But regardless of how accurate those figures are, the idea of our churches sharing an equal burden for the benefits of the AC services appeals to me. The present “voluntary” system will never approach any such measure of equality, in my view.

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 was invited by my esteemed friend, TE Dominic Aquila, to weigh in on the PCA’s Administrative Committee (AC) Funding proposal and write an article on my views. At the time, I was inclined to oppose it but had not taken a position, and Dr. Aquila’s invitation was not contingent up on my taking a negative position as he has.

I voted against every aspect of the proposal presented for a vote at the 2010 General Assembly in Nashville, mainly because I did not understand the issues involved, and had reservations and questions about them that precluded me from voting for any of those issues.

However, as I look into these issues, I am, as my title implies, hesitantly hopeful the proposals will be helpful.

The first thing I like is that the plan shifts the burden of expense of attending GA from the individual elder or congregation considering sending a delegate to the GA, to the broader church. I have prepared a simple Excel spreadsheet to illustrate that point, and import that below:

No. of TE Commissioners

Present

Proposed

to GA/Presbytery:

System:

Change:

1

$400

$600

2

$800

$700

3

$1,200

$800

4

$1,600

$900

5

$2,000

$1,000

6

$2,400

$1,100

7

$2,800

$1,200

8

$3,200

$1,300

9

$3,600

$1,400

10

$4,000

$1,500

11

$4,400

$1,600

12

$4,800

$1,700

13

$5,200

$1,800

14

$5,600

$1,900

15

$6,000

$2,000

16

$6,400

$2,100

17

$6,800

$2,200

This spreadsheet is based on two assumptions: (a) The present cost of attending GA is $400 each; and (b) The proposed attendance cost under the plan would be TE registration fee of $100 each, plus $500 per presbytery. The plan says the current $400/delegate fee would be “dissolved,” without saying what, if any, the registration fee would be for RE’s under the plan.[1][1] As illustrated in the spreadsheet, only those presbyteries sending only one delegate would lose under the plan; those sending two would save $100, those sending three would save $400; and so on. The more delegates sent, the more saved. So I think the plan would encourage GA registered attendance. I say “registered,” because I know elders who attend GA for the fellowship, but do not register now, because of the cost.

The obvious question is – to whom does the plan shift this expense burden? The simple answer is – to 1/3rd of one percent of each church’s annual budget, roughly speaking. Under the plan, before this figure could go over 2/5ths of a percent, it would require GA approval, and confirmation by a required percentage of the presbyteries.

I say “roughly speaking,” in the sense that the assessments are based on ranges, e.g. Category D churches,[2][2] who have budgets between $3M and $3,999,999, would pay an assessment of $12,000. That $12,000 figure represents .34% of the mean of $3,500,000 between the bottom of that range and the top.

The plan states that currently, only 45% of our churches give to the AC, and only 16% give what the AC calls the full “partnership” share, which I assume refers to the proposed 1/3rd of 1% of budget. I find that shocking that those figures are that low, and I suspect they are not totally accurate, because I know of donations to the GA for which the donor’s congregation and presbytery did not get any credit.

But regardless of how accurate those figures are, the idea of our churches sharing an equal burden for the benefits of the AC services appeals to me. The present “voluntary” system will never approach any such measure of equality, in my view.

I suspect that support or opposition for this plan depends upon the beholder’s overall sense of satisfaction with the AC. My sense is that those of us who donate and regularly participate on Committees of Commissioners or Permanent Committees feel generally satisfied with AC services. We know the ropes, know what we can ask for, and generally get what we ask for. Many of those who don’t, don’t.

We could conduct surveys to see why people might not like AC services, but I suspect those who are generally unhappy would not respond, and the responses we might get would likely not be representative. We could debate whether the AC staff might be more servant-spirited, perhaps, or, e.g., act more like they worked for us than the other way around, but in my view, under the present voluntary plan, they don’t really work for most of us. They work for 16% of us, if their figures are accurate, and the rest of us are free-loaders. Maybe the AC staff does not have a sufficient servant spirit to these free-loaders; or maybe, their lack of servant spirit, if any, to the free-loaders is understandable. I would not presume to be wise enough to know which of those propositions is true. As an elder ordained in the PCA in 1978, I well remember our founding fathers feared a top-heavy administrative bureaucracy, and perhaps we have now gotten the type of top-heavy bureaucracy we feared; but I don’t know how else to conduct AC business. I don’t see how leaving 84% of our churches out of the full-funding formula makes the AC more accountable to all of us. To the contrary, keeping the AC beholden to only 16% of our churches for its meal-ticket would make it less responsive to the needs of the whole church.

I would now like to go where perhaps even angels fear to tread, and try to address some of the objections I’ve read to the plan:

1. That the plan would or might jeopardize the PCA’s “Non-Hierarchical Connectionalism.” This argument goes that making payments mandatory under the proposed changes to BCO 14 could make presbyteries and the GA subject to suits against pastors and congregations, on the theory that the pastors and congregations are subject to the presbyteries and GA in all things.

Suggested answers: We already have a mandatory payment plan – the $400/ delegate registration fee for GA. The proposed plan would be enforced only by non-allowance of attendance at GA. It substitutes one requirement for GA attendance in place of another. There is nothing more binding in the proposal than what we have now. Moreover, we would still have chapter 25 of the BCO, which allows any church to withdraw anytime it wants to, and keep all its property. The specter of some unrighteous future civil judge ruling otherwise is always with us, and of course the fear of courts is reflected in Matt. 5:25 and other places. But as a judge myself, I feel most judges are righteous and render fair judgments based on the facts before them. We have had a good history defending against court suits trying to impose a hierarchy we don’t actually have, and there is no reason in my view to believe that would change under the present proposal.

2. That the proposal fundamentally alters the structure of the PCA from a voluntary association to a mandatory one. That it would be bad to put this funding proposal into the PCA’s Constitution.

Suggested answers: The plan does not alter Chapter 25, as pointed out above. Any church would be free to leave anytime, as it currently is. Moreover, the point of putting this into the Constitution, it seems to me, is to keep the funding from going above 2/5ths of 1% without another Constitutional amendment. This, to me, is an advantage, not a detraction, from the plan.

3. That the proposal has insufficient empirical data to support it, and that we need to know why 84% of our churches do not pay the so-called full “partnership share.”

Suggested answers: I submit, we really do know why. All of us who are active at the GA level have heard legions of stories about AC staff not doing what someone wanted them to do. The reality is – the AC staff is there to enforce the rules, and this is often not a popular job. But, as I have argued above, I feel that if the whole church were invested in the work of the AC, the AC would be more beholden to the whole church, and not merely to its present donors.

4. That there has been no denomination-wide discussion of other funding options.

Suggested answers: I have not heard any alternate proposals from any of the detractors to the present plan. Why should it be the AC’s burden to present alternatives to its own proposal?

5. There might be problems of administration.

Suggested answers: Of course, there will be. But the trade off would be, no more begging for money, and no need for excuses for having to cut corners on essential expenses. And it’s not that much more complicated than it is now: if you don’t pay the $400 fee, now, you don’t get to go to GA; whereas, under the plan, if your presbytery and congregation don’t pay the fees, you likewise don’t go to GA.

As always, brethren, if I am wrong on any of this, I beg forgiveness & correction.
____________
Dave Haigler is a ruling elder in Grace PCA, Shreveport, where he & his wife Becky have been home-group Bible study & benevolence leaders for the past 5 years. Dave was the 2010 moderator of the Louisiana Presbytery, and has been active on several Committees of Commissioners and is now serving on the GA’s SJC. In his day job, Dave serves as a disability judge for the federal government.

[1][1]http://www.pcaac.org/2010StrategicPlanDocuments/Funding%20Plan%20Model.pdf. [Editor’s note: the original URL (link) referenced is no longer valid, so the link has been removed.]

Assuming that the RE registration fee would be no more than the TE’s, this plan would create savings for congregations and presbyteries sending delegates to the GA.

[2][2] Ibid., see the plan cited in footnote 2 above.