Pittsburgh Presbytery pulls per-capita purse strings
By Parker T. Williamson, The Layman, December 14, 2011
On Dec. 10, Pittsburgh Presbytery voted to change its manual, effectively terminating blank checks from the presbytery to higher governing bodies. The amended manual now states: “Presbytery shall only remit to the General Assembly and the Synod the per capita assessment it receives from the particular churches that is designated for those councils.”
Previously, the presbytery encouraged all of its churches to honor per capita apportionments from higher governing bodies but it did not require them to do so. In fact, it could not issue such a requirement, for a host of rulings from the denomination’s highest court declares that a local church session can neither be required to pay, nor can it be punished for failure to pay per capita assessments.
Pittsburgh’s own manual reaffirms that General Assembly policy: “In no case shall the authority of the session to direct its benevolences be compromised.”
Budget Busting Bail Outs
So what happens when a local church does not pay the piper? Prior to Dec. 10, the presbytery made up the difference. As church contributions waned – some for reasons of conscience and others because congregations themselves were in financial straits – Pittsburgh Presbytery found its bail out policy exceedingly burdensome.
In a report issued by the presbytery office on October 31, 2011, the presbytery’s churches were in arrears more than $783,024 in their per capita payments. The deficit for 2011 alone is expected to exceed $300,000.
Diminishing Mission Funds
The presbytery has found it necessary to tap its undesignated reserve funds and adjust downward its current mission allocations in order to make per capita payments on behalf of churches that are withholding payment. But these solutions are exacerbating the problem, for churches that withhold per capita resent the fact that their act of conscience is being nullified by the use of money designated for mission work. As a result, the mission budget is now in peril. According to the presbytery treasurer’s current revenue notes, “benevolence giving by congregations to support the mission budget of Pittsburgh Presbytery as well as direct giving to congregations and mission projects outside the budget has decreased by a total of $96,040 as compared to last year.”
In preparation for the presbytery’s manual amendment debate, Pittsburgh’s stated clerk issued a report clarifying the denomination’s policy on per capita giving. He told the presbytery that it is a “long-standing position of the denomination” that local church sessions are not obligated to pay per capita, nor can they be punished for their failure to do so.
An additional “long-standing position,” he said, is that presbyteries are “responsible to pay full per capita irrespective of specific collection from churches ‘as long as funds are available within the presbytery.’”
That final phrase in the stated clerk’s statement, “as long as funds are available within the presbytery,” is the kicker that the presbytery’s manual amendment advocates employed to discontinue the per capita bail out policy. Citing the presbytery’s increasing deficit position, they argue that Pittsburgh is “no longer able” to make per capita payments on behalf of its churches that withhold payments.
Protest Filed
Following the vote, Ruling Elder David Green, a former presbytery moderator and an adult education chairman at Bower Hill Community Church, filed a protest of the action with the presbytery’s stated clerk. According to the Book of Order, that filing neither initiates nor prevents judicial process, and Green has told the Layman that he declines to comment further on the matter at this time. But the protest does place in the minutes a specific constitutional objection to the presbytery’s action, and it sets the stage for Green or someone else who has judicial standing, to test the presbytery’s policy in denominational courts.
While judicial precedent clearly states that sessions cannot be compelled to pay per capita apportionments and presbyteries must pay only if they are able to do so, what constitutes ability has not been defined. Is the presbytery’s contribution income the determining factor, or might the presbytery be judged able to pay if it can be shown to posses reserve funds or if it has money in its undesignated mission budget that could be diverted in order to pay the per capita bill?
These are questions of authoritative interpretation that are normally decided by judicial process or an act of the General Assembly. Unless or until a challenge is made through one of those venues, Pittsburgh Presbytery’s purse strings may remain constrained.