Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Monday, May 9, 2022
But the Finnish military members of 1939-40 have not been the only ones to exhibit exemplary valor in the Scandinavian “land of forests.” In a moral sense, in recent years up to the present day the high courage of two Finnish Christians – Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola and Member of Parliament Dr. Päivi Räsänen – has been the equal of their forebears in the Winter War. The two have been charged with hate crimes for teaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.

At the end of November 1939, during a period many Europeans and Americans considered a “phoney war” after the invading, dividing, and absorbing of Poland in September 1939 by Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, the U.S.S.R. attacked its small northern neighbor, Finland. The hardy Finns had enjoyed independence for barely two decades, having been under Russian sovereignty for a century until the 1917 Russian Revolution which gave them the chance to secure their liberty, by force of arms, in 1918. On the surface, the fight in the winter of 1939-40 appeared more uneven than today’s Russo-Ukrainian war, with results equally inspiring to those pulling for the smaller nation.
In 1939, the Soviet Union held more than 100 million subjects; Finland’s population was 4 million. The Soviets had about 3,000 tanks at the outset (the war cost them 1,600); most Finnish soldiers – mostly citizen-soldiers – had never seen a tank. The Soviet air force had some 2,500 aircraft (nearly 1,000 were lost); the Finnish Air Force had not quite 100 machines at the outset, but acquired dozens more from friendly powers during the war, losing about 60 total. Stalin preferred to have a legal pretext for his planned invasion – and following Hitler’s example in Poland – manufactured a border incident intended to depict the Finns as the aggressors. Never mind that the only firing of guns came from the eastern side of the border. Diplomatic initiatives leading up to the unprovoked attack had, unfortunately, dampened the Finns’ preparations for war. When the attack came, a new government was formed immediately, one clearly committed to the nation’s defense.[1]
Ten days after the Soviet attack, foreign minister Molotov – his name soon linked with a homemade, anti-tank explosive later known as the Molotov Cocktail (quite popular in Ukraine nowadays) – claimed in a telegram, with breathtaking dishonesty:
The Soviet Union is not at war with Finland, nor does it threaten the people of Finland with war. . . . The Soviet Union maintains peaceful relations with the Finnish Democratic Republic, whose government on December 2nd concluded with the Soviet Union a treaty of friendship and mutual assistance. This treaty settles all the questions with regard to which the Soviet government had negotiated fruitlessly with the representatives of the former government of Finland, now ejected from office.[2]
If readers are somewhat confused by the treaty of friendship reference, think Donetsk or Luhansk today.
Perhaps the most brazen portion of Molotov’s missive, however, was his reference to Finland’s government being “ejected from office.” As the saying goes, neither Finnish Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, nor his soldiers, got that memo. Although Mannerheim fought against Russians, first in 1918 and again in 1939-40, he had served thirty years as an officer under Tsarist Russia, including participating in the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II in 1896, of which he remained proud all his life.
Under Mannerheim’s leadership in 1939, following the initial shock of seeing tanks in battle for the first time in addition to overwhelming numbers of enemy troops, the Finns fought like tigers, helped by their familiarity with the forests in which many of them worked as loggers and trappers; and their native skills with firearms, severely cold weather, and skiing. In addition, the Finns had the incalculable moral advantage of defending their homeland. Molotov’s communication was revealing, too, in that it presumed the “former government” had fallen – a faulty prediction echoed by a Russian news announcement in late February 2022.[3]
The telegram further illustrated what the noted 20th-century British military historian, Major-General J.F.C. Fuller, wrote concerning the Marxist use of language:
A fundamental principle in Marxian dialectics is verbal inversion. When the accepted meaning of a word or an idea is turned upside down, not only are Communist intentions obscured [to the unsuspecting], but the mind of the non-Communist is misled, and mental confusion leads to a semantic nightmare in which things appear to be firmly planted on their feet, but actually are standing on their heads.
