Presbytery considers overture to remove Lay Committee as PCUSA affinity group
By Craig M. Kibler, The Layman Online, December 11, 2003
Citing the Declaration of Conscience by the Presbyterian Lay Committee, the Presbytery of Grand Canyon is considering an overture to the General Assembly seeking to remove the ministry “as an affinity group from its jurisdiction within the Presbyterian Church.”
The presbytery council, at its Nov. 6 meeting, voted to table the motion while the stated clerk finds “out the nature of the relationship, if any, of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and The Layman to the Presbyterian Church (USA),” according to a statement posted on the presbytery’s Web site. That action was made public at the Nov. 15 presbytery meeting.
In its Declaration of Conscience, the Presbyterian Lay Committee, an independent renewal ministry, called on individuals and sessions in the Presbyterian Church (USA) to consider prayerfully whether to redirect or restrict their per-capita and mission contributions that would otherwise be used to sustain some of the denomination’s programs or activities that conflict with Biblical teaching and the Reformed faith.
There is no requirement that Presbyterians financially support either the per-capita or mission budget requests from presbyteries. Presbyterian courts and the General Assembly have ruled repeatedly that all contributions are voluntary and that, in the case of per-capita apportionments, no session can be punished for a failure to remit its apportionment.
The presbytery’s proposal considering punitive action against the Presbyterian Lay Committee comes as the Committee on Ministry of the Presbytery of Western North Carolina, acting on the recommendation of the presbytery’s Task Force on Validated Ministries, voted Dec. 9 to recommend that the presbytery “not validate” the ministry of Parker T. Williamson as chief executive officer of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and editor-in-chief of its publications.
Neither the committee nor the task force spelled out why they voted against Williamson’s validation. But Mary V. Atkinson of Black Mountain, the chairperson of the task force, told The Layman Online that the vote against validating Williamson was because of the “character and conduct of the ministry of the Presbyterian Lay Committee.”
Asked to explain what that meant, she said, “We’re not talking about Parker. I know Parker. He’s a fine man. Things have just gone too far. It’s all part of a package.” Atkinson refused to tell The Layman Online what the task force meant by “conduct and character.” Later, she told the denomination’s Presbyterian News Service that the Declaration of Conscience “tipped the scales for us.”
The Lay Committee’s statement encourages “all individuals and sessions to exercise their stewardship responsibility and right to determine how money entrusted to them is spent. We likewise encourage prayerful study as to whether their General Assembly per-capita contribution should be redirected and/or their mission gifts restricted to ministries at home and abroad that are demonstrably faithful to the gospel.”
The statement never mentions withholding, but Atkinson told the Presbyterian News Service that, “We felt they were definitely trying to encourage churches to withhold funds.”
The Presbytery of Grand Canyon’s council introduced the Declaration of Conscience into its discussion in Tempe, Ariz., under a heading that said “Lay Committee Statement on Per Capita.” The council’s report to the presbytery said:
“Recently, The Layman published a call for churches and individual Presbyterians to redirect or restrict per capita and general mission giving to the denomination. Members of Council need to be aware of this development and the importance of effective communication on the matter of paying per capita and general mission giving.
“During discussion, questions were raised as to the relationship of The Layman and the Presbyterian Lay Committee to the General Assembly. [Stated Clerk] Dick Coffelt indicated that the PCUSA Web site lists The Layman under Links of Interest for ‘Affinity and Advocacy Groups and Publications,’ but has no listing for the Presbyterian Lay Committee. Discussion ensued as to what it meant to be an affinity or advocacy group.”
The Office of the General Assembly defines affinity groups as those that “use the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in their name,” which the Presbyterian Lay Committee does not do.
The Office of the General Assembly, on its Web site, says that it was “directed by the 212th General Assembly to request that all affinity groups that use the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in their name provide information to assist commissioners in understanding the goals of each affinity group and whom they represent. The 213th General Assembly modified the amount of requested information. According to the assembly’s action, this request for information will be annual and the compliance is voluntary.”
The action of the 213th General Assembly to modify “the amount of requested information,” according to the Office of the General Assembly, was because “fewer than half of the groups that were asked for information complied” the previous year. The information sought includes the organizations’ goals and methods of operation; theological emphases; annual budget; and the number of staff.
In response to a letter from the Office of the General Assembly requesting the information, Williamson responded in writing by saying that the Presbyterian Lay Committee does not use “Presbyterian Church (USA)” in its name and, hence, is not an affinity group under the office’s definition. He added:
“We are happy voluntarily to share information regarding our mission and ministry, and we do so often in several of our publications. Your office will find much of the information that you seek on our Web site. It is our policy not to disclose information regarding our donors.”
This is not the first time that the ministry of the Presbyterian Lay Committee has come under fire. Critics who would reshape the denomination to reflect cultural and social values rather than Biblical ethics frequently have lambasted The Layman‘s coverage and commentary.
Such accusations, leveled by former Moderator Robert Bohl (a co-founder of the Covenant Network, which seeks to overturn the denomination’s “fidelity/chastity” standard) and other denominational leaders were heard by a 1994 General Assembly Special Committee on Reconciliation with the Presbyterian Lay Committee. The special committee determined that the accusations did not warrant any action against the Presbyterian Lay Committee.
In fact, the committee endorsed a document by the Lay Committee that described the framework for its ministry in the PCUSA and its commitment to the Evangelical Press Association’s Code of Ethics.
The 1995 General Assembly received the special committee’s report and voted 517-20 not to censure The Layman, as Bohl and others had sought.
That General Assembly went even further, determining that it “has no jurisdiction” over the Presbyterian Lay Committee. “The 203rd General Assembly (1991) acted to remove Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) jurisdiction by dissolving the relationship with Chapter 9 organizations, including the Presbyterian Lay Committee. The Presbyterian Layman is not a publication of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” [Minutes, 207th General Assembly, P. 52].
In 2001, 213th General Assembly Moderator Jack B. Rogers spent much of his tenure railing against what he called the “militant fundamentalists” of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and criticizing its support for the Confessing Church Movement.
Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, asked at a 2001 Covenant Network conference what can be done about The Layman, an evangelical and independent publication that goes to more than 500,000 Presbyterian homes in the United States and more than 20 foreign countries, cited the actions of the 1995 General Assembly.
“We tried a regulatory approach,” he said, adding that the dominance of The Layman is troublesome, but “there is probably little we can do to prevent people from sending The Layman to Presbyterians.”