Per Capita: A Seat at the Table for Everyone

Outgoing General Assembly Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons has just written a helpful little piece explaining the importance of per capita. It's something I think every minister or ruling elder should become familiar with, because per capita is among the most-misunderstood features of our common life as Presbyterians.

Per capita has been likened to our denominational utility. It pays essential administrative expenses of higher councils (presbytery, synod and General Assembly). Most of what per capita funds is not very exciting to talk about. It's business-as-usual type of stuff, the day-to-day overhead connected with keeping church governance working for all Presbyterians.

But that doesn't mean it's unimportant. Without the vital work that goes on at presbytery, synod and General Assembly, we'd be a motley collection of individual congregations, with little in the way of resources or communication. There would be no structures to carry out global mission. There would be no help forthcoming for congregations who get into difficulty.

One of the striking things Gradye says in the article is that "Per capita makes the table more accessible so all have a seat." This is very true, because it's per capita that pays the expenses of commissioners to synod and General Assembly, as well as those who participate in governance by serving on various committees and working groups. Do we really want to live in a church where only those with the personal funds for travel and lodging are able to participate in governance?

Anyway, there's a lot to think about in Gradye's article. Have a look at it.

While you're doing that, check out this great music video by Carrie Newcomer, "Room At the Table":

The Presbytery Consolidation that Never Was

Here's something I ran across as we were cleaning out old files, as we were preparing for the move of the Presbytery Office from Tennent to New Egypt. I meant to post it earlier, but somehow never got around to it.

It's  a map of the old Synod of New Jersey, dating back to around 1959. There were 8 presbyteries in New Jersey at that time, and a special committee had been working to pare that number down to 4. The map indicates where the boundaries of these 4 new presbyteries were to go.

The special committee considered the question long and hard. They learned that the original boundary lines of many presbyteries had been drawn with railroad lines in mind. Towns along a given rail line were clustered together in the same presbytery, so commissioners could travel to presbytery meetings by train.

Even in 1959, many of those original rail lines no longer existed.  America's love affair with the automobile was in full swing. The presbytery boundaries that had once made perfect sense had come to seem random and arbitrary.

The special committee was also trying to create larger presbyteries, so resources could be concentrated and deployed more effectively.

The plan was never implemented. It came up for a vote in the Synod Assembly, but went down in flames. Never again would there to be a move to rethink presbytery boundaries in New Jersey.

There aren't so many people around today who can give first-hand accounts of the debate in the Synod Assembly. (I was only 3 or 4 years old at the time.) I do remember talking with some old-timers in more recent years, who did have firsthand recollections of the vote. They told a tale of an acrimonious debate that left many on both sides feeling bitter.

This was even more widely-known because the old Synod of New Jersey was a "non-delegated synod." When the Synod met, every minister in the state was in attendance, with a corresponding number of elder commissioners.

New Jersey now has seven presbyteries (not counting the non-geographic Eastern Korean Presbytery, which technically covers the whole Synod, but has the majority of its churches in New Jersey).

CLICK ON THIS LINK for a full-size version of the map and take a look at the shaded gray lines. They indicate the proposed new boundary lines of 1959. Today, the overall number of Presbyterians in the state is a good deal less than half of what it was when the special committee was developing its realignment plan. Increasingly, presbyteries today are strapped for funds. You'd think the idea of boundary realignment would come up again: especially since it could be a way of restoring presbyteries to roughly the same overall number of church members each one had before the membership declines of the last quarter of the twentieth century began.

It's interesting to observe the shape of what the committee was calling "Central Jersey Presbytery" (Roman numeral III on the map). Most of Monmouth Presbytery (with the exception of the Southernmost part of Ocean County and a sliver of Burlington County) would have fallen in this new presbytery. All of New Brunswick Presbytery would have, too. Today, Monmouth and New Brunswick Presbyteries are sharing a Regional Presbyter. There are no merger discussions under way, but we all know that topic could come up for discussion in the future.

Maybe the members of the Synod's special committee were ahead of their time. Would it be a good thing to dust this historic artifact off and give it a fresh look?

What do you think?

