Money issue is at the heart of invalidation proposal
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, December 10, 2003
The issue that “tipped the scales” in the Presbytery of Western North Carolina’s move to strip Parker T. Williamson of his validation as the chief executive officer of the Presbyterian Lay Committee is all about money.
Specifically, it’s about the “Declaration of Conscience” of the Presbyterian Lay Committee, which called on Presbyterians to “prayerfully consider” whether to redirect or designate some of their denominational offerings to ensure that those funds support Christ-centered, Biblically-grounded ministries.
It was Mary V. Atkinson, chairperson of the presbytery’s Validated Ministry Task Force, who used the phrase “tipped the scales” in an interview with the Presbyterian News Service – after responding “No comment” to The Layman Online when asked why the task force was seeking invalidation of Williamson’s ministry.
And before the task force made its recommendation, William “Bill” Taber, the presbytery’s executive, after reading the “Declaration of Conscience,” told task force members that, “This is just unacceptable. We can’t validate this. A validated ministry must support the work of the presbytery.”
But there is nothing unconstitutional about redirecting money to support ministries in which the contributors have confidence. The highest court in the Presbyterian Church (USA) has twice ruled that contributions to the denomination – whether to the general mission budget or through per-capita gifts – are voluntary and that officers can neither be compelled to pay them or punished for failure to pay them. In addition, numerous general assemblies and the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) affirm that principle – which is grounded in the Scriptural view that the “God loves a cheerful giver.”
Taber was echoing the sentiments of Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA), who in January of 2002 wrote a letter to other stated clerks and executives of lower governing bodies. In that letter, Kirkpatrick addressed two issues:
1. The continued defiance of church law by governing bodies that ordained practicing homosexuals.
2. Emerging proposals that call for dividing the PCUSA into two denominations and decisions by sessions not to pay all or portions of their per capita because of their disagreement with decisions and actions of church leaders.
Kirkpatrick’s response set the tone under which dozens of sessions and several presbyteries continue to defy the denomination’s constitution – and under which evangelicals, such as Williamson, have been targeted. There was a marked difference in his language toward those who are defiant and those who are protesting with constitutional integrity.
Speaking of the “fidelity/chastity” constitutional standard, Kirkpatrick said,
“I am well aware that there is considerable debate about the wisdom of this provision in our Constitution in light of our historic Presbyterian polity and that an amendment has been approved by the 213th General Assembly and is currently before the presbyteries that could remove this provision. However, until such time when this or a similar amendment is approved, G-6.0106b is the ‘law of the church’ and should be upheld. No session or presbytery has the right to ordain anyone who is unwilling to live by the ‘fidelity and chastity’ standard, and I encourage you to faithfully uphold this provision in your governing body.”
In his remarks about “gracious separation” and redirecting or withholding funds, Kirkpatrick said,
“Second, I am concerned about what appears to be a growing number of ministers and elders who are encouraging congregations to withdraw (or ‘graciously separate’) from the Presbyterian Church (USA) and/or who are advocating the withholding of duly authorized per-capita assessments from their governing bodies as a form of protest. Such actions are unconstitutional, and I urge that they stop. It is a violation of our ordination vows to promote schism or the defiance of constitutionally sanctioned governing body directives.
From the clerk’s letter, some of the leaders at presbyteries have drawn the conclusion that Kirkpatrick merely “encourages” them to uphold the “fidelity/chastity” standard yet “urges” others “to stop.”
The language of the clerk is a not-so-veiled threat. If a church officer violates his or her ordination vows, his ministry can be invalidated and he can be in effect excommunicated. Presbyterians don’t use that word. Instead, the church’s legal language for excommunication is “renounce the jurisdiction” of the denomination. But it means the same.