The first overture called for a ‘means of grace’ alternative to the proposed Strategic Plan; the second called for a recognition of the sufficiency of our constitution to govern offices and ordination in the church, along with a call to conform our practices to those objective standards until or unless the constitution is amended.From reading the Q and A, there are two things that stand out to me (besides the great content!). First, I really appreciate the participation of the ruling elders in the presbytery. Hall states that there were more RE's present than TE"s. It is good to see these shepherds taking their calling seriously. And I agree with Hall that often, the opinions and ideas expressed by the RE's provide a more accurate expression of the church than that expressed by the "professional class." I believe this will provide the opportunity for a broader audience to take it seriously.
Secondly, I appreciate the way he describes the debate taking place irenically. And that the intended purpose of their temperate and respectful debate is for the unity of the church and not to exasperate brothers in Christ or broaden the disjunction of those involved. They are not merely seeking to put something forward that is the opposite of the Strategic Plan just to be opposite, in fact, he mentions places where they agree. They are seeking to provide what they (and I) believe to be a biblical and confessional alternative for accomplishing the calling of the church in the Great Commission.
Let me close with his encouraging words, "We commend these to our church, along with our prayers for God’s blessings on our leaders, our churches, and the upcoming General Assembly. We hope many will join in such hopeful and positive sentiments."
You can read the entire Q and A here.