I support the current proposed funding plan and encourage others to do so. I both spoke and voted for it when our presbytery passed it a few months ago. I have dear friends on both sides of this debate, so with charity towards all and malice towards none, I offer three tests for the proposed changes and my view as to the answers.

Whenever a proposal arises for changes to our rules or procedures, I ask myself three questions. First, is it Biblical? In other words, does it violate any Scriptural commands and is it consistent with the relevant teachings of Scripture? Second, does the proposal violate any existing rules or procedures which it does not directly change? And third, is the proposed change helpful?

Is it Scriptural?
I find the current proposal to fund the Administrative Committee eminently Biblical on several levels. On its surface, it seems consistent with God’s provision for the support of His church throughout Scripture. In Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, et al, God lays out specific provisions through the Levites to administrate His church. God didn’t rain money from heaven for them, but rather provided for their administration from the wealth with which He providentially blessed the other tribes. Numbers 3:44-50 provides a particularly interesting case where God required a special payment from the other tribes of Israel and delegated the proceeds to the Levites. Although we no longer live under the civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, these passages and others provide a pattern for pleasing God in supporting the administration of His church.

Given this, it truly shocked me to learn that only 45% of PCA congregations support the administration of our denomination, and only 16% at the full level of their partnership share!
In my humble opinion, this probably violates God’s Eighth Commandment as given in Exodus 20:15 and exposited by our own Westminster Larger Catechism. In part, WLC answer #141 states:
The duties required in the eighth commandment are, truth, faithfulness, and justice in contracts and commerce between man and man; rendering to everyone his due; [my bold]

The PCA provides its churches many benefits through the Administrative Committee, including use of the PCA name and tax exemption by affiliated congregations, corporate filings, handling of lawsuits against the denomination, maintenance of charitable trusts on behalf of the denomination, handling logistical matters including the annual meeting of the General Assembly, maintaining communications across the denomination, maintaining the Book of Church Order, operating the office building out of which six other of the General Assembly ministries work, preserving the history of the PCA and providing the benefit of that history to the denomination through the PCA Historical Center, providing support to all the other GA committees, and last but not least serving pulpit search committees through placement ministries. That’s a long but probably not exhaustive list of services provided to the denomination by the Administrative Committee. All this costs money in salaries, supplies, services, and fees.

The only ongoing source of income comes from partnership shares, in which only 16% of all PCA congregations meet their full obligations. In the 36 year history of the Administrative Committee, it has never received enough to cover its full budget. Recently, their entire staff took a pay cut to help make budget. I contend that non-contributing congregations are in essence stealing from these people, which leads to my core Scriptural point…

I hold that those who take these goods and services from the denomination without paying their fair share probably violate the Eighth Commandment in several ways. First, God in Scripture paints a picture of our obligations to those who provide goods and services to us, especially in the spiritual arena. Deuteronomy 25:4 declares that we should not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain. Was God worried about livestock husbandry? Not likely, as the context of that passage in Deuteronomy 24 – 26 concerns human relationships. In 1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5, Paul brings this to sharp focus. The explanation of 1 Corinthians 9:9 in the JFB Commentary says it nicely:
“In the humane consideration shown for the lower animal, we are to learn that still more ought it to be exercised in the case of man, the ultimate object of the law; and that the human (spiritual as well as temporal) laborer is worthy of his hire.”

Those who provide labor for us on the Administrative Committee must be remunerated promptly and appropriately as God commands us in Deuteronomy 24:15 and Leviticus 19:13. Jesus expects this in his commission to his disciples in Matthew 10:10. We also see this in Proverbs 3:27 and Romans 13:7. There’s no escaping the implications – one must justly support the labor which benefits them.

Second, I believe that these also probably violate the Eighth Commandment by imposing their obligations to the denomination upon other congregations who do meet their partnership share obligations. By riding on the coattails of congregations contributing to the Administrative Committee, congregations that do not meet their obligations take from those that do so, placing an unjust burden on the latter while the former derive benefits therefrom. The current proposal provides a step in the right direction towards resolving this issue.

What about those churches that say are poor and cannot afford to contribute to those providing labors from which they benefit? I ask in return why such congregations do not trust God? Malachi 3 provides an explicit challenge from God to those who “cannot afford” to meet their obligations to the church. My own church saw God’s blessings poured out on us during our 18 months without a pastor. During that time, we never considered holding back our obligations either to our presbytery or the General Assembly. By the end of that period, we could not even pay our called pastor for more than six months but stepped out in faith based on God’s promises. Our faithful God met our needs and more. Along with the Psalmist and Malachi, I challenge those not meeting their partnership obligations to taste and see that the Lord is good.

