On July 11, 2003, Reverend Doctor John Minihan and, J. Randall Richards, Complaints/Appellants, and Kathy Miller Trimble, attorney for the Complainants/Appellants appeared before the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly (GAPJC) appealing the decision of the Synod of the Covenant dismissing their Complaint against the Presbytery of the Scioto Valley (Presbytery), Respondent/Appellee.

Minihan, Richards and Trimble (Appellants) had filed a remedial action against the Presbytery alleging that the Presbytery had adopted and implemented a resolution regarding per capita payments that violated the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).    Appellants asserted that the resolution which established a responsibility on the part of sessions to transmit per capita funds to the presbytery, unless the Presbytery excuses them from payment, made the payment of per capita apportionments mandatory, and as such the resolution was unconstitutional.

In response, the Presbytery argued, at times, that G-9.0404d gave them the right to adopt such a resolution since G-9.0404d already made per capita payments “mandatory”.  To support this conclusion, they relied heavily on the opinion of the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly (COGA) to the 213^th General Assembly (2001). COGA had opined that when the Presbytery sought to amend G-9.0404d with Overture 01-1, seeking to add the language “unless excused by the presbytery, a session shall be responsible for . . . transmission of per capita funds…”, that the Overture was unnecessary because presbyteries already possessed the authority and responsibilities the overture sought to make explicit in the text of G-9.0404d.  The Appellants argued that COGA was mistaken in its analysis of G-9.0404d, and that the General Assembly had never accepted COGA’s advice on this matter.

At other times, the Presbytery argued that it was not saying that per capita payments are “mandatory”, but that such payments are a responsibility rather than an option for sessions.  Appellants argued that the term “responsibility” as set forth in the resolution, especially when coupled with the term “excuses”, clearly dictates that per capita payments are mandatory.  The Appellants urged the GAPJC not to be misled by the Presbytery’s game of playing semantics.

The language of the amendment to G-90404d which was at issue in this case was “presbyteries may direct per capita apportionments to the sessions”.  The Appellants argued that when you look at the historical background surrounding the inclusion of this amendment to the Book of Order, General Assemblies’ opinions regarding per capita payments rendered since its inclusion, and the language of the amendment itself, it is clear that the amendment was only included in the Book of Order to codify the long standing practice of per capita apportionments.  On the other hand, the Presbytery’s position was that the amendment was added to the Book of Order to give presbyteries the right, if they so chose, to mandate per capita apportionments.

In a unanimous decision, the GAPJC found in favor of the Appellants -  ruling that the SPJC erred, when it determined that the resolution approved by the Presbytery regarding per capita apportionments was constitutional.  In support of this finding, the GAPJC determined that although the Presbytery  argued at oral arguments that the resolution did not “compel” a session to remit per capita monies, they found that the terms “excuses” and “responsibility” as set forth in the resolution, “strongly suggests compulsion if an excuse is not given”. 

In addition, the GAPJC found that the language added to G-9.0404d in the 1992 amendment did not grant presbyteries the power to compel sessions to transmit per capita apportionment.  Instead, the GAPJC agreed with the Appellants that the amendment was added to the Book of Order “simply to codify the historic practice of per capita giving”.

The GAPJC further reaffirmed the holding in Session, Central Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Long Island, Remedial Case No. 204-5 (1992) that “a church may neither be compelled to pay nor punished for failure to pay any amounts pursuant to such [per capita system] plan”. 

In addition, the GAPJC determined that the reserved powers clause, G-9.0103, which clause the Synod substantially relied upon in making its decision, was inapplicable in this situation, because the power to distribute a church’s benevolence is given to a session, and as such it is not a power reserved for the presbyteries.  And, contrary to the Presbytery’s position, the GAPJC agreed with the Appellants that benevolences do include per capita funds.

Thus, the present action becomes the first ruling by the GAPJC regarding an  interpretation of G-90404d since its inclusion in the Book of Order.  This interpretation makes clear that G-90404d does not give presbyteries the right to mandate per capita apportionments.  The importance of this decision is vital.  If sessions had been stripped of their rights to determine the payment of per capita apportionments, the covenantal relationship between sessions and presbyteries would have been detrimentally affected.  Law which is coercive or violates the commonly held ideals of the church is bad law, and contrary to the will of Christ.  The heart of our union is not compulsion, but rather covenant in Jesus Christ. 

In addition, if per capita payments would have been found to be mandatory, sessions would have lost the significant right of dissenting by the withholding of per capita dollars.  Presbyteries would have had the right to use per capita funds in any manner they chose, without the fear of economic reprisal, which at times unfortunately, is the only type of dissent that works.

Of course, both the Appellants and the Presbytery agreed that the payment of per capita funds is certainly a high moral obligation.  Reaffirming this principle, the GAPJC noted that there is a high moral obligation based on the grace and call of God to participate fully in the covenant community.  Consequently, any decision not to contribute to per capita should not be entered into lightly, especially in seasons of disagreement, uncertainty and controversy.    

Kathy Miller Trimble

Attorney for Complainants/Appellants