I’d like to respond to the main argument presented in the post supporting the plan to require churches, ministers, and presbyteries to pay a fee in order to retain voting privileges at General Assembly.

Last week, byFaith Online posted a Q&A with John Robertson (Business Administrator for the PCA’s Administrative Committee entitled, “Strategic Plan: AC Addresses Questions” bit.ly/cQXuoe. I’d like to respond to the main argument presented in the post supporting the plan to require churches, ministers, and presbyteries to pay a fee in order to retain voting privileges at General Assembly.

First, it seems odd to use Paul and the cited chapters in 2 Corinthians and Philippians to build support for a funding scheme based on a mandatory financial assessment rather than a free-will “gift” offering. I cannot imagine Paul, upon failing to receive support for a desired activity, proposing a mandatory financial assessment upon all the local churches or especially upon those who are the intended beneficiaries. In Philippian 4:15 he describes this very situation. Granted, this is primarily a missionary endeavor, but I think the principle applies.

Indeed, Paul “administered” the gifts. The gifts were not mandatory assessments or taxes, but free will offerings. Does not 2 Corinthians 9:5-7 explicitly make the point that these administrative gifts were not exacted or compelled? Furthermore, doesn’t the word “gift” itself make this clear, as we see in Romans 4:4? Gifts and obligations are mutually exclusive: there is no such thing as a “required gift.”

I believe a more biblical response to the lack of giving is to a) more clearly express the need and encourage giving based on biblical principles, and b) re-evaluate whether the lack of financial support indicates a lack of support for the activities in question.

The simple fact is this: many of the things done by the AC are not biblical mandates. I am not suggesting they are unbiblical, or that they are even undesirable. Just that some of the activities are not required by the Word. Yes, we need to plan for General Assembly. Yes, we need a Stated Clerk. Yes, we need to fund the judicial work of our highest court. But as much as I would decry the loss of something as valuable as the historical center, it is not required by the Word, and therefore churches cannot be required to support it without their consent. A denominational magazine and website are not necessary. We may want them, but we cannot enforce their support.

The proposed strategic plan would require local churches to support activities and ministries that are not required by the Word. If they cannot or will not do so, they lose their right of representation in our form of government. Consider what this principle looks like in other contexts. Should church members be prevented from voting in a congregational meeting if they have not paid the tithe? Should legal citizens of voting age in a state be disenfranchised if they are on welfare and pay no tax? The Lord Himself gives Elders the right to rule in the higher courts of His church, and He does not require that they be forced to pay a fee to retain that right.

Second, the argument that the new system will cost some churches less than the current one fails to address the real issue. First, it requires us to assume that the current practice is right and constitutional. And secondly, while it may be implied that one cannot vote if they are unable to pay the current registration fee, it doesn’t appear that the constitution would support this restriction (although I may be incorrect in that the SJC may have decided a case on this matter). Nevertheless, at least we would be exchanging a plan in which each commissioner may decide to attend if he has the financial means, rather than being prohibited if his church or presbytery has not paid their fee. Furthermore, while it is true that the total cost may be less in some cases than the current registration fee, it simply raises a question about what exactly is funded by the current registration fee. I believe that the Administrative Committee should publish annually a report showing the total income from all GA registration fees along with a detailed breakdown of all of the expenses incurred by each General Assembly.

Finally, there is no question that local churches should support the work of presbytery and General Assembly. Those churches which are able but are not giving are acting contrary to our form of government. I would support the AC sending letters to these churches informing them of the needs of the AC, emphasizing the importance of their support, as well as the appropriateness of their funding the connectional church of which they are a part and from which they benefit. Let’s pray for the Lord to work generosity in the hearts of the people and the leaders of these and all of our churches. But if they ultimately will not support the AC, let’s leave this matter of liberty to the Lord of the conscience, rather than trying to enforce that which God has not required.

Sincerely,
RE Jerry Koerkenmeier
Providence Presbyterian Church
Edwardsville, IL