What is favored: PCA Churches supporting and funding the PCA Administrative Committee.

What is not favored: The specific proposal to fund the PCA Administrative Committee by amending parts of BCO 14. The proposal is an overreach, unnecessary, and will fundamentally change the structure of the PCA.

Funding the PCA Administrative Committee (AC) is a worthy goal; each PCA church should include the AC in its annual budget. However, the specific funding proposal, which requires amending parts of BCO 14, is an ineffective and inefficient means to reach a desired end. To enshrine a particular form of funding in the PCA constitution is a drastic and unnecessary measure, that will fundamentally alter the internal structure of the PCA. The unintended consequences of this funding proposal will have adverse effects in and for the PCA. Here are some reasons to vote against these BCO 14 amendments.

1. The proposed language of the funding plan conflicts with the clear provisions of BCO 25-8 and BCO 25-11. The use of the word “required” in the proposed amendments conflicts with the language and provisions of voluntary and free association found in BCO 25. The PCA purposely chose to define itself as a voluntary association of local churches bound by mutual love and confidence. This proposal is a significant departure from this clearly defined purpose. Approving these amendments will create logical conflicts within the BCO.

For example, presently the BCO has provisions stipulating that local churches are in voluntary association with the PCA, based on mutual love and confidence; also that these local churches can give to the higher courts “by free and voluntary action” (BCO 25). At the same time, if these amendments are adopted, the BCO will have provisions that “require” the payment of annual Registration Fees. This conflict is highly inappropriate and it is incumbent on the PCA not to purposely create this conundrum. Either support for higher courts are “free and voluntary,” or they are “required,” but both cannot be true at the same time.

2. The proposed funding plan assumes that the system is broken; however, no empirical data is offered to demonstrate this. The PCA has not been provided with any information regarding why churches do and do not support funding the AC. Before a significant change is made to the PCA constitution, real, concrete data are needed. Instead of data derived from a carefully designed study, the proposal depends on anecdotal and personal examples and suppositions. So without any real data Presbyteries are being asked to amend the PCA constitution in a way that will fundamentally change the structure of the PCA.

3. The proposed funding plan will jeopardize the unique non-hierarchical structure of the PCA. With the use of the term “required” the -spiritual—civil connectionalism, that presently defines the relationship of our various courts to each other, may be placed in legal danger. At present each local church, each Presbytery, and the General Assembly are individually and separately incorporated. The foundation of our PCA connectionalism is spiritual, ministerial, declarative, and ecclesiastical, not civil. This unintended consequence may come back to bite us with a vengeance in the future.

4. The proposed funding plan will adversely change and affect the present grassroots, bottom-up structure of the PCA, and transform it into a top-down, centralized authoritative structure. The proposed amendments will upset the unique balance that presently exists between PCA courts and how membership in each court is defined.

5. The proposed funding plan, with the requirement of compulsory annual Registration Fees, is a form of disenfranchisement and a type of poll tax. These required, compulsory annual fees must be completely paid in full before teaching and ruling elders will be allowed to be seated as voting members of GA.

6. The proposed funding plan requires that the mandated annual fees will be cumulative, with all taxes in arrears having to be paid in full prior to elders being made whole and eligible to vote at GA.

7. The proposed funding plan is presented as the only viable option by which to fund AC and the work of the General Assembly. There has been no denomination wide discussion of other funding options. Other funding remedies have been proposed that can and should be considered. Before taking the drastic action of amending the PCA constitution, it would be wise for the PCA to consider other funding alternatives.

8. The proposed funding plan provides no guidelines regarding how the General Assembly and AC will implement, oversee, and compel the required annual fees. The implementation and oversight of this program will require a new layer of bureaucracy, with new rules, provisions and hoops to jump through.

9. The proposed funding plan will result in a multi-tiered membership in the various courts of the PCA, and will produce confusion regarding who is eligible to have voting membership in GA.

The desire is that churches will provide funding, freely and voluntarily, to support the AC. However, no matter how admirable this desire may be, the proposed plan to require and compel this funding is deficient and inadequate and should be defeated. It is not the best way to achieve the stated goal. A better way for now is to defeat the proposed BCO 14 amendments, and then the PCA can consider sensible and viable alternatives to fund the AC.

_____________

Dr. Dominic A. Aquila is Editor of The Aquila Report, President of New Geneva Seminary, and Moderator of the 34th PCA General Assembly.