Reasons for Voting Against the Funding Plan for the PCA Administrative Committee

[Editor’s Note: The following information has been made available by those opposed to the proposed Funding Plan for the Administrative Committee Book of Church Order (BCO) amendments passed by the 38th (2010) PCA General Assembly, for the use of Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) presbyteries considering said amendments.]

.

Reasons for Voting Against Amending BCO 14-1 (4) and 14-2

The Funding Plan for the Administrative Committee

The 38th PCA General Assembly voted to send to Presbyteries for their consideration amendments to BCO 14-1 (4) and 14-2. These amendments are requesting a change in how the voting membership of General Assembly will be determined: by charging an annual Registration Fee for teaching elders, churches and Presbyteries.

BCO 14-1 (as it will read if amended)

4. It is the responsibility of every member and every member congregation to support the whole work of the denomination as they be led in their conscience held captive to the Word of God. Consistent with this principle, 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 for the support of the ministry of the Administrative Committee.

14-2 (as it will read if amended)

The General Assembly, which is a permanent court, shall meet at least annually upon its own adjournment. Its membership shall consist of all teaching elders in good standing with their Presbyteries, and ruling elders as elected by their Session. Each congregation is entitled to two ruling elder representatives commissioners for the first 350 communing members or fraction thereof, and one additional ruling elder for each additional 500 communing members or fraction thereof.

Among these members, the voting members of the General Assembly shall consist of:

(1) all teaching elders who, before the convening of the General Assembly, have fulfilled their annual responsibilities with respect to the Registration Fees for teaching elders as approved by the General Assembly and who are pastors in relation to churches *BCO 22-1) that, before the convening of the General Assembly, have fulfilled their annual responsibilities with respect to the Registration Fees for church as approved by the General Assembly;

(2) all teaching elders in needful works (BCO 8-4) who, before the convening of the General Assembly, have fulfilled their annual responsibilities with respect to the Registration Fees for teaching elders as approved by the General Assembly; and

(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 as approved by the General Assembly. In any case where the failure to fulfill such annual responsibilities precludes voting membership, the Administrative Committee is authorized to negotiate a reasonable accommodation to restore voting membership. Honorably Retired teaching elders are exempted from the Registration Fee.

 .

.

SUMMARY OF REASONS TO VOTE AGAINST THE BCO 14 AMENDMENTS

.

The Main Reason

The proposed funding plan is unconstitutional in that it conflicts the clear provisions of BCO 25-8 and BCO 25-11.

.

Further Reasons to Vote Against the Proposed Amendments

(This reason is compelling and sufficient to vote against adopting the proposed amendments. However, if presbyters are not convinced the following reasons provide further support for voting against the proposed BCO 14 amendments.)

1. The proposed funding plan assumes that the system is broken; however, it does not provide empirical data to demonstrate this.

2. The proposed funding plan, with the requirement of compulsory annual Registration Fees, is a form of disenfranchisement and a type of poll tax.

3. The proposed funding plan is a form of taxation that can lead TEs and churches to become debtors to the PCA.

4. The proposed funding plan provides no guidelines regarding how the AC will negotiate with TEs and churches that are in arrears and debtors to the PCA.

5. The proposed funding plan could render TEs and REs who do not pay the annual Registration Fees ineligible to be nominated, elected or serve on PCA committees and agencies.

6. The proposed funding plan will result in a multi-tiered membership in the various courts of the PCA.

7. The proposed funding plan will produce confusion regarding who will be eligible to have voting membership in GA.

8. The proposed funding plan could eventually lead to the other PCA committees and agencies desiring financial support from a central treasury.

9. The proposed funding plan does not address the voting status of elders or churches supporting other PCA committees and agencies, but not the Administrative Committee through the Registration Fees.

10. The proposed funding plan forces TEs and churches to support the whole AC budget even if they may not be pleased with portions of the AC?s work reflected in its budget.

11. The proposed funding plan is presented as the only viable option by which to fund AC and the work of the General Assembly.

12. The proposed funding plan makes no provision for relief for those whose consciences believe that the funding plan is a violation of church power.

.

.

REASONS WITH FURTHER EXPLANATION FOR VOTING AGAINST

AMENDING BCO 14-1 (4) AND 14-2

The Main Reason

It is unconstitutional in that it conflicts with the clear provisions of BCO 25-8 and BCO 25-11.

The superior courts of the Church may receive monies or properties from a local church only by free and voluntary action of the latter (BCO 25-8).

Particular churches need remain in association with any court of this body only so long as they themselves so desire. 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. A particular church may withdraw from any court of this body at any time for reasons which seem to it sufficient (BCO 25-11).

