CCP dealt with major changes to Stated Meeting structure to allow fixed period of discussion of crucial issues; PCA Stated Clerk Roy Taylor fielded more than an hour of questions on proposed changes to BCO Chapter 14

The Presbytery of Central Carolina, which was formed in 1978 when the state of North Carolina was divided into three regions (Eastern, Central, and Western), met in its 123rd Stated Meeting on Thursday, October 26, 2010 in the Sanctuary of their largest congregation, Christ Covenant Church of Matthews, NC.

The host pastor, Teaching Elder Mike Ross, who is also serving as Moderator of the Presbytery for this year, opened the meeting leading a worship service in which he preached a message on the Apostle John’s Third Epistle, in which he broke the solo-chapter down into a three part message on Love, Truth and Hospitality, applying all three concepts to the conducting of Presbytery meetings.

Following some housekeeping matters, the Presbytery was presented an extensive report by the Administration Committee. Since it affected the day’s docket, the first action was approval of a proposal to postpone the previously scheduled consideration of the six recommended BCO changes for this year until the January Stated Meeting, to allow for ‘full consideration of these important changes before voting’. The Administration Committee had invited TE Roy Taylor, Stated Clerk of the PCA, to address the Presbytery and answer questions during this meeting. The recommendation was approved without dissent.

The next major issue was to consider twelve proposed changes to the Standing Rules of the Presbytery which would ‘streamline the business portion of our meetings so we have time to discuss issues that we face in ministry. We believe that these changes will make our meetings more edifying, encouraging, and beneficial for our pastors and churches.’ The Moderator explained that this action was following the recommendations of the PCA Strategic Plan that was adopted this past June.

Some of the elements approved included:

· Asking several ministry committees (MNA, MTW, RUF) to report only twice a year rather than at each meeting.

· Use of one major ‘Omnibus Motion’ made up of action items from all committee reports which, in the determination of the Stated Clerk, would most likely be approved without debate. (Individual issues could be removed from the omnibus by request of a member.)

· Only require a written quarterly report from the Treasurer to be distributed, rather than an oral report.

· Reduce the required deadline for posting the full docket and meeting package from 10 days to 7 days before each meeting.

· Grant the Administration Committee the powers of a commission to approve minutes of meetings.

· Grant the Administration Committee the powers of a commission to approve requests for early departure from meetings.

· Grant the Session Records Committee the powers of a commission to approve all but Exceptions of Substance in their annual review of minutes.

· Grant the Shepherding Committee the powers of a commission to appoint a minister as Session moderator with consent of the Session (BCO 12-3)

· Revise the normal docket to set aside an hour each morning prior to lunch for a Program or Issues Discussion and move reports of Administration, Bills and Overtures, and Shepherding to the end of each meeting. The revised order allows some flexibility for the Administation Committee to place Overtures, Commission reports, Shepherding issues, etc. earlier on the docket when prudent.

· Authorize the Administrative Committee the power to decide upon the Program and Issue Discussion for any given meeting.

At the conclusion of the Administrative Committee report, the Orders of the Day to allow 75 minutes to hear a 10 minute report from the PCA Stated Clerk and open the floor for questions and/or speeches on any of the six proposed BCO amendments that had been sent down from the General Assembly for approval. (All the time was spent on discussion of the two changes involving the funding proposal for the PCA AC Committee – BCO 14.1 and 14.2)

Teaching Elder Taylor gave a brief history overview of how the PCA started without a unified budget on the assumption that members of the newly formed denomination would happily support all the ministries of the new church. When that did not occur, the long-used ‘Askings’ (now known as Partnership Shares) of determining what the proportional per member giving was needed to support each of the PCA committees and agencies.

Dr. Taylor noted that the major agencies (Covenant College, Covenant Seminary, MTW, MNA and RUF) had formed development departments and did not want to change the current system. This led the Committee on Ministry Coordination to recommend this new format for funding the work of the Administrative Committee.

Dr. Taylor noted that the proposal came from the CMC without any negative votes and that the Committee of Commissioners on AC approved it by a vote of 31-1-1. He also pointed out that the Constitutional Business Committee had twice declared the changes were in according with the PCA constitution and that a highly respected legal firm had determined that the recommendations were in accord with Federal law.

Admitting that there were many ‘hypothetical objections’ to the plan, that that the GA and been approved by the vote of the General Assembly and was a fair and equitable to providing funding for the AC.

Following his presentation, over an hour was spent allowing Presbytery members to ask questions of Dr. Taylor or express their own opinions about the proposals. The first half hour was all questions. Following are some of the questions and answers (paraphrased):

Q. Why was a ‘Fee For Service’ plan for funding the AC not proposed?
A. Because we didn’t think it would pass, just as the original proposal for a unified budget did not pass.

Q. What is the recent history of your budget shortfall?
A. Between 5 and 10%.

Q. Where do we stand as of today on Presbytery votes?
A. Early votes are much like the exit polls at election time. The votes that have been certified to the Clerks office are 5 in favor and 8 opposed. (Editor’s Note: The Aquila Report has the numbers at 6 in favor and 12 opposed.)

