Administrative Committee Approves Strategic Plan

Earlier today, the PCA’s Administrative Committee (AC), comprised of 11 teaching and ruling elders, along with nine representatives from PCA committees and boards, unanimously approved the “PCA Strategic Plan.” The 20 voters came from presbyteries ranging from metropolitan New York to rural Georgia and included businessmen, pastors, and ministry leaders ranging from about 35 to 70 years old.

The Plan was commissioned by the Cooperative Ministries Committee (CMC), which is comprised of the coordinators and presidents of PCA agencies and committees, and the past six moderators of the General Assembly.

Citing slowed growth within the denomination and a shifting cultural landscape, the CMC hoped to create a roadmap to future cohesion and growth within the PCA.

“We want to help the PCA identify its challenges, address them with strategies consistent with our biblical values, and build denominational support,” said Dr. Bryan Chapell, president of Covenant Theological Seminary, who led the PCA Strategic Plan process on behalf of the Cooperative Ministries Committee. “We intend to propose plans for using our resources and blessings in ways that we pray will unite and ignite God’s people for His purposes.”

The Plan is two years in the making, and has been approved unanimously by the CMC.

Identifying Areas of Growth

As the PCA enters its fourth decade, it must accelerate its efforts to reach a rapidly changing world, according to the Plan. External challenges to the church include the increasing dominance of pluralism, the transition from Anglo-majority culture in the U.S., and a loss of Christian consensus in the West.

“Through its transformed people, the church of Jesus Christ is the most powerful change agent in any society,” said Chapell.

But internal challenges exist as well. These include slowed growth, have and have-not divisions, generational divides, and perspectival divides.

The Plan concludes that the PCA has struggled to maximize its organizational strengths because its animating values (those that stimulate the daily activities of individuals, local churches, and denominational groups) are so much more diverse than its formal values (as stated in the approved standards of the church). Animating values may include reaching the lost, restoring the culture, or properly expressing the Reformed faith.

“For example,” Chapell says, “despite our formal values of connectional polity and cooperative ministry, less than half of the churches of the PCA [financially] support any denominational agency or committee.”

In effect, he says, “Our doctrine is Presbyterian, but our practice is Baptistic.”

Plan Recommendations

The Strategic Plan offers a number of recommendations to address the challenges it has identified. One of these, which supports a move toward “participating communally in God’s global mission,” is a proposed funding plan for the PCA’s Administrative Committee. The AC is charged with overseeing the operations of General Assembly, assisting churches with their search for a new pastor, supporting presbytery clerks, and maintaining historical records. [ByFaith magazine also falls within the auspices of the AC.]  

“It is reasonable that churches and ministers who are members of the PCA have a minimal requirement to fund essential support services, as is the practice of most other denominations,” said Chapell. “This change would help present and future generations grasp the power of working together in God’s mission.”

The Strategic Plan recommends that an annual registration fee be required from denominational churches, presbyteries, and teaching elders to meet support service needs within the PCA. This fee would take the place of the current General Assembly registration fee if the funding plan is approved.

The proposed church fee would be proportional based on tithes and offerings, averaging one-third of one percent. Teaching elders would pay an annual registration fee of $100, and presbyteries would pay a fee of $500 for the local General Assembly host committee. Under the proposal, the $400 per commissioner fee to the General Assembly would be eliminated. Partnership share giving to other agencies and committees would not change.

Other recommendations offered by the Strategic Plan include creating safe places to discuss controversial topics, like no-risk, no-vote evening forums at GA; and developing more seats at the table for women, minorities, global church representatives, and the younger generation. In some instances those seats will be created through alternative credentialing or certification for vocational ministry roles.

Next Steps

The Cooperative Ministries Committee will submit the Strategic Plan for approval at General Assembly, to be held June 29-July 2 in Nashville, Tenn. If passed, portions of the Plan that require Book of Church Order (BCO) amendment will go to the presbyteries for approval. 

“It is our hope to identify the resources and blessings God has granted the PCA,” said Chapell.  “All of this we do because we believe we have a mission, and we believe the vast majority of those in the PCA believe the same.”

Please click here to review the Strategic Plan, Bryan Chapell's video presentation, and other relevant documents.

