To find out more about the 2010 PCA Strategic Plan, read the official documents and watch the video, click here: 

PCA Strategic Plan Home

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

      Click here for a printable copy of the Frequently Asked Questions and Answers.

1.    What exactly was passed by the 38^th General Assembly?

2.     What comes next in the process?

3.     Why do we need a new system of funding for the Administrative Committee (AC)?  What are

        the flaws of the current system?

4.     What safe-guards are in place to insure that the AC Funding Plan Model is limited and

        affordable in its scope?

5.     Is the proposed Funding Proposal fair to Senior Pastors, Solo Pastors, Associate Pastors, or

        Assistant Pastors who have paid their registration fee and who are called to the pastorate of a

        church?  Isn’t it possible that their sessions might not pay the Church Registration Fee, thus

        making them ineligible to vote at the General Assembly?

6.     What about a TE who has a call but is without a church?  And what about a TE without a call?

7.     What would a “hardship plan” look like?

8.     What about delinquent Annual Registration Fees?

9.     Is the proposed new system of funding for the Administrative Committee, and in particular the

        AC Funding Plan Model, biblical?

10.   In an earlier question you cited 2 Corinthians and Philippians (see Question 9) as justification

        for funding the AC through a mandatory financial assessment.  Aren’t these passages, though,

        examples of free-will offerings, not mandatory financial assessments?

11.   Why does the funding plan call for “fees” rather than simply requesting “gifts”?

12.   How can it be right to require financial support for many specific tasks undertaken by the

        Administrative Committee which are not mandated by Scripture?

13.   Is the Proposed Plan for Funding the Administrative Committee unconstitutional?

14.   What happens if you don’t pay?  Can you lose your vote in presbytery?

15.   How does BCO 25:8 (regarding church property) relate to the Annual Registration Fees in the

        AC Funding Plan Model approved by the 38^th General Assembly?

QUESTION 1:  What exactly was passed by the 38^th General Assembly?

The 38th General Assembly passed the three Themes and Goals of the 2010 Strategic Plan.  The Themes approved were:

·       Theme #1: “Civil Conversations”

·       Theme #2: “Increased Involvement”

·       Theme #3: “In God's Global Mission.”

All of the Means proposed for implementing the Themes also passed, with the exception of Means #4 under Theme #2 (“Establish standards for voluntary certification of men and women for specific non-ordained vocational ministries”).

Please go to www.pcaac.org and click on “Strategic Plan Proposal/Items Approved by 38th GA” for a complete list of the Means and Goals.

Important for our discussion here, the amendments to the BCO 14-1.4 and BCO 14-2 necessary to implement Annual registration Fees for the financial support of the PCA Administrative Committee passed by a strong positive vote, which appeared to be approximately 75% for and 25% against, or to express it another way, by a vote of 3 to 1.

QUESTION 2: What comes next in the process?

First, the amendments to the BCO 14-1.4 and 14-2 necessary for implementation of the new funding proposal of Annual Registration Fees to be used in the Funding of the PCA Administrative Committee will be sent to the presbyteries for consideration and voting.  The amendments must pass two-thirds of the 79 PCA presbyteries by a majority vote in order to be brought to the 39^th General Assembly for a second vote, which vote must achieve a majority vote before the amendment process is properly completed.

Second, the items in the plan which were proposed for further design and preparation will go to the respective groups for developing the means and details to move toward completion of the Goals associated with each Theme.

QUESTION 3:  Why do we need a new system of funding for the Administrative Committee (AC)?  What are the flaws of the current system?

The Cooperative Ministries Committee (CMC), mindful of biblical principles (see Question 9) and of our historical practices, after due consideration kept the system of Partnership Share giving in place for all participants except the PCA Administrative Committee.  But given the historical reluctance and seeming inability of the PCA to fund her Administrative Committee mandates through the current system, the group unanimously and wisely proposed a small change.  One third of 1% (0.334%) of tithes and offerings of each PCA church would go to support the connecting ministries of the PCA assigned to the Administrative Committee.

The new funding system only affects a small fraction of church tithes and offerings.  Churches will manage 99.6% of their funds as they have done in the past.  (For additional safe-guards, see Question 4.)

