 Two PCUSA bodies support compulsory payment of per capita By John H. Adams The Layman Online Tuesday, May 23, 2006 The Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) is recommending that the 217th General Assembly approve an authoritative interpretation that would allow presbyteries to compel the sessions of local congregations to pay per-capita requests for higher governing bodies.
Across the denomination, a number of sessions notified higher governing bodies that they will not remit their per-capita requests because of their disagreement with denominational policies. In other cases, some congregations have declared that they do not have sufficient resources to support higher governing bodies and continue to do local mission work. The ACC made its recommendation in response to an overture by the Presbytery of Baltimore, which also calls for an authoritative interpretation that would make paying per capita mandatory. The Baltimore overture says: "1. That the covenantal relationship of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) recognizes both the need and obligation of governing bodies to support each other; and 2. that sessions are responsible for payment of per capita apportionments of General Assembly, synod, and presbytery directed to them by the presbytery in accordance with G-9.0404d." The ACC's suggestion says: "If the presbytery in its discretion exercises G-9.0404d to direct per capita apportionment to the sessions of its constituent churches, then this decision is binding on those sessions, notwithstanding the responsibility granted sessions under G-10.0102i, in light of the additional responsibilities of sessions under G-10.0102p." The three Book of Order sections cited in the two proposals are:
The 217th General Assembly Procedures Committee will consider the Baltimore overture, the ACC's proposed authoritative interpretation and its endorsement by the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly during the meeting in Birmingham on June 15-22. Past efforts to make per-capita payments by local governing bodies compulsory have failed and the GAPJC has ruled that the payments are voluntary even though sessions have a "moral obligation" to financially support higher governing bodies. The denomination's per-capita rate for 2006 is $5.57. Rates for synods and presbyteries vary, but approximately average for all three bodies is about $25 – or about $2,500 for a 100-member congregation, $7,500 for 300 members and $25,000 for 1,000 members. Following are the texts of the Baltimore resolution, the ACC's proposed Authoritative Interpretation and the concurrence of the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly: Baltimore overture The Presbytery of Baltimore overtures the 217th General Assembly (2006) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to provide the following authoritative interpretation of Book of Order G-9.0404d: 1. That the covenantal relationship of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) recognizes both the need and obligation of governing bodies to support each other; and 2. That sessions are responsible for payment of per capita apportionments of General Assembly, synod, and presbytery directed to them by the presbytery in accordance with G-9.0404d. Comment from the Advisory Committee on the Constitution The Advisory Committee on the Constitution advises the 217th General Assembly (2006) to answer Item 03-08 with the following authoritative interpretation of G-9.0404d and G-10.0102i: "If the presbytery in its discretion exercises G-9.0404d to direct per capita apportionment to the sessions of its constituent churches, then this decision is binding on those sessions, notwithstanding the responsibility granted sessions under G-10.0102i, in light of the additional responsibilities of sessions under G-10.0102p." Rationale The overture proposes to resolve a perceived conflict between the authoritative interpretation of G-9.0404d (Minutes, 1999, Part I, p. 65, paragraphs 16.001-.007, Request 99-1, which is also addressed in Request 06-06 in this assembly) and a series of decisions of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission. The Advisory Committee on the Constitution reminds the assembly that "all Church power, whether exercised by the body in general or in the way of representation by delegated authority, is only ministerial and declarative …." (Book of Order, G-1.0307). Too much discussion regarding the issue of per capita has occurred in the vocabulary of force and compulsion, rather than within the Presbyterian principles of oversight and accountability. Any consideration of the issue of financial support within the church community must occur in the context of Paul's admonition to "bear one another's burdens, and in this you fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2, NRSV). In this regard, the observations of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission in Westminster United Presbyterian Church of Port Huron, Michigan v. the Presbytery of Detroit (Minutes, UPCUSA, 1976, Part I, pp. 228-31), are useful: When presbyteries, synods, and General Assemblies meet, they are conducting the legislative or judicial business of the Church and incur necessary expenses. There are also necessary administrative expenses involved which enable these legislative and judicial functions to be performed. All of these expenses should be shared throughout the Church because everyone who is a United Presbyterian shares in the benefits of this system of government. A case in point is the very Session which is a party in the present action. It is making use of the judicial system of the Church, expenses of which are entirely paid for by per capita apportionment, the fund to which it has refused to contribute. [Emphasis added.] Governing bodies vary in their use of per capita assessment. Many presbyteries have been placed in a difficult situation when they are asked to forward money that had not been received from sessions. In 1999, the General Assembly issued an authoritative interpretation seeking to address the matter: 16.005 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." [Emphasis added] 16.006 Further, G-9.0404d provides: "The presbyteries may direct per capita apportionments to the sessions of the churches within their bounds. . . ." [Emphasis added] 16.007 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. 