As Martin Luther and the Reformers held (and died for), only the Word of God can bind the consciences of believers.  Church councils and church decrees (including the Book of Church Order) can and do err.  We do not submit to our brethren when they require us to act against our consciences as informed by Scripture.  Requiring a person to undergo a legal background check in attempt to judge his spiritual character is indeed binding the conscience improperly. 

The 51st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), meeting in June 2024, will consider five overtures (amendments to the Book of Church Order) that will require background checks for ordained church leaders.  Some PCA churches have already adopted this practice to screen support staff and other volunteers.  However, I believe “requiring” background checks for elders and deacons is both unwise and unbiblical, for the following reasons.

Background checks do not indicate a man’s Christian character or fitness for ministry.

All five presbyteries (Missouri, Ohio, South Texas, Susquehanna Valley, and Warrior) in their overtures appeal to the elder and deacon requirements in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 in support of mandatory background checks.  However, the qualifications for ordained office in these texts are spiritual and moral, not legal.  Background checks do not reveal a man’s present moral character, spiritual maturity, or Christian commitment. They only indicate if he has felony or misdemeanor convictions or court actions in his past.  It is the responsibility of the church through its Sessions and Presbyteries to determine if an elder or deacon candidate has the character in line with 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
To illustrate this, say “John” is an elder candidate in his church.  His Session conducts the mandated background check and finds a misdemeanor conviction for marijuana possession from seven years ago, before he was a member of his church.  Prior to joining his present church, John repented, sought counseling for his sinful habit, and has not used any drugs since.  The background check will not indicate if he is above reproach, sober minded, self-controlled, and able to teach, which are spiritual qualities.  It will not speak to his Christian character or his present fitness to serve as an elder.  In fact, it may prejudice his Session against him simply because he has a legal conviction in his past.  If one argues that John is not above reproach because of his past, then we must concede that the Apostle Paul was not above reproach and could be disqualified from ministry in the PCA.

The use of background checks can lead to entanglement with the civil magistrate in approving ordained leaders.

The consequence of background checks is clear:  the civil magistrate becomes involved in the church’s vetting of elders and deacons.  Proponents will argue that the state does not approve or deny ordination.  This is true; however, the civil magistrate, who bears the sword, must be separate from the church, whose authority is only spiritual.  If the PCA implements mandatory background checks, the church must necessarily involve the magistrate, however indirectly, in the ordination of leaders.

Rationale given for mandatory background checks is tenuous, at best.