. . . Disarmament to one means one thing, to the other another thing; so also does peace. While to the non-Communist peace is a state of international harmony, to the Communist it is a state of international discord. . . . Communists hold that peace and war are reciprocal terms for a conflict which can only end when the Marxian Beatitude is established; since their final aim is pacific, they are peace lovers.[4]
Thus could Molotov claim unblinkingly that the invading Soviets were not “at war” with Finland, rather, they maintained “peaceful relations” with their neighbor’s government; similar to Russian denials of being at war today. Even closer to home for Americans, however, Fuller’s warning brings to mind the “verbal inversion” and “semantic nightmare” of terms like “systemic racism” that characterizes the madness of neo-Marxist, so-called Critical Race Theory (CRT) – a juvenile, secular religion, not a theory – and its fraudulent, destructive offshoot, Diversity-Equity-Inclusion (DEI). As eminent Professor Thomas Sowell writes, “The mystical benefits of diversity are non-existent, however politically correct it is to proclaim such benefits.” Simply put, if your loved one is to have surgery, do you want the surgeon to have graduated from a medical degree program that pursued diversity or meritocracy? One must choose.[5]
In the Winter War, the Finns held off the Russians during December 1939 and January 1940, during which they achieved stunning, overwhelming victories at difficult-to-spell-and-pronounce place names – at least for English speakers – such as Lake Tolvajärvi (mid-December) and Suomussalmi-Raate (late December-early January).
Tolvajärvi was north of Lake Ladoga which formed the northern border of the strategic Karelian Isthmus. The Finnish commander there, Colonel Talvela, later commented: “In situations like this, as in all confused and hopeless situations, an energetic attack against the nearest enemy was and is the only way to improve the spirits of the men and to get control of the situation.” No wonder Mannerheim thought so highly of him. Talvela was promoted to Major-General.
North of Tolvajärvi, the roughly west-to-east Suomussalmi-Raate Road (Raate was near the Finnish-Russian border), ran across the narrow “waist” of Finland where the Soviets hoped to cut the country in two. In that battle the Russians suffered from temperatures as low as minus 25 degrees C. (likely much lower), to which they were unaccustomed, limited food supplies, and aggressive harassing attacks by the Finns. Russian losses there were estimated at 30,000. News from the Finnish front captured the world’s attention and was the cause célèbre of the day.
Churchill, four months away from becoming prime minister, made a broadcast, stating: “Only Finland – superb, nay, sublime – in the jaws of peril – Finland shows what free men can do. The service rendered by Finland to mankind is magnificent. . . . If the light of freedom which still burns so brightly in the frozen North should be finally quenched, it might well herald a return to the Dark Ages. . . .”[6]
February and early March 1940 were a much different story, however. A new Russian commander, Semyon Konstantinovich Timoshenko, was named and given almost unlimited resources in men and materiel. In his memoirs, Mannerheim described the difference from December-January to February-March: “The enemy’s attacks in December could be compared with a badly-conducted orchestra,” as infantry, armor, and artillery were uncoordinated. By February, experienced and under Timoshenko’s leadership, they had learned to orchestrate their arms. Such improvements, in addition to the willingness to accept massive losses which the Russians could replace but the Finns could not, forced the Finnish government to sign a severe settlement in March, according to which they lost 12 percent of their population and some 25,000 square miles of territory including the Karelian Isthmus. But Finland survived and was to prosper again in years to come.[7]
But the Finnish military members of 1939-40 have not been the only ones to exhibit exemplary valor in the Scandinavian “land of forests.” In a moral sense, in recent years up to the present day the high courage of two Finnish Christians – Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola and Member of Parliament Dr. Päivi Räsänen – has been the equal of their forebears in the Winter War. The two have been charged with hate crimes for teaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.
In 2004, Dr. Räsänen, a physician and former Minister of the Interior, wrote a short booklet on the Bible’s teachings regarding sexuality, including a section on homosexuality. Bishop Pohjola’s church published the booklet. In addition, Dr. Räsänen was charged with tweeting a Bible verse in response to the liberal state church’s sponsorship of an LGBTQ parade and for taking part in a debate on the subject in 2019.