In the PCA, at the General Assembly level, we have the unusual phenomena of isolating "administrative expenses" and raising the funds to cover them as separate monies.  The current funding plan in effect for the PCA is particularly difficult for the PCA Administrative Committee for several reasons. 

·        Not a few remember abuses of their prior denominational connection, where administrative persons held control over local churches and their members, and unscriptural actions were taken without regard to grass-roots intentions. By God's grace and help, however, should we not get over the distrust of our brothers and fellow elders in Christ and free ourselves to be more eager and vigorous in the work of the kingdom?

·        Another problem for the PCA AC is the structure by which churches allocate their funds to causes. Most put the request for PCA administrative cost in the hands of missions committees, who are rightly looking at support for church planters, missionaries, campus ministers, and perhaps also mercy ministry.  With all these worthy needs before them, the request for administration expenses is often relegated to the category of “expendable” or seen as an expense that “others” will need to cover.  This is not lack of generosity; a system that works well for the good cause of “mission,” however, is failing us on the cause of connecting our church via healthy services—a very minor cost, relatively speaking. Annual Registration Fees for participating churches and pastors to cover connecting expenses will represent a very small percentage of our total ministry expenses for the PCA.

·        Currently in the PCA we have the inconsistent posture and practice of mandating services to the Administrative Committee without ensuring that the ministries required have the necessary funding.  Our churches, through the General Assembly, assign to the AC the funding of the Standing Committees, funding of the Standing Judicial Commission, planning and execution of the General Assembly, operation of the PCA Office Building, data and communication responsibilities, operation the Historical Center, and a host of other administrative tasks. Yet the belief prevails that these same churches should help cover the cost only as each thinks it should.  Thirty-six years of the current practice have proven this approach to be unwise, impracticable, and even unethical.  If unethical seems a strong word, consider that our current practice may actually tempt and even train the leadership of our churches toward an attitude of entitlement to unpaid services, a habit of which none of us would approve.  Asking people to help pay for critical services (especially when exceptions are made in cases of special need) is not unbiblical.

Our PCA people as a group are quite generous.  God has blessed us also with an evangelistic fervor which appears to be from God's Spirit.  Over the years the PCA has grown significantly in works of missions and church planting, and in works of compassion and mercy. These are good and great blessings!  Yet we have not learned to fund the expenses of keeping together the PCA we love.

We have great blessings, but to stay together and contribute in a united way to the progress of the gospel and the work of the kingdom, we must pay, and pay cheerfully, the connecting cost.  These connecting costs are not expensive, considering our material blessings.  The PCA (her people and churches) is estimated to be giving away two billion dollars per year.  The cost of connecting her, encouraging her fellowship and worship, maintaining justice, providing good communications, and otherwise assisting her ministries through the PCA Administrative Committee is about two million dollars per year.  As stewards of our spiritual and our material blessings, we ought to gladly pay these connecting expenses.  Administration, one of the gifts given to the church for ministry (I Corinthians 12:28), should not be neglected.

The 2010 Strategic Plan's new AC Funding Plan Model, proposed unanimously through the CMC and adopted by the 38^th General Assembly, will be much more effective for the PCA and more honorable to God.  After considering many ideas and several models at length, this one appears better than anything else proposed in our near 37-year history.  Please remember that the Funding Plan is proposed as an exception clause to our Book of Church Order and that it has safe-guards (see Question 4) to prevent it from becoming too expensive and expansive. Moreover, the proposed plan is not unbiblical in itself; indeed, it is based upon biblical principles (Question 9). The CMC has performed a good service for us in working toward this Funding Model.

QUESTION 4:  What safe-guards are in place to insure that the AC Funding Plan Model is limited and affordable in its scope?

A careful reading of all the materials will show that the proposal is quite limited in three ways, providing railings to keep down expansion of two types.

            First Safe-Guard

The Committee and Agency Coordinators, the Cooperative Ministries Committee, and the PCA Administrative Committee after much discussion have unanimously concluded that only the Administrative Committee should be the recipient of this consideration. They have safe-guarded their intentions by approving proposed Book of Church Order changes which clearly make the AC funding plan an exception to the rules for gathering contributions in the PCA.  Funding of the other PCA Committees and Agencies is not affected by the proposed change.

