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:

The nature of truth is under attack in our culture and we are woefully unskilled in debating truth. Truth is debated in the public square with snarky memes. I’ll admit that I like snarky memes, but let’s be honest, memes do not educate or persuade. We need church leaders who will stand for truth regardless of whether truth is popular in the larger culture. Further, we need church leaders who will teach about how truth is established. Archbishop Welby has failed us in this regard.

Who better than the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to report on a conference of Anglican bishops? The BBC is satisfied that the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has brokered a compromise on one of the most controversial issues of the day, namely, which sexual expressions the churches in the Anglican Communion should countenance.
How does one compromise irreconcilably different positions? Archbishop Welby’s solution is that the traditional doctrine remains on paper, but those who flout the doctrine will not be sanctioned. So, everyone is happy?
In a piece headlined, “Lambeth Conference: Welby unites bishops with compromise on sexuality,” the BBC states that the archbishop has “found the formula for now,” which suggests that even the BBC knows the compromise will not stand the test of time. Indeed, archbishops from Nigeria, Rwanda, and Uganda chose not to attend the Lambeth Conference, believing that compromise was inconsistent with the truth-preserving role of the church.
The bishops from these and other African countries support maintaining traditional teaching while those bishops who want to liberalize the church’s teaching are from Western nations. This same geographic divide prevails in parallel debates within the United Methodist Church. It is not unique to Anglicanism. And therein is a significant spoiler alert: the United Methodist Church has begun splitting over such issues. Past compromises to preserve traditional teaching on paper but not in behavior have not unified.
As the BBC explains the situation, the positions of both the African churches and the Western churches can be best understood by understanding the surrounding cultures in which they serve. Thus, the African churches will be most respected by those in their surrounding culture if they maintain traditional teachings about sexuality while the Western churches will have more respect from their cultures if their teaching is liberalized.
Missing from the BBC analysis is a consideration of how bishops, or anyone else, knows what is true. What is truth? Both the BBC and Archbishop Welby seem to argue for the position that truth must be acceptable to the larger culture. Experiencing “derision” or “contempt” would be dangerous for the church.
Yes, Christians are to avoid antagonizing the larger culture for the sake of antagonizing it. We should not bring suffering upon ourselves by doing evil. But Jesus told us that as the world hated Him, it would hate us. Neither approbation nor condemnation from the larger culture determine the truth of Christian doctrine.
Fidelity to Biblical teaching is the standard by which doctrine must be judged. It is disappointing that the BBC does not even consider the possibility that doctrine should have a Biblical foundation. An educated reader, however, should understand that historically Christians have used the Bible as the foundation for church doctrine.
I am not sure the BBC is demonstrating ignorance or neutrality with its news report. Rather, I think the BBC is showing a complete disregard of the claim that the church offers truth authored by God; truth that applies in all times and cultures. The BBC is going beyond disagreeing with the African bishops. The BBC is undermining the relevance of the African bishops and the faith they represent by pretending that the church makes no meaningful truth claims.
The BBC would have the church promote whatever makes people in each time and place feel warm and safe. This appears to be Archbishop Welby’s approach, too. But this has never been the church’s mission. Jesus was not crucified because he made everyone feel warm and safe.
Ultimately Welby’s compromise will please no one for more than a moment. Worse, the archbishop has weakened the church’s claim to be a possessor of cross-cultural timeless truths and has undercut a historical approach to ascertaining the truth.
The nature of truth is under attack in our culture and we are woefully unskilled in debating truth. Truth is debated in the public square with snarky memes. I’ll admit that I like snarky memes, but let’s be honest, memes do not educate or persuade. We need church leaders who will stand for truth regardless of whether truth is popular in the larger culture. Further, we need church leaders who will teach about how truth is established. Archbishop Welby has failed us in this regard.
The issue of truth has implications that go beyond an international gathering of bishops. We must consider what our schools and colleges are teaching about truth. Is truth knowable, and if so, how is truth knowable? Education should move us to a more sophisticated understanding than memes can provide. May God bless us with more institutions that educate well.
Dr. Joseph J. Horton is professor of psychology at Grove City College and the Working Group Coordinator for Marriage and Family with the Institute for Faith and Freedom. He is also a researcher on Positive Youth Development. Used with permission.
Related Posts:

If we have learned anything through the last four years, we ought to have learned how worthy Christ is of our love. We have seen so much more clearly the necessity of His body, the beauty of holiness, and the majesty of worship. Moreover, we have seen His unyielding faithfulness to us, sustaining us through an unprecedented period in our lives.

Recently a picture of the 2020 AWANA Grand Prix displayed on my tv screensaver. As I looked at the image and saw many familiar faces of people sitting close together and kids smiling and playing, I reflected on how this event was the last major event we had as a church before the world shut down in response to the COVID-19 virus. Little did we know during the Grand Prix how quickly and drastically everything was about to change.
In what seemed like an instant in March 2020, the entire world changed. Curfews were enacted. Many stores and restaurants were closed. All sporting events were canceled. Schools were shut down and eventually went online. Travel was halted. Gloves were initially recommended for grocery shopping to help slow the spread of the virus. Then those recommendations were eventually replaced with mask mandates. And, most shocking of all, countless churches closed their doors and sat nearly empty on Sunday mornings. Typically, only the preacher and the support staff needed to livestream a service were present, as worship went virtual for the majority of congregants.
Debates quickly began to swirl about whether the church should be open or closed due to the COVID-19 virus. Was the church essential, or could the functions of the church go virtual without losing the essence of what the church is all about? When mask mandates were imposed, the debate intensified: should churches require their congregations to mask to attend worship? Did church leaders even have the biblical authority to make such a requirement of God’s people? Churches divided sharply over these and other issues throughout the year, with the result that many people today attend a different church than the one they attended on February 29, 2020. Tragically, many people who went virtual with worship have never returned to church even four years later.
Throughout this tumultuous time, American Christians had the opportunity to reflect on the significance of the local church. The freedom to wake up on a Sunday morning and attend worship without government regulations affecting our gatherings was something we took for granted pre-COVID-19. In light of COVID-19 and the government mandates, we came to terms with the reality that this freedom is not guaranteed and is something that we should cherish.
Yet there are signs that the lessons learned during 2020 are starting to grow dim in our memories. With life returning mostly to normal, masks becoming less commonplace, and society running at full steam, we quickly forget how essential and precious the gathering of the saints is. We once again can begin to take for granted the centrality of worship. We easily might skip a Sunday because we had a long week at work and feel tired, or we allow other obligations to crowd out the central priority of corporate worship.
Read More
Related Posts: