An Overture Toward Better Protections
By Joshua Torrey, March 3, 2023.
In 2019, nine presbyteries (10%) overtured the General Assembly for a study committee on domestic abuse and sexual assault. The assembly approved the formation of the study committee with amendments by the Overture Committee that restricted them from bringing recommended changes to our Book of Church Order.
Despite no formal recommendations, one of the most straightforward and essential pieces of wisdom from the report is protecting the church through background checks. The report specifically suggests the following:
“Presbyteries enacting policies to require background checks and abuse training for all ordinands and transfers, and policies to protect whistleblowers against retribution” (emphasis added, DASA Report, M49GA, p. 949)
And:
“Candidates for the gospel ministry and others employed for spiritual oversight (Sunday school teachers, youth leaders, etc.) should be examined carefully to determine their godly character. Presbyteries and Sessions are encouraged to carefully investigate a candidate for leadership roles including but not limited to the candidate’s knowledge of theology. Background checks, social media checks, and careful reference checks should be used to screen for abusive leadership.” (emphasis added, DASA Report, M49GA, pp. 1128, 1159, 1183)
In thoughtful consideration for the safety of children, many churches in the PCA already perform background checks on individuals who help directly or tangentially with children’s ministries. Background checks help validate the qualification of every believer to “keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable,” (1 Pet. 2:12). The wisdom of the practice applies even more to the men who shepherd the church. They are to be “above reproach” (1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:7) and “proven blameless” (1 Tim. 3:10).
Officers of the church “watch over the souls” of the congregation (Heb. 13:17); and warnings against mistreating children and those with childlike faith indicate how seriously Jesus took this shepherding (Matt 18:5,6). Additionally, the Westminster Larger Catechism, when discussing the “sins of superiors” under the fifth commandment, warns leaders against the “careless exposing, or leaving [those in their care] to wrong, temptation, and danger,” (WLC 130).
In light of these things and in response to the advice from the DASA Report, a group of elders in different presbyteries crafted an overture to address this issue. As part of that group, I brought a version to my session which then referred it to South Texas Presbytery. The overture proposes an amendment to the BCO that church courts perform a background check on all potential officers (TEs, REs, & Deacons). This proposed amendment will come before the 50th General Assembly as Overture 6.
Some presbyteries already make provisions for background checks for all TEs by way of their standing rules. However, no such mechanism exists for REs and Deacons except that every congregation adopts their own policies. While specific policies within presbyteries and congregations can be further developed beyond background checks, this overture, and its recommended placement in the BCO, suggests that background checks should be viewed as an extension of the existing responsibility of church courts to perform “a careful examination” including “personal character” (21-4.c; 24-1.a) and “Christian experience” (13-6).
Background checks are not a new exam but a wise addition to existing requirements. The secular courts and agencies are not being brought into the evaluation process of potential officers. Instead church courts are utilizing all available information for the preexisting requirement to judge the character of officers. There may be cases in which exams contain information that is not disqualifying. There may be cases in which the exam contains information that pre-dates conversion and does not indicate a sinful proclivity in the potential candidate. Any performed background is not to be treated as a pass or fail situation but additional information to in wisdom evaluate the character of a candidate (more on this issue is addressed below).
That said, few overtures are sent to the General Assembly in perfect form. Overture 6 is no different. There are things that could eventually be added or removed to improve it. However, the amendment as it stands makes a clear declaration that protection of Christ’s flock is as important as protecting the Church’s doctrine. There is not likely to be significant disagreement on the underlying principles of the overture.
However, a straightforward writing and reading of such an overture still creates issues, questions, and concerns. The same questions that were anticipated by the authors of the overture and that were discussed on the floor of South Texas Presbytery will likely come up again during the debate of the Overture Committee. In light of this,it may be helpful to report some of the deliberations made in the drafting of the overture. I hope that a review of these issues will help the Overtures Committee further improve the amendment.