 

Comments

All Fields Are Required:


Sam


DeSocio


Pittsburgh


Well I've read over a few of these documents, and at first it seemed odd, but when I realized that at our church with a budget >300k spent $1200 in registration for GA, this seems like a workable plan. Would a church also be able to freely send a delegate to GA under their church's registration cost?
I've only been in the church for two years but it is obvious that there is a disconnection on a practical level. I hope this would bring byfaith back to a monthly publication.

2010-04-08 23:27 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Dan


Witcher, RE


Westminster Presbyterian - Kingsport, TN


I would disagree with Dr. Chapell in one statement - over the years I see our practice of polity to be more episcopal rather than baptistic (i.e. top down declarative rather than grass-root representative) . . .

2010-04-09 08:10 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


James


Pitts


Clio, AL


I believe there are two significant problems with this plan. First, it appears to me that the funding method is out of accord with our constitution. BCO 25-8 says, "The superior courts of the Church may receive monies or properties from a local church only by free and voluntary action of the latter." Also, 25.10 says, "The provisions of this BCO 25 are to be construed as a solemn covenant whereby the Church as a whole promises never to attempt to secure possession of the property of any congregation against its will, whether or not such congregation remains within or chooses to withdraw from this body.
All officers and courts of the Church are hereby prohibited from making any
such attempt."

Second, there is the "slippery slope" concern -- a small percentage that gradually increases; support for Administration that gradually broadens to include, MNA, MTW, etc.

2010-04-09 10:48 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Sam


DeSocio


Pittsburgh


@Mr. Pitts
Aren't we already breaking this by having a registration fee to participate in General Assembly? (We are saying: to participate in our highest court we require a fee.)
I feel entirely comfortable changing our registration policy to this new system. I don't see it as a philosophical shift as much as a practical one.

2010-04-12 15:35 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


John


Robertson


PCA Administrative Committee


You raise good and fair concerns.

On whether BCO 25:8 prohibits the funding proposal for the AC by way of Annual Registration Fees, we believe it does not. BCO 25-8 was written to protect a church from having her assets taken away, and is not violated by the Annual Registration fee.

The proposed fee does not force money from the church. A church that doesn’t pay may remain in the PCA and participate in many privileges/ministries. No one will confiscate assets by civil force. The only change will be that teaching and ruling elders of that church may not vote at General Assembly. Historically, BCO 25 has not been applied to registration fees.

We hope that PCA churches and elders will gladly own the responsibility and stewardship of paying for the core cost of operating a strong and blessed portion of God’s kingdom.

2010-04-12 18:22 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Andrew


Barnes


MS


John,

What if the Session decides not to approve giving to AC or GA in their budget (thereby not giving any), but a RE or TE from that church who desire to go to GA voted for giving the desired amount to GA? Shall they be 'punished' because their Session (as a whole) decided against it

Also, I don't understand how this wouldn't be act of 'force' (in some sense) 'requiring' money be paid. I say that because in the Rules Changes (http://www.pcaac.org/2010StrategicPlanDocuments/Necessary%20Rules%20Changes.pdf) it says, "The Administrative Committee shall annually report to the General Assembly all churches that are delinquent two or more years in the submission of Annual Registration Fees in order that the General Assembly may take appropriate action."

First, the 'appropriate action' isn't specified. Second, it implies something not good will happen to the church. How can we say that this isn't some type of 'force'?

2010-04-13 22:27 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


John


Robertson


PCA Administrative Committee


I also wanted to address your “slippery slope” concern and let you know that we have two safe-guards in place. The proposed BCO changes make it plain that funding for the AC will be an exception to the rule. The Coordinators, the Cooperative Ministries Committee, and the Administrative Committee have all unanimously concluded that the funding proposal should apply only to the AC.

The second safe-guard is an addition to the RAO which limits any increase in the percentage used in calculating the Registration Fee ranges to 0.4%, unless an increased percentage is approved by a special vote of both the GA and the presbyteries.

Thank you for your continuing interest. We are preparing an FAQ page where we hope to address these and other questions as they arise. Watch for it on the AC web site soon.

2010-04-12 18:27 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


David


Peterson


Siouxlands Presbytery


Terrific! The Strategic Plan proposals will greatly assist the PCA to become increasingly united, gain the needed support for the agencies, and strengthening churches and presbyteries.

2010-04-09 11:01 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Bruce


Howes


Wilmington, DE


Dan,
I see, for the most part, that we in PCA have become a "have it your way" denomination. If there were a "Truth in denominations" list, I think we would be forced to call ourselves "baptist" we are so non, yea, anti hierarchical, to an extreme. Can you give any evidence of "top down declarative" in contrast to grass-roots representative. Once a "grass root" assembly makes a decision, how is this "top down declarative"? Most importantly, how does your "grass roots representative" square with historic Presbyterianism? Or better yet, Acts 16:4?

2010-04-09 21:29 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Paul


Bankson


Houston Lake Pres- Warner Robins, GA


I'm grateful for the work of CMC and for this plan. This is needed to live out our connectionalism.

2010-04-12 10:28 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


James


Pitts


Clio, AL


Does the proposed funding violate the BCO? Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to supporting the AC; I have done so with my personal giving, and believe that $100 a year for small churches is very reasonable. However, I believe the proposed plan violates the BCO in that it seeks to take monies from a congregation by force. The current system is completely voluntary; you pay if you chose to go to GA or to send an offering. The proposed system threatens a congregation. First, the church will be reported to its presbytery. This strongly implies discipline. Second, the proposed system threatens to publicly humiliate a congregation that does not chose to participate by publishing names. Our BCO may not fit the strictest definition of Presbyterian, but it is part of our constitution, for good reason, until properly amended and should be respected.

2010-04-13 10:12 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Chris


Hutchinson


Blacksburg, VA


Mr. Robertson,

You said that if a church does not pay the Annual Registration Fee, that it's TEs cannot vote at GA? Is that right?

I thought there was a separate registration fee for TEs of $100 each. Is your comment correct? So, if I want to vote at GA, but my church cannot send any REs, we will owe the church fee, plus my fee? (Which for us would be a total of $1,300)? Right now, I could vote for only $400, I believe.

Thanks for any clarification you can bring.

2010-04-13 14:37 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


John


Robertson


Atlanta


Chris, this is not just a matter of paying to vote, but also of paying in a fair and equitable way for the Constitutional and GA approved connecting structured which are financed through the PCA Administrative Committee. Not getting to vote is disigned as encouragement for our pastors and churches to get to work on supporting financially what we constitutionally require. God has given us a blessed denomination; we should cheerfully support her.

2010-05-02 00:44 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Sam


DeSocio


Pittsburgh


Chris,
My understanding is that a TE's congregation would also have to be up-to-date in order for him to vote at GA.
My guess would be that tying together the TEs and congregations is the only way to ensure a workable level of commitment. I could imagine many sessions seeing the proposed changes as being equivalent to registering for GA. Ie. "we aren't sending any REs to GA so we don't have to pay the dues this year."
The goal of the changes is to stabilize the AC funding. It makes sense that the only way to raise the level of support and at the same time lower the cost to most contributors is to increase the total number of contributors. If congregations don't give the new model won't work.

2010-04-15 11:17 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Rick


Wheeler


South Carolina


Question: If we liked only one part of the Strategic Plan (e.g. the AC funding "tax"), is there a way to separate out that portion to vote on separately from the rest of the plan, which we may not be in favor of?

2010-04-26 14:42 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


John


Robertson


Atlanta


Rick and Nate, yes the proposal is to give opportunity to vote only and individually on the Themes, Goals, and Means for approval. The rest is for information and reflection or suggestions and guidelines in implementation. However, the whole plan is wisely crafted by the input of many; adopting all the themes could by God's grace strengthen the PCA effort to contibute to the Great Commission and the building of God's kingdom, our overall goal!

2010-05-02 01:01 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Nate


Wilson


Manhattan, KS


I'd like to "second" Rick's question. In other words, to enact the proposed funding strategy for the AC, do we also have to approve of leaving NAPARC, stocking GA committees with youth and women and getting MTW and MNA to focus on "ecosystems" ? These are all mandated in the strategic plan along with the AC funding.
See related article on responses to the strategic plan at http://byfaithonline.com/page/pca-news/pca-pastors-react-to-strategic-plan

2010-04-30 18:06 Permalink Reply

Leave a Comment

All Fields Are Required: