Abuse, the PCA, and Her Constitution
The 50th General Assembly approved some changes to the Constitution, but also rejected many. Is the PCA in crisis? Or does the Constitution already provide the means to remedy these concerns?
Amending the Constitution of the PCA is a difficult task by design; it takes the approval of two General Assemblies and the consent of two-thirds of the Presbyteries. It is not something that can be done lightly or speedily. Many on the conservative and/or confessional side of the PCA were frustrated by the pace at which the PCA amended her Book of Church Order (BCO) to fortify the Church against the Saint Louis Theology/Revoice.
TE Charles Scott Williams first raised the alarm regarding the deviations emanating from Nashville and Saint Louis in 2016. Now, seven years later, the PCA seems to have reached a consensus on what our Constitution needs in order to close the door to “Side-B” and Revoice. But it will not be until 2024 until the most recent of those amendments can go into effect.
Likewise this year, many were disappointed when the General Assembly rejected proposed amendments to her Constitution that purported to help the PCA respond more effectively to allegations of abuse.
I. On the “Tragic” Assembly
Some have decried the actions of the Assembly in rejecting these proposals. If you read the news or follow social media, you might presume the PCA is rife with all manner of abusers.
In an article published in Christianity Today, Covenant College alumna Emily Belz decrees: “The Presbyterian Church in America Has an Abuse Crisis Too.” In which she cites self-styled, but unnamed, “advocates” who assert the PCA typically handles things badly.
The Baptist News Global announces: “Conservative Presbyterians reject four proposals to curb sexual abuse. But we must question: what would these four ‘rejected’ proposals have done to ‘curb’ sexual abuse?
The Tennessean claims the PCA limits who can be called pastor, elder, and deacon while at the same time rejecting “abuse measures.” But did the PCA actually reject abuse measures? And would these measures actually do what they claimed?
These are the sort of headlines about which TE Tim LeCroy warned us. They seem to imply the PCA is negligent regarding abuse. But is there proof for the headlines?
II. On Not Being Reactionary
If you believe the (social) media hype, the PCA is a communion that cares more about ensuring women are not addressed as pastor or deacon than about protecting women and other vulnerable people from abuse. TE Charles Stover has already written thoughtfully on this matter and exhorted us to remain calm.
Rather than react hastily to media headlines, the Church ought to remedy well rather than speedily any defects in her Constitution.
The Church must not yield to reactionary rhetoric and manipulative reporting. This is not to say reforms are not needed or would not be helpful. But neither ought we assume there is a crisis simply because some people loudly assert there is one.
As saints and as elders in the Kingdom of God, we must not submit to the tyranny of headlines and Tweets, but instead take stock of what is true, where we are, and what our duty is.
A. What Is True?
Does the PCA care more about who can use the titles of ordained office than protecting people from abuse? Well, maybe. But is that wrong? Isn’t usurping a church office a form of abuse? Isn’t gaslighting someone into thinking she’s a deacon - when our Book of Church Order clearly declares she cannot be a deacon - a form of abuse? Perhaps abuse is not even properly understood.
But I will not grant the premise: it is not the case that the PCA cares more about regulating the use of officer titles than protecting the abused. People in various media have asserted this, but they have not proven this point.
B. Where Are We?
The PCA did not simply reject four overtures aimed to protect victims from abuse.
It referred back the proposal related to background checks for further perfection. In doing this, the Assembly recognized merit in the proposal, but also that the overture was not yet ready - as currently written and amended by the Overtures Committee - to be implemented by the Assembly. Amending the PCA Constitution does not work on the schedule of the news cycle, so the Church must not react to headlines.
Indeed, the Assembly rejected an entirely novel proposal to permit atheists (i.e., fools; cf. Psalm 14:1) to give testimony in the courts of the Church. To add this provision to our Constitution would undermine the teaching of our Confession of Faith on Oaths and Vows:
The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence; therefore to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred (WCF 22:2).
How can the members of a Church Court in good conscience administer an oath to an atheist, given what the PCA confesses regarding oaths and vows?
Yes, the Assembly also rejected Overture 14, which aimed to restrict Christian lawyers from participation in the Courts of the Church. Why did the Assembly do this? Because the proposal demonstrated partiality and was entirely “without Biblical authority.” Can you think of a better, more honorable reason to reject a proposal?
However, the narrative peddled by the media is completely undermined by the Assembly’s ratification of a very important change to our constitution, which does more to protect alleged victims of abuse than any of the failed overtures sought to do: the Assembly adopted Item 8.
Item 8, passed by the 49th General Assembly and ratified by 77 Presbyteries, was adopted as part of the Constitution by the 50th General Assembly. Item 8 establishes procedures such that an accuser will not have to physically confront his or her alleged abuser in a Church Court, but can offer testimony remotely. Additionally, Item 8 establishes provisions to keep an alleged abuser from personally cross-examining an alleged victim. These provisions aim to prevent further emotional trauma as well as an alleged abuser from continuing to manipulate, intimidate, or otherwise influence the testimony of his or her accuser.
The PCA is faithfully - and in a measured, circumspect manner - taking steps to ensure the Courts of the Church are equipped to hold her members and officers accountable.
C. What Is Our Duty?
There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding the role of civil and ecclesiastical courts. The role of the Church Courts is not to punish the wicked. The role of the Church courts is to promote 1) the glory of God, 2) the purity of the Church, and 3) the repentance of the disobedient (BCO 27-3).
It is the role of the criminal courts and the civil magistrate to use the sword to protect the weak and to punish lawbreakers. For that reason, the officers of the Church should quickly appeal to the magistrate when there is suspected abuse and then, secondarily, utilize the investigation and expertise of the magistrate to determine how to censure and continue to minister to an abuser as well as the survivor(s) in Christ’s Name.