Q. What things can you NOT get done because of your budget shortfall?
A.
– We could restore the 5% salary cut all employees have taken.
– We could make the web site more functional and usable
– We could provide more assistance to churches seeking Interim Pastors
– We could provide more seminars at General Assembly

Q. Returning to the possibility of the ‘Fee For Services’ possibility, could you explain more about why it wouldn’t work?
A.
– The other committees and agencies are reluctant to send money they raised to support a different committee.
– Much of what the AC does provides services to churches and ministers and it would be difficult to charge them fees.
– No one in the CMC wanted to do it this way.

At this point, several speeches in favor of and opposed to the proposals were interjected along with several additional questions.

Speech in favor: My church (like others) has failed to support the AC in the past and we must repent of that and commit to support them in the future. The rational and intent of these proposals is sound, and although there may be other ways to accomplish it, I am in favor of doing this.

Q. Once the fees are paid, does that mean the AC pays for our hotel expenses? (Followed by much laughter).
A. No, just the registration fee (giving some illustrations of costs). It is a good deal for the many smaller churches who attend GA meetings.

Q. The proposal speaks of reporting to the General Assembly for their action any churches who do not support for two or more years. What kind of action might be taken?
A. Only action that is in accord with the constitution. A church or minister cannot be removed from the PCA because they belong to Presbyteries. We hope the mere fact that they are publically named would be encouragement to support the AC in the future. However, I cannot give any list of specific actions.

Speech (by Presbytery’s member of the AC Committee of Commissioners). I must apologize to the Presbytery for not serving you well. I was one of the yes votes among the 31-1-1 vote. But I along with others voted based on the understanding that it was a fee for the years you attend General Assembly. We did not understand this was cumulative. Even the Chairman was unable to answer the question about the cumulative effect when giving the report to the G.A.

Speech in opposition: There is a faulty argument at the root of the proposal that must be spoken to. All the pragmatic, expediency arguments in favor are very good ones. But our decision must not be made on pragmatics and expedience, but on Biblical principles. The proposed revision to BCO 14-1 is internally inconsistent. In the first sentence it says ‘it is the responsibility of every member and every member congregation to support the whole work of the denomination as they be led in their conscience held captive to the Word of God.’ But the newly proposed second sentence reads ‘the responsibility to support the work of the denomination shall include a requirement that churches, teaching elders, and Presbyteries contribute…’ There are no Biblical arguments to support a ‘requirement’. All New Testament giving, even in times of famine, was voluntary.

Speech in favor: To answer the previous question, ‘Where is the Biblical argument in favor of the proposal?’ I think that if we vote to voluntarily approve this action, we are voluntarily binding our consciences in this matter.

Speech opposed: It is easy to see the Bible speaking about free will giving; it is much harder to find any justification to compel churches to give. Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 were not compelled to give; their problem was a heart issue. We should not try to address ‘heart issues’ of our churches with compulsion.

Speech opposed: Our members take vows to support the worship and work of the church to the best of their ability. How do we deal with members who do not give to the church? We teach them and exhort them. This is the better way. I think there are better ways to encourage our churches to support the AC than this proposal.

Speech in favor: In BCO 46 we have rules that if a member remains ‘unknown’ to the church for a year, we can drop them from the rolls. We should find way to apply BCO 46 to BCO 14 for churches who remain ‘unknown’ to the GA.

Speech in favor: In the Book of Church Order, Preliminary Principles there are two difference forms of ‘conscience’. Principle #1 speaks of individual conscience, saying “the rights of private judgment in all matters that respect religion are universal and inalienable’. However, Principle #2 speaks of corporate conscience, saying:
In perfect consistency with the above principle, every Christian Church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion and the qualifications of its ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ has appointed. In the exercise of this right it may, notwithstanding, err in making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow; yet even in this case, it does not infringe upon the liberty or the rights of others, but only makes an improper use of its own.
An action of the GA may err, but in so doing it does not infringe on individual conscience. If we make a mistake, and see it is not working, we can always change it in the future.

Q. Is there anything that would restrict other committees from seeking to change their funding in the same way in the future?
A. Yes, it would require them to go through the same kind of change to the constitution to do so.

Q. What areas of the work of the AC would this new proposal fund?
A. I don’t have the full chart in front of me, but some would be to host committee meetings for SJC, CCB, and ICR; enhance the work of the historical center; increase the placement work of the AC, including interims; upgrade our web site.

In his closing comments, Dr. Taylor made the point that the Westminster Confession of Faith, Section 1-6 allows “that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence.” He then stated that the proposal is Biblical because it is proportional… we are connectional. It is constitutional, there is no legal threat, it would increase connection, and is equitable and fair.

Editor’s Note: Our thanks to RE Flynt Jones, Stated Clerk of CCP, for his proofreading and helpful corrections to this story.