Because of our successful remedial complaint (Johnston et al vs. Heartland Presbytery) I have received mail from commissioners to this month’s G.A asking my view on the current overture to make per capita payments mandatory. Here is my response.
If the proposal to force all churches to pay per capita is passed:
1. We will lose the historic practice and principle of a Session’s right over benevolences. The rights and responsibilities given to Session in Book of Order G-10.0102a,c,d,g,h,i,j,o,p (and supported by a long case history) would be diminished and in some cases lost. Sessions have a responsibility to balance the power of other governing bodies. This proposal fractures an important connectional bond of shared leadership. It violates a Session’s rights and partnership in discerning mission. It makes us more episcopal in structure. In fact, approving this proposal is so fundamental and novel a change that it would open the church to this charge: that by abandoning a key, original constitutional principle (as well as two hundred years of practice) it has rendered unenforceable other constitutional claims – including property. In effect, it opens the door for objecting churches to say: “The constitution we agreed to — no longer exists. You have left us.”
2. We will lose more members and more per capita income than before. Whatever we tax or encumber by forced payment decreases the amount of the thing taxed. That’s true for cigarettes — it would be true if we taxed children — and it will certainly hold if per-capita is made mandatory. When mandatory, it becomes a tax on membership. Membership will decrease drastically in at least three ways: a) A great body of churches will find the change so offensive to historic principles of the church and to the right of conscience that they will leave (with property–see above; b) Members will leave churches where the majority is not so offended or no action is taken; c) Most churches will keep membership roles very tight and probably immediately trim membership — most likely outstripping any effect of current per capita realities.
3. We will lose any input in Louisville spending and we will lose a constitutionally protected right of protest. This overture is a response to churches like Paola that are grieved in conscience and have protested current policies. Many Sessions have spoken that they can no longer discern the clear cause of Christ in many denominational initiatives and actions. We have stated in effect: “You have not used per capita to enforce the constitution in regard to ordination and same sex marriages. You seem unwilling or unable to articulate and implement G.A.C. policy that points to salvation in Christ alone. Please show us how per capita monies spent rescuing WCC, NCC, PHEWA, Washington Office et. al. represent the clear call of Christ? Per capita dollars are not a franchise fee, or a cost of being Presbyterian, they are the love gifts of believers. They have been dedicated to Christ. We cannot in good conscience or good stewardship give to you money given to us to serve the Gospel of Jesus Christ when there are many other missions who are much clearer about the love of God in Jesus Christ.”
So many churches have made similar decisions that per capita receipts are way down. Some presbyteries cover up such protest by sending the money anyway. What has been Louisville’s response? Not a reconsideration of values — but an effort to take the money by force as this proposal seeks to do. When Heartland Presbytery passed a similar proposal, it was judged unconstitutional by a GAPJC decision.
Mandatory per capita is not consistent with our past. All appeals for mission dollars should instead be made to the cause of Christ. Our Head is Jesus — let’s not lose our Head.
Kirk Johnston is pastor of First Church, Paola, Kan.
