Presbytery policy punishes sessions withholding per capita By John H. Adams The Layman Online Thursday, April 24, 2003 The Council of the Presbytery of Heartland in Missouri-Kansas has taken punitive action against congregations whose sessions do not remit per-capita payments to support the work of the presbytery, synod and General Assembly. "We're not out to punish anyone," the Rev. Roger Harp, the presbytery's executive, told The Layman Online. But he acknowledged that some commissioners to the presbytery's meeting on April 22 viewed the policy as punitive. After the policy was published in the presbytery packet as a fait accompli, several commissioners spoke from the floor – both pro and con – before Kim Leech, the presbytery's stated clerk, suggested that sessions make their concerns known to the council. Harp said the council may reconsider the policy, which declares that "no congregation be considered eligible to request assistance from the presbytery in the form of mission support, shared grants or loan guarantees unless that congregation has demonstrated its full participation in the fiscal and ecclesiastical life of the presbytery, including the paying of per capita, the making and meeting of a mission pledge, being current on Board of Pensions dues, the filing of annual statistical reports, and the annual reporting of the pastor's terms of call." According to documents for commissioners at the April 22 presbytery, 18 of the presbytery's 111 congregations have not paid their per capita. The Heartland policy appears to contravene Presbyterian case law on per-capita payments. In 1991, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, the highest court in the denomination, issued the most significant ruling on the issue, saying that sessions were not compelled to make per-capita payments and that "a presbytery may not punish, directly or indirectly," congregations whose sessions do not pay their allotted share. That decision – in a case titled Session of Central Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of New York – is recorded on pages 179-180 of the 1992 Minutes (Part I) of the Presbyterian Church (USA). In an official analysis of the 1991 decision, the late Fred C. Jenkins of the Office of the Stated Clerk said, "The PJC goes on to say the issue should not be dealt with in terms of requirements and punishments, but as an issue of moral responsibility to participate appropriately in funding the very processes and structure the session hopes to change." Historically, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and its predecessor denominations have said sessions have the sole authority to determine how the freewill tithes and offerings of its members are spent. The General Assembly, following the Biblical premise that "the Lord loves a cheerful giver," has repeatedly rejected overtures that would compel or coerce sessions to make their full per-capita payments to support programs that they disapprove of. And, historically, per-capita support for the denomination has diminished in the wake of controversies, such as the ReImagining God movement and the ongoing efforts of activists seeking to repeal the denomination's prohibition against ordaining practicing homosexuals. In addition to the denominational issues, local congregations – as well as charitable organizations of all stripes – have had financial shortfalls because of economic conditions. Harp said the Heartland Presbytery's mission budget had to be cut substantially. In the PCUSA, each governing body above the session establishes its own per-capita request and presbyteries collect and forward the money from congregations. In Heartland, the 2003 per-capita request for the synod is $2.70; for the General Assembly, $5.44; and for the presbytery, $14.77 – a total of $22.91 per church member. Thus, a 250-member congregation would be asked to remit $5,727.50. In many cases, sessions decline to make per-capita payments as a matter of conscience because of their disagreement with the actions of higher governing bodies. Often, sessions declining to remit their per-capita payments either hold money in escrow or use it to support ministries with which they agree. Harp said one commissioner whose congregation does not pay its General Assembly share of the per capita told the presbytery that his session took that action to protest national policies that the elders disagree with. But Harp noted that current Presbyterian rules require presbyteries, which collect the per-capita payments, to remit – if possible – 100 percent of their allocations from the General Assembly. Thus, Harp added, an individual congregation's dissent by withholding per capita shortchanges the presbytery, not the denomination. In a few cases, sessions seeking to withhold per-capita payments to the General Assembly have specifically requested that the presbyteries decline to send the amount equivalent to their withholding to the denomination. But The Layman Online has heard of no cases in which presbyteries concurred. Heartland's policy is the second adopted recently by presbyteries seeking to compel their congregations to meet their per-capita askings. The Presbytery of Scioto Valley in Ohio has a policy that says only those congregations that are specifically excused by the presbytery may decline to pay their apportionments. The presbytery court has affirmed that policy and the case is on appeal to the synod. In 2002, the 214th General Assembly affirmed that per-capita payment is voluntary. It urged presbyteries to "work pastorally with those sessions who choose to withhold their per capita" and called on "General Assembly agencies and presbyteries to work to alleviate the problems that lead to withholding so that the church may proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world." But Clifton Kirkpatrick has not expressed comparable equanimity. In a letter to churches last year, he urged that ministers and elders not to recommend withholding per-capita. "Such actions are unconstitutional, and I urge that they stop," he said. "It is a violation of our ordination vows to promote schism or the defiance of constitutionally sanctioned governing body directives." A minister or elder can be excommunicated for violating an ordination vow. The Presbyterian Coalition, an evangelical group, strongly disagrees with Kirkpatrick's assessment of church law. As part of its strategic vision, the coalition adopted a 1991 statement affirming "the right of all sessions to withhold/redirect their per capita assessment and/or to restrict/redirect their mission funds, as an act of conscience to protest the failures of PCUSA leadership, the actions of the 2001 GA, and to accelerate dynamic and drastic restructuring of the PCUSA."

Respond to this article

Home · Archives · The Layman · PLC Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links