Note the clear focus of these provisions: Local church monies and properties are theirs to be disbursed as they see fit, and if they choose to contribute to the higher courts of the church it is by their voluntary action, not by any form of coercion. No matter how worthy a PCA higher court?s motivation may be, it cannot force or require payment of a fee; that discretion is completely within the province and authority of the local church according to the BCO.

One of the unique historical features of the PCA is that it was established as a connectional church based on a “relationship [that] 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” (BCO 25-11). Yet one part of the proposed amendments would “require” a payment that is mandated, not voluntary. Note these words:

“…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. These proposed amendments will move the PCA from a voluntary association of connectional churches that are committed to each other based upon mutual love and confidence, to one that by compulsion will require and mandate monies from local churches.

The Committee on Constitutional Business (CCB) interpreted this matter differently. CCB is a purely advisory committee tasked with advising the Stated Clerk. However, it should be noted that CCB has no legal or judicial authority to make definitive interpretations of the BCO. CCB advised with the following:

In the opinion of the CCB, there is no conflict, as none of the proposed provisions would remove a congregation from the denomination for failure to pay the proposed annual Registration Fee, nor would they force a congregation to surrender its property, however broadly the term „property? is construed. The CCB finds no constitutional difference between the provisions of the proposed amendments and the current practice of requiring a registration fee in order for a commissioner to be seated at the General Assembly.

CCB erred in its advice and its reasoning is faulty in a number of ways:

1. The issue is not whether a congregation would be removed from the denomination; no one has alleged that the proposed amendments would do this. Neither BCO 25-8 or 25-11 even touch on removing a congregation for lack of supporting the work of higher courts.

2. The constitutional conflict comes in that the proposed amendments will change the definition of membership of General Assembly by creating “voting members” who have paid the annual Registration Fee. Presently, the membership of General Assembly is defined in BCO 14-2: “It shall consist of all teaching elders in good standing with their Presbyteries, and ruling elders as elected by their Session.” The change to “voting membership” requires a taking of monies by coercion not by “free and voluntary action.”

3. CCB?s advice claims there is no difference between the present practice of requiring a registration fee for commissioners to be seated at GA. But there is a difference. BCO 25-8 and 25-11 place the responsibility for supporting the PCA superior courts on the local church by its “free and voluntary action.” Local churches are not required to send elders to GA every year and when they are not sent there is no fee required to be paid. The proposed amendment would compel an annual fee whether the local church sends voting commissioners to GA or not. Further, if the Fee is not paid annually, the local church desiring to send elders to GA in a future year would have to pay the cumulative amount owed to GA before the elders could be seated as voting members. That is not a “free and voluntary action.”

Note, also, this provision from RAO 4-11, which supports the principle of each local church being free to determine how much and to which committees and agencies it will support:

While all churches remain free to give their contributions as they by God?s guidance determine, all churches are encouraged to give, as they are able, at least ten percent (10%) of their tithes and offerings to the PCA causes of presbyteries and General Assembly.

Approving these amendments would put the BCO in conflict with itself. It would have provisions stipulating that local churches are in voluntary association with the PCA, based on mutual love and confidence, and that these local churches can give to the higher courts “by free and voluntary action.” At the same time, if these amendments are adopted, then the BCO would have provisions that “require” the payment of an annual Registration Fee. This conflict is highly inappropriate and it is incumbent on the Church not to purposely create this conundrum. Either support for higher courts are “free and voluntary,” or they are required, but both cannot be true at the same time.

We need to defeat these amendments and then work together to develop a viable funding plan.

.

.

Further Reasons to Vote Against the Proposed Amendments

(The main reason above, that the proposed amendments are unconstitutional and will create internal conflict within the BCO, is compelling and sufficient to vote against adopting the proposed amendments. However, if presbyters are not convinced or desire more details, the following reasons provide further support for voting against the proposed BCO 14 amendments.)

1. The proposed funding plan assumes that the system is broken; however, it does not provide empirical data to demonstrate this. We have not been presented with statistical studies to demonstrate that churches are not supporting the AC and other PCA committees and agencies. How do we know that the real problem is lack of local church support? There may be other reasons for a perceived lack of support, which need to be explored. It is our responsibility to make sure that the right questions are asked before assuming what the answers may be.

2. The proposed funding plan, with required and compulsory annual Registration Fees, is a form of disenfranchisement and a type of poll tax. As some have stated, elders will have “to pay to play.” It is conceivable that over time coercion could be used to compel payment of the Registration Fees. It is also possible to conceive that over time voting membership in Presbyteries, which is presently voluntary (BCO 13-1), will require the payment of Registration Fees. (Note: An early version of the funding plan had a provision to include Registration Fees for voting membership in Presbyteries; so this notion is not as far-fetched as may appear.)

