Editor’s Note: This letter was sent via email to members of Central Carolina Presbytery by a Teaching Elder (Minister) in that Presbytery. He has given permission to have this letter published.

Brothers,

There has been much written and said about the proposed BCO 14 amendments. We all agree that our AC is an important servant to the churches of the PCA and want to see it properly funded. Yet we disagree widely on how that funding should come, and perhaps, about how much funding is really needed. Our presbytery will finally vote (God Willing) on this proposal this weekend so I wanted to take this opportunity to add my two cents worth to the discussion.

While recognizing that many in our denomination, including many in our General Assembly leadership, are proponents of the proposed BCO 14 amendment funding plan for the Administrative Committee, and with due respect for my brothers, I wish to explain why I think this is not the right way forward.

Here are my four reasons.

1. It would violate the principle of voluntary giving.

Both the Bible and Presbyterianism advocate cheerful voluntary giving. Consider such passages as:

Acts 11:29 And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.

1 Corinthians 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2 On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.

2 Corinthians 9:7 Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver.

Similarly, our PCA Constitution was written with the concept of voluntary giving.

Our current BCO 14-1 states: 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.

BCO 25-8 also affirms voluntary giving: …The superior courts of the Church may receive monies or properties from a local church only by free and voluntary action of the latter.

It has been argued that the annual fee for the AC is still voluntary inasmuch as a church may still be in the PCA and not pay this fee. However, given both the loss of voting privileges and the potential “appropriate action” from the GA for two years of unpaid fees, the use of the term “voluntary” is a stretch.

One may, I suppose, “voluntarily” not pay federal taxes, as long as they will live with the negative consequences. Here is the proposed RAO 4-11 change (to accompany the proposed BCO change) which implies that further action, beyond the revocation of voting privileges, may occur:

The Administrative Committee shall annually report to the General Assembly all churches that are delinquent two or more years in the submission of Annual Registration Fees in order that the General Assembly may take appropriate action.

Clearly this violates the principle of voluntary giving. Interestingly, as RE Jerry Koerkenmeier recently pointed out, our own AC affirmed, in a 2007 report to the GA, that requiring a church to pay in order to have a say in our denomination would run contrary to voluntary giving in our BCO.

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).

1a. The Amendment, as worded, defies the plain meaning of the phrase “led in their conscience.”

The proposed BCO 14-1 amendment, as stated, defies the logic of meaning in the English language, in an effort to claim it does not violate voluntary giving. Read the proposed amendment again carefully, (the underlined is the proposed addition.)

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

This says that every congregation should give according to conscience, i.e., freely, then says, they are required to give. You are not giving freely if you are required to give.

The analogy has rightly been drawn: we would not think of requiring church members to give a certain amount before they could vote in a congregational meeting. For that very reason and sentiment, we should not censure congregations for giving only voluntarily.

1b. This fee, rather than being truly voluntary, constitutes a church “tax.”

Some proponents of the AC funding plan have objected to the use of the term tax to describe this new fee. I can understand that objection for rhetorical reasons. However here are several definitions of tax from a quick survey:

· A charge, especially a pecuniary burden which is imposed by authority.
· A charge or burden laid upon persons or property for the support of a government.
· Especially, the sum laid upon specific things, as upon polls, lands, houses, income, etc.; as, a land tax; a window tax; a tax on carriages, and the like.
· A sum imposed or levied upon the members of a society to defray its expenses.

It appears that since this is a fee imposed by an authority, for its support, on the member churches of the PCA, in order to maintain their right to vote, that this amendment could well be called a tax. Indeed, not only is this fee a tax, by any clear meaning of the word, but it is also a particular kind of tax- a poll tax. That is to say, if the tax is not paid, a congregation surrenders its privilege to vote in the highest court of the church.

This is essentially different from the former registration fee in several ways: it is apportioned not according to the service rendered (the GA meeting itself) but according to the income of the church, it is “charged” annually whether or not a church is in attendance at the GA, it is cumulative from year to year, and a failure to pay it will be referred to the General Assembly for “appropriate action.”

These traits are common to taxes and not registration fees for conferences. Now, if anyone objects that the term “tax” is itself pejorative and therefore should not be used, then let it be demonstrated logically how this new fee is not in fact a tax, and indeed, a poll tax.

2. It would be unfair, indeed unjust, to Teaching Elders.

A teaching elder’s voting right would be tied to the congregation which he serves. According to the proposed BCO 14-2:

(1) all teaching elders who, before the convening of the General Assembly, have fulfilled their annual responsibilities with respect to the Registration Fees for teaching elders as approved by the General Assembly and who are pastors in relation to churches (BCO 22-1) that, before the convening of the General Assembly, have fulfilled their annual responsibilities with respect to the Registration Fees for churches as approved by the General Assembly;

In other words, if a TE is serving a church that does not pay its annual fees he cannot vote. In what way is that just to the TE? A TE could be entirely for the new funding plan, but his session may still vote it down, and with it, the TE’s right to vote at GA.

