A Brief Response to Dr. Taylor’s Reply to Dr. Aquila by Mr. White

Posted by Wes White

ByFaith online published today a response by Dr. Roy Taylor, Stated Clerk of the PCA, to Dr. Dominic Aquila, former Moderator of the General Assembly and President of New Geneva Seminary, who has publicly criticized the proposed amendments to BCO 14:1 and 14:2.  I would like to respond to a few of Dr. Taylor’s points, but to begin with I think we need to understand a very important point.  The first draft of the amendments was presented confidentially to the Cooperative Ministries Committee (CMC) back in January 2010.  A version approved by the AC was sent to the commissioners handbook.  However, when the AC permanent committee met the week of the Assembly, they changed the amendment significantly.  You can see the revisions here.  I talked to several members of the Admin Committee of Commissioners and none of them had any idea that they had approved this altered version of the amendment.  The point of this will become apparent in the discussion below.  With that in mind, let me suggest several things in response to Dr. Taylor.

1.  The Personal Statements about Dr. Aquila are not Helpful. The second and third paragraphs indicate that it was Dr. Aquila’s duty to oppose the amendment before now, if he was going to do it at all.  Dr. Taylor says that these things were discussed over a number of years in the CMC.   Instead of speaking against them, Dr. Taylor alleges, he chose a different method of dealing with this, Dr. Aquila posted his objections on his web site.  Now, let’s assume that Dr. Taylor’s accounting of the fact is correct and that Dr. Aquila raised no objections and that this was discussed “thoroughly” over a number of years.  Still, several things can be said.  First, Dr. Aquila may have changed his mind or not seen the implications of the matter before it was actually passed by the GA.  This wouldn’t be the first time that has happened to someone.  Second, the amendment was changed significantly on the day of General Assembly.  The new version makes the cumulative nature of the fees much clearer.  This alone would cause someone to think more carefully about it, as it did me.  Third, this is still a live issue.  It is being debated in presbyteries, and it is perfectly legitimate for someone to offer their opinions privately and publicly.  I think Dr. Taylor could have made some of the same arguments without implying criticism of Dr. Aquila’s methods.

2.  The appeal to authority is overplayed.  For example, Dr. Taylor states that “objections now being raised by Dr. Aquila involve issues that were thoroughly discussed over a number of years in the CMC…”  Having examined the minutes, I simply cannot see it.  Perhaps this was done, but it is not reflected in the minutes.  I did not see any discussion of a funding plan until 2010.  They may have discussed it in passing, but was it really discussed “thoroughly”?  Second, he appeals to the CCB.  He says that this is a “group of men elected by the General Assembly because of their knowledge and understanding of our constitution.”  Maybe they are.  Maybe they aren’t.  The General Assembly has never expressed that.  This seems to be an overstatement.  Third, he calls their evaluation of the constitutional issues a “studied collective opinion.”  Now, remember that they looked at the revisions in one afternoon and gave their opinion.  Another example is the analysis by the legal firm.  They may have done a legal audit, but did the legal firm audit the changes that were made on the Tuesday of General Assembly?

3.  The reasoning of the CCB is flawed.  I have argued this in several places.  You can read my arguments here.  The key point is that this “registration fee” is very different from the current registration fee for General Assembly.  One is voluntary, non-cumulative, and paying for a specific service.  The other is involuntary, non-cumulative, and funding all of a committee’s activities.

In addition, Dr. Taylor appeals to the historical context of BCO 25:8 and 11.  Granted that he is correct, this does not prove his point.  What better way to ensure that a denomination cannot take the property of the local church against its will than to say as the BCO 25:8 does that all property can only be received by free and voluntary action of the latter?  What better way could there be than to exclude the idea of a required payment to the higher courts altogether?

4.  There are some good points in the article.  For example, the plan says nothing about whether non-paying members could serve on the permanent committees and agencies.  I also agree that it does not bring confusion on who can and cannot vote.  I think the plan is clear on who can and cannot vote.

