BCO 14 Amendments, An Unintended Consequence: Jeopardizing the PCA’s Non-hierarchical Connectionalism

BCO 14 Amendments, An Unintended Consequence: Jeopardizing the PCA’s Non-hierarchical Connectionalism

The Presbyterian Church in America’s non-hierarchical structure of the PCA could be placed at risk if the BCO 14-1, 2 amendments are passed.

There may be an unintended consequence of using the word “requirement” in proposed BCO 14-1, and “fulfilled their annual responsibilities” in the proposed BCO 14-2 (3) touching on local churches: These proposed changes create an internal conflict within the PCA’s constitution and can potentially place the PCA in jeopardy of being considered civilly connected. The PCA’s present position as a non-hierarchal connectional church could be challenged in civil courts if these amendments are adopted.

The Pproposed changes to BCO 14-1 include the following: “

…the responsibility to support the work of the denomination shall include a requirement that churches, teaching elders, and Presbyteries contribute to denominational support services by paying an annual Registration Fee….” (emphasis added).

And the Pproposed changes to BCO 14-2 (3) include the following: “

(3) ruling elder commissioners whose churches, before the convening of the General Assembly, have fulfilled their annual responsibilities with respect to the Registration Fees for churches….” (emphasis added).

An unintended consequence of using the word “requirement” in proposed BCO 14-1, and “fulfilled their annual responsibilities” in the proposed BCO 14-2 (3) touching on local church: It could place the PCA in conflict within its own constitution and in civil jeopardy with its view that it is a non-hierarchal church.

Where is the unintended consequence? It is in the use of the word “requirement” which mandates that local churches will be required to pay an annual fee in order for their elders to be considered voting members at General Assembly meetings. This “requirement” could be construed and interpreted by secular courts as a type of civil connection.

Why is this important? The PCA has argued in civil courts that each of its graded courts of the PCA (Session, Presbytery and General Assembly) is a separate civil entity and not connected legally civilly with to each other. The PCA’s connectionalism is defined as “non-hierarchical Presbyterianism” that is flows from a result of “mutual love and confidence” (BCO 25-11) and is not from any civil or legal connectedion. As a result the PCA has been able to argue successfully in secular courts that it is a in any civil manner and hence is notn- hierarchical Presbyterian church. [1]

When As stated below, when local PCA churcheses have been have been sued in civil courtss, it has been common to name as defendantsfor in these suits to name the local church (where the alleged offense occurred), its Presbytery and the General Assembly under the assumption that there is a civil connection between these church courts. In naming all three church courts in civil suits, there is the assumption that the PCA functions under a “hierarchical Presbyterian” structure. Thus far, Tthe PCA has argued and demonstrated successfully from its constitution that it is not anot a hierarchal church Presbyterian church,and that its church courts are not civilly connected. , and that it operates as a non-hierarchical Presbyterian church.

To add the word “requirement” in the BCO, which is a part of the PCA constitution, “requiring” with reference local churches to having to pay an annual fee to the GA to the PCA’s constitution has the potential ofwould produce an internal so conflicting within the constitution (e.g., between BCO 14-1, 2 and BCO 25-8, 9, 10 and 11). And further, it could create confusion in the church and civil courts as to whether the PCA is hierarchical or non-hierarchical.

with the spiritual/civil distinction that a court could rule that a hierarchal connection does in fact exist. By enshrining “shall include a requirement” in the PCA constitution, mandating that local must churches must pay an annual Registration registration Feefee, the voluntary nature of our the PCA’s connectionalism, based on “mutual love and confidence,” will could be called into question in civil suits. To “require” a payment from local churchesis that are civilly distinct can be considered a form of force and coercion, which that is civil in nature, a concept that and does not presently exist in the BCO.

In his paper on “The Presbyterian Church in America: Non-hierarchal Presbyterianism,” Dr. L. Roy Taylor, Stated Clerk of the PCA, has clearly written and defined the distinction between hierarchical and non-hierarchical Presbyterian connectionalism. Here are some of the points that he makes that demonstrate the unique character of the PCA’s non-hierarchical connectionalism.

BCO 3-4 makes a distinction between the spiritual power of the church, wherein those churches who have affiliated with the PCA are connected ecclesiastically, and power of the state, which the church does not exercise:

The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual; that of the State includes the exercise of force. The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the State must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events. The Church has no right to construct or modify a government for the State, and the State has no right to frame a creed or polity for the Church. They are as planets moving in concentric orbits: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

Preliminary Principle 8 also addresses the distinction between the ecclesiastical and the civil:

Since ecclesiastical discipline must be purely moral or spiritual in its object, and not attended with any civil effects, it can derive no force whatever, but from its own justice, the approbation of an impartial public, and the countenance and blessing of the great Head of the Church.