3. The proposed funding plan is a form of taxation that can lead TEs and churches to become debtors to the PCA. The amendments will require annual payments by TEs and churches, which if not paid annually, will accrue cumulatively, and will become a form of debt to the General Assembly. But because of the voluntary nature of PCA membership (BCO 25-8; 25-11) the higher court does not have the authority to compel or force payment of this debt.

4. The proposed funding plan provides no guidelines regarding how the AC will negotiate with TEs and churches that are in arrears and debtors to the PCA. It may very well create a category of PCA churches which become permanently disenfranchised. It is possible that an arbitrary system, based on subjective criteria, will result in a wide disparity of remedies.

5. The proposed funding plan could render TEs and REs who do not pay the annual Registration Fees ineligible to be nominated, elected or serve on PCA committees and agencies. Under the provisions of these amendments, it could be asserted that teaching elders who do not pay the annual Registration Fees will not be eligible to be nominated, elected or serve on PCA committees and agencies. Also, ruling elders from churches that do not pay the annual Registration Fees could be rendered ineligible to be nominated, elected or serve on PCA committees and agencies. After all, if TEs and REs can be declared and rendered ineligible as voting members of GA by virtue of non-payment of required annual fees, then it could be asserted that these elders should not be allowed to be nominated, elected or serve on any PCA committee or agency. This could become another pressure point to compel payment.

6. The proposed funding plan will result in a multi-tiered membership in the various courts of the PCA. BCO 12-1 defines the voting membership of Sessions, “The church Session consists of the pastor, associate pastor(s), if there be any, and the ruling elders of a church.” BCO 13-1 defines the voting membership of Presbyteries: “The Presbytery consists of all the teaching elders and churches within its bounds that have been accepted by the Presbytery. When the Presbytery meets as a court it shall comprise all teaching elders and ruling elders as elected by their Session.” TEs and REs have specifically defined membership in their respective Sessions and Presbyteries without the requirement of annual Registration Fees. But these same officers will be considered voting members of the highest PCA court, the General Assembly, only if they pay an annual Registration Fee.

7. The proposed funding plan will produce confusion regarding who will be eligible to have voting membership in GA. If TEs who have paid their annual Registration Fees are in churches that do not pay their annual Registration Fees, these TEs will be rendered ineligible to be voting members of GA. This disparity could introduce tensions between TEs and their Sessions and confusion at GA as to who should be seated as voting members.

8. The proposed funding plan could eventually lead to the other PCA committees and agencies desiring financial support from a central treasury. Why stop with the Administrative Committee? Why should the other committees and agencies not get a slice of the fees charged to support the work of the PCA?

9. The proposed funding plan does not address the voting status of elders or churches supporting other PCA committees and agencies, but not the Administrative Committee through the Registration Fees. The proposed amendments do not address why elders should be excluded from voting membership for not financially supporting the Administrative Committee, while at the same time supporting other PCA committees and agencies. Can the same arguments eventually be made to require support of MTW or MNA or else lose one?s vote? Why is supporting the PCA?s AC considered more “connectional” and essential than supporting missions through MTW or MNA? What happens if giving drops off to other committees and agencies, will these deficits be made up by requiring payment from local churches?

10. The proposed funding plan forces TEs and churches to support the whole AC budget even if they may not be pleased with portions of the AC?s work reflected in its budget. For example, there are TEs and churches that do want to support byFaith magazine. Their assessment of byFaith is that it does not address issues important to the PCA as a whole, that it has an editorial agenda that does not speak to concerns and provide news helpful to the PCA. They may judge that byFaith is not particularly helpful or representative of the PCA as a whole; yet they must now support it or lose their voting status at GA.

11. The proposed funding plan is presented as the only viable option by which to fund AC and the work of the General Assembly. However, the GA and was not presented with other funding options nor was it informed that other options were considered. One reason for the opposition to the proposed funding plan is that it is considered unreasonable, especially since there are alternatives that can and should be considered. It is wiser to defeat this proposed funding plan and then consider alternative funding options. This is the wrong plan and it should not be enshrined in the PCA constitution.

12. The proposed funding plan makes no provision for relief for those whose consciences believe that the funding plan is a violation of church power as expressed in the PCA Standards. There is the appearance of coercion by legislation rather than by persuasion and appeal.

The proposed funding plan is the wrong plan for the PCA. We need to defeat this plan and then come together to find a reasonable and viable alternative.

.