Category: Book of Church Order

A Biblical and Confessional Case for Requiring Background Checks for Church Officers

At last year’s General Assembly, an overture requiring background checks for church officers was defeated in the Overtures Committee. I don’t recall many of the arguments stated in the course of debate, but one I do remember was when a pastor stood up and said that we didn’t need background checks because no one knows a pastor better than his elders.

As the DASA report points out, “perpetrators are masterful at deceit and manipulation.”[1] In the report, we specifically tackled the myth of seemingly knowing a person:

7. I know him, and he couldn’t be an abuser!

Even specially trained individuals suggest it can be very difficult to identify an abuser in public settings. Image management is “used every day by abusers throughout the world.” Abusive people are very manipulative in their relationships. Deception is how they maintain power; therefore, they are well-versed at how to convince others of their innocence.[2]

Again, I will continue to commend the DASA report for reading and study as we consider these weighty issues.

One argument against requiring background checks that I have seen recently is another version of the grassroots argument. You can read it here. Additionally there have been some pretty extensive debates on x.com under the #pcaga hashtag.

While I do recommend that you read the article and form your own opinion, I will summarize the central argument as this: background checks are good, but we shouldn’t require them because that would be requiring a church to spend money, which is a violation of BCO 25-10. While others on x.com have adequately refuted parts of this: BCO 25 is about real property, the BCO and RAO require other expenses like paying for officers to attend the meetings of Presbytery and GA and printing and binding your minutes for review, etc.

However, here I want to briefly deal with a Biblical and Confessional rationale for why we should require background checks for not only church officers (that’s a good start) but also for anyone who will be in direct contact with children on a regular basis.

A Biblical Argument for Background Checks

Let us begin with a key scriptural mandate. Deuteronomy 22:8 states, “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.” Building a parapet on the roof of your house is a reasonable protective measure. It will not prevent any and every possibility of a person falling from your roof, including someone intentionally trying to throw themselves off the roof, but it is required in scripture because it will save lives and it is a reasonable expense to undertake.

This is also true of background checks. Like parapets, there are different kinds of checks of varying quality and comprehensiveness. Some, like running a name through a state police database, may only cost $20. A full record search of federal, state, and local databases and court records may cost around $200. In the same way there are flimsy parapets and there are very sturdy well made ones that are harder to get over.

Background checks are also similar to parapets in that a background check, even the most comprehensive one, will not identify every predator. That’s because the person hasn’t been arrested and convicted, or, if they have, they’ve pled down to a lesser offense. Thus, a background check will not identify every predator, just like a parapet can’t stop everyone who is hellbent on throwing him or herself off a roof. Nevertheless, building a parapet is a biblical mandate because it is a reasonable expense to make in order to prevent some injury and death. We can reasonably apply this biblical principle to background checks, therefore I fully support an amendment to our BCO to require them for officers.

The Confessional Argument for Background Checks

Now onto the confessional mandate for background checks. We begin with our duties and sins forbidden as church leaders under the fifth commandment:

WLC 129  What is required of superiors towards their inferiors? A. It is required of superiors according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to… protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honour to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God hath put upon them.

WLC 130  What are the sins of superiors? A. The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them… careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonouring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behaviour.

It is our duty as leaders of the church, under the Fifth Commandment, to protect those under our care and not to carelessly expose them to danger. Not obtaining a comprehensive background check for anyone who is going to be in authority in the church is a violation of the Fifth Commandment, and thus it is completely appropriate for the Constitution of the PCA to require that expense.

Lastly, we will move to the Sixth Commandment.

WLC 135  What are the duties required in the sixth commandment? A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavours, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by… avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defence thereof against violence,… and protecting and defending the innocent.

