The national offices of the Presbyterian Church are funded, in part by a per capita assessment on every member. Per capita is assessed by each congregation, which is responsible for passing a fixed amount up the line to fund the presbytery, synod, and General Assembly work. A few congregations around the country withhold their per capita, or that portion which is supposed to go to the synod and General Assembly as a protest. In addition, a number of congregations don't pay their full per capita because they can't afford to.
The official position of the church is that per capita is not a tax – the church is a voluntary organization, no one has to pay. On the other hand, no one has a right to withhold per capita as a protest.
Presbyteries are responsible for sending the full per capita up the line. This rule was invented to cover impoverished churches more than protesters. If a poor church could not pay one year, a richer church would be expected to pay more and all the congregations would look out for one another. Sometimes, though, the presbyteries cannot or will not cover the missing per capita. This year, the shortfall is expected to top $400,000.
When a congregation withholds part of its per capita as a protest, however, the protest is lost if the presbytery simply covers the shortfall.
I think this is a loss for the whole church. The highest levels of the church should be constantly aware of grass-roots protest. If disaffected locals find their voice stifled this way, they are more likely to exit the denomination altogether.
Let the protests be show. Publish all the congregational names. We all need to know what's going on at the grassroots, painful and embarrassing though it may be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I agree with you. I expect to see overtures in different presbyteries (including mine) to change this policy since the BOO requires presbyteries to pay it "if funds are available".
Alan, you miss the point! Charges can't be filed against an "offending session" the General Assembly Perm. Judicial Commission ruled on that a few years ago. The presbytery can't even penalize a congregation which doesn't pay per capita, by not allowing them to take out a loan, which was what happened in Kansas.
I agree with Gruntled in that stifling grass roots protest is like trying to put out a fire with a squirt gun! If the fire exists, we need to know where it is, and what started it. The utter failure of the national leadership to see this is what makes them not only ineffective, but damaging to the church.
The bigger point is: YOU CAN'T PENALIZE PEOPLE IN VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS! Granted the church itself is not voluntary, but when people can EASILY take and give THEIR money elsewhere, and a bureaucracy which they find stifling tries to impose upon them--it's a lose/lose situation.
One factor that we might consider is the recent move by GAC to enable Mission activities at the presbytery and lower levels, rather than trying to manage Mission from the top down. This was a quiet revolution and the PC(USA)'s statistics show that during the past couple decades Mission giving has gone up but unrestricted giving has gone down. GAC was wise enough to recognize reality and chose to work within it, rather than fight it.
I am uncomfortable with withholding per capita, but I recognize that there is a strong sense of mistrust that has built for a long time. I agree that the Louisville organization needs to be doing a little introspection and trying to find out where the breakdown is happening and what they can do about it.
If presbyteries are strongly encouraged (forced?) to pay the per capita for protesting congregations, then it can only cripple mission at the level where it is being most effectively carried out.
Thank you, Denis, for pointing out the "quiet revolution" of Louisville re-imagining the presbyteries as mission agencies. I think this is hopeful all around.
Extortion is not a Christ-like value.
In any community system, people will win sometimes and lose sometimes. We all need to learn to lose gracefully and not try to harm the community by withholding our gifts.
We KNOW that some are protesting - they are howling quite loudly enough. How do we avoid hurting missionaries overseas when a local congregation decides to extort changes from the denomination by using money as a weapon rather than a gift?
"How do we avoid hurting missionaries overseas when a local congregation decides to extort changes from the denomination by using money as a weapon rather than a gift?"
I agree. Sure -- go ahead and post the names of the congregations that withhold per capita. I think it would be a *great* demonstration, not of their grass-roots protesting, but of their lack of grace in the face of a situation that all sides are struggling with.
Post a Comment