by Joshua Torrey | June 8, 2023
Please note that the Editorial Board of Presbyterian Polity does not necessarily endorse all views expressed on the blog of this site, but the editors are pleased to present well-crafted position papers on issues facing Presbyterian churches and denominations. What follows is one such paper for our readers’ consideration. ~ The Editors
The 50th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is to be held in Memphis, TN next week. Though expectations are for fewer fireworks than usual, there are still many interesting overtures coming before the Assembly. As the principal author of one, I have written at some length in favor of Overture 6. In what follows, I want to address a particular set of responses that I found insightful.
I greatly appreciate the overture information guide document provided by Scott Edburg and Jared Nelson. I consider them both to be friends. So in reading what they call the potential liabilities for this overture, I recognize some thoughtful concerns that deserve to be answered. For those not familiar, their document gives no specific voting advice. It puts forth clarity of intent and suggests possible liabilities for each overture. Specifically for Overture 6, it lists the following as possible liabilities:
● Many courts of the church already utilize background checks (working with children requires it).
● Some may argue that this overture “gives the government a say in ordination.” Others may argue that this is merely using the government’s information rather than giving them a say in the ordination standards of the PCA.
● The accuracy of criminal background checks, many done by commercial agencies, may be an issue.
● The requirement of this raises issues for ordaining non-nationals who do not have a SSN or those who have a criminal past before becoming a Christian.
● All of the unanswered questions of who gets to see the report, what happens if a candidate withdraws, etc. may mean this would be better framed as a suggestion/strongly.
The first listed possible liability is what we called the “duh response” while writing the overture. So many people we talked to said the practicality of the overture was obvious. Writing it in a practical and useful way proved to be less obvious. Many churches and presbyteries already have policies in place to perform background checks. Some are for individuals working with children. Some are only for teaching elders. Regardless, there is significant adoption of the practice already such that some will regard a formal overture as superfluous.
As someone who routinely gets reminded “you know what happens when you assume,” I have developed a great respect for the clarity and responsibility require by our Book of Church Order (BCO). Our licensure, ordination, and transfer requirements in the BCO help courts perform due diligence with direction and few perceive them as superfluous. Our BCO already requires that courts examine character (18-5; 21-4). That church courts are already doing this is not a reason to vote down the overture but instead an opportunity for officers in these churches to speak to the benefits of the practice. I hope officers from these churches lead us as examples instead of using their existing rules as a reason to vote against this amendment.
● Some may argue that this overture “gives the government a say in ordination.” Others may argue that this is merely using the government’s information rather than giving them a say in the ordination standards of the PCA.
The second possible liability is wonderfully worded. This is one place in this document I greatly appreciate the evenhandedness of Scott and Jared. But it is worth saying that background checks are mere searches of publicly accessible information in different databases. In theory this information could be gathered by a church court without employing an agency. This is not a search into the private lives of candidates — although church courts should be doing thorough examinations of a man’s public and private conduct. The overture is recommending that we utilize information that is already available to us and to the general public. On the floor of presbytery, I used the analogy that we are merely “pillaging the Egyptians” for their information.
Still, it cannot be stressed enough that this overture does not and cannot let the government have a say in the ordination process. This is a crucial point that needs to be repeated emphatically. This overture intentionally and explicitly does not require any specific response to the results of the background check. So while it is proposed that church courts curate the information, there is no requirement on them to act a certain way. The government is not sneaking into our ordination process through the backdoor of background checks.
This line of response also addresses elements of the third and fourth potential liabilities.
● The accuracy of criminal background checks, many done by commercial agencies, may be an issue.
● The requirement of this raises issues for ordaining non-nationals who do not have a SSN or those who have a criminal past before becoming a Christian.
It is worth stating the obvious out loud: not all criminal actions before conversion should be disqualifying. And it is worth stating that some criminal actions or accusations should cause church courts to proceed with caution or stop proceedings all together. But this responsibility and authority should always belong to the church court.
Further, background checks may very well be inaccurate! In light of this specific concern, the overture was praised on the floor of South Texas Presbytery precisely because it did not require any specific response to the results of the background check.
This overture gives no room to the State or an agency of the State to interject itself into our ecclesiastical process. Whether the events occurred before conversion or the civil magistrate has made an error, church courts must utilize their own collective wisdom and ministerial authority in determining how to respond to the results. That authority cannot and must never be removed from the church courts.
Continuing with the fourth issue, companies routinely conduct background checks without Social Security Numbers (SSNs). However, in lieu of an SSN, background checks are performed via fingerprints. To some this might be even more egregious. I must admit I cannot respond well to this objection since it is neither theological nor ecclesiastical, and I expect a diversity of political opinions on the issue.
● All of the unanswered questions of who gets to see the report, what happens if a candidate withdraws, etc. may mean this would be better framed as a suggestion/strongly.
The final issue to me is the most pertinent. Why the is the overture written with so many “unanswered questions?” The reality is that the answer to the questions is intentional silence. In the discussion stage of the overture, every attempt to codify specific actions hit upon a problem. In almost every case, mandating specific actions of the court looked like too much top-down polity (something this overture even in its present form has been perceived to be).
Again I appreciate Scott’s and Jared’s wisdom because they anticipate a possible answer to this last problem (i.e. suggest or encourage instead of require). However, I think this solution should not be appealed to without addressing other questions along the way. As my session – and subsequently, my presbytery – discussed this overture, we returned to almost every one of these “unanswered questions” and the result was the same: provide freedom to each individual court as the ‘grassroots way’ to implement this overture.
Perhaps this overture would be well served by advice from the Administrative Committee and by reference to the Report of the Ad Interim Study Committee on Domestic & Sexual Abuse regarding “best practices.” Perhaps a grace period should be given so that courts can study the process and slowly ramp up their processes and procedures. Both of these suggestions may adequately address some of the questions and concerns. But at the end of the day, we wrote the overture to reserve as much authority to the lower courts as possible.
I look forward to the discussion on the Overtures Committee next week. I am happy to state that even the men who have told they will vote against this overture see the value in the practice and appreciate it being brought to the attention of the Assembly. Regardless of the outcome, I hope that the PCA continues to take steps to emphasize the value and worth of the sheep God has entrusted to our care. And Lord willing, I hope this overture helps us to take one such step.
Joshua Torrey is a PCA Ruling Elder serving on the session of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Austin, TX.