The first section of the Report does a wonderful job of upholding our understanding of what is required in the Moral Law, both in what is forbidden by the Ten Commandments and in what is positively required of them. Westminster Larger Catechism questions 129-151 provide the framework for this section.  It would be difficult to come away from Section 1 without agreement that not only is abuse a grave sin, but that it is our duty as Churches, Church officers, and a denomination to proactively create a safe environment for those in our care and to love and protect victims well when abuse comes to light.

The church should be a sanctuary for victims, a training ground to prevent assault, and a facilitator of emotional, spiritual, and physical healing. (PCA AIC DASA Report, p. 2402)
The Presbyterian Church in America’s (PCA) Ad Interim Committee (AIC) on Domestic Abuse and Sexual Abuse (DASA) recently released its Report to be presented at the 49th General Assembly later this month.  Given everything that has gone on in the news and online with other denominations releasing reports of abuse in their ranks, there has been much confusion over this PCA document; what it is, what it is not, and what place it has within our polity.
First, What the Report Is NOT:

It is not an analysis or investigation of allegations of abuse in the PCA.
It is not binding on PCA Churches in any way.
It is not going to be either “approved” or “adopted” by the PCA.

Second, What the Report Is:
In 2019 the 47th General Assembly of the PCA adopted an overture to form an Ad Interim Committee[1] to study the topic of Abuse, which the Report defines as “persistent maltreatment that causes lasting damage”(p. 2306). Additionally, it states “for the purposes of this report, all forms of physical and nonphysical (emotional, psychological, spiritual) abuse will be considered equally sinful” (p. 2307).[2] The Assembly directed the Committee to fulfill a number of tasks, chief among them being that:
The Committee shall report regarding best practices and guidelines that could be helpful for elders, Sessions, Presbyteries, and agencies for protecting against these sins and for responding to them. However, no practice, policy, or guideline will be proposed for adoption or approval. It is simply information, which shall not be binding or obligatory in any sense. (p. 2301)
The result is a 220-page technical yet pastoral document that has two main parts:

Biblical and theological foundations of understanding abuse (Section 1)
Practical pastoral aspects of abuse in the church (Sections 2 – 6)[3]

What the Report Does Well

It is both Biblical & Confessional

The first section of the Report does a wonderful job of upholding our understanding of what is required in the Moral Law, both in what is forbidden by the Ten Commandments and in what is positively required of them. Westminster Larger Catechism questions 129-151 provide the framework for this section.  It would be difficult to come away from Section 1 without agreement that not only is abuse a grave sin, but that it is our duty as Churches, Church officers, and a denomination to proactively create a safe environment for those in our care and to love and protect victims well when abuse comes to light.

Body & Soul

The Report convincingly makes the case that abuse is not just physical, affecting the body, but that it affects the very soul and being of a person (p. 2311).[4] This is meant to show how emotional, psychological, and spiritual abuse truly are abuse.

Matthew 18 vs. Romans 13

Churches need to understand that there are times when a faithful application of Romans 13 takes precedence over a well-intentioned but mistaken approach to Matthew 18 (pp. 2332, 2399).  Many cases have been botched, pain increased, and future abuse facilitated because the heart of Church leadership was to confront the accused (Matthew 18) rather than report the alleged crime to the governing authorities who are ordained by God for such a task (Romans 13).  Additionally, in the United States of America, there are unique legal reporting requirements that pastors and ministry leaders must obey in each State or civil jurisdiction.

Case-by-Case & Step-by-Step Guidance

While pastors and ministry leaders should read the entire first section of the AIC Report in order to understand the basis for the subsequent sections, it is very helpful to be able to turn right to sections 2-6 for guidance related to specific types of abuse, how to care for the victims, and how to proceed with investigations procedurally in line with BCO 31-2 (p. 2338). The Attachments aid with this. Attachment 6: Comprehensive Child Protection Policy is particularly helpful.

Gospel Hope

While the Report is sobering, it is full of gospel hope.  There are multiple sections on shepherding, for both the victim and the abuser. There are sections on the subjects of forgiveness and repentance.
Read More
[1] BCO, Rules of Assembly Operations, Article IX.
[2] It is unclear how this principle of equality plays out in the Report. At times in certain sections of the Report, the word “abuse” is used broadly, as in this quote on page 2307. At other points in the Report, “abuse” is used in a limited way to denote the type of abuse being discussed in a given section. However, even the Report acknowledges that our d
octrinal Standards (i.e., WLC 151) do not count all sins as equally heinous (p. 2309). Yes, all abuse is sin deserving of Hell. Yes, emotional abuse is really and truly abuse (and therefore, sin), and as such it inflicts damage upon souls and calls down God’s just judgement upon the perpetrator(s). However, rape and child sexual abuse are clearly more heinous sins than non-physical sinful abusive patterns and behaviors that men and women commit in their various relationships. Our doctrinal commitment to understanding gradations of heinousness of sin from one instance or kind of abuse to another is not clearly articulated in the Report.
[3] Each section includes unverified case studies that allegedly happened in the PCA, described for illustrative purposes.
[4] This is in line with how Calvin understood the soul, as is reflected in his Institutes.I.15.
Related Posts:

Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Wednesday, December 15, 2021
Even in the last three weeks, I have taught classes on campus criticizing the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision and Bruce Jenner’s gender transition—career-damaging lectures at almost any other institution of higher education in the United States. And I have for many years been one of the most vocal opponents of the way in which identity politics, particularly that of the LGBTQ+ movement, has damaged our culture and public life. I have received nothing but support from the college administration as I have continued to speak up on such matters.

“Do I teach at a woke school?” was not a question I seriously considered until one evening last week when I received an email from a friend assuring me of his prayers for me in my workplace. The reason was an article he had just read on a website, The American Reformer, entitled “Wide Awoke at Grove City College?”  The background to the article was a petition launched some weeks ago by parents of Grove City College (GCC) students and alumni concerning what they perceived as a woke drift on campus. The GCC president had responded to the petition in a way that I myself had thought was solid but American Reformer dismissed as “limp” and, by implication, disingenuous. I do not know if the author of the article has ever set foot on the campus which he writes about, but I confess that had he not told me he was writing about GCC, I might have struggled to recognize the ethos of my institution in the way he described it.
Now, wokeness is surely a serious problem in American higher education. Parents and alumni of all schools are right to be concerned about how various institutions are responding. I am not persuaded that petitions are ever the best way to address such problems but I can certainly sympathize with those anxious about their children or about their beloved alma maters. I myself am passionately committed to saving education from wokeness. I am a member of the James Madison Society at Princeton University and the National Association of Scholars, both of which have a keen interest in maintaining the importance of academic freedom and excellence on campuses. I am a contributing editor at the decidedly anti-woke First Things and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, one of the best-known conservative think-tanks in Washington, D.C. I am acutely aware of the struggle many friends face at this difficult time and I understand why parents and alumni are disturbed when they hear stories (or, in this case, mostly misguided rumors) about their institution. They are right to ask questions and raise concerns. They need to know if the colleges that take their money are providing the education they claim to be doing.
At the heart of academic institutional excellence is, of course, academic freedom. That can be tricky at a school that holds a stated religious position, such as a Christian college like Grove City College, but it can be done. The way a Christian school can hold to its beliefs yet give students a good education is to hold faculty to a standard of belief but then ensure that they engage other viewpoints in the classroom, host speakers from a variety of political and philosophical traditions, and encourage students to wrestle honestly with the great ideas and the hard questions of the past and the present. For example, as I recently told the Religious News Service, I declare my classes to be free-speech zones (something none of the more progressive figures interviewed said about their classes). I do not require students to agree with me in order to get a good grade. But if they dissent from my view they need to do so respectfully and give me an argument as to why I am wrong. For me, education is not about cloning myself intellectually in the classroom (as it is becoming at so many woke schools); it is about giving the students the skills to think for themselves.
At the center of the storm surrounding GCC was an invitation to Jemar Tisby to speak in chapel. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, and in retrospect inviting Tisby to give a chapel address may have been a mistake. A chapel address carries a certain institutional imprimatur that a simple guest lecture does not, though inviting guest lecturers to campus to engage our students on critical topics such as race, in this current culture, is an important role of any college or university. But that is not a criticism of my colleagues who invited Tisby to speak in chapel. One of the hallmarks of wokeness is cultural amnesia—the swift forgetting of what was true the day before yesterday in order to demonize those who still hold, say, to the importance of biological sex for gender. Conservatives need to be careful not to play their own version of the woke-amnesia game when it suits them. Tisby is a good example. He was first given a platform by Reformed Theological Seminary where he had been a student on its Jackson, Mississippi campus. That is a flagship conservative reformed institution. Indeed, as recently as 2015, he was appointed director of the African-American Leadership Initiative at RTS. He was described at the time by the RTS Chancellor, Ligon Duncan, as follows: “a man I trust … a dear friend … an educator and a churchman…. His commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture, the Reformed faith and the gospel ground all his efforts towards our honoring the image of God in all people.” Ligon Duncan is no woke progressive, as anyone who knows him will attest.
Duncan’s eulogy is a reminder that Tisby has been on a long journey, from RTS poster child in 2015 to working for Ibram Kendi’s outfit in 2021. Indeed, even The Color of Compromise, a book with which I have some stated disagreements, is surely not representative of where he is today. The fact is, the summer of 2020 appears to have been a radicalizing watershed for Tisby as for many others on both sides of the political divide. The college can hardly be blamed for failing in 2019 to predict the radicalization of the RTS graduate who had recently been seen as the emerging African American bridge-builder in conservative reformed Presbyterianism.
In an email exchange, the editor of The American Reformer expressed concern to me that Grove City College was platforming Tisby while not platforming faculty like me on woke issues. Well, Tisby came to campus for one day and (I believe) spoke twice. Then he left and has not returned. As for me, I lecture for several hours every day on campus to classes that are full. I speak in chapel every year. I write things almost weekly at places like First Things and World that whack wokeness. The college launched its Great Lectures series by showcasing me on identity issues as they culminate in today’s identity politics. The college arranged for me to speak to a Washington D.C. group of Capitol Hill staffers twice in the last 18 months—once on sexual-identity issues, once on race. Even in the last three weeks, I have taught classes on campus criticizing the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision and Bruce Jenner’s gender transition—career-damaging lectures at almost any other institution of higher education in the United States. And I have for many years been one of the most vocal opponents of the way in which identity politics, particularly that of the LGBTQ+ movement, has damaged our culture and public life. I have received nothing but support from the college administration as I have continued to speak up on such matters. And from my vantage point, the same could be said of my colleagues who share my support of GCC’s Christ-centered mission, but do not come down on every hard issue where I do.
That makes Grove City College, even with all of its mortal failings and human flaws, a remarkable place. My wife and I recently hosted students at our house for a dessert evening. One of them asked if I hoped to stay at Grove City College until I retire. I responded yes, because I love the college and, more significantly, because my writings and lecturing have made me likely unemployable almost anywhere else in this age of the woke. As evidence, I told them about a Christian college where I gave a lecture by Zoom in the last year. The professor who invited me to speak asked if he could record the session because he expected to be the subject of a complaint that he had created an unsafe learning environment by having someone of my views speak. And that was a Christian college. A Christian college. That would not happen at Grove City College.
Is Grove City College perfect?  No more than I am. But I am a conservative and a Christian and that means that I believe certain things are true. For example, I believe that no institution can ever make no mistakes and do the right thing every time. And the larger the institution, the more likely it is that issues will arise. With nearly 200 faculty, a large staff, a student body of more than 2,000, and more than 800 courses taught each semester, GCC is too big for even the most perfect administration to micromanage. Built from the crooked timber of fallen humanity, Grove City College, like all institutions, reflects our own failings and weaknesses. But if the test of people’s character is not whether they live a perfect life but how they handle their mistakes and failings, then the test of an institution’s integrity is how it addresses those things which have not gone as planned or have proved unexpectedly counter-productive. GCC’s management of this continuing challenge is smart and effective. It strives to hire excellent scholars with solid Christian convictions. There is no tenure; everyone gets a one-year contract requiring affirmation of the college’s mission and values. When occasional issues arise, direct and constructive conversations take place with the expectation of missional alignment. That is why it is sad that the college’s recent statement about its commitment to addressing the matters raised by the petition has met with such cynicism from an ostensibly conservative Christian source.
I do appreciate my friend praying for me. I hope that he prays that all of us at Grove City College will stand firm for God’s truth, academic freedom, and intellectual integrity in this storm of wokeness that surrounds us. But above all, I hope that he gives thanks that I and my colleagues work at a place where we have the freedom to be faithful in our callings, a freedom that exists in few other institutions of higher education today.
Carl R. Trueman is professor of Biblical and Religious Studies at Grove City College. This article is used with permission.