            Second Safe-Guard

A proposed addition to the Rules of Assembly Operations limits to 0.40% any increase in the percentage used in calculating the Registration Fee ranges unless that percentage increase is approved by a special vote of both the General Assembly and the presbyteries. This stipulation prevents any extravagant increase in the funds being collected and spent by the Administrative Committee.

Third Safe-Guard

Each year the budget of the Administrative Committee will continue to be before the Assembly for approval of both the Income and Expense portions of the budget.

QUESTION 5:  Is the proposed Funding Proposal fair to Senior Pastors, Solo Pastors, Associate Pastors, or Assistant Pastors who have paid their registration fee and who are called to the pastorate of a church?  Isn’t it possible that their sessions might not pay the Church Registration Fee, thus making them ineligible to vote at the General Assembly?

Please be aware that the PCA Administrative Committee has been and will continue to be in the position of encouraging elders to attend the Assembly and has no interest whatsoever in keeping them away or limiting the voting.  For these reasons the AC staff work diligently each year to minimize the total costs of General Assembly for the Commissioners.  Nevertheless, history proves that the PCA needs to be better disciplined in regard to the financial responsibility for her infrastructure.

As we discuss details, please remember the following important background points:

• The Registration Fee system is designed to support the entire work and related expenses of operating the PCA AC as constitutionally established (see BCO 14.1-12 and RAO 4-2), not just the annual General Assembly meeting.
• Pastors in churches are always working under the authority of the session (see BCO 12-5 for authority given to the session and BCO 21-5-5 for the vows taken by the pastor).

The question, or case study, assumes the most negative of circumstances and, at the same time, the ability of the pastor to pay his own way to the Assembly.  This is not a common circumstance, but since it is theoretically possible we should discuss the situation it supposes.

Note that this case would require something like the following:

(1) the pastor has paid his Annual Registration Fee;

(2) he can afford the travel expenses to the Assembly and wishes to pay them himself;

(3) he has not been able to persuade his session to pay the Church Annual Registration Fee;

(4) this same session has agreed to let him go to the Assembly. 

Let us point out that the session already can keep the pastor at home if they so wish in any given circumstance.  For example, the session can assign preaching and teaching duties or pastoral care duties to be performed at the very time the General Assembly is convened.  Or they can simply decide that they do not believe the pastor needs to attend in a given year.  The point is that the session already makes the decision as to whether the particular pastor is available and free to go to the General Assembly.

Should a session decide not to pay the church registration fee, then yes, the pastor can only come to the Assembly as a guest with the potential to address the floor, but he would not have a vote in the Assembly.  In such a case, there are avenues of help for the pastor:

• Any individual or entity, such as a presbytery, can pay the Church Registration Fee in the place of, or on behalf of, the session that is unable to pay or does not wish to pay.
• Should the session be willing to include a guest in their deliberations, the PCA AC would be glad to assist in finding an advocate to encourage the session to take on this responsibility.

Now let us consider a question implied by the specific question regarding the fairness of the funding plan to pastors – namely, the fairness of the Church Registration Fee itself.

Since the fee is based on a percentage of tithes and offerings (0.334%), the fee is a reasonable amount that is attainable by all churches.  We believe the proposed system of funding for the AC is fair and equitable to all churches because it asks (yes, requires) all churches who want to participate in decision making at the denominational level to help pay the cost of that connectedness. A majority of the PCA sessions have for years neglected to carry their weight in covering the expenses of the PCA AC.  In fact, in a typical year only 45% of the churches contribute anything to the AC; the highest percentage of supporting churches ever known to be reached is 48%.

The PCA is charitable, and most of our sessions are charitable, but we hold in our culture the unbiblical concept, apparently held over from the PCUS years, that administration is suspect by the very nature of its existence and perhaps even viewed as evil.  Within God’s word, however, administration is viewed not only as a normal part of accomplishing ministry but even in the noble position of being a gift from God! (See, for example, I Corinthians 12:4ff, II Corinthians 8 & 9, and Romans 12:6ff.  Please refer also to Question 9.)

If we do not include the Church Registration Fee in our rules, too many sessions, diaconates, and perhaps even pastors will take the “loophole” approach, with the church sending only the pastors as commissioners who can represent the church for the pastors’ Annual Registration Fee.  The church’s financial participation in our connectedness will again be neglected.

