Pursuing
Our Highest Moral Obligations:
Facts and Sample Resolutions Concerning Per Capita
In the aftermath of the 217th General Assembly (2006), a number of sessions and presbyteries have considered how to respond faithfully concerning issues such as ordination standards, per capita funding of higher governing bodies, and property. In many cases, opinions expressed by denominational leaders and by Presbyterians in the lower governing bodies have been at variance with the facts and our constitutional law in the Book of Order and authoritative interpretations.
A group of men and women experienced in polity, some of them with experience in the church courts including the General Assembly’s permanent judicial commission, and associated with a number of renewal groups have studied these issues. They are preparing papers that compile pertinent information and suggest possible resolutions and practical approaches on these controversial subjects that sessions and presbyteries are encouraged to follow.
The papers provide facts, information, supporting documentation, and suggested resolutions. The intent is to provide accurate information and wording for actions that may be taken to help presbyteries clarify their own positions on these matters. The resolutions and actions proposed in the papers have been carefully written to be fully consistent with church law and the underlying teaching of Holy Scripture, thus providing a solid and defensible position of integrity on which to stand.
Sessions are encouraged
to consider any or all of these resolutions as overtures to their presbyteries.
The reasoning, history, and background may be useful as rationale. Presbyteries
that are already considering other resolutions on these topics may find this
information useful as they deliberate and refine their actions.
Introduction
The nature
of presbyteries’ responsibility to remit per capita payments to General Assembly
and Synod has been a matter of both debate and confusion in recent years in
the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). A collaborative group of concerned Presbyterians
has worked together to articulate key facts related to per capita and to suggest
how presbyteries might best express their commitment to make decisions about
remitting per capita in a manner that is sensitive to the presbytery’s other
responsibilities and obligations.
Facts
Rationale for a Sample Resolution
We all
wish that we could do all things for all people. But we can’t. As mere humans,
we are limited in time, talent and treasure. If we were to deny our limitations
and try to do and be everything, in the end, we would not actually do or be
much. The call to proclaim the gospel effectively is imperative. Therefore,
as a presbytery, we are called carefully and prayerfully to discern and set
funding priorities for ministry. Within these priorities is our responsibility
to remit per capita payments to GA and synod. While fulfilling per capita is a high moral obligation, it not the
highest moral obligation.
There
are two key questions. First, who determines how presbytery responsibilities
are prioritized? Second, who determines if funds are available? The answer
to both is the presbytery.
Sample Resolutions
Therefore,
it is appropriate for a presbytery to carefully contemplate how to prudently
fulfill its obligations, including per capita and define the basis for determining
whether funds are available. Below are two sample resolutions a presbytery
might consider.
Be
it resolved that with regard to finances, this presbytery considers remittance
of its per capita to General Assembly and synod to be a high moral obligation.
Be it further resolved that this presbytery holds its express powers and duties
enumerated in G-11.0103a & b to include higher moral obligations. Therefore,
funds will be available for per capita payments after the presbytery prudently
sustains and fulfills the higher moral obligation of its ongoing ministries.
Notwithstanding, any monies specifically designated by sessions for per capita
will be transmitted to the higher governing bodies.
***************************************
This
presbytery recognizes that it has a responsibility to remit per capita to
General Assembly and synod if funds are available, whether or not every session
presents a per capita offering. This
presbytery accepts the responsibility of determining whether or not funds
are available for that purpose and will remit per capita on the basis of that
determination. Notwithstanding, any monies specifically designated by sessions
for per capita will be transmitted to the higher governing bodies.
Rev.
Dr. James D. Berkley, Director of Presbyterian Action for Faith and Freedom
and a board member of the Presbyterian Coalition, has observed and critiqued
the Theological Task Force’s activity since 2003.
Elder
Whitman H. Brisky, Attorney and Partner of the
Rev.
Dr. Michael D. Bush, Professor, Erskine Theological Seminary, Due West, SC, and a leader of
Constitutional Presbyterians.
Elder
Gordon E. Fish, Ph.D., Member of Grace Presbyterian Church,
Rev.
Dr. Winfield R. (Casey) Jones, Pastor of First Presbyterian Church,
Rev.
Dr. Paul Leggett, Senior Pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church,
Rev.
Dr. Richard Randall, Pastor of the Village Church at Lake Tahoe; member and
past Moderator of the Presbytery of Nevada; commissioner to 217th General
Assembly serving on the Ecclesiology Committee.
Rev.
James R. Tony, Senior Pastor of Palos Park (IL) Presbyterian Community Church;
member of Chicago Presbytery and former member of its Permanent Judicial Commission.
He serves on the board of the Presbyterian Coalition.
Rev.
Michael R. Walker, Executive Director, Presbyterians For
Renewal.
Rev.
Christopher A. Yim, Senior Pastor of Neelsville
Presbyterian Church,
This
statement is a collaborative work of the individuals named above, several
of whom deal with polity concerns on behalf of renewal organizations. For advice, contact polity-help@presbycoalition.org
or legalteam@pfrenewal.org.
Appendix of Citations
G-9.0404d. Each governing body above the session shall
prepare a budget annually for its operating expenses, including administrative
personnel, and may fund it with a per capita apportionment among the particular
churches within its bounds. The presbyteries
shall be responsible for raising their own per capita funds, and for raising and timely transmission of per capita
funds to their respective synods and to the General Assembly. The presbyteries may direct per capita apportionments
to the sessions of the churches within their bounds.
G-10.0102i. [The session has the responsibility and power]
to establish the annual budget, determine the distribution of the church's
benevolences, and order offerings for Christian purposes, providing full information
to the congregation of its decisions in such matters.
G-11.0103a. [The presbytery has the responsibility and
power] to develop strategy for the mission of the church in its area consistent with
G-3.0000.
G-11.0103b. [The presbytery has the responsibility and
power] to coordinate the work of its member churches, guiding them and mobilizing
their strength for the most effective witness to the broader community for
which it has responsibility.
Pertinent Excerpts from Authoritative Interpretation of the 211th
GA (1999)
(Minutes, 1999,
65, 107, 16.001-.012, Req. 99-1)
G-9.0404d provides
that “The presbyteries shall be responsible for raising their own per
capita funds, and for raising and timely transmission
of per capita funds to their respective synods and to the General Assembly.”
Further, G-9.0404d provides: “The presbyteries may direct per
capita apportionments to the sessions of the churches within their bounds.
. . .” [Emphases in the original].
Therefore, a presbytery has the responsibility to remit per capita allocations
to synod and General Assembly, even though a congregation does not pay the
per capita allocated to it by the presbytery.
[GA answered in the affirmative the following question]:
If churches refuse to pay their portion, does the presbytery have the
responsibility to pay the full amount irrespective to the specific collection
from churches, as long as funds are available within the presbytery?”
Pertinent Excerpts from the Most Applicable GAPJC Cases
John Minihan and J. Randall Richards, Complainants/Appellants
v.
The Presbytery of
In the instant case,
the issue is whether the language added to G-9.0404d in the 1992 amendment
(“presbyteries may direct per capita apportionments to the sessions”) grants
a presbytery power to compel a session to transmit the per capita apportionment
assigned to it.
Although the Presbytery
contended at oral argument that its resolution did not compel a session to
remit per capita monies, our reading of the resolution leads to a different
understanding. Specifically, the necessity of a session applying to the Presbytery
for an “excuse” from its “responsibility” to pay per capita monies strongly
suggests compulsion if an excuse is not given.
Even if one concludes
that the phrase “may direct” in G-9.0404d is ambiguous (meaning “may require,”
as the Presbytery essentially argues, or “may ask,” as the Appellants contend),
we conclude that it was not the intent of the 1992 amendment to G-9.0404 to
change the historic practice of voluntary giving of per capita monies. There
was nothing in the overture that indicated that it was intended to change
the historically voluntary nature of per capita giving. The presbyteries approved
the amendment by an overwhelming majority.
Moreover, if the
General Assembly had desired to compel rather than trust sessions to transmit
per capita to the presbyteries, it would have used mandatory language to express
the sessions’ obligation regarding per capita parallel to the language used
to express the presbyteries’ obligation.
Thus, notwithstanding
the fact that the 1992 amendment was neither considered nor a part of the
Book of Order at the time of this Commission’s decision in the Central case,
we hereby reaffirm this Commission’s holding that “a church may neither
be compelled to pay nor
punished for failure to pay any amounts pursuant to such [per capita system]
plan.” (Emphasis added)
We are not persuaded
by the argument of the Presbytery and the conclusion of the SPJC that the
“reserved powers” clause of G-9.0103 and the 1994 Authoritative Interpretation
confirm a power in the presbytery to compel payment by the session of per
capita apportionment.
G-9.0103 provides
that the jurisdiction of a governing body is limited by the express provisions
of the Book of Order “with powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries.”
This Commission is of the opinion that this provision does not apply in the
present matter because G-10.0102i gives a session the power to determine the
distribution of a church’s “benevolences.” This includes the power to raise
and transmit per capita funds. In making this determination, the Commission
interprets the word “benevolence” to include per capita funds. (Emphasis
added) The Commission therefore concludes that the power of presbytery to
act in this regard has been preempted. Similarly, the 1994 Authoritative Interpretation
of G-11.0103f, indicating that a presbytery’s guidance to sessions
is “mandatory” to the extent that it incorporates requirements established
by the presbytery, is also not applicable because G-9.0404d does not give
the presbytery the power to require payment of per capita apportionment by
sessions.
But, as both parties
acknowledged, the theological heart of this case is the covenantal nature
of the Church. Indeed, both parties refer to per capita as a high moral obligation
and as one of the sinews that binds the covenant community together. This
is consistent with the historic nature of Presbyterian order that we
have shared power and responsibility (G-4.0302).
Therefore, while
our Constitution does not technically permit presbyteries to make per capita
mandatory, we are necessarily bound together as a covenant community through
our union to God Almighty in Jesus through the Holy Spirit (A Brief Statement
of Faith, C-10.4, lines 52-57). Thus, there is a high moral obligation based
on the grace and call of God to participate fully in the covenant community.
Full participation includes time, talent, and treasure (G-10.0102h; W-5.5004).
Moreover, all officers are obligated, by virtue of ordination vows (G-14.0207i;
G-14.0405b(9)), to participate fully in the life
of the Church. To participate partially or not at all and yet claim to be
within the covenant community represents a grievous misunderstanding of our
reciprocal covenantal obligations under the singular Lordship of Jesus (The
Second Helvetic Confession, C-5.124-141). In other words, we are
called to turn from the sin of individualism run rampant and embrace the covenantal
community in which our Lord Jesus has called us to live as those who love
as we have been loved (John 13:34). Therefore, withholding per capita as a
means of protest or dissent evidences a serious breach of the trust and love
with which our Lord Jesus intends the covenant community to function
together (G-7.0103).
A. Kirk Johnston et al. , Complainants/Appellees
v.
Heartland Presbytery, Respondent/Appellant
In this case, Presbytery
is understandably wrestling with the tensions created by the following factors:
(1) a presbytery’s constitutional responsibility to remit full per capita
apportionments to synod and General Assembly for all its churches, whether
or not those congregations pay full per capita apportionments to it, (2) a
presbytery’s inability under the Book of Order to mandate a session’s
payment of per capita apportionments, (3) the limited dollars available for
mission, and (4) the acknowledged high moral obligation of all congregations
to participate fully in the life of the larger church by sharing the costs
of the larger church’s mission and operations.
The Commission appreciates
Presbytery’s effort to give substance to the connectionalism
that distinguishes our system of polity from episcopal
and congregational forms of church government. Indeed, all of the Commission’s
decisions on per capita apportionments, and all parties to this case, acknowledge
that payment of per capita apportionments is a high moral obligation, the
fulfillment of which visibly demonstrates the covenantal ties that bind us
as the one
The policy improperly turns payment of per capita
apportionments or the fulfillment of a mission pledge into a mandate … A presbytery’s
right of oversight cannot be construed to give presbytery a right that our
polity withholds—namely, a right to mandate a session’s full payment of per
capita apportionments as a condition of its eligibility to seek presbytery’s
assistance … While the Book of Order refers to a higher governing body’s
“right of review and control over a lower one” (G-4.0301f), these concepts
must not be understood in hierarchical terms, but in light of the shared responsibility
and power at the heart of Presbyterian order (G-4.0302).