While the “watching world” is displeased with the number of amendments the PCA made to her Constitution this year, there are other - more impactful - ways Church Courts can prevent abuse and minister to the victims of abuse. But these will not produce clickbait headlines:
The Courts of the Church must adopt, maintain, and enforce policies to prevent abuse at Church events. This means never presuming “it can’t happen here…” or “she’s too sweet to ever…,” but instead adopt wise standards and apply them consistently.
Church officers must be vigilant and aware of how to detect potential abuse in the families of those within the congregations they serve. This means knowing the members of the church and perhaps even bringing back the concept of elder visitation in the homes of the saints.
III. On Using the Current Constitution
While many are disappointed the PCA Constitution will not be amended to admit atheists to her Courts or to mandate background checks for officers in time for tomorrow’s newspaper, there are ways of addressing these concerns within the current Constitution.
A. Atheists
While it is true atheists are not qualified to give testimony in the Courts of the Church, we must also recognize the PCA currently does not bar “unbelievers” (as was claimed on the floor of the Assembly) from giving testimony, but only atheists. There are very few actual atheists.
Moreover, verified material evidence is admissible in the courts of the Church even if that evidence was collected by an atheist.
But what about a situation in which an atheist is the only witness to an event and there is no material evidence? Or - perhaps a better example - an atheist is the only corroborating witness (BCO 35-3), what then? The first issue in this hypothetical is: is this a case of potential abuse? If so, then contact the civil authorities immediately to investigate.
The results of that investigation may be entered as material evidence into the Church Courts, which may proceed accordingly. And by that point, if the allegations are remotely plausible, the accused would already be under severe restrictions imposed by the civil authorities sufficient to protect against further abuse. As such, the Church Courts can do little to further the protection afforded to alleged victims already by the State, but have a great opportunity for ministry. In such an instance, the testimony of an atheist would be unnecessary, because of the results of the police investigation and the powers of administrative suspension “until the charges against him can be examined” by the Church Court, as our Constitution already provides (BCO 33-4).
Additionally, there is nothing in our current Constitution that would prevent reports arising from an atheist concerning the “Christian character” of any member in or officer of the PCA from forming the basis for a subsequent investigation by a Church Court. In fact our Constitution explicitly states:
It is the duty of all church Sessions and Presbyteries to exercise care over those subject to their authority. They shall with due diligence and great discretion demand from such persons satisfactory explanations concerning reports affecting their Christian character. This duty is more imperative when those who deem themselves aggrieved by injurious reports shall ask an investigation.
If such investigation, however originating, should result in raising a strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved, the court shall institute process, and shall appoint a prosecutor to prepare the indictment and to conduct the case….
(BCO 31-2, emphasis added)
The current PCA Constitution stipulates an allegation of abuse, even if it comes from an atheist, must be investigated by the Courts of the Church.
This leads to a final hypothetical situation, which takes us way into the weeds: what if an atheist had information that was vital to the prosecution of an alleged abuser by the Church Courts and the civil authorities refused to prosecute or investigate the atheist’s claims, but the claims of the atheist accuser were deemed to be credible by the Church Court’s investigation (e.g., BCO 31-2 “a strong presumption of guilt”)?
In this highly unlikely scenario, an atheist may swear an affidavit - under criminal/civil penalty of perjury - making his or her allegations, which could then be entered as material evidence by a Church Court. In such an instance, the accused would not have the right to cross-examine the material evidence, but he or she could bring a defamation lawsuit against the atheist accuser who swore the affidavit, at which point the civil courts would rule on the veracity of the claims. In this way, our current system favors the accusers and protects alleged victims of abuse already, since the accused would have to engage in a costly and onerous civil lawsuit in order to suppress the claims of his or her accuser.
It is simply not the case that PCA Church Courts are hindered from protecting alleged victims of abuse by refusing to admit atheists as witnesses.
B. Presbyteries and Sessions
The Polity of the PCA is remarkable for its simple genius. Our founding fathers, wary of and wearied by the top-down tyranny of the old PCUS, enshrined protections for the power of the lesser courts:
All Church courts are one in nature, constituted of the same elements, possessed inherently of the same kinds of rights and powers, and differing only as the Constitution may provide…(BCO 11-3).
As such, any PCA Session is free to adopt a strong policy regarding background checks for staff, officers, and volunteers. The Session of the congregation I serve adopted an extensive policy regarding child protection and abuse reporting; it is available here. Our congregation eagerly and willingly understood this policy; in fact, the Women in the Church demanded it.
Presbyteries can likewise require background checks for all the ministers and candidates for ordination. There is no need to go through the gradual and slow process of amending the Church Constitution to do this; a Presbytery can simply insert into its standing rules such a requirement.
In fact, just this evening, our Session adopted an overture to the Tennessee Valley Presbytery to require background checks for men being examined for transfer and ordination.
Conclusion
I am thankful for men such as RE Joshua Torrey and TE Dominic Aquila who helped in the crafting of the overture our Session is sending up to our Presbytery. The Church should thank God for such men who do not react to headlines or unfair criticism, but instead faithfully labor not only for the perfecting of the saints, but also for the perfecting of the Church’s procedures.
There is no need to despair because of what the General Assembly did not do this year or because of a few hostile and misleading headlines. Instead, those who genuinely and passionately care about preventing abuse, ministering to abuse survivors, and calling abusers to repentance (remember that is the purpose of the Church Court), should study our Constitution and seek ways to make the Church Courts more effective at fulfilling the roles given to them by her King.