We are too weak and this world is too broken to escape all difficulties. But with God’s help we can escape their futility, we can escape their power to defeat and destroy us. With His help we can receive those difficulties as falling within the bounds of his sovereignty, we can receive them as his will for us, and we can receive them as an opportunity to grow in godly character and persevere in godly hope.

We all long for lives that are easy. We pray for roads that are smooth, seas that are calm, flights that are untroubled by turbulence. Yet our experience of life is so very different. The road is often narrow and winding, the seas often stormy, the skies often bumpy. And we wonder why—why doesn’t God decree an easier life, a less difficult journey to glory?
He is not silent in the face of such questions. Rather, he assures us that he makes use of difficulties and that they are good and even necessary for our sanctification. He uses them to shape us, to mold us, and to equip us for greater service. He assures us that his purposes do not end at the point that our trials begin, but rather pass through those trials and make the highest use of them.
We cannot escape temptation. If the devil tempted Christ, he will most certainly tempt those who follow Christ. But by God’s grace, we can meet temptations and pass through them in such a way that we remain unmarred and unbroken. We can pass through them in such a way that we emerge with renewed strength, restored faith, and increased confidence in the preserving power of the Holy Spirit. God uses temptation for good!
We cannot escape chastisement, for our Father loves us too much to allow us to remain immature and undisciplined. But with confidence that he is our kind Father, we can receive even these rebukes as proof of our adoption and proof of his love.
Read More
Related Posts: