I am all for supporting the AC. I like what the AC does. I love my brothers who serve in various capacities in the AC. All that being true doesn’t change this fact: the proposed plan is not biblical. Therefore, I oppose it.

The PCA Administrative Committee (AC) posted a number of video interviews on their web page. These interviews are with a number of teaching and ruling elders in the denomination who are in support of the proposed new AC funding plan.

I found it interesting that one of the speakers charged those who will not support the AC with breaking the Eight Commandment. This is astounding! Will charges now be filed? How shall we being to prosecute all these supposed thieves? Will the SJC handle this process or shall we leave it up to Presbyteries? If the Presbyteries fail to catch and prosecute them shall we in turn charge the presbyteries?

This speaker goes on to declare that those who oppose the funding plan on the grounds that it is coercive are actually the ones who are coercing others: the AC. I find that to be an interesting statement.

The proposed AC funding plan reminds me of ObamaCare in that I am being told I must pay or else. If I don’t spend my money or the church’s money I will now be punished. It is interesting to me that both of these initiatives showed up the same year.

One of the individuals interviewed stated that the new funding plan is not really any different than the old model. I heard that on the floor of General Assembly this past summer in Nashville and was astonished at such a claim. With the current model, if I go to GA I pay to go that year. If I chose not to go then I don’t pay. With the new model, if I choose not to go for several years, and then decide to attend and vote in a later year, then I must pay up for all the years I did not attend. How is that the same?

I am all for supporting the AC. I have led one of my churches (I serve two) to support the AC for a couple of years now. I like what the AC does. I love my brothers who serve in various capacities in the AC. All that being true doesn’t change this fact: the proposed plan is not biblical. Therefore, I oppose it.

If the Cooperative Ministries Committee (CMC) or the AC will present a funding plan that is anchored and defended from the Word of God, then I will get behind it and with zeal. I must! God alone is Lord of the conscience. If he requires it, then I must do it.

I was perplexed in listened to the various men speak on these video interviews of how much they loved the PCA; they spoke about how much they appreciate our doctrinal distinctives, they love the Confession, etc. They like that we are a denomination that defends the Word of God as inspired, inerrant, and authoritative. In my view, it would go a long way if these men of standing in our denomination would dig into the Word they love and discover a funding plan that is rooted in the Word of God. Don’t we also believe in the sufficiency of Scripture? We say we do, therefore, we should find the solution to this funding dilemma in the Word. Either the Word is sufficient or it is not. It can’t be both ways.

I have heard it said that we should take a good look at costs and seek to trim where we can. I recall hearing at this past GA that some of this has been done, cuts had been made and that is commendable. What has not been placed on the table is the cost of attending and conducting GA. We have been told that we must go into these expensive markets in order to have the facilities to accommodate the scope of our annual gathering. We should all be aware that part of the cost of GA is paying for much of the AC staff to be present, fed and housed. Our event is so large so large that we have dozens of denominational staff on site to carryout a plethora of duties to make the event flow seamlessly. I commend the service of these brothers and sisters that labor quietly in the background. Nevertheless, their expenses must be paid for and we do that through registrations and funds sent to AC, thus driving up the cost and afflicting the budget of AC.

It has been suggested many times that we have GA at a college campus. Some have suggested that we even use our own Covenant College. This has been dismissed as unworkable. But is it really? Surely, we would have to change our expectations. It may mean that we can no longer stay in 4 and 5 star hotels paid for with the tithes of widows, but it can be done. It may be necessary to use shuttle buses. It may mean that we do not bring along our families for a family vacation paid for by our local congregations. But that is okay. GA is about the work of the church not leisure time.

Supporting the denominational ministries is something that should be encouraged in all our churches. In principle it is a good idea. However, there are numerous small churches that cannot even pay their pastors much of a salary. Meanwhile, we pay denominational leaders salaries that would have made the Apostles blush. What would the Apostle Paul say about ministers of the Gospel receiving salary packages that are well into six figures?

