By Alex Mark | April 17, 2024
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
Twice in my time as a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), I have had the privilege of representing Lowcountry Presbytery on the Overtures Committee of the General Assembly. Over that time, I have been impressed with the capacity of men in our denomination to identify a problem and set forth a solution that is wise, constitutionally consistent, and beneficial to the peace and purity of the Church. I am so thankful that we have a system of government that allows both the enforcement of current policy as well as the implementation of change as needed.
Over the past few years, I and others in our denomination have identified a problem in our polity that we believe needs to be addressed: the Book of Church Order (BCO) requires that presbyteries vote to dissolve a pastoral call, but there is no mechanism for ensuring that the dissolution is equitable and good for both parties involved. The presbytery of jurisdiction is the body that dissolves the relationship precisely because it is given shepherding oversight over both parties. However, with our current polity, its members are asked to make a substantial judgment affecting both parties (i.e., calling body and pastor), often without understanding the reason(s) the call is being dissolved. Not only can this cause a lapse in shepherding those in our presbyteries, it could also lead to being complicit (inadvertently) in abusive situations.
Further complicating matters has been the use of non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements (NDA), which are often signed as part of a severance package offered to a departing minister. In many cases throughout our denomination, men have left problematic situations but would not meet with the presbytery to discuss the issue for fear of violating their NDA. This has become a significant topic of conversation even among the presbytery clerks, but there is no current BCO mechanism to prevent this.
How often have men been hindered from speaking with presbyteries due to fear of violating their NDA? It’s like the first rule of fight club: we don’t talk about fight club. It’s impossible to know how often this has happened, but I have been made aware of many occasions in which a minister left a volatile and unhealthy situation, but shared nothing with the presbytery in order to protect the severance package.
Within our own presbytery, we have sought a solution for this issue over the last few years. For that reason, the Administrative Committee of Lowcountry Presbytery studied the issue and presented Overture 30, which was approved by the presbytery by unanimous vote on March 25, 2024.
The scope of this overture is not to speak to the propriety of NDAs in the church context, nor is it to chastise those men whose refusal to meet with presbytery may be a violation of the sixth ordination vow (“Do you promise to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the Gospel and the purity and peace and unity of the Church, whatever persecution or opposition may arise unto you on that account?”). The scope of this overture is to establish a mechanism for presbyters to be better informed before voting to approve a dissolution of call by implementing an exit interview prior to a vote for dissolution of the pastoral relation.
The overture amends BCO 23-1 by adding the following:
Before any pastoral call may be dissolved by the Presbytery, the teaching elder whose call is in question shall participate in an exit interview conducted by the Presbytery or a committee thereof. This interview shall address the circumstances of the departure, the spiritual and emotional health of the teaching elder and his family, and any concerns for the health of the church from which the minister is departing. Furthermore, no church may hinder any teaching elder from speaking freely and openly with the appointed representatives of the Presbytery. No Presbytery shall omit this interview except in extraordinary cases, and then only with two-thirds (2/3) approval of the Presbytery, and it shall always make a record of the reasons for its omission.
Should this exit interview reveal an important delinquency or grossly unconstitutional proceeding by, or raise concerns of moral failing among the church or session, the Presbytery shall address this revelation or concern through General Review and Control (BCO 40). Should the exit interview reveal potential offense(s) by the departing minister, the Presbytery shall deal with him according to the applicable Rules of Discipline (BCO 31-35), and may retain him on the rolls while any potential offense is investigated and any process deemed necessary is completed (BCO 38-3.a).
As the overture is now public, I’d like to answer a few questions that I’ve been asked:
Why does an exit interview have to happen in every case? Isn’t it adequate to do it only in cases that are controversial or problematic?
- The primary reason we need to normalize these interviews is because oftentimes problems are not discovered until after the call has already been dissolved. Further complicating this is the practice of NDAs in many PCA churches. The Presbyterian system requires greater transparency for the overall health of the church and her ministers. Such transparency can only be achieved if exit interviews take place before the vote to dissolve the call may be held.
Who should conduct these interviews?
- Because presbyteries differ in structure, each would have the latitude to implement in the best way possible for their context. However, the most practical solution may be for the presbytery to task a committee or subcommittee to do this, rather than occupy presbytery time and have to share details that should be handled with discretion. The committee could then make a recommendation to the Presbytery concerning dissolution.
Could this lead to accusations against a church by a disgruntled former employee?
- It could, and perhaps in some cases, it should. However, the presbytery representatives who conduct the interview will have the latitude to explore the accusation(s), consult with the church in question (Proverbs 18:17), and determine whether or not further inquiry is warranted. The presbytery’s job is not to interfere with human resources decisions, but rather to ensure everything was done in keeping with our polity.
Will this create a substantial workload for our presbyteries?
- This would depend on many variables, including the size of the presbytery. If the circumstances of the dissolution are healthy, then it may not require more than an hour or so to interview the man before a recommendation could be made. If circumstances prove to be problematic, it could become much more time consuming, but even that would ultimately be a benefit to the church and presbytery as potentially entrenched problems may be discovered and addressed rather than festering and recurring. Proactively addressing problems will ultimately create less work for our presbyteries rather than reactively intervening after the damage has been done.
Brothers, I urge you to support this overture. It helps to maintain the transparency and accountability that are essential to Presbyterian government, thus providing an extra degree of protection to those men and congregations whom God has entrusted to our care.
Alex Mark is a PCA Teaching Elder serving as Pastor of First Scots Presbyterian Church in Beaufort, SC.