Baltimore votes against G-6.0106b, for change in per-capita requirements
The Layman Online, November 17, 2005
The Presbytery of Baltimore today became the 13th presbytery in the denomination to call on the 217th General Assembly to repeal G-6.0106b, the “fidelity/chastity” clause in the Book of Order, and the Authoritative Interpretation that undergirds it.
RESPONDING FAITHFULLY:
Making Decisions about Financial Support of PCUSA Governing Bodies in Times of Disorder
A comprehensive review of per-capita polity, General Assembly decisions and court rulings on local congregations’ per-capita requirements The vote for repealing the prohibitions against practicing homosexuals was 71-28, according to Peter Nord, Baltimore’s executive presbyter. Similar overtures were previously submitted by the presbyteries of Newark, East Iowa, Lake Michigan, Newton, Genesee Valley, Mid-Kentucky, the Twin Cities, Des Moines, Detroit, the Cascades, Western Reserve and Heartland.
Baltimore also voted to send an overture to the 217th General Assembly that would require local church sessions to remit their full per-capita apportionments to support presbyteries, synods and the General Assembly. That voice vote was unanimous, Nord said.
The rationale for the overture on G-6.0106b and the Authoritative Interpretation said that the ordination standard has been used “specifically to discriminate against Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgendered Christians” and that it “presumes to say more than we are entitled to say about the actions of God’s Spirit in calling faithful persons to particular ministries within Christ’s Church. The challenges of the twenty-first century compel us to recognize and honor the gifts of all who profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.”
The overture on per-capita asks the General Assembly to adopt the following Authoritative Interpretation on G-9.0404d:
- 1. That the covenantal relationship of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) recognizes both the need and obligation of governing bodies to support each other; and
- 2. That Sessions are responsible for payment of per capita apportionments of General Assembly, Synod, and Presbytery directed to them by the Presbytery in accordance with G-9.0404d.
Both the General Assembly and the General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission, the highest court in the Presbyterian Church (USA), have repeatedly rejected attempts to make per-capita payments by local congregations obligatory.
Instead, they have said, sessions have absolute discretion over how to use the offerings of the members – with the exception of money donated for specific purposes. The courts have concluded that sessions that decide to withhold per capita or to redirect money sought by higher governing bodies to other ministries do not violate the constitution.
But the proposed Baltimore overture contends that the Book of Order is duplicitous because it gives the presbyteries the right to “collect and remit” per-capita payments, but puts the burden on presbyteries to ensure that synods and the General Assembly get their apportioned share – even if some sessions don’t make their payments.
G-9.0404d says:
- Each governing body above the session shall prepare a budget for its operating expenses, including administrative personnel, and may fund it with a per capita apportionment among the particular churches within its bounds. The presbyteries shall be responsible for raising their own per capita funds, and for raising and timely transmission of per capita funds to their respective synods and to the General Assembly. The presbyteries may direct per capita apportionments to the sessions of the churches within their bounds.
The rationale included with the proposed overture says, “The first sentence of G-9.0404d makes it clear that the General Assembly, synods and presbyteries have the authority to fund operating expenses with a per-capita apportionment. The responsibility of presbyteries, as the governing bodies assigned by the second sentence of G-9.0404d, to collect and remit this apportionment was affirmed by the General Assembly in its 1999 Authoritative Interpretation (1999, 65, 107, 16.001-.007, Request 99-1). The third sentence gives presbyteries the right to direct the per capita apportionment to sessions, and the responsibility for payment is not changed; that is, the responsibility to remit the apportionment is assigned to sessions, but the responsibility of the presbyteries is not eliminated.
“Presbyteries may, as they determine will best serve the interests of the whole church, determine that sessions may, for financial hardship or other reasons be excused from payment, and presbyteries may exercise their full powers of administrative review and original jurisdiction to insure that sessions meet their responsibility to remit per capita payments.”
The rationale contends that, “The words ‘may direct’ used in the third sentence [of G-9.0404d] are permissive as to the Presbytery but the body being directed is obligated to follow the direction. Compare G-9.0410, in which a higher governing body again “may direct” a lower governing body – in this case to correct an irregularity or cure a delinquency. The obligation of the lower governing body to carry out the direction is clear.”
The rationale said the proposed authoritative interpretation “will resolve conflicting interpretations of G-9.0404d, including:
- a. In 1999 the General Assembly provided an authoritative interpretation of this paragraph (1999, 65, 107, 16.001-16.007, Request 99-1) in response to a question about the responsibility of presbyteries to pay per capita. The General Assembly concluded that such payments are obligatory.
- b. The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly, in considering the obligations of sessions to pay per capita concluded that, while there is a strong moral obligation, the payment is not obligatory. References: Session of Central Church v. Presbytery of Long Island (1992, 179, 11.050); Minihan v. Presbytery of Scioto Valley (2004, 350, 216-1); and First Presbyterian Church v. Heartland Presbytery (Remedial Case 217-2, October, 2004).
The rationale contends that the interpretations “are inconsistent: nothing in the wording of G-9.0404d suggests that in one case these payments are obligatory and in another case only requested. It is difficult to understand how the same paragraph of the Book of Order can be interpreted to make session payments not obligatory and presbytery payments obligatory.”
Furthermore, it added, “The current inconsistency of interpretations can place an impossible financial burden upon presbyteries, which must pay their full per capita even if sessions do not pay the presbytery.”