Addressing Abuse & Defending the Bride
The PCA has a structure for bringing charges against members and officers, and it requires two witnesses of an alleged offense. These two witnesses may be either people or material (e.g., police report). But these scandal-mongering blogs bypass the judicial system of the Church entirely and instead slander the good name and reputation of the PCA as well as her officers and members by spewing these allegations publicly.
We frequently hear about abuse in the PCA. In 2017 concern regarding abuse dominated the secular news media following disturbing revelations surrounding men named Weinstein and Epstein. Concern for this sparked a number of hashtags such as #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen.
Now – years later – some within the Church have built a platform for themselves as “Abuse advocates” purporting to expose abuse within the Church and particularly the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
Even before the recent General Assembly had concluded, Emily Belz in Christianity Today decided there was an abuse crisis in the PCA. She bases her assertion on anonymous, self-appointed “abuse advocates” who say there is.
What is Abuse?
Abuse is hard to define. In Michigan, the worldlings assert abuse is using the wrong pronouns to hurt someone’s feelings. For those influenced by the world, calling a person to repent of his or her sins is abusive.
The PCA must guard against this view of abuse. Some may remember a former PCA pastor, who – facing potential ecclesiastical discipline fled with his congregation into independency – decried it was spiritually abusive to encourage people in the hope of sanctification and the mortification of sexual sins and vile passions.
In contrast to these worldly definitions, the PCA received a report from a committee that studied domestic abuse and sexual assault (DASA); the report defines abuse this way:
persistent maltreatment that causes lasting damage. In this sense, abuse is a misuse of power. Misuse of power can take several forms (physical, verbal, positional, etc.), but the essence of abuse is that it is a misuse of power which wounds another person physically, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually. (pp. 2306-7; emphasis original)
That is a helpful definition; it recognizes abuse beyond physical forms, e.g., spiritual and emotional abuse. It also highlights that abuse constitutes a “misuse of power,” which is true, but at the same time Christians must guard against allowing a Marxist view of power-dynamics to inform what we consider to be abuse.
Nonetheless, a definition of abuse such as this helps us to distinguish abuse from other sinful patterns or behaviors. Certainly, abuse in its general sense is simply the “misuse of a thing;” all sin is therefore abuse. But if my five year old hits his sister with a Brio train track, is he abusing her?
In one sense yes, but – given that she (for now) outclasses him in terms of height, weight, and strength – in another sense no, since the power differential clearly favors the one on the receiving end and his mother will quickly correct that sinful behavior.
Sometimes it can be hard to distinguish abuse from other expressions of sin and depravity. Often it is quite subjective and comes down to Justice Stewart’s test: “I’ll know it when I see it.”
Alleged Abuse in the PCA
Apart from the aforementioned DASA committee report, abuse seems to be used with alarming frequency in the PCA courts lately. Even the British press covered a situation in which a prominent Nashville pastor was suspended by Presbytery due to abusive behavior. Elsewhere there are instances in which church planters have stepped down and/or are facing discipline because of abusive patterns.
In a more infamous situation, an urban church planter was recently exonerated of claims of abuse (i.e. bullying and sexual harassment) by the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC). The basis for exoneration was the evidence:
Where unambiguous digital or documentary evidence existed, however, it strongly supported the arguments of the Accused, providing objective proof against these specific allegations of sin. This fact affected the Panel’s assessment of the credibility to ascribe to testimony for which there was no tangible evidence or for which there were no third-party witnesses. After carefully examining all the evidence, The Panel unanimously agreed that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof in this case. (p. 14)
While there is little doubt in this situation improprieties occurred, the SJC did not believe the evidence supported the serious allegations against the accused.
The Biblical Standard
The aforementioned case was a source of much consternation and seemed to be a key turning point for many to conclude there is an “abuse crisis” within the PCA. Twitter and other social media were filled with reactionary outcry in the wake of the decision.
This outcry broadened into rage against the Church judicial system as a whole aiming to depict the PCA as a nest of abusers. New hashtags, customized for the PCA, have been promoted and new websites have been launched: some claim to provide resources for victims; others – more disturbingly – publish sensational allegations aimed at discrediting well-respected saints and harming the reputation of the Church.
In one particularly egregious instance, an anonymous ex-wife of an unnamed PCA pastor makes outlandish claims about an abuse cover-up by one of the most well-respected women in the PCA. But tellingly, the blogpost is riddled with errors of fact, which undermine the veracity of its claims.
I will not link to examples of the sites alluded to above because I do not wish to further publicize outrageous and unsubstantiated claims that malign Christ’s bride. Part of the trouble with these blogs is they vent claims of decades’ old grievances against the PCA as well as members or elders in good standing without any actual evidence.
They make assertions, which are readily believed by scandal-hungry people and provide fodder on which gossipy “abuse fetishists” will graze for weeks to the detriment of their souls.
The PCA has a structure for bringing charges against members and officers, and it requires two witnesses of an alleged offense. These two witnesses may be either people or material (e.g., police report). But these scandal-mongering blogs bypass the judicial system of the Church entirely and instead slander the good name and reputation of the PCA as well as her officers and members by spewing these allegations publicly.
Perhaps there are some who believe the standard of evidence (two witnesses) required by the PCA is too high.