16.008 ... If churches refuse to pay their portion, ... the presbytery [has] the responsibility to pay the full amount irrespective to the specific collection from churches, as long as funds are available within the presbytery[.] .... 16.012 A presbytery may use unrestricted funds to pay per capita allocations to synod and General Assembly. (Minutes, 1999, Part I, p. 107) The decision of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) in Minihan v. Presbytery of Scioto Valley, Remedial Case 216-1, has raised concern by questioning the traditional assertion that the words "may direct" in G-9.0404d convey an obligation rather than an opportunity. In John Minihan and J. Randall Richards v. the Presbytery of Scioto Valley, Remedial Case 216-1, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission held that a presbytery may not adopt a policy statement that obligates a session to pay per capita apportionments to the presbytery. However, in reaching this decision, the GAPJC wrote the following:
More recently, in Johnston, et.al. v. Heartland Pby, Remedial Case 217-2, the GAPJC further expanded the absolute power of session to control their benevolences in holding that a presbytery could not condition eligibility for requesting financial assistance from presbytery on the payment of per capita apportionments. The GAPJC rested its determination that a session's control over its benevolences trumped the presbytery's control over its financial resources on the assertion that: "[w]hile 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)." The General Assembly has been presented with proposals to amend the provision for the payment of per capita repeatedly. In the past it has rejected substantial alteration. The ACC offers several observations to the 217th General Assembly (2006) as it considers this issue: 1. The underlying history of per capita apportionment that led to the inclusion of G-9.0404d reflects the long practice of apportioning governing body expenses to lower governing bodies. It was, and is, based on the decision of the governing body regarding expenses proposed in a budget. As such there was, and is, opportunity for debate and all of the attendant procedures of debate and amendment prior to the adoption of the budget and the affixing of the apportionment amount. 2. While the specifics of these cases and the decisions of the GAPJC suggest that a presbytery may not take any action to compel the payment of per capita, the decisions states in clear and strong terms that officers of the church individually have a high moral obligation to support the payment of per capita by session to higher governing bodies. 3. The meaning of the current provision of the Form of Government at G-9.0404d clearly identifies the underlying polity of per capita apportionment. That is, the underlying polity of a representative governing body binding the governing body through its decision making process. (See G-4.0301.) Clearly, commissioners participating in the decision-making are binding the governing body from which they are commissioned. The commissioners at the General Assembly and the synod are from presbyteries; in the presbytery, the commissioners are from constituent churches. 4. The authoritative interpretation adopted in 1999 regarding the obligation of presbyteries to pay per capita to higher governing bodies is strongly dictated by the language of G-9.0404d. No other principled interpretation of G-9.0404d as it pertains to the obligation of presbyteries to pay per capita to higher governing bodies is possible. 5. The GAPJC's assertion that "[w]hile 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)" is contrary to historic Presbyterian polity and the reserved powers clause (G-9.0103). 6. The word "direct" used elsewhere in the Book of Order is used to indicate authority to require action on the part of the subject of the "direction." 7. The session's control over its benevolences (G-10.0102i) should be understood in light of its responsibility to "to maintain regular and continuing relationship to the higher governing bodies of the church ..." (G-10.0102p) and the "high moral obligation" of church officers not to withhold per capita as a means of protest. Comment from the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly Comment on Item 03-08 – From the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly. Item 03-08 addresses the responsibility of sessions for payment of per capita. The Committee on the Office of the General Assembly (COGA) supports the comment and advice of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC), to approve the proposed ACC authoritative interpretation in answer to the overture. The COGA is a committee of fifteen persons, elected by the General Assembly from across the church, made up of elders and ministers who supervise the work of the Office of the General Assembly. |
||
Respond to this article |
||
| Home
· Archives
· The
Layman ·
Subscribe
to The Layman ·
PLC
Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Online book reviews · Feedback · Links |
||