 Brief calls Heartland per-capita policy coercive, unconstitutional By John H. Adams The Layman Online Tuesday, September 21, 2004 The complainants challenging Heartland Presbytery for requiring its congregations to pay their full per-capita requests, as well as make and meet mission pledges for presbytery work, say the policy is coercive and unconstitutional, according to a pre-trial brief filed with the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission.
The Heartland Presbytery, which includes congregations in Kansas and Missouri, filed its brief in defense of its policy on August 18, arguing that a synod court ruling favoring the complainants "undermines and interferes with the right of presbytery to determine its budget and policies with regard to its own budget, grant application procedures, and criteria for budget administration …" On April 3, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Mid-America ruled that the Heartland policy was unconstitutional. "While the policy does not specifically mandate the payment of per capita and mission pledges, considered in its whole the coercive force of the policy in fact requires sessions to remit per capita funds and to make and fulfill mission pledges without regard for the session's right and duty to make such decisions without coercion," the synod court said. The complainants' brief emphasizes what two previous General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commissions have said in Minihan vs. Presbytery of Scioto Valley and Session of Central Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Long Island (page 18) - that local congregations cannot be forced to remit per-capita requests or be punished for failure to do so. "The SPJC decision in this case correctly upholds and applies the settled Constitutional law of our church – Sessions, not Presbyteries, have the sole responsibility and power to determine the distribution of offerings and benevolences of the congregation and presbyteries cannot coerce or punish Sessions for determinations contrary to presbytery's preferences," the complainants say. "On this controlling point of Constitutional law, the larger church has spoken. It has decided the question through the General Assembly, the Advisory Committee on the Constitution, and through the prior decisions of the GAPJC." The complainants say that decision does not please everyone in the denomination nor does it satisfy presbyteries' desire to require remittance of per-capita and mission funds. Heartland and other presbyteries have argued that the inability to enforce per-capita payments is a threat to the unity of the church. "Contrary to Appellant's Argument, the real threat to the unity of the PC (USA) is not the SPJC decision," the complainants say. "The real threat to unity comes from coercion by governing bodies which undermine the power properly placed in sessions. If this commission allows the policy of Heartland Presbytery to stand, it would set a dangerous and divisive precedent for the whole church. "Many Presbyterians have already expressed significant mistrust of the policies and politics of 'higher governing bodies' of our church. Some Sessions do prayerfully and thoughtfully determine that the benevolences of their congregation should not be used to fund policies and actions they cannot support as a matter of conscience. Some Sessions do redirect such gifts to mission causes they deem more faithful to Scripture. Such determinations by Sessions may not be acceptable to some Presbyteries, but they are Constitutional." The complaint raises a question to personalize the issue: "What would our congregations be like if our Sessions adopted policies that declared 'no member of this congregation shall be eligible for any pastoral services, unless such member makes and meets a pledge to the mission budget of the church and pays a per capita assessment as levied by Session?' Voluntary generous giving would quickly dry up in the face of such autocratic presumption of power. Members would vote with their feet and their wallets – toward the exit. Churches are built and the great commission is fulfilled by cheerful, voluntary givers – not by taxation and compulsion." The complaint called the Heartland policy "unwise, unjust and fundamentally in conflict with the Historic Principles of Church Order and our historic professions of faith." The complainants in the case are the Rev. A. Kirk Johnston, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Paola, Kan., and his wife, the Rev. Laurie Johnston, pastor of Hillsdale Presbyterian Church. The complaint spells out how the Johnstons' congregations are affected by the Heartland Policy: "Under the Heartland policy, if the Paola Session exercises its constitutional right not to pay General Assembly per capita, but pays its full Presbytery and Synod per capita, the congregation still could not receive a loan, or a loan guarantee-regardless of how well qualified financially it might be. It would not even be eligible to apply to have its request considered and acted upon. Under the Heartland Policy, the congregation of First-Paola could be further punished by Presbytery's refusing even to consent to a mortgage on Paola's property to finance an expansion of its facility-solely because the Paola Session exercises its constitutional right and redirects its general assembly per capita apportionment to some other benevolence. "Indeed that is precisely what actually happened to the Hillsdale, Kansas Church where Complainant Rev. Laurie Johnston is pastor. (See GAPJC Record 020133-35) The Hillsdale Church grew from 30 members and average of attendance of 27 in 1998 when she first became pastor, to 88 members and average attendance of 76 in 2003. That 300% increase required a sanctuary expansion. The Synod Church Development Corporation approved a loan for the expansion, and Presbytery's consent was required for that loan. The Heartland Presbytery Congregational Development and Redevelopment Committee reviewed the application and found that the Hillsdale Church was fully qualified by presbytery's normal standards. But when the Council of Presbytery was asked about the loan in view of Heartland's per capita policy, the Council ruled that Hillsdale wasn't eligible to even be considered for a consent to the loan to expand the Hillsdale sanctuary because Hillsdale is behind on its GA per capita payments. (Hillsdale paid full Presbytery and Synod per capita.) "The Heartland Council exercised no judgment or discretion about the fiscal soundness of the loan, no inquiry as to how needed the loan was, no analysis of whether it furthered the great ends of the church to proclaim the gospel and convert mankind. It did not make a "legitimate missions decision." It simply ruled Hillsdale wasn't eligible to even be considered because the Hillsdale Church was not current on its General Assembly per capita. "Despite hypothetical arguments in Appellant's brief, the truth of the matter is that any real financial exposure to the Presbytery in consenting to (or even guaranteeing) mortgage loans to churches such as Hillsdale or Paola, is minimal or non-existent. The property itself is ample security for the mortgage and the financial performance of the Church demonstrates its ability to pay off the loan, otherwise a prudent banker or the CDC would not approve the loan. As applied, Heartland's policy precludes any church from ever expanding to further the work of the Church of Jesus Christ, unless it pays per capita and Presbytery's mission pledge. Thus, the Heartland Policy impedes and impairs the promulgation of the gospel for the salvation of all mankind and therefore violates Heartland's duty under the Constitution to further the great ends of the Church." |
||
Respond to this article |
||
| Home
· Archives
· The
Layman ·
PLC
Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||