The Funding Proposal contained in the 2010 Strategic Plan gives the PCA the opportunity to correct what we believe to be a wrong practice; it provides a vehicle for changing our PCA culture on a point where our culture is revealed as broken and in need of change.  Yes, it is possible that someone might implement the rule in an unjust or unfair fashion, but the injustice will be the fault not of the rule, but of those who abuse the rule.  In the case put before us, the session will be the ones deciding not to give their pastor the vote by virtue of failing to accept the responsibility of paying the Annual Church Registration Fee.

Shouldn’t we take a more positive view of the Funding Proposal?  The PCA can be stronger by its implementation.  When the PCA is stronger, by God’s grace she is positioned to accomplish more ministry for the advance of the Kingdom and to the glory of our King!

QUESTION 6:  What about a TE who has a call but is without a church?  And what about a TE without a call?

A TE who has a call but is without a church will be asked and encouraged to pay the Pastor's Annual Registration Fee of $100.  The TE without a call will also be asked to pay the Annual Registration Fee of $100.  A "hardship plan" is available to any who have serious difficulty paying the annual Registration Fees.

QUESTION 7:  What would a “hardship plan” look like?

Special cases would be handled by a policy statement passed by the Administrative Committee and brought before the General Assembly for approval.  An example of what a “hardship plan” might look like follows here:

PCA Annual Registration Fees

Policy Statement for Hardship Cases and Negotiation of Delinquent Fees

[EXAMPLE]

Churches and Pastors

Hardship Cases:

1) A local session (or a teaching elder) would decide that they cannot pay the registration fee due to financial hardship. The session or teaching elder would then submit these reasons in writing to their presbytery asking for assistance and/or confirmation that a need exists in the particular situation.

2) The presbytery takes the request into consideration through any structure they prefer (perhaps a committee which already exists, like a membership committee, facilitating committee or such).  The presbytery will at a minimum verify the hardship claimed by the church or teaching elder and recommend that the AC exercise favorable consideration of the particular request.  Presbyteries are encouraged to explore the possibility of meeting or helping to meet the financial obligation by means available in the local region.  Ideally, the presbytery or others within the presbytery will have some means of addressing the hardship by direct financial assistance to the church or teaching elder.  Or, the presbytery in its wisdom may advise the applicant on other possible solutions including that they are able to afford the registration fee. 

NOTE:  In extraordinary cases, such as the occurrence of a tragedy like Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast, the PCA as a whole will be going to the aid of her churches in the damaged area.  In such a situation, the AC would likely forgive the fee and encourage attendance, and would also assist in securing housing with local host families, etc.

3) The staff of the Administrative Committee will evaluate the presbytery’s recommendation and decide whether to grant the request for a hardship that year.  The staff will propose a settlement, and the church or teaching elder may agree, or negotiate directly with the staff for a mutual settlement.  If an agreement is reached, the staff will report such agreement to the full Administrative Committee for matter of information and record.  If the staff and church or teaching elder cannot agree, the staff is required to report the case to the full Administrative Committee for consideration at its spring meeting.

4)  The full Administrative Committee will consider the request (including any information provided by the church/teaching elder, presbytery and Administrative Committee staff) to either confirm the staff’s decision or to overrule.

5) If the church or teaching elder finds the Administrative Committee’s decision unsatisfactory, the church or teaching elder may appeal to a third party arbitrator.  The third party arbitrator will be a panel of nine presbytery clerks elected by the clerks each year at their regular December clerks’ meeting.  The panel would meet annually in late April or early May by telephone conference call to consider any issues referred or appealed to them by any party in an arrears dispute with the PCA Administrative Committee.  The decision of the arbitration panel would be final for all parties.

Negotiation of Delinquent Fees:

1) The PCA Administrative Committee proposes that the cap on any “arrears” which might develop in Annual Registration Fees would be a maximum of three years of fees for both pastors and churches.

2) A local session (or a teaching elder) who has fallen behind in the payment of the Annual Registration Fee would simply give written explanation and request to the PCA Administrative staff. If they are able and willing to pay the delinquent Fees, then the issue is ended.  If they (or he) wish to report also to their presbytery, they are encouraged to do so; this would, of course, be necessary if the party envisioned asking for financial assistance and/or confirmation from the presbytery that a financial need existed in the particular situation.