Is it legal?
I find that the proposed revisions to the Book of Church Order do not conflict with other portions. Opponents to the current proposal cite BCO 25-8 and 25-10 as sources of perceived conflict. These precious paragraphs derived directly from our forefathers’ abysmal experience with the PCUS. The PC(USA) today follows the PCUS in maintaining presbytery ownership of a local congregation’s property and accounts. The founders of the PCA included 25-8 and 25-10 to ensure that no such claims could ever be made on local congregations’ property or accounts. BCO 25-10 explicitly states its relationship to withdrawal from the denomination. Dr. Morton Smith notes this reasoning of our forefathers (of which he is one) in his Commentary on the Book of Church Order (Fifth Edition, 2004). Under the proposed funding plan, local PCA congregations will continue to own their own property and accounts, which is the stated goal of 25-8 and 25-10. The proposed BCO amendments don’t change this precious right of property and accounts one iota. The proposed changes deal only with Administrative Committee support and General Assembly attendance, and have nothing to do with the topics of BCO 25-8 and 25-10.

What about the concept of “voluntary” in these paragraphs? The new fees would still be voluntary. Congregations could still refuse to support the work of the denomination and still use the PCA name, tax exemption, resources, and all the labor and services listed early in this essay, in probable violation of the Eighth Commandment. They would be no less a congregation of the PCA than they are now. There’s no change in status whatsoever.

I’ve been privileged to sit on the board of directors of non-profit organizations, none of which would allow people or entities to use their name and resources without contributing to the organization. Think about this. We have congregations using the PCA name, tax exemptions, and other services without fulfilling their financial obligations to the PCA. Consistent with my experience in organizational leadership, BCO Preliminary Principle 2 states:
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.

The current proposal to fund the Administrative Committee seems well within the bounds of Preliminary Principle 2.

Nor does the proposed BCO change the requirements on anyone’s voting ability at General Assembly. Now commissioners must pay the registration fee, currently $400, to be able to vote at the Assembly. Claims that somehow the current proposal will take away voting rights is flatly false. The major difference for our congregation will be the 25% decrease in cost for us to register for General Assembly. But I’ll talk about that under my third point below.

Some object that the current proposal introduces an ongoing fee system under which delinquent congregations must make up fees in arrears. Given my comments under the Scripture section above, I have no sympathy for such an argument. Can we really choose which years we wish to rob God and which to meet our obligations to His church? I can scarcely believe that people wish to make that argument.

Is it helpful?
I believe that the proposed BCO changes provide a welcome help to smaller congregations as well as to the work of the Administrative Committee. I’ll use my home church as a quick example. Under the current system, it costs our congregation $1200 to register our pastor plus two ruling elders as General Assembly commissioners. Under the proposed plan, that would drop to $900 – a welcome savings. A theoretical “poor” church with tithes and offerings totaling only $40,000 would see a decrease from $1200 for one teaching elder and two ruling elders to only $200! Smaller and poorer churches would reap the largest benefits from the proposed funding change. Plus, all churches would meet their obligations under the Eighth Commandment in justly and promptly remunerating the Administrative Committee labors which benefit their congregation as members of the Presbyterian Church in America.

Other thoughts
We’ve all seen a number of alternate proposals floated since the last General Assembly. All appear hastily constructed and not completely thought out. Some involve publishing the names of non-contributing congregations. If a congregation contently robs God before His face, will the rebuke of men really make a difference? What about taxing other agencies to support the Administrative Committee? First, that creates a dangerous conflict of interest. If the other committees pay for the Administrative Committee, then Administration will naturally be obligated to those committees rather than the denomination membership as it is now.

Second, it provides a continuing incentive for non-contributing congregations to avail themselves of the PCA’s services in probable violation of the Eighth Commandment.

Summary
In conclusion, I find the proposed changes to funding the PCA Administrative Committee Biblical, legal within the context of our Book of Church Order, and helpful especially to smaller and poorer PCA congregations. Therefore, I strongly encourage my brothers in other presbyteries to vote for the proposed funding plan for the Administrative Committee.

Bob Mattes is a Ruling Elder at Christ Church of Arlington (VA), PCA. He is a retired Air Force Colonel currently working in the Northern Virginia area.