Big Changes Are Proposed for the Synod

The future of Synods has been a lively subject of discussion in the church in recent years.  Although the most recent General Assembly declined to adopt a special committee's recommendation to eliminate Synods from the Book of Order completely - they pushed that proposal down the road, for the 2014 Assembly to deal with - it certainly seems like the church is on the verge of some big changes at the mid-council (presbytery and synod) level.

Knowing that change is in the air, and aware that our region of the country is one where the inclination to eliminate synods is strongly felt, the leadership of the Synod of the Northeast has appointed a Transitions Working Group (TWG) to do some creative thinking on the subject of the Synod's future and report back with some recommendations.

I've been privileged to serve on the Transitions group. I'm one of only two presbytery staff members to do so (the other is Cass Shaw, General Presbyter of the Presbytery of Albany). In putting together the membership of this group - in consultation with the Synod Council, who called for its formation - Synod Transitional Leader Harold Delhagen intentionally sought out people who have not been deeply involved in the Synod's governance, but who have been active in the church in other ways. There is a larger-than-usual complement of people in their 20s and 30s (of which I am, obviously, not one). The result is what we hope is a fresh perspective.

Our group has just issued our report to the Synod. We're hoping a great many Presbyterians within the Synod will read it and comment on it.  The TWG's Transitions Blog has been, for some months now, the most prominent feature of the Synod's home page.

So, what's in the report?  If I had to boil it down into a single sentence, it would be something like this:

We are encouraging the replacement of rigid Synod governance structures

with both open-source and inter-presbytery networks,

and encouraging a Synod-wide dialogue among presbyteries about redrawing their boundaries.

That language does not come from our report.  It's my own shorthand summary of its principal recommendations.

A capsule summary like that inevitably comes out sounding like bureaucratic gobbledygook, so let me use the rest of this post to unpack that a little.

Foundational to our report is the recommendation that the Synod become what the Book of Order calls a "reduced-function synod" (G-3.0404). The Synod, after seeking approval of two-thirds of its presbyteries, would have to petition the General Assembly to make this change. Under the reduced-function guidelines, the Synod Assembly would be reduced in size to one ruling-elder commissioner and one teaching-elder commissioner from each presbytery, and would only meet once every two years. The principal function of the Synod Assembly would be to appoint members of the Permanent Judicial Commission, approve whatever limited budget the Synod would have, and to conduct whatever other financial or legal business is necessary.

Having recommended that move, however, we also think more needs to happen at the Synod level than the minimum required under the reduced-function model.  We're calling for some of the Synod's functions to be passed on: both to a variety of new "networks of passion, interest and need" that would function on a flexible, open-source model, and to the presbyteries.

We're making just two recommendations:

RECOMMENDATION #1

That the Synod reduce its governance functions and refocus its resources, creating two types of networks to support the role of presbyteries in strengthening the mission and ministry of its congregations:
a. networks of passion, interest, and need such that our connectional nature and our diversity can be used to enrich and grow the capacity of all;
b. networks of presbyteries (mission areas) collaborating to assure adequate leadership within their bounds

RECOMMENDATION #2
That a portion of those resources be used to foster presbyteries to engage together in a study of their own boundaries, particularly with regard to their capacity to sustain long‐term leadership commensurate with their needs. It is anticipated that this will require the appointment of a Boundaries and Leadership Commission, the provision of consultants, and the planning of a Synodical Convention. The purpose of the Convention would be to facilitate and coordinate presbyteries’ requests to the General Assembly for such boundary changes as may be necessary for the future strength of their witness and service.

One of the things we learned as we went about our work is that the Synod of the Northeast is blessed with substantial financial resources - well over 10 million dollars, much of that undesignated - much of which can (and ought to) be distributed to the presbyteries, should the Synod reduce its functions. In that event, we have a rare, one-time opportunity to strategically direct those funds in order to establish and strengthen the ministries of both types of networks, so the mission of the Synod may be strengthened as well.