3) The presbytery, if approached, would take it under consideration through any structure they preferred as noted above in paragraph 2 under “Hardship Cases” above.  But the presbytery would at a minimum verify the situation being claimed by the church or minister and give any recommendation they might have to the AC on the particular request.  Or, of course, they might advise the applicant on other solutions, if they thought it wise, including the possibility that the party could afford the Fee.  Should it be apparent that the party cannot afford the full fee, a similar approach would be implemented for some financial relief in the "back registration fees," i.e., the presbytery would review the request, help if they can, and send it to the AC with a recommendation as to their wisdom on the appropriate consideration.  In every case it is hoped that the presbyteries would look into the possibility of meeting or helping meet the financial obligation by means available in the local region.  Note: It is recognized that this would not always be possible, but the fees are based on a very low percentage of what a church has and are therefore very financially reachable in most cases.

4) The AC staff would evaluate the request and make some proposal appropriate in the particular case of "back registration fees" from previous years.  If the proposal were not satisfactory with the party, the AC should try to negotiate toward and agreement.  If an agreement were reached, the staff would simply report such agreement to the Administrative Committee for matter of information and record, but would have made contract, so to speak, on behalf of the AC.  If the staff and church or pastor have not agreed, the staff is obligated to report the difference to the spring meeting of the Administrative Committee for the confirmation of their decision or the over-ruling of their decision.

5) Should the decision still be dissatisfactory to the church or the teaching elder, they could appeal to a third party arbitrator  The third party arbitrator will be a panel of nine presbytery clerks elected by the clerks each year at their regular December clerks’ meeting.  The panel would meet annually in late April or early May by telephone conference call to consider any issues referred or appealed to them by any party in an arrears dispute with the PCA Administrative Committee.  The decision of the arbitration panel would be final for all parties.

QUESTION 8:  What about delinquent Annual Registration Fees?

See Question 7.

QUESTION 9:  Is the proposed new system of funding for the Administrative Committee, and in particular the AC Funding Plan Model, biblical?

As elders who lead in the church we are, as a group, very serious students of the Bible, so this question should be of great concern to us.  God has not written down for us all the specific details of how we should manage the gifts that His people give toward the work of the kingdom.  That means that as we think about how to fund the ministries of our church, we need to look at Scriptural principles that should guide us and apply them as carefully as possible, in dependence upon His Holy Spirit.

1)   Paul encouraged and urged the churches to give from the heart, cheerfully and sacrificially.

In II Corinthians 8 & 9 and in Philippians 1 & 4 we see how Paul funded the ministries of mercy and mission by urging and encouraging the churches to give.  Encouraging our people to give out of a heart overflowing with gratitude to the Lord (cf. II Corinthians 8:1-5) will always be the first line in any plan for the funding of our PCA ministries, and in particular here, the Administrative Committee.

2)   Administration is a gift given to the church for ministry.

I Corinthians 12:28 tells us that administration is one of the gifts given by God for the building up of His body, the Church.  In II Corinthians 8-9 Paul himself speaks of “administering” the gifts of the Macedonians (8:20).  He plans, arranges, communicates, delegates, travels, manages, follows up, coordinates, coaches, encourages, and performs many other administrative functions that leaders must attend to for “acts of grace” to really come together.  Undoubtedly, such services would have required some expenditures, but it seems clear that Paul viewed them as an integral part of the mission, not a separate ministry.  Although at times Paul and others graciously supported themselves by tent making, normally they were sustained in all their work of evangelizing, teaching, mercy, and even administration by the contributions of the churches and of God’s saints.

The Administrative Committee, through its various assigned “administrative” functions, connects and supports PCA churches, presbyteries, teaching and ruling elders, lay workers, and ministries.

3)   We are to count the cost (of discipleship, but also in every area of living – cf. Proverbs 24:27).

When services and ministries are assigned to the Administrative Committee by the General Assembly, it is only right that provision be made for their funding. Those who assign the task have a responsibility to count what the cost will be and see that it will be covered.  And it seems equitable that all who receive the benefits should gladly help cover the expense as they are able.  (Please see Question 5 below.)

