The Presbyterian Church in America’s non-hierarchical structure could be placed at risk if the BCO 14-1, 2 amendments are passed.

There may be an unintended consequence of using the word “requirement” in proposed BCO 14-1, and “fulfilled their annual responsibilities” in the proposed BCO 14-2 (3) touching on local churches: These proposed changes create an internal conflict within the PCA’s constitution and can potentially place the PCA in jeopardy of being considered civilly connected. The PCA’s present position as a non-hierarchal connectional church could be challenged in civil courts if these amendments are adopted.

The proposed changes to BCO 14-1 include the following: “…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….” (emphasis added).

And the proposed changes to BCO 14-2 (3) include the following: “(3) ruling elder commissioners whose churches, before the convening of the General Assembly, have fulfilled their annual responsibilities with respect to the Registration Fees for churches….” (emphasis added).

Where is the unintended consequence? It is in the use of the word “requirement” which mandates that local churches will be required to pay an annual fee in order for their elders to be considered voting members at General Assembly meetings. This “requirement” could be construed and interpreted by secular courts as a type of civil connection.

Why is this important? The PCA has argued in civil courts that each of its graded courts (Session, Presbytery and General Assembly) is a separate civil entity and not connected legally to each other. The PCA’s connectionalism is defined as “non-hierarchical Presbyterianism” that flows from “mutual love and confidence” (BCO 25-11) and not from any civil or legal connection. As a result the PCA has been able to argue successfully in secular courts that it is a non-hierarchical Presbyterian church. [1]

When local PCA churches have been sued in civil courts, it has been common to name as defendants in these suits the local church (where the alleged offense occurred), its Presbytery and the General Assembly under the assumption that there is a civil connection between these church courts. In naming all three church courts in civil suits, there is the assumption that the PCA functions under a “hierarchical Presbyterian” structure. Thus far, the PCA has argued and demonstrated successfully from its constitution that it is not a hierarchal Presbyterian church, that its church courts are not civilly connected, and that it operates as a non-hierarchical Presbyterian church.

To add the word “requirement” in the BCO, which is a part of the PCA constitution, “requiring” local churches to pay an annual fee to the GA would produce an internal conflict within the constitution (e.g., between BCO 14-1, 2 and BCO 25-8, 9, 10 and 11). And further, it could create confusion in the church and civil courts as to whether the PCA is hierarchical or non-hierarchical.

By enshrining “shall include a requirement” in the PCA constitution, mandating that local churches must pay an annual registration fee, the voluntary nature of the PCA’s connectionalism, based on “mutual love and confidence,” could be called into question in civil suits. To “require” a payment from local churches that are civilly distinct can be considered a form of force and coercion, which is civil in nature, a concept that does not presently exist in the BCO.

In his paper on “The Presbyterian Church in America: Non-hierarchal Presbyterianism,” Dr. L. Roy Taylor, Stated Clerk of the PCA, has clearly written and defined the distinction between hierarchical and non-hierarchical Presbyterian connectionalism. Here are some of the points that he makes that demonstrate the unique character of the PCA’s non-hierarchical connectionalism. There is a significant difference between the PCA’s Presbyterian polity and the polity of hierarchal denominations. Even within Presbyterian denominations, there are two perspectives, an hierarchal, top-down view and a non-hierarchal, bottom-up view.

Over the years the larger Presbyterian denomination (Presbyterian Church, USA – PCUSA) underwent a metamorphosis from a democratic type of Presbyterianism into an hierarchal Presbyterianism, which emphasizes the higher courts directing the affairs of the lower courts. The PCUSA Book of Church Order deals much more extensively with detailed procedures covering a wide variety of situations and is much longer that the PCA’s BCO. In recent civil cases involving disputes over who owns the local church property, the PCUSA argues that it is an hierarchal denomination, with the Presbytery being tantamount to a bishop.

By contrast, the PCA is a non-hierarchal, grass-roots type of Presbyterianism. One of the major reasons for the formation of the PCA was to revert to a democratic Presbyterianism. The PCA BCO is written more as a set of principles, emphasizing the use of discretion and wisdom by the lower courts. The Preface of the BCO lists the Preliminary Principles, which are an integral part of the constitution, i.e., the lenses through which the rest of the BCO is to be viewed. It was not envisioned that the PCA BCO would have detailed instructions on virtually every situation. When faced with situations and circumstances that are not dealt with in detail in the PCA BCO, Sessions and presbyteries should exercise their own wisdom and discretion within the parameters of biblical principles and the Constitution of the PCA.

The voluntary nature of the PCA is explicitly stated in BCO 25-9 and 25-10 regarding church property and in BCO 25-11 regarding the process for withdrawing from the denomination.