I commend the AC for putting a freeze on salaries increases and even reducing some. I ask, should more of this be done? Many churches love missions, so they scrape and sacrifice to send missionaries to the field where they sacrifice all for the sake of the Gospel. We have many small congregations that struggle to come up with creative ways to keep old buildings from leaking of even from falling down. They go into debt in the winter to pay extraordinary heating bills on old, drafty, inefficient buildings.

Are these churches to send money to help pay the salary for one coordinator that is twice their church’s annual budget? Is this rational? Is this moral? Perhaps a better theologian than I can demonstrate from the Scripture that it is “okay” to the satisfaction of the widows in my church. I shall not try. Rather, I am reminded of the words of God through the prophet Jeremiah.

Add to this the cost of sending elders to GA each year. The Idea of spending $1,000 – $1,400 to send one elder to GA is unthinkable. Even mid-sized churches find it irksome to fork over five to seven thousand dollars to send their full contingent of elders. Then, they arrive only to find an assembly that feels more like a business convention than a meeting of the highest court in the church.

I have been attending GA since 2000 and can mark the decline of true presbyter-unique-work in those years. We no longer do the work of a church court. We have pushed out the debate and the perfecting of overtures. A super-committee handles that for us. We receive their recommendation and either vote it up or down. One of my fellow presbyters has measured the actual time spent at GA functioning like General Assembly of a Presbyterian denomination and found the average per year is only a few brief hours out of four days. Why would elders want to come? Where is the work of the elder that they are called to do? Why should they expect their congregations to pick up the tab for attending GA? Why should a ruling elder take vacation time and time away from his family for that?

If it is the desire of some to avoid debating, modifying, and improving overtures on the floor of the assembly, then let us go to a delegated assembly. Send those who will debate, who are not troubled by Robert’s Rules, and let the others stay home. Separate the work of GA from an annual church convention with its exhibitors, speakers, seminars, guided tours of the neighborhood, service projects for the young people, etc. Determine what those functions cost and let those who want to attend such an event pay for all of it – at another time, in another place.

If we have an assembly that focuses only on that which is necessary for the life of the church, then the cost will be significantly reduced. The size will shrink. The venues that would be open for hosting GA would be more numerous and competitive. Elders could come, work, and go home with a sense that they accomplished something for which they are not ashamed.

There will still be responsibilities in the AC, but the staffing levels would be reduced if we pursue such a paradigm shift. Denominational staff would still need to be housed, fed, and transported, however the cost would be much more manageable. If anyone is interested to further consider the matter of a delegated assembly, there is a host of information located here: http://www.pcahistory.org/bco/articles/delegated.html.

Another paradigm shift that we could embrace would be to add another layer of courts, e.g., synods. Four to six presbyteries would be grouped into regional synods that would meet once a year. They would handle judicial matters from the lower courts. Only extraordinary cases would ever be sent up to the SJC.

Missions work would be handled at the synod level. The majority of administrative work would be handled by the synod’s stated clerk and a staff member. CC, CTS, RBI PCAF, etc., would be overseen by a board of elders representing each synod; one RE and one TE appointed by the synod for a term. Theological examination would be done by the synod for those who they appoint. The Committee on Constitutional Business would also be filled through appointments by the synods.

GA would only meet every three to five years. Such a GA would be a delegated assembly with four elders from every synod, 2 REs plus 2 TEs. The location of GA would alternate between CTS and CC. The synod in whose bounds CC and CTS lie would be responsible for planning and hosting the GA along with one TE and one RE from each synod.

This model is much more in keeping with biblical polity and historical Presbyterianism. At this point I would even raise the question as to whether we even need to have a GA that is exclusively PCA. If we were to really embrace a biblical polity (Acts 15), then we would join with the NAPARC churches for a GA that would occur every five years.

But back to the main issue; I have argued against the new funding plan as not being biblical. Let me demonstrate: If this model is biblically sound and honors the King, then let us employ it at the Presbytery level. Every Presbytery that I have been in (four now) has a number of churches that are rarely represented at meetings. They never give to Presbytery, and often do not submit their minutes. Should we say they cannot play?