BCO 25-11 (2^nd paragraph)

It is expressly recognized that each local congregation or local church shall be competent to function and to take actions covering the matters set forth herein as long as such action is in compliance with the civil laws with which said local congregation or local church must comply, and this right shall never be taken from said local congregation or local church without the express consent of and affirmative action of such local church or congregation.

BCO 25-11 (3^rd paragraph)

….The relationship is voluntary, based upon mutual love and confidence, and is in no sense to be maintained by the exercise of any force or coercion whatsoever….

The Limits of the Authority of Higher Courts

It should be noted that the primary issue raised in Case 2007-7 case is the appointment of the Pulpit (Stated Supply Approval) Commission.  As set forth above, KEP has not erred in the appointment of this commission, as well as the scope of the matters that were entrusted to it when it was formed, i.e. receiving requests from the Session of HKPC to establish temporary relationships and approve stated supply pastors.

However, the parties are involved in protracted civil litigation in the New Jersey Superior Court, which is relying, in part, on this ecclesiastical court for guidance in applying the PCA’s polity to the civil matters that are before it.

The New Jersey Court found that the polity or government of the PCA was that of a hierarchal denomination. There is however a significant difference between the PCA’s Presbyterian polity and the polity of hierarchal denominations.  Even within Presbyterian denominations, there are two (2) perspectives, an hierarchal, top-down view and a non-hierarchal, bottom-up view.

As we see it, oOver the years the larger Presbyterian denomination (Presbyterian Church, USA – PCUSA) underwent a metamorphosis from a democratic type of Presbyterianism into an hierarchal Presbyterianism, which emphasizes the higher courts directing the affairs of the lower courts.  The PCUSA Book of Church Order deals much more extensively with detailed procedures covering a wide variety of situations and is much longer that the PCA’s BCO.  In recent civil cases involving disputes over who owns the local church property, the PCUSA argues that it is an hierarchal denomination, with the Presbytery being tantamount to a bishop.

By contrast, the PCA is a non-hierarchal, grass-roots type of Presbyterianism.  One of the major reasons for the formation of the PCA was to revert to a democratic Presbyterianism.  The PCA BCO is written more as a set of principles, emphasizing the use of discretion and wisdom by the lower courts.  The Preface of the BCO lists the Preliminary Principles, which are an integral part of the constitution, i.e., the lenses through which the rest of the BCO is to be viewed.  It was not envisioned that the PCA BCO would have detailed instructions on virtually every situation.  When faced with situations and circumstances that are not dealt with in detail in the PCA BCO, Sessions and presbyteries should exercise their own wisdom and discretion within the parameters of biblical principles and the Constitution of the PCA.

The voluntary nature of the PCA is explicitly stated in BCO 25-9 and 25-10 regarding church property and in BCO 25-11 regarding the process for withdrawing from the denomination.

In civil cases, the PCA has successfully argued that it is a non-hierarchal denomination.  Recent civil court rulings have found that the PCA, as a non-hierarchal denomination, does not employ local church pastors and staff members, and as such, cannot be held liable for their actions as employees.

The PCA is non-hierarchal in that:

1) the local church (Sessions), presbyteriesPresbyteries, and the General Assembly (the church courts) are distinct and separate civil entities, and

2) the authority/power of the Church is only moral and spiritual, ministerial and declarative.

This is evidenced by the following provisions of the BCO:

, to wit:

1)  “the power of the Church is exclusively spiritual,” BCO 3-4,

2)  church courts “have no jurisdiction in political or civil affairs,” BCO 11-1,

3)  church courts “have no power to inflict temporal pains and penalties, but their authority is in all respects moral or spiritual,” BCO 11-1,

4)  the jurisdiction of church courts is “only ministerial and declarative,” BCO 11-2, and

5)  the jurisdiction of the church courts is “limited by the express provisions of the Constitution,” BCO 11-4.

Two entire chapters of the BCO (Chapters 3 and 11) are devoted to this explanation.  Yet the PCA is spiritually united (not civilly connected) and Presbyterian churches are inter-dependent, not independent.  This connectionalism is expressed in our confessional theology, our system of government and discipline, and our cooperative ministry. PCA founding fathers Cannada and Williamson so state in their book:

The thing that is special about the PCA is that there is a clear and vital spiritual connection between the Congregations, the Presbyteries, and the General Assembly.  Accordingly, it is entirely proper to designate the polity of the PCA as being “connectional” as long as it is made clear that the connection is a spiritual connection between the Congregations, the Presbyteries and the General Assembly and there is no connection of any kind between the civil entities formed by them.  The members of the Congregations, the Presbyteries and the General Assembly make up the membership of the respective civil entities formed by them and are, therefore, in complete control of those civil entities. Accordingly, since there is a vital spiritual connection between the Congregations, the Presbyteries, and the General Assembly in the PCA and each has complete control of the civil entity formed by it, the PCA does not consist of a group of independent local churches that are free to teach and promote whatever they see fit (The Historic Polity of the PCA. pp. 34-35).

