Last year, the Administrative Committee (AC) proposed a plan to fund their committee by mandatory contributions. This plan was passed by last year’s General Assembly (the 38th), but it failed to even receive a majority of the Presbyteries, though it needed [a super majority of] two-thirds to pass.

In the General Assembly Commissioner’s Handbook for the 39th General Assembly (pp. 306–308), the AC has written its own explanation of why the funding plan lost, since, according to the AC, “It does not appear likely that the enabling amendments to BCO 14-1 and 14-2 will have received the Presbytery votes necessary to be brought before the 39th General Assembly for a second vote.”

The following is from the Report of the Administrative Committee (AC):

The Thirty-eighth General Assembly approved a Funding Plan for the AC that had been suggested by the Cooperative Ministries Committee. The Funding Plan was put forth because: AC is unique as a service committee to all Committees and Agencies, the PCA is rare among denominations in making funding of support services a separate request for donations, it is an annual struggle for the AC to end the year in the black, and as the PCA adds more churches the present method of AC funding will become even more difficult. It was hoped that the AC Funding Plan would help change the ethos of the PCA through the financial support of a great majority of churches, so that the PCA would develop a greater sense of connectedness.[1]

Enabling amendments to BCO 14-1 and 14-2 were given initial approval by the Assembly and sent to the Presbyteries for their vote. As requested by the CMC (January, 2010) and instructed by the AC (April and October, 2010), the AC staff sought to inform Presbyteries regarding the Funding Plan and the enabling amendments to the BCO that would put the plan into effect. The video production and editing were done pro bono, for which we are grateful. The costs of electronic distribution of materials is low and was under the authorized budgeted category of development, which is part of the AC budget approved by the General Assembly and part of the discretionary spending of the AC.

It does not appear likely that the enabling amendments to BCO 14-1 and 14-2 will have received the Presbytery votes necessary to be brought before the 39th General Assembly for a second vote.

This issue for a number of reasons (stated and unstated) became one of the most controversial issues in the history of the PCA.[2] We do not question the sincerity of the opponents to the enabling amendments. Some observations may be appropriate.

1. It is easier to garner twenty-six negative votes than fifty-three positive votes in the Presbyteries for an issue that deals with a major change.

2. There are two levels of yes vote and two levels of no votes. Lyle Schaller, a respected church consultant and author, described this phenomenon in one of his books: “… there is a long spectrum in the decision-making process; with approval at one end and disapproval at the other extreme, but a range of ‘permissions’ between those two points.”[3]
a. Disapproval = -2
b. Permission Withheld = -1
c. No Direct Response = Abstain
d. Permission Granted = +1
e. Approval = +2

A -2 Disapproval no vote is active and persistent opposition. A -1 Permission-Withheld no vote does not carry with it active and persistent opposition. A +2 Approval yes vote carries with it enthusiastic and persistent advocacy. A +1 Permission-Granted yes vote is simply granting permission but does not carry with it enthusiastic and persistent advocacy.

There were unanimously positive votes among the Coordinators, the CMC, and the AC. There was a substantial majority in the AC Committee of Commissioners and in the General Assembly. Evidently there were not enough +2 voters on all levels to have the enthusiastic and persistent advocacy necessary to secure approval. On the other hand, some -2 negative voters were very active and persistent in their opposition.[4]

Votes were not taken on a numerical scale; so it is impossible to determine how many votes were level 1 or level 2. But the spectrum of the decision-making process is insightful.

3. Electronic communication is a more significant factor than just a few years ago. We offered information on the AC web site, and sent out e-mails. ByFaith published articles both pro and con. In setting forth our case, we sought to engage in civil discourse, believing that biblical and confessional requirements on speech, whether aural or written, supersede secular journalistic practices. Many agree that the Internet has contributed to a decline in civility not only in our culture, but in the Church as well.

Much of the discussion was through electronic means. Dr. Alan Jacobs, an English professor at Wheaton for 26 years writing at Big Questions Online (Via ArtsJournal) aptly opined:

I have thought a lot about why people get so hostile online, and I have come to believe it is primarily because we live in a society with a hypertrophied sense of justice and an atrophied sense of humility and charity, to put the matter in terms of the classic virtues. . . . In our online debates, we not only fail to cultivate charity and humility, we come to think of them as vices: forms of weakness that compromise our advocacy. And so we go forth to war with one another.

It is encouraging that some civil discourse took place; it is discouraging that some unchristian comments were circulated.

4. E Everyone prioritizes tasks, consciously or unconsciously. Pastors have ministries to lead; Ruling Elders have businesses and professions in addition to theirchurch responsibilities. In both instances, decisions on priorities are made. It appears that advocacy for the plan was not an A-list high priority for enough supporters of the plan to pass it; for opponent it appears to have more often been an A-list high priority, for whatever reasons, for enough opponents of the plan to defeat it.

Persuasion is complex. The arguments against the plan basically fell into three categories: (1) constitutional, (2) legal, and (3) hypothetical. The CCB opined twice on this matter, and the 38th General Assembly evidently agreed with that advice by giving initial approval to the proposed BCO amendments. We had expert legal opinion that the proposed amendments do not jeopardize our legal status as a non-hierarchal church.[5] Anyone can sue the PCA; but the question is whether or not such a plaintiff is likely to win. Yet the argument that someone might possibly sue us was effective. The hypothetical arguments in opposition to the plan of what “could,” “might,” or “possibly would” occur were persuasive enough to defeat the plan.[6] Some were concerned about what might happen. It is impossible to assert with statistical certainty exactly why each presbyter and Presbytery voted the way they did (positively or negatively) but it is helpful to recognize that persuasion is complex.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Presently 45% of PCA churches contribute something to the AC for which we are grateful. The AC has the highest number of churches contributing something to it, which means one, that the majority of our churches do not contribute to the AC, and two, fewer of our churches support the other Committees and Agencies.

[2] Previous controversial issues included, the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, the role of Ruling Elders in our polity, MTW cooperative agreements with evangelical missions, Church union, Freemasonry, Women in the Military, the validity of certain baptisms, restructuring the General Assembly, doctrinal subscription, and strategic planning.

[3] Growing Plans (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1983), pp. 23-24. Though Schaller was speaking of smaller churches at that point, the spectrum of decision-making may be applicable in larger situations as well.

[4] Opposition is often more intense that advocacy. We are all familiar with voice votes that seem to be close at Presbytery and General Assembly meetings. But when a division is called, often the ayes are shown to be a substantial majority.

[5] We have successfully argued in at least eight legal cases that the PCA is a non-hierarchal denomination. It would be the utmost folly for us to propose a funding plan that would put our legal status at risk, which is why we secured expert legal opinion. Moreover, when the PCA is sued, it is the AC-Board of Directors that is responsible to offer a defense.

[6] Here it is relevant to recall Fessinger’s Law of Cognitive Dissonance, which is that when emotional arguments are arrayed against logical arguments, emotion frequently trumps logic.