If they call up and ask to have a man examined and approved to fill their pulpit, should we tell them “No, you must pay-to-play. If you want the services of the Presbytery then you must support the Presbytery. Sorry, catch up on your giving that is in arrears, and then we can help you out.”

Take it a step further; if the AC funding plan is a good model, should we also apply it in the local church? Here is what it might look like: As a pastor, I am asked to perform a wedding or funeral, come and meet with a wayward teen, visit someone in the hospital, help a couple that is thinking about divorce… Should I say, “So very sorry, I can’t help you. You haven’t given the minimum tithe for this year so you get no services until you pay-up.” Should I tell them that, “You have been stealing services by coming to worship and never paying”? Should I say, “You are coercing me to fail to do my duty since you have not paid your tithes in over six months”?

“Blessed are the merciful.” The message of Christ is a message of mercy and grace, not penalty and punishment. Freely God has given to us, therefore we freely give. “Blessed are the meek.” People are at various levels of maturity and means. This is also true for churches. We show them mercy. We teach them. As God blesses his Word to be effectual, people come along and give until they must be restrained because they brought too much (Exodus 36:6-7).

God has a funding plan for the work of his church. It is not new but it is biblical.

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: “Speak to the children of Israel, that they bring Me an offering. From everyone who gives it willingly with his heart you shall take My offering” (Exodus 25:1-2). And Moses spoke to all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying, “This is the thing which the LORD commanded, saying: `Take from among you an offering to the LORD. Whoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it as an offering to the LORD…” (Exodus 35:4-5).

Then everyone came whose heart was stirred, and everyone whose spirit was willing, and they brought the LORD’S offering for the work of the tabernacle of meeting, for all its service, and for the holy garments. They came, both men and women, as many as had a willing heart, and brought earrings and nose rings, rings and necklaces, all jewelry of gold, that is, every man who made an offering of gold to the LORD. And every man, with whom was found blue, purple, and scarlet thread, fine linen, and goats’ hair, red skins of rams, and badger skins, brought them. Everyone who offered an offering of silver or bronze brought the LORD’S offering.

And everyone with whom was found acacia wood for any work of the service, brought it. All the women who were gifted artisans spun yarn with their hands, and brought what they had spun, of blue, purple, and scarlet, and fine linen. And all the women whose heart stirred with wisdom spun yarn of goats’ hair. The rulers brought onyx stones, and the stones to be set in the ephod and in the breastplate, and spices and oil for the light, for the anointing oil, and for the sweet incense. The children of Israel brought a freewill offering to the LORD, all the men and women whose hearts were willing to bring material for all kinds of work which the LORD, by the hand of Moses, had commanded to be done. (Exodus 35:21-29 – emphasis added)

I’ll grant that some of what I have written is a bit of a tangent from the AC funding plan, but one must acknowledge that there are other alternatives than raising more money. If the Lord is not providing the money to do it the way that we’ve always done it, then He may be leading us to reconsider how we are doing it. In my house when there is not enough money to do something, then we must rethink what we are doing.

Perhaps the AC should present to the next GA a list of services that it recommends be dropped from the burden that is placed on the AC in order to further reduce its expenses.

I am writing boldly and with candor because I believe that the PCA is already a “safe place.” I hope that others will write up their thoughts for consideration and publish them on the internet. Together we might even hammer out a solution to our quandary.

I am thankful that many men have been invited by the AC to share their thoughts on the AC website (you can find them here http://www.pcaac.org/ACFundingPlanComments.htm). Since the PCA is a “safe place” maybe the AC will “provide more seats at the table” and post interviews with men who do not support the proposed new funding plan that the presbyteries are currently voting on. After all, we are not a partisan denomination. Right? [Editor’s note: the original URL (link) referenced is no longer valid, so the link has been removed.]
________________
Daniel Jarstfer is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. He serves as pastor of both the Big Ridge Presbyterian and the Dickenson First Presbyterian Churches in Haysi, Va.