WLC 136  What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are… the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life,… and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

I focus on the Sixth Commandment here because all forms of abuse essentially boil down to a violation of the commandment not to murder, as I discuss in the DASA Report.[3] A further confessional mandate for requiring background checks for church officers is found under the duty to preserve life, by both avoiding practices that endanger life and acting to preserve it. Further, a willful neglect or withdrawal of lawful and necessary means of preserving life is a grave sin. A comprehensive criminal background check would absolutely prevent a known predator from doing more harm. If a known predator came to your church, a background check would enable you to identify him and take proper protective measures. It’s true, as I state above, that background checks will not catch every predator, but they will identify some of them and it is unconscionable not to use that tool to protect the flock of Jesus Christ from wolves intent to do them harm.

Because I do believe that neglect of this particular measure to protect life is a sin, I also believe that our Constitution should mandate background checks for church officers.

Postscript

I have heard some say that there are people who appear on sexual offender registries that are not predators. This is where I will put in a plug for one of the DASA Report’s items of advice to churches and presbyteries:

5. That competent third parties be engaged by Presbyteries, churches, and other PCA ministries when allegations of abuse arise.[4]

 If, in the course of obtaining a background check or running a name through a registered sex offender database, your church finds out that someone has been convicted of a crime related to abuse, and that person claims that it was a misunderstanding or youthful indiscretion, or whatever, you should never take that person at their word. There is too much at stake! You should then find someone who knows what they are doing (me, for example) and let them help you navigate the process of determining exactly what happened so you can make a better judgment and set good policy going forward. If it truly was that a guy mooned someone 20 years ago, that can obviously be forgiven and the person restored. But how will you know unless you look deeper into the matter? This is the moment to obtain police reports, sentencing statements, and charging documents. These will tell the fuller picture. Then get some help determining what your next step should be. With this information and assistance your Session or Presbytery can make the best possible decision in the interests of justice and protection of the flock of God.

[1] M49GA, p. 1139. See also pp. 962, 964, 1007, 1009, 1047, 1053, 1061, 1062, 1082, 1105, 1116, 1139 1198, 1239, and 1247.

[2] Ibid., p. 1221.

[3] “The locus of many sinful behaviors falling under the heading of abuse is found in the sixth commandment,” M49GA, p. 974

[4] Ibid., p. 951.

On the use of Police Reports in PCA Church Courts

In the debate over whether non-theists should be allowed to testify in PCA courts, one of the most common objections is that the change is unnecessary because police reports can be admitted into evidence.

This response reveals both an unfamiliarity with the DASA Report and a lack of experience in real life situations of investigating and adjudicating abuse in the courts of the church.

In this essay I will give six reasons why we cannot solely depend on police reports to provide the church with evidence in our judicial proceedings and thus why we should be willing to admit the testimony of any relevant and competent person.

I will be citing statistics detailed in the DASA report. As a person with a scientific background and a PhD in the humanities that demanded rigorous documentation of all my claims and sources, I personally tracked down the source of every statistic and searched for many others that further demonstrated the claims we were making in that report. The DASA report provides documentation and links, most of which cite peer reviewed academic journals or the studies of government agencies. If there was a claim that I could not find a solid source for, it was not included in the DASA report.

1. The vast majority of assaults go unreported to police.

The DASA report points out that only 310 out of every 1,000 (that’s 31%) of sexual assaults are ever reported to police.[1] According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, only 37% of rapes are ever reported to police.[2] The same fact sheet states that only 12% of child sexual assaults are reported to police.[3]

This means that somewhere between 63% and 69% of sexual assaults do not have police reports. 88% of child sexual assaults do not have police reports. For the vast majority of sexual assaults, police reports simply do not exist. We cannot depend solely on the existence of police reports in the investigation and adjudication of abuse claims in the church courts.

Somewhere between 63% and 69% of sexual assaults do not have police reports. 88% of child sexual assaults do not have police reports. For the vast majority of sexual assaults, police reports simply do not exist.

2. Police reports are difficult to obtain.

In my practical experience the police are not enthusiastic to support a church investigation or judicial proceeding. Even when a police report exists, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain. In order to obtain a police report a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request will likely have to be made, even for the reporting victim to obtain the report. I am highly skeptical of the willingness of police officers or district attorneys to hand over evidence or serve as witnesses in a church judicial proceeding. This is especially so in areas of our country that have a higher non-Christian population who are becoming more and more suspicious of the church.