Consequently, we're recommending that funds be made available to foster the growth of open-source networks of passion, interest and need. These networks would bring like-minded Presbyterians from throughout the Synod together to accomplish important work for the good of all. Here are some examples of the sorts of networks that could be formed (not an exhaustive list, by any means):

     ‐ Early Ministry Institute (EMI)
     ‐ Racial Ethnic (language-based or other emerging identity) Caucuses
     ‐ Northeast Collegium (executive presbyters group)
     ‐ Advocacy
     ‐ Stated Clerks group
     ‐ Interim Pastors group
     ‐ Mentoring and/or Coaching groups
     ‐ Support/mutual resourcing for leaders of presbyteries and congregations in distress or “survival mode”
     ‐ Prison Ministry support
     ‐ New Worshiping Communities
     ‐ Tentmakers (bi-vocational pastors) group
     ‐ Emergent Leaders group
     ‐ Young women pastors group
     ‐ Presbyterian Women of the Synod

The second type of network, by its very nature, may look a little more familiar, because it's actually a system of networked presbyteries. In the initial stages, the Synod would facilitate the establishment of networks of three or more presbyteries that the report dubs "mission areas." The Synod would accomplish this by making a major, up-front grant to each presbytery consenting to enter such an arrangement, followed by a five-year program of diminishing grants. Those grants would start at something like 90% of the cost of a full-time staff person serving three presbyteries, diminishing to around 10% in the final year. Presbyteries could use these grants in whatever way they wished, as long as they supported the goal of establishing inter-presbytery cooperative leadership.  Presbyteries could keep whatever paid leadership they presently have; or, they could move, over time, to save funds by migrating their paid leadership positions into the multi-presbytery arrangement. Networks of more than three presbyteries would receive proportionately higher grants in the aggregate, because each individual presbytery would bring essentially the same amount of money to the mission-area table.

If the proposal makes its way through both the Synod Council and the Synod Assembly, gaining approval in its present form, what difference would that make to us here in Monmouth Presbytery?

We're already in a partnership with New Brunswick Presbytery. If we found at least one neighboring presbytery to join our partnership (for example, West Jersey Presbytery), each of us would then, as part of a mission area of three, be eligible to receive the one-time initial grant (which the report suggests could be $50,000).  That would be followed, in subsequent years, by the five-year diminishing grants supporting shared leadership. In the first year of the five-year period, we'd collectively receive, as a three-presbytery cluster, a grant in the neighborhood of $108,000 ($36,000 each), then a steadily-diminishing amount in each of the four years thereafter. Over the five-year period of the grant, each of our three presbyteries would need to make whatever budgetary or program changes we felt we needed to make, in order to contribute our steadily-increasing share of the cost of mission-area leadership.

The end result would be that, after seven years (two years for initial organization, followed by five years of the leadership grants program), we would have consolidated many of our professional-leadership expenses  at the mission-area level, while retaining whatever individual professional staff we felt we needed and could afford.

At the very least, some presbyteries would likely decide to have no staff other than a part-time stated clerk and perhaps a part-time support-staff person. At most, others would retain their own executive presbyter, supporting professional leadership at the mission-area of a more specialized nature (stewardship consultants, Christian education consultants, etc.).

The Synod would not prescribe in any detailed way what sort of staffing patterns or structures the mission areas would ultimately adopt; there would continue to be a high degree of autonomy at the presbytery level. The mission-area boundaries themselves could shift over time, as well. As creatures of the presbyteries rather than the Synod, the mission areas would serve the needs of their member presbyteries, as well as offering them ways of joining together in common mission.

It's possible that the New Jersey presbyteries could decide to come together in a larger, statewide mission area. Some have suggested that recreating something similar to the old Synod of New Jersey would be a good thing. According to that scenario, this New Jersey Mission Area would then consist of seven presbyteries (West Jersey, Monmouth, New Brunswick, Elizabeth, Newark, Newton and Palisades), which would be able to pool their leadership-grant money  to recruit a somewhat larger number of resource specialists than any three-presbytery cluster could support on its own. It's possible that some New Jersey presbyteries would prefer to retain their own executive presbyter or other professional staff; others could decide to throw their lot in with the mission area for everything, even committing additional funds to make that happen.

The plan is gently directive that way, but not prescriptive.  It uses the grants program as a positive incentive to invite the presbyteries, in this era of diminishing resources and heightened missional needs, to consider covenanting together in some new and mutually-beneficial ways. It does that without requiring presbyteries to fully merge, which could result in presbyteries so large that present traditions of intimacy and community could be lost.