Finally, I think that Dr. Taylor’s response is good in many ways.  I like the idea that he is seeking to argue the merits of the case.  I do not believe that we should just listen to the denominational employees and do what they think is best.  I think they should present their arguments.  Then, we should evaluate them and decide what we want to do.  We as assemblies are the denominational leaders, not elected officials.  Thus, the best way for us to approach this is to recognize that none of us has a right for our agenda to be passed.  Let as many people make their arguments so that we can decide together, by the grace of God, what is the best course of action.

Posted by Wes White

About these ads

8 Comments

  1. grit said,

    September 18, 2010 at 12:53 am

    I agree that the AC of the PCA should be funded, and it reflects badly upon each member and congregation if there is an undue lack of support for the PCA’s AC, but any binding of such to member voting rights is too distasteful for my forbearance, both for concerns of the AC and general membership of the PCA. At the Aquila Report, TE Dave Sarafolean has the beginnings of a plan I think I could live with head raised: http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2952:an-alternative-to-the-proposed-ac-funding-plan&catid=79:commentary&Itemid=137

    I only wish such would have made it into consideration before now, though perhaps it did?

  2. September 18, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    I think they considered it and rejected it. I don’t know the depth to which they considered it. However, if the current plan fails, they may have to consider other alternatives.

  3. TE Stephen Welch said,

    September 18, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    Thanks Wes, for keeping us aware of these things. Is there any way to find out who is on the CMC? I remember at the assembly being confused when we were handed a copy of the draft that was different then what was in the handbook. I wished I would have raised the issue on the floor of GA. This did not set well with me. The fact that some members of the Admin. Committee of Commissioners were not aware of the changes raises red flags. I wonder if Dominic would address the objections of Roy Taylor. This might be helpful. The Strategic Plan wants our Presbyteries to come up with a list of ideas for our discussions at GA. I am going to suggest more communication and a better job of informing our elders and parishes of these things before they are brought to GA.

  4. September 18, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Stephen,

    The changes were actually made by the AC.

    You can find out who’s on the CMC. The CMC consists of the coordinators or presidents of the permanent committees and agencies and the chairman of the committees and agencies.

    I can help you find a list, if you like.

    Wes

  5. Robert Berman said,

    September 18, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    Dr Aquila is free to change his mind at any time, surely. I’ll be interested in hearing him address this question of whether he ever raised concerns with this funding plan at the CMC, or whether he’s come to oppose it only in recent months.

    As for Rev. Sarafolean’s idea that that AC be funding out of money given to the other permanent committees, Dr. Taylor’s discussion of Dr. Aquila’s ninth objection points out that RAO 4-12 forbids the central committees from giving each other funds. That’s a good rule; the whole point of giving to the different committees separately is that if one committee goes rogue, the churches can stop supporting it. That check-and-balance is lost if AC is automatically funded from money given to the “popular” committees. Though I’ll also admit that check-and-balance is also mitigated if one has to give money to the AC in order to vote at GA against actions of the AC.

  6. Scott said,

    September 19, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    Consistent with our polity, it might be helpful to have a study committee constituted to consider both ways to fund and ways to streamline and improve efficiency of the vital work given Administrative Committee.

    The ideas presented for funding are worth considering further:

    1) Fund the magazine from separate sources
    2) Use a small percentage for overhead from denominational agencies
    3) Continue voluntary “askings” from individual churches

    Other ideas:

    4) Voluntary “asking” from presbyteries (e.g. flat fee of $500) to go to the presbytery hosting that year’s General Assembly

  7. Wes White said,

    September 29, 2010 at 11:15 pm

    Robert,

    Yes. Very good point. If a funding plan is contrary to a rule that we currently have, then we certainly should not approve such a plan.

  8. January 2, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    [...] 4. ByFaith finally began to report on the Presbytery votes last week. The vote on the amendments was actually 14-15. However, the first report from ByFaith was: three presbyteries vote in favor and one against. After I featured it on my blog, byFaith removed the post and put up a new headline saying that the vote was 9-7 in favor while noting in the article that the unofficial count was 15-15. However, they had included a Presbytery that did not vote, and so they apologized and corrected the article. It appears they now have the correct count of 17-16 in their most recent article. In byFaith’s defense, they did publish Dr. Roy Taylor’s reply to Dr. Aquila without linking to Dr. Aquila’s article. I responded to Dr. Taylor’s article here. [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 349 other followers

%d bloggers like this: