Synod court rules Heartland policy was unconstitutional By John H. Adams The Layman Online Tuesday, April 6, 2004 The Heartland Presbytery policy that required its congregations to fulfill a number of criteria - including full payment of per-capita apportionments – in order to become eligible for presbytery services has been declared unconstitutional. The Heartland Presbytery Policy Adopted June 17, 2003 "The Presbytery Council moves 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 payment of per capita, the making and meeting of a mission pledge, being current on Board of Pension dues, the filling (sic) of annual statistical reports and the annual reporting of pastor's terms of call." The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Mid-America, in a ruling dated April 2, ordered that the policy, specifically as it applied to eligibility for mission support, shared grants or loan guarantees, be "vacated and set aside." Participants in the case received the ruling by certified mail today. Other parts of the Heartland policy, including requirements that congregations meet their commitments to the Board of Pensions for their ministers' health benefits and retirement, that local sessions file annually statistical reports and that they report annually the terms of their pastors' calls were not affected by the ruling. But those requirements are already mandated by the denomination's constitution. On the other hand, the PCUSA Constitution, three key rulings by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission and numerous General Assembly declarations have declared that the constitution vests full authority in local church sessions to decide how they spend the tithes and offerings of their congregations. Those rulings have said sessions can neither be compelled to pay their per capita nor punished for failure to do so. Heartland case links Full text of April 2 ruling by the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Mid America. The Layman Online story about the final arguments in the Heartland Presbytery case. Complainants' closing brief. Respondents' closing brief. General Assembly PJC ruling in Minihan et al vs. Presbtyery of Scioto Valley. GAPJC ruling in Session of Central Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Long Island (See appendix # 2). GAPJC ruling in Westminster United Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Detroit (See appendix # 3). The Heartland Presbytery, which serves congregations in Missouri and Kansas, adopted its policy on June 17, 2003. It was one of numerous attempts by presbyteries to require their congregations to pay their assigned share of the costs of higher governing bodies. But all have been declared unconstitutional by Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly. Affirming those decisions by the denomination's highest court, the synod court ruled that the Heartland Presbytery committed four irregularities. The court voted: 1. 6-2 that the "presbytery unconstitutionally attempts to mandate to sessions and congregations the payment of per capita and mission pledges. Our Constitution provides in G-10.0102h, i and j [of the Book of Order], that the session has full responsibility to distribute the gifts of its people." 2. 6-2 that the "presbytery unconstitutionally attempts to punish a congregation for failure to pay per capita or failure to make and keep a mission pledge by denying a congregation the right to be considered for loan guarantees, shared grants, or mission support based solely on the criterion of whether discretionary contributions have been made." 3. 6-2 that the "Constitution and authoritative interpretations are clear that per capita payments and mission pledges are voluntary and a church may neither be compelled to pay nor punished for failure to pay. The Heartland Presbytery has by its actions unconstitutionally encroached on the right of sessions to determine their church's benevolences and unconstitutionally sought to punish sessions which fail to pay per capita or mission pledges by declaring such congregations ineligible to request or receive mission support, shared grants or loan guarantees solely on the basis of nonpayment of per capita or mission pledges." 4. And, by a 5-3 vote, it said, "This action unconstitutionally forces any Heartland Presbytery church that fails to meet the criteria set forth under this action, to act alone as owner and guarantor of its property … the action of the presbytery has the potential to force a church to act in a manner contrary to the Constitution." The heart of the issue in the Heartland case was that the policy prohibited growing congregations from meeting their expansion needs. One of the complainants, the Rev. Laurie Johnston, was in that situation. She serves as stated supply at Hillsdale Presbyterian Church, which is allied with the Confessing Church Movement. The congregation sought the presbytery's approval for a loan to enlarge church facilities. Citing the policy, the Heartland Presbytery Council refused to consider the church's request, even though it had been approved by the denomination's lending agency. Generally, lenders require a presbytery to sanction a loan request because, according to the PCUSA, all local church property is held in trust for the denomination. Even though the synod court's decision favored all of the major arguments of the complainants, the court did rule in the presbytery's favor on two issues. The vote was 7-1 against the complainants' contention that, "By usurping the congregations (sic) right to distribute the gifts of its people (G-10.0102h, i, j), Heartland Presbytery's action mutes the rightful witness to higher governing bodies of any congregation acting to best steward gifts given to the cause of Christ." It also rejected the complainants' request to require the presbytery to pay some of the costs of filing the case. "This Commission is aware of no provision in our Constitution that Complainants' costs be assessed against Respondent," the court said. The complainants in the Heartland case are Laurie Johnston; Kirk Johnston, her husband, who is pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Paola, Kan.; the Rev. Thomas F. Sparks, a minister in the presbytery who has recently accepted a call to serve a Presbyterian congregation in Georgia; and the session of First Presbyterian Church in Paola. During oral arguments before the synod court at Overland Park Presbyterian Church in Overland, Kan., the complainants were represented by attorney Robert L. Howard, an elder at Eastminster Presbyterian Church in Wichita, Kan., and immediate past chairman of the Presbyterian Lay Committee. Howard told the court that he was providing his service without charge. The presbytery was represented by the Rev. Brian D. Ellison, a minister in the presbytery and a member of the Heartland Presbytery Council.

Respond to this article

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