Unless one assumes that a TE has the power to force his church and session to pay the annual registration fee, this cannot be seen as just. Do we really want to pass an amendment which is either unjust, or to be just, must assume that the TE controls the finances of the church? And what happens to the TE who is an assistant pastor, perhaps he is personally for the fee, but his senior pastor and majority of his session are against it. In what way is it just for him to be denied the right to vote at GA?

It is not hard to imagine that one of the unintended consequences of such a change would be to find pastors either looking for or leaving churches that do not pay the fees. Will we have a separate set of churches and pastors, the Fees and the Non-fees? Would we begin to see requests such as: “Pastor interested in call from Fee Church.” “Church looking for Non-Fee pastor.”

The current proposal is unjust to the TE by tying his right to vote at GA to his congregation’s willingness and ability to pay the AC fee.

3. It would alter the relationship between the congregations of the PCA and the GA committees created to serve them, in effect, moving away from a grass-roots organization and toward top-down.

The PCA was intentionally created as a grass roots, or bottom-up, organization, which gave its national committees little prestige or power, designedly. This amendment would start a trend toward the centralization of power (the power to tax is a centralization of power).

Even the best argument for supporting this amendment shows this trend. It has been said that the new fee is a good idea because it is fair: “all churches benefit from the AC so all should equally support it, pay their fair share,” even invoking the 8th commandment. While that is appealing on the surface, consider the assumptions behind the statement.

Assumption 1: If you receive benefit from some agency you must (not- should voluntarily) support it.

Money is owed the agency in this way of thinking and failure to pay ‘what is owed’ is stealing. But if this is true then certainly all churches owe and MUST give support to all ten PCA committees and agencies! (In fact my own congregation arguably derives the most direct benefit from RUF with the many members we receive from its work. Must our church pay a fee to RUF for that?)

What of all the Non-PCA agencies, governmental and non-governmental, from whom a church receives benefit? Do we owe every one of those a fee as well?

The assumption behind the statement implies that we do indeed. Are we stealing from anyone who benefits us and to whom we do not give money? The logic of the argument fails.

While we may voluntarily support any agency, debt­ owing some agency money ­is created by legal or covenantal obligations. The terms of the covenant between the AC and the congregations of the PCA are clear: voluntary support. Unless we change the constitution, the congregations of the PCA are in no way stealing from the AC, any more than they are stealing from any agency, denominational or otherwise which has no claim of law or covenant on their money.

Assumption 2: The AC must have more money to fund its budget rather than reducing its budget to fit the money given.

Here is a critical issue that divides us philosophically. One side looks at the money the AC falls shorts each year and says, “Aha, a problem we must fix by finding the AC more money.” Another side looks at the short fall and says, “Aha, the system is working as originally designed!”

The programs of the GA committees and agencies were intentionally limited by this funding plan: none of them should ever grow larger than the congregations of the PCA would voluntarily fund. The genius behind this design is simple: the PCA would maintain itself as a grass-roots organization by controlling their centralized agencies through voluntary giving!

The more the individual congregations believe in and support the work of the agency the more money they would have for programs.

The plan is working and it is telling us this: that the congregations of the PCA believe the AC is doing about 10% more per year than they believe in funding.

Here is the obvious solution to the problem: cut the $2 Million budget by the 10% that it has fallen short the past several years. Problem solved.

4. Pragmatically, this amendment is overkill and may not even work.

Why change the constitution, violate the foundational principle of voluntary giving, be unfair to TE’s, and promote a centralized top-down approach when only one of ten agencies is having a “problem” with the voluntary giving plan and the one agency’s problem only amounts to 10% of their annual budget? Certainly there is an easier way to close the gap than changing our constitution.

(It has been noted that byFaith net costs are about $200,000 annually, the amount needed to close the gap. I like byFaith, but I like all kinds of things I cannot afford. Certainly, letting go of this new magazine, in an age when print media is folding, makes far more sense than the current proposal.)

Further, there is absolutely no assurance that the amendment will generate the extra income desired! It is entirely possible that giving will go down and attendance at GA will plummet!

Brothers, we need the AC and they need money to serve the congregations of the PCA, in amounts limited by voluntary giving. Let us preserve both our principle of voluntary giving AND our principle of grass-roots control of our denomination. Let Central Carolina Presbytery clearly vote down these amendments, while we show our support for our AC, and all our denominational committees and agencies, through our cheerful, voluntary giving.

Peace,
Tom Hawkes
Senior Pastor, Uptown Church, Charlotte, NC
[email protected]
Charlotte, NC, 28204