Trial of per-capita case to be held in synod court
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, December 6, 2002
A synod court will hear arguments Dec. 7 in Columbus, Ohio, in a case in which a presbytery has declared that church sessions must pay their per-capita apportionments to higher governing bodies.
The case before the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Covenant is a major test of the historic Presbyterian principle that sessions have absolute discretion over how they spend the tithes and offerings in their congregations unless those gifts are designated for specific purposes.
In The Rev. John C. Minihan and J. Randall Richards v. the Presbytery of Scioto Valley, the complainants are challenging a presbytery resolution approved on Feb. 5, 2002, that would require sessions to remit their per-capita apportionments to support the presbytery, the synod and the General Assembly.
Per-capita apportionments to support the work of higher governing bodies have never been considered a tax, although some presbyteries have attempted to require payment.
The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly and numerous general assemblies have affirmed that per-capita payments are voluntary. They also have said that presbyteries cannot punish sessions that withhold or redirect per-capita apportionments.
The Presbytery of Scioto Valley’s resolution said sessions have the “responsibility … to raise and timely transmit per capita funds to the presbytery, unless the presbytery excuses a session from doing so.”
The complainants say the resolution is tantamount to a mandate.
In preparation for the trial, the synod court sent the complainants and the presbytery 17 questions about per capita and the presbytery’s resolution. Besides answering those questions, the complainants and the presbytery included their own arguments in their pre-trial briefs.
“There is no question that sessions have a high moral responsibility to participate in funding the expenses of their governing bodies and that any decision not to contribute to per capita should not be entered into lightly, especially in seasons of disagreement, uncertainty and controversy,” the complainants said. “But the decision still remains a discretionary decision, wholely vested in the session, which may not be coerced by a higher governing body. Imposing limitations upon this right will certainly cause disruption to the sinews of the Church’s covenantal relationship.”
The complainants contend that the presbytery resolution is contrary to the Book of Order; an authoritative interpretation of the 213th General Assembly following its disapproval of an overture to require that sessions pay per capita; prevailing authoritative case law; and the Advisory Committee on the Constitution.
“Complainants have alleged that the motion of presbytery is unconstitutional,” the presbytery responded. “But the motion does nothing more than G-9.0404d [of the Book of Order] specifically permits. Obviously, complainants cannot argue that G-9.0404d is unconstitutional, so they challenge the presbytery motion. But what the complainants really object to is the idea that per capita is an obligation of sessions. … Complainants may not like the fact that sessions have a responsibility to make per capita payments, but such responsibility is not unconstitutional.”
G-9.0404d describes the requirement that presbyteries raise per-capita funds for the work of the presbyteries, synods and the General Assembly. That section concludes by saying, “The presbyteries may direct per-capita apportionments to the sessions of the churches within their bounds.”
The word “may” is at the heart of the issue.