(By the way, the Korean-speaking congregations in our area belonging to the non-geographic Eastern Korean Presbytery could continue to associate with one another, as they presently do, in a single Korean-language presbytery. They would be eligible for grant funding comparable to that of an individual presbytery, although they would not be required to join a mission area in order to receive the grant.)

That's Recommendation #1: a significant deployment of Synod funds to establish two types of networks. Recommendation #2 stands on its own, regardless of what happens to #1, but could very well complement it. It is a one-time, major study of presbytery boundaries.  As the report explains:

"Our system of presbytery boundaries belongs to a much earlier era, when there were more than twice as many Presbyterians and when communication and transportation resources were less efficient than they are today. The original standard used for drawing some presbytery boundary lines, in the era before automobiles, was the placement of certain communities along railway lines; many of these trains stopped running and the tracks were torn up half a century ago. Communities belonging to the same county are often split among two or more presbyteries, negating the collective influence the churches could have in advocacy and in community mission coalitions. Massive population shifts have taken place as well. Yet — largely out of institutional inertia — the old boundaries persist, unexamined, in many cases to the detriment of effective ministry. The lack of capacity within some of these historic boundaries to find and support the leadership necessary to maintain the church has lifted this issue to a critical level.

A comprehensive redrawing of presbytery boundaries is long overdue, but can only be accomplished by bringing presbytery leaders together at the same time, to share their perceptions of local needs and to discern the Spirit’s leading, as they jointly prepare proposals to bring back to their presbyteries for vote."

This post has already gone on long enough, so I'll simply suggest that you read the report for full details on how this consultation would be accomplished. It involves a process of preparation and study guided by some expert organizational consultants, followed by a one-time Synodical Convention, at which specially-appointed representatives of the presbyteries would come together to discuss possible changes. They would bring their recommendations back to their presbyteries, which would then vote on whether they wanted to request the General Assembly to make those boundary changes.

As with Recommendation #1, in this second recommendation the initiative and final decision remains with the presbyteries.  The Synod's role would be as a consultant and a broker, providing the presbyteries with the information and resources to undertake these discussions thoroughly and faithfully.

That's what's in the report.  It's now in the hands of the Synod Council, which meets from September 21-22, and after that the full Synod Assembly, which meets from October 19-20. As with any report presented by a working group, once it gets to the deliberative body, anything can happen.

Whatever happens, though, you heard it here first!

Non-Geographic Presbyteries?

It's getting to be that time of year - well, every two years.  General Assembly will soon be upon us. One of the most riveting issues coming before the Assembly, for those who work with Presbyterian polity, is the report of the Mid-Councils Commission.

Now, I realize any non-Presbyterian reading these words - and, if truth be told, all but a small segment of Presbyterians - will gaze upon them and respond: "Say what?"

Yet, to those who regularly imbibe the rarified air of church governance discussions, the Mid-Councils Report is one of the most paradigm-shifting changes to come down the Presbyterian pike in decades - rivaled only by the 2010 Assembly's passage of the new Form of Government (nFOG) and, before that, nothing (not, at least, since the reunion of northern and southern Presbyterians in 1983).

That's because the Mid-Councils Report recommends that synods be abolished.

Yea, gentle presbyter, abolished. That entire section of the Form of Government will simply be cut from the good book - no, not that Good Book, the other one - as brazenly as ol' Tom Jefferson took scissors in hand and excised Jesus' miracles from the New Testament.

OK, I'll admit I'm waxing hyperbolic here.  But seriously, the reduction in the number of councils (née governing bodies, née judicatories, née courts) is a rather big change.  If this proposal survives the Assembly intact, and if its constitutional amendments are subsequently approved by a majority of the presbyteries, the only remaining councils above the level of the congregation will be sessions, presbyteries and the General Assembly.

Doing without synods is not a new idea. Our mother kirk, the Church of Scotland, has never had 'em.  Here on our side of the Pond, the idea's been kicked around for the past couple decades at least - but this is the first time it's coming to the General Assembly with the unanimous endorsement of one of the Assembly's own special working groups, complete with all the enabling amendments to - in the resolute words of galaxy-striding space Captain Jean-Luc Picard - "make it so."

Most seem to think the Assembly will indeed do its part to make it so (although, in typical parliamentary fashion, probably not without tacking on enough minor amendments to allow the commissioners to see their fingerprints upon it).

The Abolish Synods movement is all about the so-called shrinking planet, as "leaving on a jet plane" has become commonplace and burgeoning communications technology offers unprecedented opportunities for keeping in touch across the miles (et tu, Twitter).  The Scots never thought they needed synods because their entire country is no bigger than South Carolina.  Now that our trademark wide-open spaces are neither so wide nor so open, we're coming to realize synods are a luxury we can no longer afford.

While the abolition of synods has been commanding most of the denomination's attention of late, another of the proposed changes has barely shown up on the radar screen.  If the Mid-Councils Report passes the Assembly and the presbyteries, it creates an unprecedented opportunity to tinker with the structure and membership of presbyteries. The report proposes that, for a trial period extending until 2021, congregations be given the opportunity (with presbytery approval) to pull themselves out of their present presbytery and join another 10 or more congregations in forming a "provisional non-geographic presbytery for specific missional purposes" that's more to their liking.

A huge question - one that may or may not be asked explicitly at the Assembly, although it will be on the minds of nearly everyone - is whether the desire to flee theological diversity for a community of the like-minded constitutes a specific missional purpose.  Congregations inclined to follow the lead of the newly-formed Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (née Evangelical Covenant Order) will likely welcome this move, because it provides a mechanism for doing what they've long dreamed of doing: stepping away from those pesky liberals who are comfortable with the idea of gays and lesbians holding church office, and associating only with biblical literalists like themselves who believe the only place in the church for such reprobates is on their knees in tearful repentance.

There's a superficial appeal to this flexibility, to be sure.  Who doesn't want to be missional, after all?  (It's the denominational buzz-word du jour, even though there's little consensus on what it means.)  Yet, as Wilson Gunn points out, in a recent Presbyterian Outlook article, the "provisional non-geographic presbytery for missional purposes idea" has some hidden pitfalls:

"While 'Geography isn’t what it used to be,' geographic proximity is a value. When times are tough we need to sit beside each other in the flesh. Presence is incarnational. Geographic boundaries are not 'arbitrary.' Most were created to provide an intentional variety of congregations in each presbytery such that the small, resource-strapped congregations and the relatively robust, larger congregations share common resources within a presbytery. This self-selected non-geographic approach can quickly concentrate the larger congregations across several presbyteries, leaving the remaining smaller congregations, who rely significantly upon the encouragement and guidance of presbytery committees and staff, in a presbytery completely lacking the resources to be able to serve them. The rich are likely to get richer and the poor poorer in this design."

Pastors of larger congregations are disproportionately represented among the leadership of the ECO.  Whether intentional or unintentional, the "missional" similarities they claim as justification for their separation will in many cases have the consequence of robbing neighboring smaller congregations of the sort of support, encouragement and leadership-training resources they could otherwise obtain from their larger neighbor - not to mention the lost per capita and mission funding they would otherwise have contributed to their former presbytery, to the mutual benefit of all.

Furthermore, Gunn sees such significant progress being made already by traditional presbyteries in the direction of becoming more missional that he questions the need for such presbyterial vivisection:

"The proposed purpose of these non-geographic presbyteries is being accomplished without reconfiguring presbyteries. Presbyteries, as noted in the commission report, are already experimenting. Presbyteries are already on the way to flat, flexible and faithful. Connectionalism has already taken a different shape than the former regulatory, centralized control. Mission dollars go directly from congregations to the local and international mission field. Once upon a time, 90 percent of a congregation’s undesignated external mission giving routed up through the denomination. Now we see about 10 percent of that mission dollar, yet National Capital Presbytery has over 100 different international mission projects that are sponsored by our congregations. I see just as much missionary energy, it’s just decentralized now."

Does "non-geographic" truly translate into "missional"?  It's for the General Assembly to decide.

A Thank-You for All of Us

Today I received this letter from the Rev. Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the General Assembly:

Dear Carlos,

On behalf of the General Assembly I want to extend a special word of appreciation to the Presbytery of Monmouth for your faithful stewardship in 2011.  More than ever, maintaining the covenant connection that links together the Body of Christ is crucial for the faithful witness of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  Your presbytery's full support of 2011 per capita apportionment is a tangible sign of commitment to that vision, and I am extraordinarily grateful.


As you well know, the per capita apportionment makes possible the General Assembly session through which Presbyterians seek to discern the mind of Christ for the church.  It also enables us to uphold our Constitution, to promote the unity of Christ's church, preserve our historical records through the Department of History, and to facilitate communication throughout the church.  We have sought to be good stewards of the resources that you have shared with the whole church and look forward to a continuing partnership in the Gospel with you in 2012.

Please share the deepest appreciation of all of us in the Office of the General Assembly for the faithful support of your presbytery and its particular churches for the per capita budget of the General Assembly.  May God continue to richly bless your ministry.

Yours in Christ,


Gradye Parsons
Stated Clerk of the General Assembly

*****

The letter is addressed to me, but of course it's really intended for every Monmouth Presbyterian.  Not all church members have made designated contributions towards the cost of per capita, nor has every Session been able to remit the full amount needed to cover the number of members under their care.  Yet, the Presbytery has stepped up to the plate and made good on the shortfall.

The Presbytery has done it out of a deep conviction that it's important, for all the reasons Gradye describes in his letter, and more.  Per capita is crucial to the health of our connectional system.

Those of us who are active in Presbytery leadership are grateful to all of you for the important part you play in this work.  Truly, it is a partnership.  Gradye's thank-you is indeed a message for all of us.

"A High Moral Obligation"

Per capita is under discussion in our Presbytery these days, and will be a special topic of interest for the upcoming Presbytery meeting, which will take place on Tuesday, June 28 at 7:00 pm, at the Point Pleasant Presbyterian Church.

Per capita is of course the apportionment plan the Presbyterian Church has used, since the very beginning of our denominational history, to cover administrative expenses. Originally, it was a way of collecting money to cover the expenses of the annual General Assembly - particularly, for reimbursing travel expenses of commissioners. It has since expanded to cover most of the routine administrative expenses of presbyteries, synods and the General Assembly.

In 2011, Monmouth Presbytery’s per capita amount is $35.00 per member. The $35.00 figure is broken down as follows:
● General Assembly - $ 6.50 per member
● Synod of the Northeast - $3.95 per member
● Monmouth Presbytery - $24.55 per member

Per capita is NOT a tax. Although many Sessions ask their members to contribute the cost of their per capita through a special offering, this is neither required nor expected. Sessions are expected to fulfill their church’s entire per capita obligation regardless of the amount of any designated per capita contributions their members may make.

Rather than thinking of per capita as a tax, it is more accurate to think of it as a sort of denominational utility payment. Our churches all make utility payments for electricity, water and the like. For those payments, they receive certain essential services. The essential services provided by per capita are the things that make us Presbyterian – our denominational connectedness.

Now, should a church fall behind on its per capita payments, it's not going to suffer the same consequences as if it defaulted on its electric bill. We all know the electric company will run of patience eventually and disconnect the power supply, but the Presbytery can't throw a switch and de-Presbyterianize a congregation (nor would we ever want to!). Rather, we depend on mutual good will to make the per capita system work.

Essentially, it’s an honor system.

There have been times in the past when churches, facing unusual difficulties, have asked to be relieved of part of their per capita obligation for a time. The Presbytery has obligingly granted such requests. The system has been able to absorb that sort of hit from time to time. We’ve written it off as part of our mutual support for one another. When one weeps, we all weep together, as the scriptures say.

In recent years, though, the honor system seems to be systematically breaking down in some parts of the Presbytery. It will be reported at the upcoming meeting that about one-third of the churches are seriously behind on their per capita payments. A few churches have made no payments, or only minimal payments, for several years now. As a result, the overall amount of the Presbytery portion of per capita has had to be steadily raised (even as expenses have been slashed, by downsizing programs and staff). This means that, in effect, the churches who conscientiously fulfill their per capita obligation are made to pay for those who don’t.

