The argument made by the AC in 2007 was very simple and logical: (1) All “no-pay-no-say” rules are contrary to voluntary giving; (2) the PCA’s Constitution only allows voluntary giving (BCO 25-8); (2) the proposed funding plan includes a “no-pay-no-say” rule; (4) therefore, the current proposal is unconstitutional.

Editor’s note: Many PCA Presbyteries will be holding their winter stated meetings in January and February. One of the issues before them will be the proposed BCO 14 amendments, also known as the AC Funding Plan. The Aquila Report asked a number of ruling elders to give us their perspective on the proposed amendments; two REs will present reasons in support of the Plan and two will give reasons against adopting the Plan. We will publish these articles one day at a time during this week, alternating between pro and con. It is our desire to encourage a full and open debate in all Presbyteries on this important proposal before the PCA.

I am opposed to the proposed AC funding plan and write to encourage my brothers in the various PCA Presbyteries to vote against these amendments.

First, I agree that we do, in fact, need a way to consistently fund the AC. No matter what the outcome of the current debate, it has already resulted in at least one positive development: it has brought increased awareness of how difficult it has been for the AC to meet its budget, which includes much essential work of the denomination. I think many now realize that without many of the essential services provided by the AC, we would not have a denomination. But to solve this funding problem, there are several better alternatives than the proposed funding plan. Some of the recommendations made by various individuals include:

1. Charging a fee from each of the PCA Committees and Agencies (which do their own fundraising) to cover the cost of administrative work. This makes sense because the committees and agencies benefit significantly from the work done by the AC.
2. Waiving the GA registration fee for churches that give the requested voluntary contributions. For those that do not, make the registration fee relatively high. This will encourage churches to pay the voluntary fee which is lower, and also gives those who don’t want to pay the contribution a way to still attend GA and vote while paying their share and supporting the cost of the building rental, minutes, and everything else required for GA to meet.
3. Publishing the names of the churches not giving at all to support the essential activities of the AC to their Presbyteries and/or the General Assembly so that churches have extra “encouragement” to fund the necessary work of the denomination.
4. Moving byFaith print and online magazine out of the AC budget to an independent entity supported by some combination of advertisements, subscriptions, and donations. It represents a large portion of the AC budget. Budget numbers for the last 5 years indicate that the annual cost of byFaith is more than the annual budget shortfall, meaning that implementing this recommendation alone would resolve (or at least significantly mitigate) the AC funding crisis.

Incidentally, the presence of byFaith in the Administrative Committee budget has been a stumbling block for many who oppose the plan because it gets lumped under the umbrella of “essential support services,” which we are told must be supported by congregations if we are to be a connectional church. The problem is that even if byFaith is perceived as a wonderful source of news with objective reporting and high value for the cost to the denomination, the fact remains that it is simply not an essential cost. Thus, the proposed funding plan presents a crisis to many teaching and ruling elders, who find it unconscionable to require their congregations to support non-essential ministries. It seems to be a violation of WCF 20.2 to require God’s people to pay for things that God has not required.

However, even if there were no other ways to fund the AC, I have felt compelled to oppose and vote against this specific proposed plan for the following reasons:

1. The wording of the change to BCO 14-1 is self-contradictory. The proposed addition is underlined in the following quotation: “It is the responsibility of every member and every member congregation to support the whole work of the denomination as they be led in their conscience held captive to the Word of God. Consistent with this principle, the responsibility to support the work of the denomination shall include a requirement that churches, teaching elders, and Presbyteries contribute to denominational support services by paying an annual Registration Fee for the support of the ministry of the Administrative Committee.”

The euphemistic words that introduce the new language cannot change the obvious: a required fee is precisely inconsistent with giving that is led by the conscience. One cannot require something of someone if one has just said that it is a matter of Christian freedom. To avoid this contradiction, the authors of the amendment should have either a) modified the first sentence to strike the language about the conscience, or b) acknowledged that this required fee is an exception to the previous statement. As it stands, the amendment itself is illogical, contradictory, and thus, unconstitutional.

2. The proposed funding plan is unconstitutional in that it conflicts the clear provisions of BCO 25-8 and 25-10. These passages of the constitution would need to be amended to make the proposed change. BCO 25-8 says, “…The superior courts of the Church may receive monies or properties from a local church only by free and voluntary action of the latter.” Similarly, BCO 25-10 says, “The provisions of this BCO 25 are to be construed as a solemn covenant whereby the Church as a whole promises never to attempt to secure possession of the property of any congregation against its will, whether or not such congregation remains within or chooses to withdraw from this body. All officers and courts of the Church are hereby prohibited from making any such attempt.”