3. Assaults reported to police rarely end in conviction or go to trial.

As detailed in the DASA Report, assaults reported to the police rarely result in any meaningful justice for the victim, “Statistically, 50 out of 310 sexual assaults reported to law enforcement result in criminal charges. Approximately 25 will result in conviction and jail time. One study concluded that only ‘1.6% of all complaints ended in a trial.’ Of the many studies, it is clear that statistically a sexual assault case is not likely to make it to trial.”[4]

To state this more plainly: only 5% of sexual assaults will ever result in criminal charges. Only 2.5% will ever result in a criminal conviction. Because many of these are plea deals, only 1.6% of sexual assaults ever make it to trial.

Combine this with the fact that false reports of sexual assault fall in the range of 2%-8% and you have an enormous miscarriage of justice in our country.[5] If the offender is a church member, or especially a church leader, it is incumbent on the courts of the church to be able to hold the offender accountable and to protect victims even when the secular authorities do not.

Only 5% of sexual assaults will ever result in criminal charges. Only 2.5% will ever result in a criminal conviction. Because many of these are plea deals, only 1.6% of sexual assaults ever make it to trial.

4. Police reports have not been adjudicated by judge or jury.

The information in a police report is the opinion of one or several arresting officers. While the witness claims made within it are usually made with under the penalty of perjury, the veracity of the police report has not been adjudicated by a judge or jury. As pointed out above, only 1.6% of sexual assaults ever make it to trial. Only 8% of police reports result in criminal convictions, meaning that a judge or jury has substantiated the report or that the defendant has pleaded guilty.[6] That means that 92% of police reports lack any external verification beyond the opinion of the arresting officer and the threat of perjury.

The point is this, police reports do not give any official determination of the veracity of the claim. If I were the defense representative in a church court proceeding I would vigorously point out the weakness of such evidence. 

5. Police reports cannot be cross examined.

Building on point six, even if a police report exists, how will the defense be able cross examine such a report? BCO chapter 35 on evidence does not envision a piece of paper alone serving as evidence to an offense. That chapter is entirely predicated on witnesses, meaning people. BCO 35-7 gives the right of the defense to cross examine a witness. How will the defense cross examine a police report? If the report is entered into evidence via another witness- a member of the church investigative committee, for example- how will that cross examination proceed? It could only proceed along the lines of how he obtained the report and so on. Again, if I were the defense representative in such a proceeding, I would vigorously protest that I do not get to cross examine the police officer who made the report!

Further, what if the police officer that made the report is a non-theist? How will I know if I cannot cross-examine him? Doesn’t that get us back in the same situation we started in? It would be better just to be able to call any competent witness and allow the court to judge his or her credibility as BCO 35-5 states.

6. Church courts prosecute offenses that the secular authorities do not prosecute.

The last reason I will present for not solely depending on police reports is this: secular authorities do not prosecute all the matters that the church court is called to prosecute. Because of our moral teachings, laid out in the exposition of the Ten Commandments in the Larger Catechism, there are a whole host of offenses that are not considered criminal in the legal codes of most civil jurisdictions. For example, the secular authorities would not currently prosecute someone for adultery or possession of pornography because these offenses are not currently crimes. As a result, no police report would exist for these offenses.

Now imagine that an unbelieving neighbor witnesses a husband repeatedly berating his wife and children. The neighbor could serve as a corroborating witness to the testimony of the wife as stipulated by BCO 35-4. But during the preparation for trial, the neighbor says that she cannot take the oath in good conscience because she does not believe in God or the existence of Hell. Since the secular authorities are highly unlikely to criminally prosecute verbal and psychological abuse, no police report will exist. How is the church court to proceed? What if the wife wants a divorce, how will the church court decide the matter in absence of a theist to testify? Surely you can see the conundrum here.