In civil cases, the PCA has successfully argued that it is a non-hierarchal denomination. Recent civil court rulings have found that the PCA, as a non-hierarchal denomination, does not employ local church pastors and staff members, and as such, cannot be held liable for their actions as employees.

The PCA is non-hierarchal in that:

1) the local church (Sessions), Presbyteries, and the General Assembly (the church courts) are distinct and separate civil entities, and
2) the authority/power of the Church is only moral and spiritual, ministerial and declarative.

This is evidenced by the following provisions of the BCO:

1) “the power of the Church is exclusively spiritual,” BCO 3-4,
2) church courts “have no jurisdiction in political or civil affairs,” BCO 11-1,
3) church courts “have no power to inflict temporal pains and penalties, but their authority is in all respects moral or spiritual,” BCO 11-1,
4) the jurisdiction of church courts is “only ministerial and declarative,” BCO 11-2, and
5) the jurisdiction of the church courts is “limited by the express provisions of the Constitution,” BCO 11-4.

Two entire chapters of the BCO (Chapters 3 and 11) are devoted to this explanation. Yet the PCA is spiritually united (not civilly connected) and Presbyterian churches are inter-dependent, not independent. This connectionalism is expressed in our confessional theology, our system of government and discipline, and our cooperative ministry. PCA founding fathers Cannada and Williamson so state in their book:

The thing that is special about the PCA is that there is a clear and vital spiritual connection between the Congregations, the Presbyteries, and the General Assembly. Accordingly, it is entirely proper to designate the polity of the PCA as being “connectional” as long as it is made clear that the connection is a spiritual connection between the Congregations, the Presbyteries and the General Assembly and there is no connection of any kind between the civil entities formed by them. The members of the Congregations, the Presbyteries and the General Assembly make up the membership of the respective civil entities formed by them and are, therefore, in complete control of those civil entities. Accordingly, since there is a vital spiritual connection between the Congregations, the Presbyteries, and the General Assembly in the PCA and each has complete control of the civil entity formed by it, the PCA does not consist of a group of independent local churches that are free to teach and promote whatever they see fit (The Historic Polity of the PCA. pp. 34-35).

Church members, teaching elders, ruling elders, and deacons take vows to voluntarily place themselves under the spiritual authority of the Church. Officers pledge to exercise the duties of their office in accord with the Constitution of the PCA. These vows have a moral responsibility (though not a legal obligation) to abide by the decision, judgment, or order of the church court. However, they may file a complaint or appeal the action to a higher court. Once the matter has been finally handled by the higher court, there is, because of the vows taken, a moral responsibility (though not a legal obligation) to abide by the final disposition of the matter as long as they are members of the PCA.

If one cannot do so, he may leave the PCA without coercion. If a person does not accept this moral responsibility, he may face charges in accord with BCO 31-2 and if found guilty, ecclesiastical censures in accord with BCO 36. If a church does not accept this moral responsibility to abide by a final decision/action of a Presbytery, then Presbytery’s response is to either “dissolve” [the ecclesiastical relationship between] the church and the PCA or “dismiss” [transfer] the church [to another denomination] with the church’s consent (see BCO 13-9(f) ). Filing a complaint in civil court to enforce this moral responsibility is not within the authority and power given to a Presbytery by the PCA’s BCO.

Thus, the PCA is Presbyterian (governed by elders elected by the people whom they represent), yet democratic type of Presbyterianism. It is connectional, but non-hierarchal, in that the power of the church is not civil or coercive, but moral and spiritual, ministerial and declarative. It is constitutional, not authoritarian, that is, all of her members, offices, and church courts are to operate within the framework of the Constitution of the Church and may not resort to any authority that is contrary to the PCA Constitution.

The word “requirement,” though only one word in a larger document, will not only create an internal conflict within the BCO, it could also potentially be interpreted by civil courts as an indicator of a civil connection between PCA courts and hold higher courts accountable for the actions of lower courts. This potential for civil courts to interpret the PCA as hierarchical and civilly connected is too high a price to pay to adopt the BCO 14 amendments. Unintended consequences can come back to bite with a vengeance. These amendments should be defeated and in so doing not jeopardize the PCA’s present non-hierarchical connectional status.
________________
Dr. Dominic Aquila is President of New Geneva Theological Seminary in Colorado Springs, Colo.

[1]See, e.g., Susanne MacDonald vs. Grace Church, Seattle, Northwest Presbytery and the PCA, a Corporation, US District Court For the Western District of Washington at Seattle, and Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The District Court ruled that the Presbytery and General Assembly are not the employers of local PCA church pastors of local PCA church staff. The ruling was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.