Some have protested that the Committee on Constitutional Business has decided that the proposed amendments do not conflict with these or any other portion of the constitution. I respectfully and humbly disagree with this decision. The arguments that have been marshaled to support their compatibility is simply unpersuasive. The CCB made the wrong decision because they considered the wrong issues. The issue isn’t whether or not a congregation will be kicked out of the denomination for failing to pay, but whether or not they are required to give their property against their will to the denomination even if they stay. This is explicitly in BCO 25-10, which applies “whether or not such congregation remains within or chooses to withdraw from this body.” Similarly, the issue isn’t whether the denomination is or would ever attempt to forcibly secure possession of the buildings or real estate of congregations (as did the PCUSA), but whether the denomination may require or receive fees against the will of the local congregation. This too is explicit in BCO 25-8, which refers to the receiving of “monies” and not merely “properties.”

It is especially noteworthy that this very contradiction has been raised before, and by quite an unlikely source. In 2007, the AC submitted a report to the General Assembly including the following language:

“The PCA has not had and does not have a unified budget. In fact, attempts in that direction have consistently failed. The AC does not advocate a unified budget approach for the General Assembly. Other denominations assess administrative charges to its program committees to cover the administrative costs of the denomination. The PCA does not have such a procedure. The AC does not advocate such assessments. Some denominations have a “no-pay-no-say” rule. That is, a local church must make some minimal contribution to denominational ministries in order to have a voting representative at regional and national judicatories. All giving in the PCA is voluntary under our constitution.” (Minutes of the 2007 GA, pp. 247-248).

Note carefully that just a few years ago the AC declared that any “no-pay-no-say” plan is unconstitutional. We can be sure that this is what is meant, because the only place in our constitution that speaks specifically of “voluntary” giving is BCO 25:8, which is not being amended with these proposed changes. It says, “The superior courts of the Church may receive monies or properties from a local church only by free and voluntary action of the latter” (25.8).

The argument made by the AC is very simple and logical:

1. All “no-pay-no-say” rules are contrary to voluntary giving.
2. The PCA’s Constitution only allows voluntary giving (BCO 25-8).
3. The proposed funding plan includes a “no-pay-no-say” rule.
4. Therefore, the current proposal is unconstitutional.

3. The plan was created and modified hastily. As has been reported, the funding plan itself was changed significantly on the Tuesday morning of General Assembly. I represented Illiana Presbytery on the AC Committee of Commissioners at GA last year. On the first day, the Committee was instructed to delay voting on the Strategic Plan, as the AC was planning to meet the next day to make some minor changes to the wording of the strategic plan, in response to objections that had been raised about some of the language. These particular changes had been publicized in the days before GA. The committee was told that the AC would be modifying the following controversial language in the Strategic Plan:

· Changing the name of Theme 1 from “Safe Places” to “Civil Conversations.”
· Changing the name of Theme 2 from “More Seats at the Table” to “Increased Involvement.”
· Changing “gospel ecosystems” to “centers of influence” in Theme 3, Means (Specific)

But several other important things were changed, including the cumulative nature of the annual registration fees. The revisions to the funding plan, which were not widely discussed, differed from the information distributed in the Commissioner’s Handbook in some key ways.

4. The proposed funding plan is an unintentional step in the direction back towards the oppressive nature of the denomination from which the PCA emerged. The BCO provisions in question are core to our identity and denominational ethos, and should not be tampered with, especially because viable alternatives would work, and they would work better than this one. This is not mere rhetoric and fear mongering. Consider that despite concerns raised about the rhetoric employed against the plan, it is indeed a true tax, since it is required of churches, and it is cumulative. It is fundamentally different from the current registration fee. If you decide not to attend GA on a given year, you do not pay the registration fee. Under the new system, your debt accrues, and you must pay the back-taxes before you can vote in the future. We should not ignore this important fact in the face of arguments that the cost to many congregations will actually decrease. I do not dispute these cost savings, but we should not casually trade the current discretionary cost for a mandatory tax in the interest of saving money. This is especially important because, contrary to popular perception, increasing the required fee percentage does not require a majority of all Presbyteries to approve. Unlike BCO amendments, which require two General Assemblies and 2/3 of all Presbyteries voting in the affirmative, an increase to the fee percentage would only require 50% of those reporting. This means that if 50 Presbyteries report, 26 can increase the percentage.

I would appeal to my brother elders to reject these amendments. Once we do, we should devote ourselves to passing a plan that meets the needs of the Administrative Committee, enables it to do the necessary and valuable work of the church, properly reflects our connectional nature, and doesn’t require changes to our constitution which may lead to unintended consequences, and will cause crises of conscience to our brothers. As the Administrative Committee reminded us in 2007, “All giving in the PCA is voluntary under our constitution.” It should remain so.
_________________
Jerry Koerkenmeier is a ruling elder at Providence Presbyterian Church in Edwardsville, Ill., in Illiana Presbytery.