“It would be a shame if your General Assembly were to adopt a policy more restrictive than the one currently in force in the PCUSA.”

“I can’t imagine that the PCA wants to be viewed as MORE draconian than the PCUSA.”

The Aquila Report has received permission to reprint what had been a personal email from the Stated Clerk of one of the Presbyterian Church (USA) presbyteries to a personal friend in the PCA. In this email, the Clerk comments on the position of the larger, and (by almost anyone’s reckoning) more liberal mainline Presbyterian denomination in this area of voluntary funding by churches. Below is the email in its entirety

I am saddened to hear that the PCA General Assembly has suggested making congregational payments to your denomination mandatory. In the polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), it has long been settled that sessions have absolute discretion to “determine the distribution of the church’s benevolences” (G-10.0102i.).

And although annual per capita apportionments are requested of sessions to support the administrative work of presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly, the constitution maintains sessions’ rights to pay only part of the requested amount, or even none at all.

In 1992, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) ruled in Session, Central Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Long Island that “Presbytery may not punish, directly or indirectly, a church whose session determines the distribution of the church’s benevolences in a way contrary to the presbytery’s approved policy.” The GAPJC clearly stated that while “A governing body may adopt a per capita system for financing its operations, and may prepare and publish a list of churches which pay or do not pay according to that system,” at the same time, “A church may neither be compelled to pay nor punished for failure to pay any amounts pursuant to such plan.”

This ruling was explicitly reaffirmed in the 2004 GAPJC decision, Minihan et al v. Presbytery of Scioto Valley. The ruling clearly states “G-9.0404d does not give the presbytery the power to require payment of per capita apportionment by sessions.”

And as recently as 2006, the GAPJC made a similar ruling in A. Kirk Johnston, Laurie Johnston, and Session of First United Presbyterian Church, Paola, Kansas v. Heartland Presbytery. In this case, the Heartland Presbytery adopted a policy “that a church is ineligible to request financial assistance, if it has not fully paid its per capita apportionment and a mission pledge.” The GAPJC ruled this policy unconstitutional, saying, “In short, a congregation’s failure to pay full per capita apportionments or to fulfill a mission pledge ordinarily cannot become determinative or dispositive of a presbytery’s refusal to grant that congregation financial assistance. Therefore, a congregation’s failure to pay per capita apportionments or to fulfill a mission pledge cannot be made a condition of eligibility to request a presbytery’s financial assistance.”

Time after time, the GAPJC of the PCUSA has made it clear that sessions cannot be forced to make per capita payments to higher governing bodies, and that sessions cannot be punished in any way for refusing to make such payments. It would be a shame if your General Assembly were to adopt a policy more restrictive than the one currently in force in the PCUSA.

The Aquila Report then forwarded the statement to several members of the PCUSA who are knowledgeable on church government issues. Their collective response was to agree that this analysis was, in fact, a correct one.

One went on to describe the advantages the PCUSA system had for congregations who believed they were unable to support any portion of the ministry conducted by higher courts and agencies:

The General Assembly sets a per capita budget, as do Synods and (most) presbyteries. However, the only check a Session writes is to their own presbytery. It is the presbytery’s responsibility to forward the per capita apportionment for all their churches “if they are able.”
That actually allows presbyteries the skinny window they need to NOT forward unpaid GA or Synod per capita by congregations who either cannot afford it or don’t want to pay it. As long as the presbytery can demonstrate that it doesn’t have “extra” cash on hand that could be used to pay the GA and Synod, it can fall short.
However, the GA produces a list of those presbyteries that fail to pay their full per capita. That’s actually a good thing as it gives Sessions one tool to use in holding their own presbytery accountable.
Imagine that the Session of Fifteenth Presbyterian Church in Whatever Presbytery determines not to pay its GA and Synod per capita in objection to the actions of the GA. If the presbytery of Whatever isn’t on the GA’s “failed to pay” list then the Session of FPC can reduce its giving to presbytery with the very legitimate argument that “obviously the presbytery has more money than it needs if it was able to equalize FPC’s withheld per capita from some other part of the presbytery’s budget.” It’s been a very effective strategy where used.
I would think this would be a valid argument to be used in the PCA against the currently proposed changes. I can’t imagine that the PCA wants to be viewed as MORE draconian than the PCUSA.