Gene Veith writes, “Three years ago, over a decade and a half after the publication of the booklet, the two were charged for inciting hatred against homosexuals,” despite the fact that Finland did not legalize same-sex unions – I will not call it marriage – until 2017. In 2022, finally their case has been brought to trial. By the way, Finland claims to guarantee freedom of speech and religion. If found guilty, the two could face fines and up to two years in prison.[8]
To turn a bizarre case into an even stranger dystopian, yet evangelistic, event, in January the prosecution elected to shift attention away from the two defendants. As Joy Pullmann of the Federalist writes, “Finnish prosecutors described quotations from the Bible as ‘hate speech.’ Finland’s top prosecutor’s office essentially put the Bible on trial, an unprecedented move for a secular court.” In scenes that Bible readers of the Apostle Paul before the likes of Felix and Agrippa (Acts 24-26) might recall, the lead Finnish prosecutor actually read out Old Testament verses, quoting them to the court. When prosecutors then proceeded to question Pohjola and Räsänen concerning their beliefs, the two had the opportunity to proclaim the gospel in the courtroom. Bishop Pohjola and Dr. Räsänen have on multiple occasions “publicly affirmed that they are not motivated by hate, but by love in stating the historic, orthodox Christian faith.” Outside the court, Räsänen spoke to reporters with faithfulness and winsomeness: “The saving gospel of Jesus Christ has been given to us in the Bible. . . . The cross of Christ shows the greatest love for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.”[9]
How ironic that a miniscule number – in this case, only two – spiritual descendants of those outnumbered and outgunned patriots who, for 105 days during the fearful Scandinavian winter of 1939-40, fought heroically to preserve Finland’s independence should, in 2022, find themselves the subject of naked state-sponsored persecution fairly reeking of the very tyranny against which nearly 25,000 Finns gave all against the invading enemy.
Sadly, today Finland is only one of many Western nations, including the United States, in which the few – but steadily increasing – morally courageous stand in contrast to the cowardly majority that embrace, knowingly or otherwise, Fuller’s Marxian Beatitude in its current CRT/DEI/cancel-culture iteration, revealing a weak, sickly body politic and a culture unworthy of their forefathers’ courage and sacrifices.[10]
As the afflictions of aggressive, compulsive, humanistic ideologies are manifested irrespective of locale, tradition, or historical precedent, more and more erstwhile quiet Christians and other principled individuals are determining to “live not by lies.” Rod Dreher writes, “Under the guise of ‘diversity,’ ‘inclusivity,’ ‘equity,’ and other egalitarian jargon, the Left creates powerful mechanisms for controlling thought and discourse and marginalizes dissenters as evil.”[11] As my senior pastor says, the Lord is “gloriously unpredictable.” Moreover, David in the 11th Psalm writes, “If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?” The next verse answers: “The LORD is in His holy temple; the LORD’s throne is in heaven.” His sovereignty rules over all (Psalm 103:19). May today’s followers of Jesus Christ lift hearts in prayer for the upholding of true righteousness, beginning in their own little spheres, in their own little corners of Zion, and ultimately to the ends of the earth. As the prophet Zechariah writes, “These are the things which you should do: speak the truth to one another; judge with truth and judgment for peace in your gates” (8:16).
On 1 April 2022, the Center for Religious Liberty reported that on 30 March a Helsinki court dismissed all charges against Dr. Räsänen. (The brief report did not mention Bishop Pohjola.) While this was only one spiritual battle in a long conflict, let us give thanks to God. . . .
Forrest Marion is a ruling elder in Eastwood Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Montgomery, Ala.

[1] Eric Lewenhaupt, trans., The Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim (London: Cassell and Company, Ltd, 1953), 365, 369.
[2] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 328; Robert Edwards, The Winter War: Russia’s Invasion of Finland, 1939-40 (New York: Pegasus Books, 2008), 139-40 (Molotov quoted by Edwards), 192. Mannerheim wrote, “In-fighting with tanks was to provide some of the most heroic incidents of the Winter War, for to attack them with only this bottle in one’s hand required skill as well as courage” (328).
[3] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 366; Edwards, Winter War, 157.
[4] J.F.C. Fuller, The Conduct of War, 1789-1961: A Study of the Impact of the French, Industrial, and Russian Revolutions on War and Its Conduct (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1961), 211-12.