4)   Material wealth should be handled honorably and wisely, in a way that will bring no dishonor to the cause of Christ (II Corinthians 8:21).

There is room in our biblical and confessional life as the people of God, working together to advance His kingdom, to come together as elders to make an agreement about how to manage expenses.  In doing so, we must be honest and apply the biblical truths we know to solve practical life situations (including finances) with effective strategies. (cf. Proverbs 8:12)

5)   Needs being neglected should be addressed.

(See the implications of neglecting to do the right actions in such passages as Matthew 23:23, Mark 7:10-13, and Acts 6:1-7.)

The present funding system for our PCA ministries works well for the good causes of church planting, missions, and mercy (and incidentally, administrative costs for these causes are covered by a portion of the gifts given). The system is failing us, however, on the cause of connecting our denomination via healthy services—a very minor cost, relatively speaking.  In a byFaithonline.com interview, Ligon Duncan referred to our present funding system as “representation without contribution”!

We believe that the Cooperative Ministries Committee, charged with leading the PCA GA in planning, has addressed a neglect with a good, just, fair, equitable, and affordable solution. This solution has the happy potential of stabilizing the administrative ministries of the GA and making the PCA stronger in her effort to advance the gospel and contribute to the kingdom.

6)   God’s servants should receive financial support so they can concentrate on their service.

The proposed AC Funding Model saves money and delivers more service by cutting through some development cost and freeing staff to deliver needed services to the PCA.  As one elder says, “If we are asking the staff of GA to support the work of our denomination, it is right for us to ensure their support in that work." 

Our Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1, paragraph 6, expresses well the biblical call to order every aspect of life and ministry according to the principles of God’s Word: 

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:  unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.  Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and governance of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. [emphasis added]

QUESTION 10:  In an earlier question you cited 2 Corinthians and Philippians (see Question 9) as justification for funding the AC through a mandatory financial assessment.  Aren’t these passages, though, examples of free-will offerings, not mandatory financial assessments?

We agree with you that both the 2 Corinthians passage and the Philippians passage speak of free-will offerings.  The Lord loves a cheerful giver!  We referred to 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 primarily as an example of the biblical principle that administration is one of the gifts given to the church by God for ministry.  We pointed out that Paul includes his “administration” of the free-will gifts of the Macedonians as a necessary part of the “acts of grace” involved in carrying out this famine-relief project.

Some have suggested that the godly response to lack of funding would be to communicate the need to churches, encourage giving based on biblical principles, and pray that the Lord would give to his people hearts of generosity.  The Administrative Committee agrees wholeheartedly, and has prayed and worked over the years to communicate well, within the limits of fiscal responsibility, its needs.  Many churches have responded with liberality, and for that we are thankful!  But fewer than half of our churches are now carrying the financial load for essential administrative services to the PCA as a whole.  (Please see Question 12 for more on this.)

We would suggest that biblical principles of giving—even giving from the heart—include more than freedom and cheerfulness.  God has not written down for us all the specific details of how we should manage the gifts that His people give toward the work of the kingdom.  As we think about how to fund the ministries of our church, we need to look at all Scriptural principles that can guide us and apply them as carefully as possible, in dependence upon His Holy Spirit.  (Please refer to Question 9 for some of these biblical principles.)

QUESTION 11:  Why does the funding plan call for “fees” rather than simply requesting “gifts”?

The Annual Registration Fees for churches and pastors were named “registration fees” because we thought that to be the best name.  The proposal was put forward to provide a fair and equitable system for all the churches and pastors to cover the connecting cost of operating the PCA.  It was designed so that churches could pay according to what they actually have, a system that was thought to be more just than asking for per capita payment by churches.  The funding proposal is a plan for utilizing a very small portion of the gifts of God’s people for the administrative work necessary to connect and serve the PCA as a whole.

We believe that churches and pastors are getting real benefits from the work done by the Administrative Committee, benefits that help and advance their ministries.  Moreover, since churches and teaching elders have ordered these connecting ministries to be implemented, it does seem just for all to pay for them, and it seems unjust for some to take the benefits and put the cost on the others!  Fair and reasonable registration fees for pastors and churches seem to be the best way to use a small portion of benevolences to cover administrative costs.

But should we not be framing the questions differently?  Is it not better to be asking what can make the PCA stronger?  How can we best take the church the Lord has given us and keep her strongly connectional and ministering most effectively for the Lord's kingdom?  This proposed funding system offers the potential to make the PCA stronger financially and to make us more morally responsible in dealing with each other.  In this way it can strengthen the PCA for the work of God’s kingdom.

We have worked to ensure that these fees are not burdensome or unreasonable for the PCA and that, with the safeguards proposed in the plan, they offer no undue risk or precedence in the PCA system of government.

QUESTION 12:  How can it be right to require financial support for many specific tasks undertaken by the Administrative Committee which are not mandated by Scripture?

As in almost every area of our lives and ministries, God has not given us “chapter and verse” on how to carry out the specific commands that He has given.  He expects us to look at the whole of His Word and glean the principles that will guide the conduct of our personal lives as well as our lives “in the world” and in His church, right down to how we fund our ministries.

Mandated?

The many tasks of the Administrative Committee (AC), though we believe them to be essential and useful in the Lord’s work, are not specifically mandated by Scripture.  The Bible does not tell us to have a General Assembly, a stated clerk (of the PCA or of a presbytery), a Standing Judicial Commission, various committees, a communication medium like byFaith, a Historical Center, or a PCA!  But it does specifically tell us to “go into the whole world and preach the gospel, teaching. . .”  And the AC has been created to connect and serve all the ministries of the PCA so that together we can work for the progress of Christ’s kingdom.

The PCA Administrative Committee is designed to put in place the essential services assigned by The Book of Church Order and the ministries assigned by the General Assembly—services and ministries which provide a base for the operation of all our PCA ministries.  In the PCA we as a body have mandated that ministries be performed and provided by the AC.  Both the earlier Strategic Planning Committee and the Cooperative Ministry Committee in its current planning noted that the Administrative Committee connects and benefits the entire PCA and should be supported by all.

Funded How?

The Apostle Paul explains (for example in I Corinthians 9:3-12) that it is right for the expenses of a ministry to be paid.  The PCA has assigned ministries to the AC.  For 37 years, however, only 45-48% of the churches have given anything to the PCA Administrative Committee in any one-year time period.  This means that that over half of our churches are accepting all the advantages of being in the PCA while neglecting to pay for the connecting cost and the blessings and privileges afforded to them.  It also means that for 37 years these churches have benefited from a key ministry operating on their behalf while asking it to operate on an unwise financial margin.

The question has been asked for many years: "Is there a more reasonable way?"  The proposed funding plan for the AC is the final development.

We believe that Scripture allows for elders to decide together how funds already put in their charge may be used to cover the administrative costs of the church at any level.  This is what the AC Funding Plan Model proposes. The proposal is, in effect, asking for a contract between elders to manage the connecting expenses of the church at the General Assembly level.  We believe the proposal falls well within all biblical principles and that it is also much wiser, more economical, and fairer than the current practice.

QUESTION 13:  Is the Proposed Plan for Funding the Administrative Committee unconstitutional?

In a sense, one might argue that any change to the Book of Church Order is unconstitutional.  But that is not a reasonable view because that would make the Constitution un-amendable.

Every proposed amendment to The Book of Church Order is submitted to the Committee on Constitutional Business under The Rules of Assembly Operations 8-2.b.2), which states that the CCB shall:  “Provide advice concerning the effect of any proposed amendment to the Constitution or to the Rules of Assembly Operations. . . .”

The CCB has met and considered the proposed amendments to BCO 14-1, and 14-2.  The CCB opinion was, “In the opinion of the CCB, the changes the Administrative Committee has proposed to BCO 14-1 and 14-2 are not [emphasis in original] in conflict with other parts of the Constitution.”  The CCB vote was unanimous.

For another case in which the BCO was changed to improve established procedures, consider the change made in BCO Chapter 15 with the establishment of the Standing Judicial Commission.  Prior to the establishment of the SJC, all judicial cases were heard by ad hoc commissions of General Assembly Commissioners during the week of General Assembly.  After a number of years in which many commissions spent a good portion of the Assembly week off the floor adjudicating cases, and ad hoc commissions composed of men with varying levels of understanding of the Constitution presented differing rulings on similar issues, the BCO was amended so that, “The General Assembly shall elect a Standing Judicial Commission to which it shall commit all matters governed by the Rules of Discipline, except for the annual review of Presbytery records, which shall come before the Assembly. . . .”  The General Assembly is responsible to adjudicate wisely and well the judicial cases that are properly before it.  The amendment to the BCO Chapter 15 that changed the way in which the General Assembly handled judicial cases was not a violation of the Constitution; it was an amendment to the Constitution.

