Of the 82 overtures submitted to it, Floor Committee 8 received six overtures that explicitly fall under this priority category, having received these six overtures from a combination of congregations, circuits and/or districts. (We could actually consider it nine, since one overture was submitted by multiple congregation/circuit/district combinations.) How did these six/nine overtures fare in this floor committee that proposed to give such overtures “priority consideration?”
- Overture 8-04 To Postpone Consideration and Implementation of Task Force Report submitted by congregation through circuit – REJECTED
- Overture 8-05 To Exercise Care and Delay Implementation of Structure Changes submitted by congregation through circuit (North Wisconsin) – REJECTED
- Overture 8-05 To Exercise Care and Delay Implementation of Structure Changes submitted by congregation through its circuit through its district (Missouri)– REJECTED
- Overture 8-05 To Exercise Care and Delay Implementation of Structure Changes submitted by congregation through its circuit through its district (Southern Illinois) – REJECTED
- Overture 8-05 To Exercise Care and Delay Implementation of Structure Changes submitted by congregation through its district (Iowa District East) – REJECTED
- Overture 8-11 To Delay Implementation of Certain BRTFSSG Proposals submitted by congregation through its circuit – REJECTED
- Overture 8-18 To Affirm Integrity and Dignity of All Congregations submitted by congregation through its district – REJECTED (although, I would suspect the Floor Committee would consider that they IMPLEMENTED this one)
- Overture 8-49 To Return to Previous Definition of Function of Doctrinal Resolutions submitted by congregation through its circuit – REJECTED
- Overture 8-73 To Retain Board for Pastoral Education submitted by congregation through its circuit – REJECTED
It would seem that “priority consideration” would mean “priority rejection.” Indeed, of the 48 overtures rejected, 17 were submitted by districts and another 13 were submitted by circuits and one by a district pastors conference. And this doesn’t even count the ten overtures that were essentially rejected, but the same logic that tells us that “non-participation” is stronger language than “renounce” (cf. Resolution 8-30) could lead us to consider these overtures as implemented, at least in part, by the floor committee. (Four from districts, three from circuits, two from boards, and one from a congregation.) Also not included in that number are the 3 overtures (2 from congregations and one from a district) that are completely missing from Today’s Business (that’s right – they are in the Workbook, but the floor committee seems to have just ignored them – they are not in any of the regular resolutions or the omnibus resolutions – nowhere to be found!), or the one overture (8-80) submitted by the Commission on Structure proposing a change in bylaw wording that was referred (via Omnibus A) to the Commission on Structure to draft an overture to propose a change in bylaw wording!
In the floor committee’s defense, 16 of the 23 overtures implemented in some way, shape or form came from districts of circuits, which is a higher percentage (69.7%) than those that were rejected by the committee (62.5%). But that percentage is not significantly higher.
So the question remains – What does “priority consideration” mean? Perhaps some delegates should inquire at the floor committee meetings on Friday and Saturday.