1. The first issue this overture needed to address was the type or quality of background check. Multiple suggested wordings were met with disagreement on the clarity or whether it described an attainable standard of practice. In the end “criminal background check” was suggested as it provided a sufficient minimum requirement while allowing for freedom of differences between province/state, county, and federal standards for checks. It needs to be acknowledged that having such a low bar for satisfying this requirement does hinder the overture and its practicality to some degree. It is a reality that less stringent checking will provide little more than lip service to protecting the flock. Still, allowing church courts to decide their own standards within reason was deemed an appropriate position for a grassroots denomination like the PCA. Presently, church courts are given latitude in other examination processes. While background checks are not an exam in the same sense, it seems prudent for church courts to trust one another to do the best background check they can afford to perform.
2. Tightly connected to the degree of background check is the question of who pays for the check. Since the cost of a background check is determined by its extent, [1] there was acknowledgment that different courts may need the freedom to handle costs differently. Instead of a top down direction, the overture provides church courts (more pertinent to presbyteries) the freedom to determine themselves how the costs of these checks are covered. Practically, presbyteries should articulate in detail these cost requirements in their standing rules. Despite the freedom granted in the overture, sessions should expect their church budget will need to cover background checks of REs and Deacons. At this point the wisdom and existing practice of other background checks comes back for edification. It is a good time to testify to the importance of protecting the church not just with words but with wallets.
3. There is also a technical question of who executes the background check. Prior points address this tangentially but courts (particularly presbyteries) need to be free to decide this. To that point, the overture is written to ensure a court confirms a check is made. The freedom of not dictating who does it may cause initial confusion but keeps the overture from dictating a process that is beyond the authority of the General Assembly.
4. This overture leaves open the question of who receives and reads the background check. The courts of the PCA have different procedures and committee participation for licensure, ordination, and transfers. Instead of dictating to these lower courts who must read and process the information of the background check the overture makes room for different processes. As with other written exams such as theology, sacraments, or church history the courts should get to decide who will receive this information. The results of any background checks should not presumptively be shared with the entire court performing the check. Instead the background check information should be integrated with the existing character examination being performed by the court. Though there is freedom about who in the court reads the information, this does not absolve the entire court from reading the report and discussing it with the candidate. While it is sufficient for a session to read the background check of a RE or Deacon, a session must present the results of a background check on a potential TE to the presbytery. Presbyteries are the court responsible for the examination of a TE and therefore the overture requires this action should a session initiate the background check.
5. Finally,and perhaps most important, this overture intentionally does not specify how a court should or must respond to any background checks. I believe that this is an essential feature of the amendment.. Church courts cannot be deprived of their ecclesiastical authority. These background checks are not some new exam for Christian character. Church courts are already supposed to check the character of potential officers (21-4.c; 24-1.a). Thus, this background check is merely additional information about a man’s character.
At the 42nd General Assembly of the PCA an overture was passed against the sin of child abuse. In that overture the assembly voted to “exhort all church leaders to become informed and to take an active stance toward preventing child sexual abuse in the church by screening staff and volunteers, training them in child protection, and actively maintaining child protection policies pertaining to our obligations” (M42GA, p. 798).
A decade later the PCA finds itself at the crossroads of another discussion on sexual abuse inside of the church. It is once again time for the officers of the church to be called to “shepherd the flock” (1 Pet 5:2). May the PCA never hear the Lord declare, “my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep” (Eze 34:8).
Overture 6 is a small step in properly shepherding and protecting the sheep. If language needs to be changed, added, or removed then let that be done with wisdom with the sole intent of increasing the protection of the sheep. Only let the PCA come together to publicly prioritize care for the sheep so that it may be known that we are “genuinely concerned” for their welfare (Php 2:20).
Joshua Torrey is a Ruling Elder at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas. He works in computer chip design, has been married sixteen years, and been blessed with five children.
[1] The cost of background checks vary widely. In some states, a simple search of the State Police database can cost as little as $20. But in order to be comprehensive, several different sets of records must be searched for each location that a candidate has lived. Federal and state searches are relatively easy to perform, and less expensive, but searches of county and city court records (where most offenses would be adjudicated) are where the cost is added.