Ohio Presbytery’s rationale for mandatory background checks is the most extensive, and several of their points invite a response.  Their overture first gives the moral character argument:
It is, therefore, clear from the recent debates and votes that the presbyteries of the PCA desire more reflection on the moral character of candidates’ ministries. Background checks are consistent with the recent emphasis on moral character within the PCA and its officers. (Ohio Presbytery Overture p. 3, Lines 32-34)
A legal background check, as I have argued above, is not a judge of a man’s moral character, present spiritual maturity, or his adherence to the biblical leadership requirements.
Ohio Presbytery cites the PCA’s Ad Interim Committee on Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault:
“Background checks, social media checks, and careful reference checks should be used to screen for abusive leadership” (ibid., 1183).  (p. 2, Lines 41-42)
What is not explained is how a legal background check will warn if a ministry candidate has the potential for “abusive leadership,” which is a nebulous concept and difficult to define.  Legal actions in a person’s past do not necessarily demonstrate how he will lead the church as an elder or deacon.  A background check would not reveal vague and ill-defined concepts such as “spiritual abuse” or “emotional abuse”.  I would again use the example of the Apostle Paul, whose hypothetical background check and reference checks would not speak to his calling or gifts as an apostle.
Ohio Presbytery attempts to give a common grace argument in support of their position:
Further, the concept of “extra-biblical” in the objections [to background checks] is not properly defined or defended in the reasoning given by the Overtures Committee of the 50th General Assembly. For instance, neither examination in church history nor the Book of Church Order are required by a clear scriptural command; nonetheless they are requirements for ordination, along with many other things that are not explicitly named in Scripture (BCO 21-4.c; 24-1)…In particular, we confess “there are some circumstances concerning the … government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence” (WCF 1.6) (p. 3, Lines 37-45)
This line of reasoning is weak at best.  Examinations in church history or the BCO do not touch on a person’s legal past, nor does failing these exams have any legal consequence, as could the results of a background check.  Further, churches may take many actions that are permissible or expedient; it does not mean such actions are Biblically wise or appropriate.
Ohio Presbytery includes what could be construed as a veiled threat:
If approved by the General Assembly and Presbyteries as a desired application of Scriptural principles, [mandated background checks] would be capable of binding the conscience of officers (PP 1) who “promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord” (BCO 21-5; 24-6). (p. 4, Lines 14-16)
I am amazed that a PCA presbytery could be so ignorant of both the doctrine of Scripture and church history.  As Martin Luther and the Reformers held (and died for), only the Word of God can bind the consciences of believers.  Church councils and church decrees (including the Book of Church Order) can and do err.  We do not submit to our brethren when they require us to act against our consciences as informed by Scripture.  Requiring a person to undergo a legal background check in attempt to judge his spiritual character is indeed binding the conscience improperly.
Despite Ohio Presbytery’s claim to the contrary (p. 4, lines 5-6), mandating background checks is most certainly the church’s attempt to please both the world and the State.  Is there data showing a massive influx of pedophiles, rapists, drug addicts, spousal abusers, and sex offenders into the ranks of PCA elders and deacons?  Emotional and fear-driven arguments about this do not carry weight here.  Contending that “this is the world we live in now” is not sufficient; the Church must be distinct from the world.  If PCA churches and presbyteries took seriously discipleship and church discipline, if elders led the way in holding Scripture high and applying its principles to their peoples’ lives, then background checks would not and should not be necessary.
The PCA General Assembly and PCA presbyteries should defeat all five overtures to require background checks for ordained leaders, a practice that is both unwise and unbiblical.
Christopher Brown is a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.  He lives in Charleston, South Carolina.
Related Posts:

With a few careless words conflict so quickly rages out of control. Thus, Proverbs urges, in conflict, to speak gentle and wise words that please the Lord and bring healing, rather than gushing harsh and foolish words that anger the Lord and crush those around us.

In the 1970s a professor by the name of Albert Mehrabian proposed his famous 7-38-55 rule of communication. When we communicate our likes and dislikes, the listener’s acceptance of our communication will depend 7 percent on our words, 38 percent on our tone of voice, and 55 percent on our facial expressions and body language.
If I say, “I love pickled herring,” and my voice is slow and monotone and my face looks like a pickled herring, then, despite my words, you won’t put pickled herring out on the table next time we have breakfast together—unless you have a mischievous streak. And if I hear you tell me that you “have no problem with me” with an upbeat voice, but your arms are crossed and you are making overly intense eye contact, then I won’t be convinced.
Texting is less demanding than face-to-face communication.
This means that face-to-face communication is costly, because I know that you are weighing not just my words but also the tone of my voice and my body language. I am going to get an immediate—possibly uncomfortable—response from you. Is this why we prefer less demanding forms of communication? Like a phone call—or even a text?
On the flip side, with face-to-face communication there is far less room for misunderstanding. Even if I don’t get my words exactly right, my tone of voice and expressions will fill in the gap, clarify, or even correct my inadequate or poorly chosen words. Then again, maybe I don’t want you to hear my tone of voice or to see my body language. Perhaps it would say too much…
Texting is especially open to causing misunderstanding.
So although communicating by telephone may be less costly—because you are not seeing and weighing my expressions—it is also more open to misunderstanding. And communicating by email or text is the least costly form of communication: I don’t have to open up my expressions or even my tone of voice to your scrutiny. But I am now 93 percent open to being misunderstood. You have only my bare words, unqualified, unenhanced, and uncorrected by my non-verbal communication.
Now how is this going to work out in a society that is increasingly isolationist and wary of face-to-face contact and where even phoning someone is becoming rare? Research shows that phone apps are only the fifth most used app on smartphones, and I am told that Millennials dislike being called and prefer only text. In fact, they consider it a little rude to be called without prior warning via text!
The LORD has something to say about speaking in the book of Proverbs. His words, written some three thousand years ago, still apply whether we are speaking, writing letters, writing emails or texts, or posting on Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter.
The Bible has a lot to say about the power of speech.
First, consider the Bible’s teaching on the power of speech.