[5] Thomas Sowell, Dismantling America: and Other Controversial Essays (New York: Basic Books, 2010 [2002]), chap. 20 (audiobook).
[6] Edwards, Winter War, 152-85 (Talvela quoted by Edwards), 223 (Churchill quoted by Edwards); Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 334-40.
[7] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 350-53; Edwards, Winter War, 204, 228.
[8] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 366; Gene Veith, “Finland Explicitly Puts the Bible on Trial,” The Aquila Report, 4 Feb 2022 (originally in patheos.com, 26 Jan 2022).
[9] Veith, “Finland Explicitly Puts the Bible on Trial,” 26 Jan 2022 (Pullmann quoted by Veith). For additional reading on this case, see Joy Pullmann, “In Case With Global Implications, Finland Puts Christians on Trial for Their Faith,” The Aquila Report, 30 Nov 2021 (originally in thefederalist.com, 23 Nov 2021); [Mathew] Block, “Finnish Bishop Elect Charged Over Historic Christian Teachings On Human Sexuality,” The Aquila Report, 6 May 2021 (originally in ilc-online.org [International Lutheran Council]), 30 Apr 2021; Kiley Crossland, “Finnish Church Embraces Gay Marriage, Loses 12,000 Members,” The Aquila Report, 30 Dec 2014 (originally in wng.org, 4 Dec 2014).
[10] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 365, 370.
[11] Rod Dreher, Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents (New York: Sentinel, 2020), xii. Dreher took his book’s title from a letter of famed Soviet dissident and author, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Related Posts:

In your reaction against others in the denomination you have given yourselves to a form of organization and methods that are not acceptable, and now the only way that you can you remove the offense of your unjustified secret political machinations is by openly repenting of them. Write a letter and post it at A Faithful PCA, ByFaith, or some such suitable place.

Read Part 1
The Practical Consequences of Secrecy
In your activism you have been very zealous; but “desire without knowledge is not good” (Prov. 19:2), and the knowledge that you lack is the knowledge that forming a secret organization offends your brothers, causes scandal, and is not an acceptable way of achieving your desired ends. You wish to see the PCA make inroads into previously underrepresented areas and groups, but in so doing you approach the matter wrongly and offend those who are already your brothers for the sake of unbelievers who may never repent. One should “give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32), but should labor carefully after the example of Paul (v. 32; comp. Acts 24:16) and others to “give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all” (Rom. 12:17) and to avoid giving offense insofar as it is possible (1 Tim. 3:15; 1Pet. 2:12-17).
This is not what you have done. You were under no obligation to form your organization at all, much less to do it in secret, and much less still to persist in this secrecy for years and in the face of much criticism. This is not striving to “live peaceably with all” (Rom. 12:18) or pursuing “what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (14:19). This is offending the brother and stirring up strife needlessly. Such secrecy gives a poor testimony: if one is right, it is cowardice and hiding one’s lamp (Matt. 5:14-16); and if others are wrong, it is failing to confront them appropriately in a suitably blunt, manful way.
A Further Objection Considered
Perhaps you will object and say that the reason for your secrecy is to avoid slander, because others are in the habit of publicly misrepresenting your character. In such a case you have two recourses. One, you can avail yourself of the process of reconciliation that our Lord has prescribed for us to deal with personal offenses (Matt. 18:15-20), appealing to the church courts if personal admonition proves insufficient. Two, you may elect to forbear the offense, knowing that the sufferance of slander is a mark of the believer’s life in this world, and that it is a gracious thing (1 Pet. 3:13-17) to endure it patiently. Scripture does not say that you are permitted to withdraw into secret enclaves to avoid slander, and as a practical question such secrecy rather gives more occasion to the suspicion of others than reduces it.
An Apology for this Letter
But perhaps all of this is too much. You little like such blunt public criticism of your secret doings. What offense has anyone done you in criticizing or opposing you? Have we not labored to faithfully reprove you for what we believe are your failings? Is such not our duty to you as fellow members of Christ’s church? Perhaps we are wrong to one degree or another, or as regards some matters, or in some of our methods. Perhaps some have even descended from just confrontation to something as heinous as slander, as you allege. I do not make excuses for that, if indeed it is true – I know nothing of such incidents to judge either way – but speak for the many who have disagreed with you whose intent and aims have been good. If you like not the plainness of our speech or its content may it be fairly asked whether the source of offense lies in the remonstrances or in the ones who receive them?
Test your hearts and consider whether there be any pride there that prejudices you in this matter and that closes your minds and hardens your hearts against reproof. You set yourselves up as the proponents of a ‘beautiful orthodoxy’ and ‘a faithful PCA,’ and you write public letters of disagreement defending yourselves, while at all levels of the church courts you work ceaselessly to fashion its polity as you will. Is it unthinkable this has made you blind to your own faults or to the justice of the criticisms that others level against you? It is hard, as a matter of practical human nature, to zealously work for a great scheme of reform without becoming proud, stubborn, and slow to listen. Have you considered whether this is the case with you? Have you tested yourselves and taken the logs out of your own eyes, or do you make haste in assailing others?
It is the latter. Your sincerity is not doubted, nor, for that matter, are some of your claims. The Presbyterian Church in America is a human institution, rife with weakness and sin. It has, as such, many grounds upon which it may be criticized and sundry points at which it needs to amend its deeds. It is not denied that we have often had a poor record in our dealings with various groups, nor that we are prone to complacency, pride, and sundry sins that involve how we conceive of ourselves and relate to others and to material things.
A Call to Repentance
But where some have fallen too far to the right into worldly respectability and have come perilously close to a dead orthodoxy that is but a veneer over a substance that is more of a piece with a WASP-ish country club than the church of Christ, your danger is to fall too far in the other direction. In your reaction against others in the denomination you have given yourselves to a form of organization and methods that are not acceptable, and now the only way that you can you remove the offense of your unjustified secret political machinations is by openly repenting of them. Write a letter and post it at A Faithful PCA, ByFaith, or some such suitable place. Sign it and declare yourselves openly, and as a part of it renounce secrecy and promise to surrender office forever if you are caught in it again and to faithfully reveal anyone whom you know that persists in or returns to it. Apologize also for the offense you have caused your brethren and extol others to not follow in the way of your wrongdoing. Such is the way of honor and honesty, and if you will not take it there are many who will think of you as guilty of impenitent contumacy against the peace and purity of the church.
Further Concerns
It is not only your secretive tendencies that are an occasion for concern. To be blunt – not in an effort to be rude, mind you, but in the interests of speaking the truth faithfully – you come across as rather arrogant and hypocritical. You are rather snidely dismissive of others that disagree with you: The Aquila Report is just a “gossip outlet,” a mere handful of writers against your own robust multitude of elders, while the concerns of others are repeatedly brushed aside as just so much social media outrage. The Nashville Statement is, not a faithful summary of historic teachings about sexuality, but rather “simply the latest stick being used to whack away the unclean,” and it stretches the bounds of credulity to think that anyone regards it as anything “more than empty words.” Any notion of the PCA sliding into liberalism is just a “myth” that you regard as an inconvenience, as it requires you to justify your deeds to others, while in discussing homosexual lust you sarcastically ask whether those that experience such lust should not be “allowed in the fellowship of half-blind [donkeys] looking for the Glory of the Lord?”
There is little charity in such statements, casting aspersions upon the motives and character of others as they do. If The Aquila Report and other sites are just “gossip outlets” aren’t you implicitly accusing their proprietors and contributors of sin? And as for calling your fellow Presbyterians “half-blind [donkeys],” you seem to have forgotten the testimony of Scripture on this point, that “if anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless” (Jas. 1:26), and, further, that you ought to “let your speech always be gracious” (Col. 4:6) and “let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up” (Eph. 4:29). It is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks (Lk. 6:45), and so, by extension, that the fingers type.
But perhaps the best example of arrogance can be seen in a tweet by your founder, in which he retweeted a video of a sheep perpetually running into a ditch and becoming stuck each time it was freed, a video whose original comment was a bit of foul language unacceptable in the eyes of many unbelievers, and which received the further comment from your founder that this was “the pastoral care process, explained.” God says that you are to “shepherd the flock of God that is among you . . . not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:2-3) and that you are to “show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned” (Tit. 2:7-8). He does not commend that you use bad language and make light of your holy calling and arrogantly belittle the sheep in the process. By your words here you sound rather like the shepherds of Israel whom God condemned for arrogance and selfishness (Eze. 34), for you have fun at the expense of those whose slaves you are (Mk. 10:42-45).
As for your hypocrisy, you speak with much emotion of our common brotherhood, with many pious phrases decrying division and extolling unity and peace in both public (e.g., “The Open Letter” at A Faithful PCA) and in your own midst, yet by your deeds and other internal statements – such as those mentioned above – you draw all of this into suspicion. Again, you want the PCA to be a big tent that includes within its midst every substrata of American society, but you seem little concerned that in your desire for expansion according to your tastes you are actively alienating many of our own members and churches even now, and in some cases inducing them to leave.
At the 2019 General Assembly one of your number stated, in effect, that we should be greatly concerned that the world thinks our foremost trait is hatred of homosexuals and that we should work to rehabilitate our image; and yet when fellow PCA elders attempt to remonstrate with you over your perceived failings you dismiss them pretty much categorically as engaged in so much fear mongering and alarmist nonsense. Thus do you say that we should listen to the wicked who are blinded by the lies of Satan, and yet you would also close your ears to the reproofs of the faithful. Do you believe that you may pay lip service to unity while acting in a dismissive way that makes it impossible, or that you may leave your ears open to culture, even unbelieving and wholly immoral culture, and yet close them to your fellow presbyters and not come to a bad end?
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.

The proposed amendment does not so much revise BCO 32-20 as it removes one provision and substitutes it with another. It removes the requirement binding the church to act in a timely manner to uphold the honor of Christ in cases of scandal. In its place, it leaves the question of what constitutes a timely matter to uncertain whims of individual church courts resulting in differing actions based on undefined variables.

The Book of Church Order (BCO) 32-20, as it presently stands, binds the Church to act in a timely manner in cases of public scandal where the reputation of Christ is at stake. The question is: do we really want to remove this requirement for the Church to act in a timely manner in cases of scandal? The proposed amendment does so. For the honor of Christ, we should preserve this requirement, vote down the proposed amendment, and seek an amendment that better addresses the valid concerns raised in the original overture.
BCO 32-20
The present version of BCO 32-20 reads, “Process, in case of scandal, shall commence within the space of one year after the offense was committed, unless it has recently become flagrant” (emphasis added). Timely action is not optional: in cases scandal the Church shall act within the space of one year.
Ramsay and Smith’s Comment on BCO 32-20
In commenting on this paragraph in the PCA’s BCO, both F. P. Ramsay and Morton Smith say the purpose is to incite the church to the prompt prosecution of scandal (a flagrant public offense of practice which is bringing open disgrace on Christ). Ramsay explains:
The principle is that, if the Church neglects to commence process against scandal (which is any flagrant public offence of practice bringing disgrace on the Church) within a year, she is debarred from thereafter doing it. This is not to shield the offender, but to incite to the prompt prosecution of such offences. Offences not so serious or scandalous the Church may bear with the longer while seeking to prevent scandal; but for no consideration is the Church to tolerate such offences as are scandalous.
Do we really want to remove this incitement, this incentive?
Context
Overture 22 was brought before the PCA General Assembly past midnight on Thursday night. We were informed by the stated clerk that the venue was requiring us to leave by 12:45AM. Consequently, the Assembly didn’t have much time or energy to give this overture due consideration. A substitute motion was made to refer Overture 22 to the following year’s Overtures Committee, but (predictably, given the time), there was no discussion. The substitute motion was defeated and the proposed amendment passed.
A revision to BCO 32-20 deserves better consideration.
The Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment does not so much revise BCO 32-20 as it removes one provision and substitutes it with another. It removes the requirement binding the church to act in a timely manner to uphold the honor of Christ in cases of scandal. In its place, it leaves the question of what constitutes a timely matter to uncertain whims of individual church courts resulting in differing actions based on undefined variables.
The proposed amendment reads: “There is no statute of limitations, per se, for prosecuting offenses. However, the accused or member of the court may object to the consideration of a charge, for example, if he thinks the passage of time since the alleged offense makes fair adjudication unachievable. The court should consider factors such as the gravity of the alleged offense as well as what degradations of evidence and memory may have occurred in the intervening period.”
Why One Year?
Overture 22 treated BCO 32-20, in effect, as a statute of limitations. It recognized that BCO 32-20 does not establish a statute of limitations for all offenses. Then it went on to argue that a statute of limitations of one-year makes little sense for cases of scandal. “Expeditious process is certainly important in such a case, but if the cause of Christ is jeopardized by the Church’s neglect of timely discipline, how would disallowing prosecution on day 366 repair the matter? The scandal would continue, unabated.”
Ramsay does say that the effect of BCO 32-20 is that, if the Church fails to act within a year in a case of scandal, she is debarred thereafter from doing it. But then he points out that the intent is not to shield the offender (the main purpose is not to establish a statute of limitations): the purpose is to incite the Church to act to uphold the honor of Christ in cases of public scandal.
Still, the question stands: what is the point of debarring the Church from acting after one year? The point of acting within a year is to ensure that fair adjudication takes place while it is still achievable—before degradations of evidence and memory make it impossible. In less serious matters, as Ramsay points out, the Church may risk the passage of time while it labors to avoid scandal. But in cases where Christ’s name is already being drug through the mud, the Church must take prompt action. It cannot risk degradations of evidence and memory making adjudication impossible: then the scandal really would continue, unabated!
What about Cases of Abuse?
Overture 22 did point out a valid concern: cases of alleged abuse. It is difficult to commence process within the space of one year after the offense was committed, since allegations of abuse often surface and become scandalous well after the alleged abuse took place. The present version of BCO 32-20 does seem to make adjudication impossible in such cases, and this weakness in the PCA’s BCO should be addressed.
But a better revision should continue to bind the Church to address allegations of abuse promptly. It could, for instance, be revised to say the church shall act within the space of one year after the offense has become scandalous. In the case of scandal, the “start time” is typically definite: there was a time the scandal broke and become public. In the case of abuse, there is a definite time when the allegation was made. We should bind ourselves to take those allegations seriously and commence process in a timely manner while fair adjudication is still possible—both for the honor of Christ and the good of alleged victim.
Precedent Cases
There is no need to amend BCO 32-20 in such a drastic way. The Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) found the present wording in BCO 32-20 useful in deciding a number of recent cases.[1] If the proposed amendment were in force these cases might have been judged with different outcomes. This provision has been tested and found useful, not wanting as is alleged in the reasoning for changing it.
Conclusion
For the honor of Christ, we need to amend the present wording of BCO 32-20, let us offer wording that does not remove the principles that have guided the PCA since its beginning. We can seek to address those valid concerns raised by Overture 22 without eviscerating the entirety of the present wording, and at the same time will continue to bind the Church to act promptly in cases of scandal, including abuse. Overture 22 recognizes that expeditious process is important in such cases, but the proposed amendment may actually be fighting against itself by effectively removing this requirement. In reality, the proposed amendment lets church courts off the hook by allowing them to delay acting when justice demands speedier judicial process.
Since we as can do better than what the BCO 32-20 amendment proposes, presbyteries should vote not to approve the amendment, and then let us work on drafting a more effective one.
Anton Heuss is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Bethel PCA in Dallas, Texas.
[1] Here are two cases decided by the Standing Judicial Commission using the present wording of BCO 32-20. These precedents have already proved useful in guiding lower church courts in their conduct of cases. See SJC 2016-05, Troxell v Southwest Presbytery (https://www.pcahistory.org/pca/ga/45th_pcaga_2017.pdf, pp. 514-520), and SJC 2019-08, Ganzel v Central Florida Presbytery (to be published in the Minutes of the 48th General Assembly).