 Decision on Heartland Policy is mailed to case participants By John H. Adams The Layman Online Monday, April 5, 2004 OVERLAND PARK, Kan. – The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Mid-America sent via certified mail today its ruling about whether the Heartland Presbytery was unconstitutionally coercing or punishing local congregations that did not remit their full per-capita apportionments to support higher governing bodies. The remedial church court case – meaning no disciplinary action is called for against church officers – was tried before the nine-member, all-male synod court in Overland Park, Kan., on Friday, April 2.
Court members did not overtly indicate how they would decide the issue, but their questions seemed to challenge the presbytery's policy of refusing to provide presbytery services to congregations whose sessions withhold or redirect per-capita apportionments that support the work of higher governing bodies. At one point, court member Bill Havens of the Presbytery of John Calvin, responding to arguments by the presbytery, said, "I can guarantee you the higher court's not going to look at it that way." He was referring to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the highest court in the denomination, where some observers believe the case will eventually be decided on appeal from the synod. The General Assembly court has already ruled three times – in Westminster v. Presbytery of Detroit (1976), Central v. Presbytery of Long Island (1992) and Minihan v. Presbytery of Scioto Valley (2003) – in favor of the Book of Order constitutional standard. Furthermore, numerous General Assembly interpretations have affirmed the court's finding that local church sessions have absolute authority in determining how to spend the tithes and offerings the congregation gives. The courts have said that congregations can neither be compelled to remit per capita nor punished for failure to do so. But the General Assembly court has not defined what constitutes coercion or punishment. In Central v. Long Island, the court did approve the presbytery's policy of publishing the names of congregations that did not meet their full per capita.
The issues in the complaint by the session of First Presbyterian Church in Paola, Kan., and three ministers – Kirk Johnston, Laurie Johnston and Tom Sparks – are per-capita and mission pledges. Unlike per capita, the payment of Board of Pension dues, statistical reports and the annual reporting of the pastor's term of call are constitutional requirements. The hearing before the synod court was not a trial. Both sides had stipulated agreements on certain facts and there was no testimony. The counsel for the presbytery and the complainants – after having filed their original and follow-up briefs – presented their final arguments and answered the court's questions. Brian O. Ellison, a minister and a member of the Heartland Presbytery Council, represented the presbytery. Robert L. Howard, an attorney and an elder at Eastminster Presbyterian Church in Wichita, represented the complainants. Howard is also the former chairman of the Presbyterian Lay Committee.
The thrust of Ellison's argument was that the presbytery was not coercing or punishing any congregation for failure to remit its per capita; rather, it was simply exercising careful stewardship of limited resources. He argued that the decision of whether to remit its full per capita – and whether to qualify for presbytery services – was wholly the session's. But Howard contended the policy violated the presbytery's constitutional duty to encourage local congregations to grow. Howard cited the case of Hillsdale Presbyterian Church, a congregation served by Laurie Johnston, wife of Kirk Johnston, the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Paola, Kan. "When Laurie Johnston took the call to Hillsdale in 1998, the congregation had 30 members with an average of 27 at worship," Howard said. "In 2003, it had 88 members and an average attendance of 76." But the congregation, expecting continued growth to cramp the sanctuary, decided to expand and applied for a loan from the PCUSA's Church Development Corporation. Howard said the loan was approved and recently came before the Heartland Presbytery Council. "The council ruled that it would not even consider extending a loan," he said, "because Hillsdale was behind in its per capita. There was no analysis whether it furthered the great ends of the church. Before this policy, that loan would have sailed right through." Howard used the Hillsdale situation to counter Ellison's argument that the issue was the presbytery's stewardship. "The financial exposure to the presbytery is minimal because the property itself is tied to the mortgage," he said. The Heartland policy "impedes and impairs the proclamation of the gospel if you can't get them in the sanctuary to hear the Word." Howard also said the Heartland policy "clearly does punish directly and indirectly any church that does not pay its full per capita and does not make and meet any mission pledge as defined by the presbytery. … It's crystal clear that this policy will punish any church that may need to take a loan on its property." Lending institutions generally require that presbyteries approve loans for building projects at local churches because the PCUSA constitution says all church property is held in trust for the denomination. Howard said the major premise of the presbytery's brief was "that the larger will govern the smaller … that presbyteries, embodying God's grace, collective wisdom and discernment, will govern sessions." But, he added, "That's simply not a principle of our constitution. There are some things over which it governs, but there are other things in which they are not in control" – including the spending of church benevolences. (The Minihan case declared that per capita is a benevolence.) The presbytery "must acknowledge that the session has the responsibility and power to determine the distribution of benevolences," Howard said. Ellison argued that the Book of Order does have tiers of authority, citing G-1.0400, titled "The Historic Principles of Church Government," which says, in part "that a larger part of the Church, or a representation of it, should govern a smaller, or determine matters of controversy which arise therein …" But Howard countered that Presbyterian governance is not merely a top-down authority. "While our Book of Order speaks of higher governing bodies, we acknowledge that our system constitutes a partnership. Hartland's policy fails to recognize the principle of partnership." He also contended that the presbytery's authority does not extend to requiring sessions to remit per capita or punishing them for failing to do so. "When specific powers are granted to a session, that trumps or preempts" the presbytery's authority, he said. "Heartland's interpretation overlooks what is the whole purpose behind the Book of Order. The whole purpose is to develop a strategy for growth and mission, in effect, to carry out the great ends of the church. When a church preaches the Word, the church responds. They grow. If they are going to be faithful to the great ends of the church, they cannot have a policy that undercuts the proclamation of the gospel." But Ellison said the Heartland policy squares with the constitution and the connectional nature of the Presbyterian Church (USA). "Are we a connectional system or are we a congregational system, with local churches doing what they please and presbyteries responding as rubber stamps?" he asked. Accepting the complainants' arguments, he said, would be to say "a presbytery cannot do anything that is discouraging the church." Ellison said there is a risk factor when the presbytery guarantees a loan. "A loan guarantee is a loan guarantee," he said. "The possibility of a congregation defaulting on a loan is a real possibility." But Howard argued that there is no risk to the presbytery. In most cases, he said, congregations use their church property as collateral to borrow money for expansion. In case of loan default, he added, the presbytery would have the option of taking over that property, selling it or allowing the lending agency to take over the property. Disputing the complaint that the Heartland policy is punitive, Ellison said that is the wrong word. He used "ramifications" as the consequence of not paying per capita or making and meeting a mission pledge. "The Heartland policy does not take into consideration who pays and who doesn't," he said. "There is no offense. There is no violation assumed in Heartland's policy. There is no effort to force churches to pay per capita. What the presbytery does seek is a way to distribute and collect funds in a way that is just." "Even if you accept the dictionary definition of punishment, there is no offense. They're choosing not to participate. The complainants have to prove that the Heartland policy compels sessions to pay," Ellison said. Arguing that the Heartland policy is constitutional, Ellison said the complainants have "questioned the wisdom and judgment of the presbytery. We believe this policy is a single witness to the church's unity and our presbytery policy as a superior way." Citing the Minihan decision, he said, "We are necessarily bound together; thus, there is a high moral obligation to participate in the covenant community. We are called to turn from the sin of individualism run rampant and embrace the covenant community." "When believers come together, they are not bound by conscience, but by the discernment of governing bodies. … Lower governing bodies must accept the authority of higher governing bodies." Howard argued that the policy was driven by punishment, not scarce resources, as the respondents claimed. Citing the Hillsdale case, Howard said, "I find it to be so patently punitive as to settle the argument as to whether there is punishment." The complainants' claim, he added, "arises from the constitution … from the whole church. The Heartland Presbytery is literally in defiance of the constitution. We did not create a claim here. That is from the constitution." Howard argued that a congregation's elders "have a constitutional duty … to discern whether or not the benevolences given by the faithful members of the church are used for the purposes intended. That's not some corporate conscience. That's a fundamental responsibility." The per capita "is not a tax; it's not mandatory. They have the absolute right not to remit it." Calling the Heartland policy "wrongheaded," Howard added, "This church is not going to collapse because you reaffirm what PJCs at the highest level have done before you. This church is in danger of imploding by presbyteries and sessions deciding whether they will abide by the constitution. Whoever crafted this policy tried to craft it as close as they could get to making it mandatory and patently punitive without saying so." The Heartland policy is "very un-Presbyterian, very unconstitutional," Howard declared. |
||||||
Respond to this article |
||||||
| Home
· Archives
· The
Layman ·
PLC
Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||||||