Church members, Teaching teaching Elderselders, Ruling ruling Elderselders, and Deacons deacons take vows to voluntarily place themselves under the spiritual authority of the Church.  Officers pledge to exercise the duties of their office in accord with the Constitution of the PCA.  These vows have a moral responsibility (though not a legal obligation) to abide by the decision, judgment, or order of the church court.  However, they may file a complaint or appeal the action to a higher court.  Once the matter has been finally handled by the higher court, there is, because of the vows taken, a moral responsibility (though not a legal obligation) to abide by the final disposition of the matter as long as they are members of the PCA.

If one can not do so, he may leave the PCA without coercion.  If a person does not accept this moral responsibility, he may face charges in accord with BCO 31-2 and if found guilty, ecclesiastical censures in accord with BCO 36.  If a church does not accept this moral responsibility to abide by a final decision/action of a Presbytery, then Presbytery’s response is to either “dissolve” [the ecclesiastical relationship between] the church and the PCA or “dismiss” [transfer] the church [to another denomination] with the church’s consent. (Ssee BCO 13-9(f) ).  Filing a complaint in civil court to enforce this moral responsibility is not within the authority and power given to a Presbytery by the PCA’s BCO.

Thus, the PCA is Presbyterian (governed by elders elected by the people whom they represent), yet democratic type of Presbyterianism.  It is connectional, but non-hierarchal, in that the power of the church is not civil or coercive, but moral and spiritual, ministerial and declarative.  It is constitutional, not authoritarian, that is, all of her members, offices, and church courts are to operate within the framework of the Constitution of the Church and may not resort to any authority that is contrary to the PCA Constitution.

The word “requirement,” though only one word in a larger document, will not only create an internal conflict within the BCO, it could also potentially be interpreted by civil courts as an indicator of a civil connection between PCA courts and hold higher courts accountable for the actions of lower courts. This potential for civil courts to interpret the PCA as hierarchical and civilly connected is too high a price to pay The foregoing leads to two (2) concerns relating to the Record of the Case before this court.

First, while the matter is not before us, a Presbytery, under our Constitution, is granted the power to do certain things and take certain actions in BCO 13-9.  Utilizing the civil courts of this land to enforce its decisions and coerce obedience to its actions is not a power given to presbyteries under the PCA’s Constitution.

Second, while the matters are not before us, a Presbytery, under our Constitution, may not, through its own action or through the actions of its commission, act for or on behalf of a Session without a proper request to do so from the actual Session and approval of the congregation, enlarge a Session without a proper request/election to do so from the actual Session/church, or unilaterally act as pulpit committee in the context of BCO 20-2.  See BCO 16-2 “The government of the Church is by officers gifted to represent Christ, and the right of God’s people to recognize by the election to office those so gifted is inalienable.  Therefore, no man can be placed over a church in any office without the election, or at least the consent of that church.”

BCO 3-4 makes a distinction between the spiritual power of the church, wherein those churches who have affiliated with the PCA are connected ecclesiastically, and power of the state, which the church does not exercise:

The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual; that of the State includes the exercise of force. The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the State must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events. The Church has no right to construct or modify a government for the State, and the State has no right to frame a creed or polity for the Church. They are as planets moving in concentric orbits: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

Preliminary Principle 8 also addresses the distinction between the ecclesiastical and the civil:

Since ecclesiastical discipline must be purely moral or spiritual in its object, and not attended with any civil effects, it can derive no force whatever, but from its own justice, the approbation of an impartial public, and the countenance and blessing of the great Head of the Church.

BCO 25-11 (2^nd paragraph)

It is expressly recognized that each local congregation or local church shall be competent to function and to take actions covering the matters set forth herein as long as such action is in compliance with the civil laws with which said local congregation or local church must comply, and this right shall never be taken from said local congregation or local church without the express consent of and affirmative action of such local church or congregation.

BCO 25-11 (3^rd paragraph)

….The relationship is voluntary, based upon mutual love and confidence, and is in no sense to be maintained by the exercise of any force or coercion whatsoever….

to adopt the BCO 14 amendments. Unintended consequences can come back to bite with a vengeance. These amendments should be defeated and in so doing not jeopardize the PCA’s present non-hierarchical connectional status.

________________

Dr. Dominic Aquila is President of New Geneva Theological Seminary in Colorado S[rings, Colo.