Conclusion: Non-theists with relevant information should be allowed to testify in PCA courts

BCO 35-5 states that the court must judge the credibility of any witness. Why not allow any competent witness with relevant information testify and allow each court to judge his or her credibility? I struggle to see the problem here.

Some have characterized this issue as “Admitting Atheists to Church Courts.” This is a highly prejudicial summary, which makes it sound like atheists will be granted standing in church courts to make complaints or file charges. This is not what is being proposed. Instead, we are asking that non-theists be allowed to offer eyewitness testimony when they are called by an officer of the court, their credibility to be judged by that court. If such a person were to be caught in a lie in that proceeding, the non-theist could be sued in civil court for defamation. Furthermore, God will hold that person accountable for their lies at the Final Judgment whether that person believes in God or not.

What about the following scenario? A young woman is raped by a church member, and in the course of her treatment in the hospital consents to a rape kit being performed by the ER nurse. Later, for some reason, the young woman decides not to file criminal charges against her rapist.[7] However, because she is encouraged to do so by a fellow church member that she opened up to about the rape, she discloses the offense to her pastor. There are no other witnesses and the accused church member claims the encounter was consensual. The only other evidence is the rape kit and the ER nurse who performed it. The same problems stated above for police reports now exist: how can the report be entered into evidence, even if it can be obtained? How can the report be cross-examined? Let’s say that the ER nurse is willing to testify, however when being prepared by the prosecution she discloses that she cannot in good conscience take the oath because she does not believe in God or the existence of hell. Where do we go from there?

In absence of any judicial action by the church, the rapist cannot be expelled from membership or the church building. Where does that leave the victim? She must either continue to attend worship with her rapist, causing her to be repeatedly retraumatized by her rapist, or she must leave for another church. The Christ-honoring result should be that the rapist is excommunicated, he is expelled from the church building, and the victim is surrounded with love and support by her pastor, elders, and fellow church members.

Here is another scenario, which sadly occurs all too often today. Let’s say that a young woman is repeatedly assaulted by a church leader; and the trauma of her abuse- and the church’s lack of response to it- results in her losing her trust in God such that she declares herself to be an atheist. Let’s say another victim of that same leader surfaces, who still has standing in the church courts and wants to take the case to trial. The testimony of the first victim could offer corroborating evidence of the second victim. Yet, because she is an avowed atheist- as a result of her horrific abuse mind you- she cannot testify in a PCA judicial proceeding.

Anyone who is willing to be imaginative can continue to come up with a host of likely scenarios where it would be legitimate and necessary for a church court to admit the testimony of a non-theist.

Let us not wait for a horrible instance like these to occur before making the needed changes. Let us be proactive in protecting the sheep of the church and holding the wolves accountable.

[1] M49GA, p. 1120. Clicking on the link in footnote 190 will take you to the fact page: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system.

[2] The NSVRC was cited in the DASA report, but not this particular fact sheet. The fact sheet is well documented with reputable studies supporting their figures. “Statistics about sexual violence,” National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2015, accessed here: https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf.

[3] Ibid.

[4] M49GA, p. 1120. There are a multitude of reasons why factual accusations of sexual assault do not make it to trial due to prosecutor discretion. As stated below in note 5, only 2%-8% of sexual assault claims are false.

[5] M49GA, p. 1220, footnote 272.

[6] Doing the math from the above statistic, 25 out of 310 police reports resulting in conviction comes out to 8% of police reports.

[7] A Department of Justice study found the following reasons why victims did not report sexual assault: 20% feared retaliation, 13% believed the police would not do anything to help, 13% believed it was a personal matter, 8% reported to a different official, 8% believed it was not important enough to report, 7% did not want to get the perpetrator in trouble, 2% believed the police could not do anything to help, 30% gave another reason, or did not cite one reason. See “The Criminal Justice System: Statistics,” RAINN, accessed at https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system, footnote 5.