This is a change in that this new requirement will supercede any presbytery sexual misconduct policy and goes against the current Advisory Committee on the Constitution’s guidance to the church. The ACC also recommended an alternative model that is included on pp. 25-26 of the Proposed Amendment booklet.
In addition to the concerns listed there and the “against” arguments in The Outlook article, I would like to add a few more thoughts as to why this proposed amendment is inadvisable. I offer these concerns not as an outsider to these matters, but as someone who helped draft and present the sexual misconduct policy for a presbytery back in the 1980s. I also am calling attention to this issue because I have yet to see in print any arguments against it even though my general presbyter told me that he has yet to hear of anyone who favors this amendment. I am fearful that without public debate, this amendment may be passed by presbyteries without much discussion and quietly become law.
• The amendment will display an assumption of guilt even before a preliminary hearing can decide if an accusation has merit. A neighboring church’s pastor was accused of sexual misconduct a few years ago and the allegations were promptly reported in the local paper and TV news. Sadly these allegations were true, but what if the complaint was fact-less? Placing a minister or church employee on immediate administrative leave before a preliminary hearing would be newsworthy in many communities. The reputation of the church, pastor or employee would be marked in an instant. Seldom do follow-up articles that report a person is cleared of an accusation garner a headline, if it is reported at all.
• Most presbyteries have worked long and hard to prepare their sexual misconduct policies that meet the needs of their churches and clergy. This amendment would require a re-write of policies that may already adequately deal with this issue in a more appropriate fashion.
• My wife is a public school teacher and has seen a handful of incidents where students falsely accuse teachers in order to hurt them or get back at them for some reason. Although the administration acknowledged the transparency of the accusations, the teachers still had to go through the administrative process to clear their names. Surprisingly, there is little the school can do to students who make false accusations. Students risk little when they cause such pain and embarrassment. A preliminary hearing to see if an accusation has merit would root out most false reports avoiding the need for administrative leave. The ACC’s advice to the church follows this format.
• The Book of Order does not say anything about “administrative leave.” There is no mention of this status in D.10.000 or in the index. Does this mean that churches or presbyteries can define administrative leave as it suits them? Does it require full pay or no pay? If this amendment passes, the church will have to add a definition and guidance in the Book of Order via future amendments. Without any mention of the term, there are no time limits on administrative or assurance for church employees or clergy when it comes to continuation of their compensation while on administrative leave. We are left up in the air in this matter.
Can you imagine? A formal complaint comes to the clerk of session concerning a pre-school teacher at the church-run pre-school. She also happens to be a member of the church. The clerk informs the teacher that she is now on administrative leave. The church will pay her salary for two weeks during this time, but because there is no guidance in the Book of Order on this, the church has chosen to pay her for two weeks, and will have to hire a temporary teacher to fill her position. She is asked to stay away from the church property and have no contact with any students (some of whom are from her church). This means she cannot attend worship or teach church school. Because it is the holidays, a preliminary hearing on this matter is delayed for a month when all parties can meet. Word gets around church that a she has been ‘suspended’ for sexual abuse of a student. There is outrage and the local news media gets wind of it and writes a story about the accusation. The pastor is interviewed and the media approach students and parents. The members are shocked. The teacher’s family is embarrassed and stops coming to worship.
The preliminary hearing is held one month later and it turns out that the child was confused and the parent over-reacted. In fact, the teacher was out of town on the day the incident was said to have taken place. A preliminary hearing could have cleared this up in a matter of minutes with little repercussion, yet the new amendment has set in motion a process that wrought havoc on the church, child, teacher, her family and pre-school.
I hope that presbyteries will review and discuss this proposed amendment and see for themselves that although the intent is commendable, the process is inadvisable.
Posted Jan. 20, 2004 
Keith M. Curran is pastor, St. Andrew church, Suffolk, Va.
Send your comment on this guest viewpoint to The Outlook.
Please give your full name and hometown.