-
The Rainbow of Grace
God is graciously patient. He keeps the earth spinning. God gives us the seasons. God gives us grace every single day. May we not presume upon His grace. May we not be lulled into complacency. His bow in the sky brings amazing comfort to the Christian heart. His bow in the sky must not lull us into presuming upon His grace. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
“It is a bow, but it is directed upwards, not towards the earth; for the seals of the covenant were intended to comfort, not to terrify.” – Matthew Henry
And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. – 1 Corinthians 6:11
The Sign of God’s Gracious Patience
In a sermon at presbytery we were reminded of Henry’s words above. God could have pointed the bow toward heaven as a continual threat. The Lord of the heavens could have given us terror every time the clouds formed. Our lives could have been lived in constant terror that God would again destroy. But, he didn’t. God gave creation a sign of his gracious patience.
The Danger of Presuming Upon Grace
Here’s the rub though. We by human nature like to presume upon grace. We live as if our daily bread is guaranteed. We go to the store assuming there will be produce. We presume the world will continue to wobble on its axis giving us seasons. We presume the cosmic order will remain the same. We presume the seed time and harvest time will come in their intervals. The modern mind makes the presumption that what we experience historically will continue to be historically true. Nothing new here. Just carry on with business as usual. We presume.
From Presumption to Complacency
Presumption naturally leads to complacency. I presume my wife will always be loyal and committed to our marriage so I can take her for granted. I presume my children will grow up well so I can become complacent in my parenting. I presume the church will remain healthy so I can become complacent in shepherding. I presume God saved me so I can become complacent in piety.
This presumption and complacency can dull us to both amazing beauty and signs of danger.
The Beauty of God’s Promises: A Lesson from Hawaii
When my wife and I were courting she lived in Hawaii. When I went to visit her one week I was awe struck. Not by her – she was and is beautiful –
Read More
Related Posts: -
Against Requiring Background Checks
It is not for the General Assembly to require lower courts or churches to dispose of their property against their will. Writing such provisions into the PCA constitution would set a dangerous precedent and would undermine the freedom and rights of local churches.
Overtures to the 51st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America that would require —with a “shall”—the purchase of background checks for all officer and ministerial candidates violate the principle that a church’s property is its own and cannot be taken by a higher court, agency, or committee of the church.1 Many PCA churches incurred great financial loss to come into the denomination from the Presbyterian Church in the United States because of claims to local church property by the denomination and its presbyteries. Churches lost buildings, ministers lost pensions, or churches paid huge sums to keep what they rightly owned. Written into the PCA constitution are provisions to prevent such things from ever happening again. Money is property—requiring it to be spent is equivalent to taking it.
Book of Church Order 25-10:
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.
Heretofore, monetary expense (the taking of church money or requiring that church money be spent) was not required to constitute a church or call an ordained man.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Rejecting Due Process
Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Thursday, December 14, 2023
Guilt must be proven in church courts, just as in secular courts. At stake is the possibility of wrongly condemning the innocent and the very existence of justice itself. The presumption of innocence, however, is in peril in the evangelical world. In fact, there are many who believe that a presumption of innocence is the very opposite of justice.The years since George Floyd’s death have seen an acceleration of many troubling trends in evangelical churches. Few to my mind are more disturbing than the way in which certain basic principles of justice have been abandoned without so much as even an attempt to justify their abandonment, and this even among ostensibly “conservative” pastors, elders, and seminary professors.
One of the most important principles of justice is the notion that guilt must be proved, not assumed. Due process, or the presumption of innocence, which has a long history in English common law, is central to America’s judicial system (at least formally so, even if this principle is being eroded in practice). It is also at the heart of the Bible’s teaching on justice. We see this in a variety of places.
In Deuteronomy 25:1–2 there is a basic statement of what judges and courts are for, namely, to acquit the innocent and condemn the guilty, then to punish the one who is guilty. In order to ensure that all parties receive a fair trial it is required that there be at least two witnesses (Deut 17:6). It is indispensable to true justice that a “single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed” (Deut 19:15). Although the Bible frames things in terms of the necessity of multiple witnesses, this is meant to accomplish exactly what the presumption of innocence does in our nation’s courts: you cannot condemn a man unless you have proven him guilty. A single witness can easily lie. With multiple witnesses, it is possible to cross-examine them and compare their individual testimonies with each other to more accurately determine the truth.
This Old Testament judicial principle is reaffirmed in Hebrews 10:28, though the New Testament focuses on the necessity of multiple witnesses in discipline cases within the church. No one may be disciplined merely on the basis of one witness (Matt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1; 1 Tim 5:19). This means that guilt must be proven in church courts, just as in secular courts. At stake is the possibility of wrongly condemning the innocent and the very existence of justice itself.
The presumption of innocence, however, is in peril in the evangelical world. In fact, there are many who believe that a presumption of innocence is the very opposite of justice.
A recent church court case in my denomination (the Presbyterian Church in America) provides a shocking example. Pastor Ryan Biese, in a multi-part series, has documented this case in extensive detail. Here are the basic facts. In 2020 a PCA church plant in Jonesboro, Arkansas had a temporary ruling body (called a temporary session). They also had a church planter who had been appointed by the regional body of the PCA (Covenant Presbytery). Members of the church were concerned that the church-planting pastor was too progressive, farmed preaching out to others too often, and was overbearing in his leadership. Seven men in the church, following the teaching of our savior (Matt 18:15–20), presented their concerns to the temporary planting pastor and to the temporary session, and explained that they would like to consider pastoral candidates other than the planting pastor. As a still-organizing church plant, they would not yet have issued a call to a man to be their permanent pastor. In response, the temporary session brought church discipline charges against all seven men, eventually barring them from the Lord’s Supper.
Read More
Related Posts:
