It seems to me that it is important that everyone involved in journalism ought to read the material they publish. And every once in a while, something you read might even cause you to change your mind. Such was the result of the case former PCA Moderator Ruling Elder EJ Nusbaum made in yesterday’s The Aquila Report in his article supporting the proposed changes to BCO 14 in the PCA Book of Church Order.

Now, don’t get too excited, I still believe the current proposals should be voted down. But saying ‘no’ is not enough. I think those who say no should, if possible, recommend a substitute.

Is the AC failing to raise the support it needs to do the necessary work of the committee? Of course they are. But are the current proposals to change the BCO the right way to fix the problem. I think not. But EJ gave me an idea that may find some middle ground.

Among the reasons the opposition to the changes offer is the fact that the current proposal brings in money for ALL the things the AC does; not just for General Assembly expenses. I think they still should take on the responsibility to raise funds for ministries not directly related to the General Assembly functions (such as the Historical Center, byFaith magazine, etc.) the same way the other committees do that – raise donations.

But for the rest of their work – which, of course makes up the heart of the budget – they should be allowed to find a more direct, more equitable way to receive that funding. And EJ’s analogy yesterday was both new (to me, at least) and enlightening.

EJ wrote:

Currently, we have an inequitable division in the PCA:

Group I (roughly 45% of the churches) pays to support AC, receives the direct or indirect benefits and services provided by the AC, and for $400 per authorized commissioner, they can vote at GA.

Group II (roughly 55% of the churches) pays nothing to support the AC, yet they also receive the direct and indirect services provided by the AC and for $400 per authorized commissioner, they can vote at GA.

Both groups receive the same benefits, but Group II benefits at the expense of Group I.

That part of what he wrote struck a cord with me. Same benefits, but different levels of support, perhaps is not as fair as it should be. But I don’t agree with his next sentence: The proposed changes would rearrange our denomination into a more equitable division

So – what might be better than the current proposals?

Here’s the essential problem as I see it. The AC function can (not easily, but it is possible) be divided into three distinct parts.

A. Nice, but not necessary. Things like byFaith, Historical Center, placement services, some of Interchurch Relations function (like attend NAE, sending Fraternal Delegates, etc.) and these kinds of things are NOT the responsibility of every church to support. This is one reason, if not the essential reason that people are opposed to the current proposal.

B. Necessary, not just nice. We must have review of Presbytery Records, Nominations, Constitutional Business, SJC, publication of directories, etc. It is the responsibility of every church to provide funds to do this work.

C. Cost of Meeting. Things that pertain only to the annual General Assembly meeting. You figure this out by answering – if we were to not have an assembly meeting in 2013, how much money would not be spent? Not easy to figure, but you could get very close. I would include a percentage of staff salaries in this figure.

Now, based on these principles, how to you raise money?

For Category C, these expenses should be born by those who attend. This would resolve EJ’s main point, with which I fully agree. It is not fair for people to attend who do not support NECESSARY (Category B) services for the same registration fee as those who do. Several possibilities here:
1. No free conferences/seminars. Either the attendees pay or the presenters pay (Metokos Ministries would be happy to pay in order to run a seminar each year; it’s a great marketing tool.)
2. Raise money ahead of time from designated givers – churches, individuals, foundations, etc. – people who really see the need and are willing to donate to that need.
3. The rest has to be raised by Registration Fees. Once we see how big those fees would have to be, there will immediately be 14 Overtures coming to the next GA for delegated assemblies!

For Category A, well, here’s your askings. You put out the need and you raise the money the best you can, and you do what your income allows. Just like every other PCA committee/agency.

As for Category B, I guess there is no easy way to put it. Here is the one place that ‘you pay to play’ will have to apply. We will have to develop a new category, probably called Membership Dues, which every church pays in order to be a member of the denomination. This category will not be so high that the dues will be restrictive. I suspect it will be less than $1.50 per member per year, perhaps even less than $1.00 per. But this is the only way to resolve EJ’s very real problem – one that is shared by nearly everyone I’ve heard from who is in favor of the BCO change. (I think Presbytery’s should be allowed to do the same thing, by the way.)

This solution maintains the Biblical principle of voluntary giving to ministry, as well as applies NECESSARY costs of doing business to everyone fairly.

So – my encouragement would be to Presbyteries to vote down the current BCO changes, and send in overtures to this year’s GA to get the AC working on this kind of change. We may have to have a separate BCO change to impose the membership dues, but at least that will bring the debate down to one, central issue – and I suspect that change would overwhelmingly pass.

Thanks, EJ, for showing us this so clearly.