Similarly, the proposed changes to BCO 14-1 and 14-2 are a change in the method of funding the Administrative Committee in its providing essential support services to the denomination.  That change can only be brought about by amending, via the prescribed process, the BCO as it is presently written (BCO 26-2).  The amendment process requires three steps: 1) the approval of the majority of commissioners present and voting at the General Assembly, 2) the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Presbyteries, and 3) the approval and enactment of a subsequent General Assembly by the approval of the majority of commissioners present and voting.  The proposed amendments to BCO Chapter 14 that would change the method by which the AC is funded are not violations of the Constitution; they are amendments to the Constitution.

QUESTION 14:  What happens if you don’t pay?  Can you lose your vote in presbytery?

If a TE does not pay his annual registration fee (with the exception of retired teaching elders), he will not be allowed a vote at General Assembly.  He will, however, be allowed to attend and will be allowed to speak.  (In cases of true hardship, help will be available.  See Question 7.)

If a church does not pay its fees for two years, this will be reported to General Assembly.  It is hoped that being listed as a non-supporting church will motivate that church to participate.  Churches affiliate with the PCA through membership in a Presbytery (BCO 13-1).  The General Assembly cannot remove a church from the PCA.  See Question 5 for a detailed discussion of how the registration fees of churches and of TEs are related.

A main argument against the funding proposal has been, in essence, that churches should be entitled to a vote at General Assembly whether or not they accept any financial responsibility.  We would ask whether this idea of entitlement is just.

Please note that the Strategic Plan and the proposed AC Funding Model make no proposal at all regarding voting on the Presbytery level.

QUESTION 15:  How does BCO 25:8 (regarding church property) relate to the Annual Registration Fees in the AC Funding Plan Model approved by the 38^th General Assembly?

This provision (BCO 25:8*) was placed in the BCO to protect a church from having her assets taken away (or having any property or monies being taking from her against her will).  BCO 25-10 clarifies this as the underlying purpose of BCO Chapter 25 with the following words:

The provisions of this BCO 25 are to be construed as a solemn covenant whereby the Church as a whole promises never to attempt to secure possession on the property of any congregation against its will, whether or not such congregation remains within or chooses to withdraw from this body.  All officers and courts of the Church are hereby prohibited from making any such attempt.

The proposed AC Funding Plan Model in no way violates the provision of BCO 25:8.

Notice that in the proposal the payment of the Annual Registration Fee does not force money from the church.   Any church not paying the Registration Fee may remain in the PCA, function under the PCA 501(c) 3, use the name of the PCA, be involved in its presbytery, and participate in many other privileges and ministries. No one will come and take that church’s property or money by any type of civil force or claim.  The only function changed by this proposal is that Pastors and Ruling Elders of that church may not vote at the annual General Assembly unless the prescribed Annual Registration Fees for churches and pastors have been paid.  Historically, BCO 25 has not been regarded as applying to registration fees of any kind, including our current system of General Assembly Registration Fees.  So as far as we are aware, BCO 25:8 is not being violated because no church is being forced to pay anything nor is its property being taken away.

The Committee on Constitutional Business (CCB), investigated this at their spring 2010 meeting, and found that the propsed BCO changes do not violate BCO 25-8. Click [here] for more on the constitutionality of the proposed changes. [current Q. 6].

* 25-8.  The corporation of a particular church, through its duly elected trustees or corporation officers, (or, if unincorporated, through those who are entitled to represent the particular church in matters related to real property) shall have sole title to its property, real, personal, or mixed, tangible or intangible, and shall be sole owner of any equity in any real estate, or any fund or property of any kind held by or belonging to any particular church, or any board, society, committee, Sunday school class or branch thereof.  The superior courts of the Church may receive monies or properties from a local church only by free and voluntary action of the latter.