It’s estimated that the Presbytery’s portion of the per capita asking – which is $24.55 – would be $8.00 less, or $16.55, if all the churches remitted their full per capita obligation. That means the total per member asking would be $27.00 instead of $35.00.

The Presbytery can't force Sessions to pay per capita. Officially, it's a voluntary contribution, a benevolence. That much is clear from decisions of the General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission. The most recent of these decisions, Minihan v. Presbytery of Scioto Valley, 2003, was a complaint about a Presbytery policy that declared per capita payments by churches mandatory. The PJC agreed with the complainant and overturned the Presbytery’s policy.

Some pastors and elders, since then, have waved around copies of the Minihan decision, saying, “See! We don’t have to pay per capita. It’s voluntary!” Some have taken the decision as giving them permission to routinely divert money they once used for per capita to pay other bills – a tempting thing to do, in these tough financial times. Others have said, “We encourage our members to pay their own per capita, and will gladly pass along any designated contributions we receive, but we’ll pay nothing more out of our general church budget.”

Such actions are, technically, permissible under the Minihan decision. But, here’s the real question: Are they faithful?

Lots of people are familiar with what the Minihan decision says about the voluntary nature of per capita, which has been widely reported and discussed. Most people don’t realize, though, that the decision also includes a tightly-reasoned theological statement about the importance of per capita as “a high moral obligation.”

Here’s what Minihan says about the morality of paying per capita:

“Therefore, while our Constitution does not technically permit presbyteries to make per capita mandatory, we are necessarily bound together as a covenant community through our union to God Almighty in Jesus through the Holy Spirit (A Brief Statement of Faith, C-10.4, lines 52-57). Thus, there is a high moral obligation based on the grace and call of God to participate fully in the covenant community. Full participation includes time, talent, and treasure (G-10.0102h; W-5.5004). Moreover, all officers are obligated, by virtue of ordination vows [W-4.4003], to participate fully in the life of the Church. To participate partially or not at all and yet claim to be within the covenant community represents a grievous misunderstanding of our reciprocal covenantal obligations under the singular Lordship of Jesus (The Second Helvetic Confession, C-5.124-141). In other words, we are called to turn from the sin of individualism run rampant and embrace the covenantal community in which our Lord Jesus has called us to live as those who love as we have been loved (John 13:34). Therefore, withholding per capita as a means of protest or dissent evidences a serious breach of the trust and love with which our Lord Jesus intends the covenant community to function together (G-7.0103).”

I would love to see every Session who’s decided not to pay their full per capita engage in a careful study of this paragraph, looking up and discussing the biblical and Confessional references it cites, particularly the ordination vows they’ve all taken. How does the vow to “be a friend among your colleagues in ministry, working with them, subject to the ordering of God’s word and Spirit” square with the decision to stick those same colleagues with a portion of one’s own church’s per capita obligation (W-4.4003e)? How does an elder or a minister promise to “share in government and discipline,” while at the same time shrugging and saying, “Sorry, we don’t do per capita” - which for centuries has been the preferred means of paying the basic costs of Presbyterian governance (W-4.4003i)?

I’ve been having this same discussion with our own Session at Point Pleasant, the church I serve as pastor. Last year, I’m sorry to say, we reached the end of the budget year without paying our full per capita obligation. Yes, we defaulted on some of it. It wasn’t an act of protest. We just ran out of money. Knowing that other churches have done the same in recent years, the Session decided (disregarding my advice) that per capita was something they could just - regrettably - let slide, without suffering any adverse effects. Other churches were doing it, weren't they?

There is an adverse effect, though. If per capita is an honor system, and if payment of per capita a question of morality, then maybe we ought to stop talking so much about our budgets, and start talking instead about our souls.

We're going to be talking a lot more about that sort of thing around our Session table this year. Maybe you'll decide to do the same in your church, as well.

Papers for March 22, 2011 Presbytery meeting

Here are some papers you'll need for the Tuesday, March 22 Presbytery meeting, that will convene at 7:00 p.m. at the Allentown Presbyterian Church.

1) If you're a Presbytery member or Elder Commissioner, you'll need to print out and bring with you the brief "PrezBPass" form.

