Abuse, the PCA, and Her Constitution

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.

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.

Read More