Stated clerk no longer uses threat in his new opinion on per capita
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, December 17, 2003
Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick has issued an advisory opinion on per capita that says little that has not already been said, but is notable for one omission.
No longer does Kirkpatrick state, as he did in a January 2002 letter to stated clerks and presbytery executives, that officers who advocate withholding or redirecting per-capita requests from higher governing bodies are violating their constitutional ordination vows.
“… I am concerned about what appears to be a growing number of ministers and elders 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,” Kirkpatrick said in the 2002 letter.
But there is nothing in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), or in the decisions of its General Assemblies and highest court, that supports the clerk’s January 2002 language that, in effect, threatens officers who advocate withholding per capita with legal consequences that could result in their ex-communication.
Presbyterian polity does not use the term “ex-communication.” Technically, it’s called renunciation of jurisdiction — but the results are equivalent.
Since his January 2002 letter, there has been yet another ruling in which the denomination’s highest court — the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission — affirmed the principle that local church sessions (the ministers and lay elders) can neither be compelled to remit per-capita apportionments nor be punished for their failure to do so.
While his latest statement — Advisory Opinion # 9 — doesn’t repeat his previous threat, Kirkpatrick does make some assertions that appear to be extra-constitutional. He says, for instance, that the Book of Order “provides no right on the part of sessions to withhold per capita as a form of protest.”
He also says, “No General Assembly or General Assembly Judicial Commission has declared that withholding per capita to further political/theological agendas is ever justified.”
In fact, though, the Book of Order and General Assemblies have been silent on that issue. They have not addressed any specific reason a session might withhold per capita. Rather, church law clearly states that payment of per capita is voluntary, whatever the reason.
While General Assemblies and the courts have consistently viewed payment of per capita as voluntary, they have also declared that sessions have a “high moral obligation” to support the work of higher governing bodies, a point that Kirkpatrick emphasizes in the 1,740-word Advisory Opinion # 9 — without resorting to his previous threatening language.
That “high moral obligation” and the voluntary nature of per capita — as well as the tension between the two — are explained more thoroughly in a 42-page, 21,729-word document titled “RESPONDING FAITHFULLY: Making Decisions about Financial Support of PCUSA Governing Bodies in Times of Disorder.”
“Responding Faithfully,” which includes includes verbatim court rulings and General Assembly decisions, was written by Peggy Hedden, a Columbus, Ohio, lawyer and chairman of the Presbyterian Lay Committee.
The clerk doesn’t mention Hedden’s assessment in his advisory opinion, nor does he directly challenge the Presbyterian Lay Committee on its “Declaration of Conscience,” which calls on local sessions to “prayerfully consider” directing their gifts to ministries that focus on Christ and are faithful to Scripture.
But he does discount information Presbyterians might receive from sources other than his office. In discussing how a presbytery should respond to a session that decides to withhold per capita for “political/theological” reasons, Kirkpatrick says, “Never assume the session is operating with accurate information. If that does not help alleviate the session’s anxiety, the presbytery has permission to provide a copy of this Opinion to the session, that it may understand its rights and responsibilities.”
Kirkpatrick’s Advisory Opinion # 9 clearly reveals his opposition to sessions withholding per capita as a matter of conscience because they might disagree with some of the “political/theological” decisions by higher governing bodies, as well as some of his views on controversial issues.
But the tone of this opinion differs sharply from his January 2002 letter. Instead of threatening officers who withhold or redirect per capita, Kirkpatrick now says, “In all contacts with withholding sessions, the presbytery should take care to deal pastorally and respectfully and expect reciprocal attitudes.”
Whether or not persuaded by Kirkpatrick’s threats, several presbyteries have reacted as if Kirkpatrick’s January 2002 letter — and not his injunction to “take care to deal pastorally and respectfully” with church sessions — were church law.
One example is the recent decision by the Committee on Ministry in the Presbytery of Western North Carolina to seek the invalidation of the ministry of Parker T. Williamson, chief executive officer of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and editor-in-chief of its publications.
A key issue in the Williamson case is the Lay Committee’s Declaration of Conscience.