2) You'll also want to print out and bring with you a meeting Docket, with all the related committee minutes and reports appended to it. In order to be a more "green" Presbytery, the Mission Council has decided that DOCKETS WILL NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE AT THE MEETING, except for a small quantity set aside for visitors who could not have had the opportunity to print them out ahead of time).

3) Because we'll be voting on Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, you'll want to print out a copy of the booklet describing these. It will be hard for you to consider these thoroughly, or to make much sense of the debate, unless you have a copy of the Amendments in your hands. We have a limited number of the booklets left and will distribute them on a first-come, first-served basis. (Many ministers and commissioners already have copies of the booklets, which have been distributed at the last two meetings; if you have one, PLEASE BRING IT.)

Here are a couple of additional items you may or may not want to print out, as you choose:

4) The packet files are mostly flyers and announcements concerning workshops, educational seminars and social events that are coming up in various churches of the Presbytery. To save paper, you may want to view these online, printing out only those you intend to distribute to others.

5) The PC(USA) Association of Stated Clerks publishes an analysis of the proposed Amendments to the Constitution. This is as objective an analysis as it could possibly be, prepared by a committee of presbytery stated clerks who are committed to explaining the nature and practical effect of the various amendments in plain language, without editorializing. This document has no official status, but it may be helpful. You can think of it as similar to the interpretative statements that appear on voting-machine ballots in secular elections, when Public Questions are up for consideration.

Nobody Likes a Lone Ranger

The Lone Ranger may be a legend of the silver screen, but he’s not a very welcome figure around the church. Especially not a Presbyterian church.

That’s because we’re connectional. Many of the most important things that happen in the life of the congregation are always done in coordination with the Presbytery.

Why is that? Is the Presbytery just an annoying level of bureaucracy leaders in the local church must overcome, in order to accomplish anything substantial for the Lord?

It may seem that way, at times – at least, to the uninitiated. We’ve got a powerful home-rule tradition in our country, and sometimes that thinking leaches into the church.

The church is different, though. In the Presbyterian church, we’ve always had a healthy suspicion of sin and the havoc it can wreak in the common life of God’s people. The best way we’ve found to counter the ecclesiastical expressions of sin is by relying on groups of people, rather than individuals. Centuries of experience has shown that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is more reliably discerned through groups of people praying, discussing and deciding together.

That’s not to say there’s no such thing as visionary leaders. It’s just that we Presbyterians always want to make sure their vision is vetted and tested through the faithful discernment of elected governing bodies (Session, Presbytery, Synod, General Assembly).

Here – slightly adapted from the Clerk of Session manual of Pittsburgh Presbytery, are a dozen significant ways local churches must always act in concert with the Presbytery, along with a list of those who must be involved in the decision or action:

1) Application to Presbytery to take an inquirer for the Ministry under care of Presbytery
Session
Committee on Preparation for Ministry
Presbytery

2) All loans which use the church or its property as collateral and all sales of property
Session and Trustees (in most churches these days, Trustees are the same as the Session)
Trustees of Presbytery
Presbytery

3) All leases of church property for a period of more than five years, or use of the Sanctuary for worship for any length of time
Session
Trustees of Presbytery
Presbytery

4) All changes of church location or church name
Session
Congregation/Corporation
Trustees of Presbytery
Presbytery

5) All changes in terms of call for the pastor(s)
Session
Congregation
Committee on Ministry
Presbytery

6) All proposals for merger, dissolution, yoking of congregations
Session
Congregation
Trustees of Presbytery
Presbytery

7) All dissolutions of pastorates and calls for new pastors
Congregation
Committee on Ministry
Presbytery

8) Appointment of moderator of session, stated supply or interim pastor in the case of a vacant pulpit
Session
Committee on Ministry
Presbytery

9) Call a special session meeting
Two members of session, in writing

10) Call a special congregational meeting
Session, or
Presbytery, or
Session when requested in writing by 1/4 active members of the congregation

11) Session meeting when the pastor is ill or is out of town
Pastor grants permission and appoints a member of Presbytery as moderator pro tem

12) All waivers from the terms of election for church officers [G-14.0202]
Congregation
Presbytery