 Where’s per capita after the FOG clears?  The Layman – Volume 41, Number 3 – Posted May 29, 2008
The Form of Government Task Force was charged with being guided by the principles of discernment recommended by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church (PUP) and to introduce this “new Presbyterian ethos” within the Form of Government. That fact alone should raise some antennas. If FOG is adopted in its current state, per-capita funding will no longer exist. The term “per capita” is not mentioned in FOG. Instead, funding higher governing bodies of the church is now described as “mission funding.” Why is per capita no longer part of the terminology? By changing the language to make “mission” alone the purpose of sending funds to presbyteries, synods and the General Assembly, how can churches withhold per capita? If per capita no longer exists, then all the funds will go to mission, at least in the eyes of Louisville. The ability of church sessions to object to the progressive theology and liberal social movement within the national leadership will be significantly diminished. However, in the eyes of church sessions, funding the non-Christian agenda of the big church will still be a big problem. History of per capita Historically the denomination maintained two budgets, one called “per capita” and another called “mission.” Essentially, the per capita budget was set up to pay non controversial overhead expenses toward which each member paid his or her fair share. Historically, the fund was set up to pay the travel and lodging cost of commissioners attending a General Assembly meeting. Then it was expanded to cover the cost of clerks who recorded and printed the minutes. Then for the costs of a building to house the clerks and their assistants who planned and paid for General Assembly meetings, and an accounting staff that kept the General Assembly’s financial records. American Presbyterians understand that every organization has overhead expenses, and paying them is simply part of what it means to be a responsible member. So per capita was considered “safe money,” a fund that did not suffer the vicissitudes connected with controversial spending categories. Per capita simply asked us to pay our share of the light bill. The General Assembly’s second budget was called the “mission budget.” This budget funded the programs of the General Assembly, including many items (like a political lobby in Washington) that caused consternation across the denomination. Whereas the per capita budget was considered safe money, the mission budget was more vulnerable to cuts from congregations that objected to some of its programs. In recent years however, as churches became aware of how per capita funds were being spent, those funds also became subject to cuts by congregations. Countless churches are now withholding or redirecting per capita funds because they do not trust that these funds will be spent to truly proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some of the largest churches in the denomination, the so-called “tall steeple” churches, announced recently they will hold back per capita from the higher governing bodies. The church courts How might the Presbyterian courts view the change in funding that FOG proposes? Read these words carefully from FOG:
If the constitution equates unity with funding, will a court decide a church can be in unity while not paying the funds requested from higher councils? A fist in the FOG Additionally, one might wonder how a presbytery will use this new FOG to keep ministers and sessions in line. Presbyterian courts have also ruled that withholding per capita cannot be a basis for punishing ministers and sessions. Under the new FOG, if a session is withholding the “mission” funds, it may well be that the presbytery will claim the session is not in unity and formation of an administrative commission is justified. If Louisville can change the funding structure in a subtle way, it would enable them to force sessions to send money and it would be one more tool to hold them in line. Money and muscle So what looming reality emerges from FOG? In the name of “simplification,” FOG is attempting to move congregations of the Presbyterian Church (USA) from a funding system that is voluntary to one that is coercive. And it’s all done under the cover of merging two budgets that no longer produce the dollars once enjoyed by denominational headquarters. Will commissioners to the 218th General Assembly see through FOG’s fog? Will they read between lines that extol denomination “interdependence and unity” and discover the shift from a voluntary to a mandatory funding system? Will they place this piece alongside the Office of the General Assembly’s “Louisville Papers,” legal advice that already encourages presbyteries to confiscate your local church property, change the locks on your sanctuary doors, freeze your bank accounts, defrock your minister and depose your elected officers? FOG comes from a failing institution that like all institutions will fight for its survival, even, if necessary, at the cost of sacrificing its own first principles. We hope that General Assembly commissioners will exercise the presence of mind and courage that is required to demystify the FOG report. Stephen G. Brown is an elder at First Presbyterian Church of Haines City, Florida. He is chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer of the Presbyterian Lay Committee. |
||
| Respond
to this article Previous columns by the PLC chair Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||
