation creates an inconsistent standard — applying to Ministers of the Word and Sacrament but not clearly to other ordered ministries — without theological or polity justification for the distinction.

  ▪  The proposed language is theologically underdeveloped. Questions about the ethics of relational and family structures are complex and deserve the kind of careful, consultative process envisioned by the ACSWP comprehensive study (GEN-09), not a rushed authoritative interpretation.

  ▪  The General Assembly has an ugly history of debating the lives of people through polity debates and votes, rather than grounding thoughtful conversations about sexuality in theologically driven study and unrushed discernment. This overture returns the General Assembly to that history at risk of causing trauma to individuals and to our polity.