And God said, “Light be.”And light was (Gen 1:3).

When God speaks, light and galaxies and teaming life burst into existence. His words are that powerful. And a word from Jesus could kill a fig tree, calm a storm, and raise a rotting corpse to life.
And our words, like those of our heavenly Father whose image we bear, have power to them. They can’t create ex nihilo, but they can build up and tear down. They can create and destroy. They can bring a torrent of good or evil. James tells us that just as a tiny spark can set ablaze a great forest, so too can the tongue set the whole course of a person’s life on fire.
Our words can do tremendous good or harm.
Very powerful things can do tremendous good or tremendous harm, and so they need to be tamed and controlled and directed in the right way. Proverbs addresses the tongue in the same way it addresses everything, by looking first at the heart.

The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but violence overwhelms the mouth of the wicked. (Prov. 10:11)

When a person has a righteous heart, then their mouth is a “fountain of life.” Their words transform what is saline and dead into something fresh and teaming with life. This makes me think of Ezekiel’s river, flowing east out of God’s Temple, and raising abundant life wherever it goes.
Read More

“You are Republican,” your Facebook algorithm whispers in your ear. “You are a Democrat,” your social circle chants. “You don’t just believe in those political ideas; they are who you are,” the world murmurs. Taking a side and defending it has become the norm in our society. Being with others like us feels safe, comfortable, protected from critique. But when we’re in a place where we separate from others, where we only hear, “Yes, you’re right,” we stagnate and fail to grow. Our political substitute identities leave us self-righteous, angry, and unable to cope with life’s reality: not everyone is like us, sees things the way we do, or wants the same things we do. If our happiness depends on being isolated from differing opinions, it is a false happiness.

In 2016, data scientists Eitan Hersh and Yair Ghitza analyzed data among registered voters to determine how often Democrats and Republicans married. They learned that 30 percent of couples were politically mixed, meaning they did not share the same party identification. However, most of those mixed marriages were between Independents and a spouse registered as Republican or Democrat. Only 9 percent of marriages were between Democrats and Republicans. That number has worsened. In 2020, the American Family Survey saw that only 21 percent of marriages were politically mixed, and fewer than 4 percent were between Democrats and Republicans. The indications are that we tend to only have deep friendships with those who share our political ideology.
In 1958, Gallup Research asked respondents, “‘If you had a daughter of marriageable age, would you prefer she marry a Democrat or Republican, all other things being equal?’ The results: 18% of Americans said they would prefer their daughter to marry a Democrat, 10% preferred a Republican, and the majority didn’t care.” When Gallup asked the same question in 2016, the number of those who cared nearly doubled: “28% of respondents said they preferred their child to marry a Democrat and 27% a Republican.”
In 2017, after Trump won the presidential election, 10 percent of Americans ended a romantic relationship because of different political views.
Politics are divisive no matter what country you live in. England has been split over Brexit (leaving the European Union). France has been divided over immigration policies. And South Korea has massive political division between its younger and older residents and between those in urban and rural environments.
Let’s make this personal. What would your reaction be if you learned a close friend of yours voted for a different presidential candidate than you in each of the past three elections? How would you feel if you walked into a new friend’s home and MSNBC was on the TV in their living room? How about Fox News? How would it impact your friendship?
We long to be around those who validate our opinions and share our worldview. It’s not surprising, then, that our political allegiances have a significant impact on our friendships.
Read More
Related Posts: