A committed cohort from multiple presbyteries is laboring to modify the Book of Order’s Church Disciple section. This surprises some colleagues. Skeptically, they ask, “Didn’t the church just adopt a major revision in 2023? Why this change?” Both are fair questions.
A General Assembly task force (appointed in 2016) drafted a revision of both the disciplinary and remedial case parts of the Book of Order, which was approved by the General Assembly in 2022 and sent to all presbyteries as a proposed amendment to the Book of Order. In 2023, it was adopted, and the edits went into effect.
POL-02 seeks to edit the new material on the 2024 General Assembly Polity Committee agenda. Specifically, we desire to amend D-7.0501, which mandates withholding the name of the accused and the accused person’s alleged behavior from the overseeing council (session or presbytery, for instance), even when a disciplinary case involves allegations of harm to children, youth, or adults who lack mental capacity.
In our opinion, the concealment of this information denies the council access to critically relevant information. This, in turn, limits its capacity to exercise leadership, such as alerting parents and guardians that their children may be at risk. POL-02 asks the church to make an exception to privacy stipulations when a disciplinary case involves allegations of harm to minors or adults who lack mental capacity.
POL-02 asks the church to make an exception to privacy stipulations when a disciplinary case involves allegations of harm to minors or adults who lack mental capacity.
Formal reasoning for why this modification is necessary can be found on PC-Biz. I can tell you, however, that I am not motivated by polity. I see the need for a change based on my own experience.
Braced against deep winter’s chill, members from a suburban congregation in western New York gathered on a Saturday. They were coming to an educational event that was designed, convened and led by the church’s Healing Committee, a team of lay persons recently created by the session. I was part of the team as a consultant appointed by their presbytery’s Committee on Ministry. The event’s purpose was to process the arrest of a beloved member: a deacon, youth group leader, and church-sponsored Boy Scout troop leader. State police recently charged this member with five criminal counts of sexual acts against a youth (hereafter Survivor #2) who was part of the church. Tension mounted as the room filled.
The Healing Committee began by guiding members through a large timeline it had compiled and posted on a wall. The material included dates, places, events, and people by name and role. Nearly all this information was being shared with the congregation for the first time. The group struggled with the difficult pieces like assembling a complex jigsaw puzzle. Gradually, a clearer picture emerged, and it was disturbing.
Three years before the arrest, the church’s previous pastor was told of the offender’s predatory behavior against a pre-adolescent (hereafter Survivor #1) from the church. When asked by the pastor, he admitted to committing sexual abuse. The pastor, invoking God’s love for offenders, rejected best practice principles and risk management recommendations. Rather than rely on the church’s elected session, the pastor managed the case with an ad hoc group of selected confidants. Only this ad hoc group would know the offender’s identity and volunteer roles. Session members were notified that an unidentified member had admitted to sexually abusing a pre-adolescent from the church (Survivor #1) and that the unnamed offender was receiving counseling.
The pastor’s unproven strategy of counseling and support for the perpetrator was implemented. The ad hoc group attempted an unfounded plan of supervision and monitoring. Inadequate and ineffective, both approaches failed. Within six months of the pastor learning of the offender’s earlier perpetration, new abuses against another pre-adolescent, Survivor #2, had commenced. However, because the pastor and his ad hoc group depended on illusions of safety, they unwittingly hid from themselves and their church the awful reality that the offender continued to abuse for another three years.
Once the pastor left to work at another church, the session finally learned the offender’s identity. With the name unveiled, the offender’s extensive, lengthy access to minors came to light. With access to this crucial information, the session implemented the best practice strategy of disclosure. Facts in the case of Survivor #1 were revealed to the congregation in carefully structured safe gatherings, which included an event specifically for youth. As a result of these disclosures, new allegations of abuse against more minors, including Survivor #2, emerged, which led to the state police investigation and arrest. (The offender was ultimately convicted in a criminal trial for abusing Survivor #2, sentenced to prison, and listed on the state’s registry of sex offenders as at the highest category of risk.)
“You did nothing to warn me as a parent so I could decide how to protect my child. You betrayed me.”
As all the details were revealed in the Saturday meeting in western New York, one mother suddenly grasped the implications of the timeline. She saw how concealment blocked opportunities to protect youth. She realized how withholding the offender’s identity likely prolonged the abuse of Survivor #2. She spoke up, her rising anger palpable. Addressing everyone in the room who bore a measure of responsibility for allowing the offender near youth, she said: “You knew we had a sex offender in our midst. You knew. And you did nothing to warn me as a parent so I could decide how to protect my child. You betrayed me.” Her honesty was searing; the ensuing silence, painful. Relational ties and bonds of trust, vital for a spiritual community, ruptured.
She was partially accurate. At the time of the abuse, session members were aware that an unidentified member had admitted to sexually abusing a pre-adolescent (Survivor #1) from the church, and that the unnamed offender was receiving counseling. However, the essential content available to the session was woefully incomplete. The offender’s name was withheld due to the former pastor’s personal strategy. This imposed deficiency proved to be a serious impediment. And there was no Book of Order provision to be invoked to overcome it. If the session had known the admitted offender’s name, it could have quickly recognized his regular contact with youth and the danger this posed to other pre-adolescents, including Survivor #2.
This congregation’s experience, and others who have gone through similar circumstances, is why POL-02 is necessary. It ensures that all essential facts will be revealed to a council at the beginning of a case involving minors or adults who lack mental capacity thus allowing the council to act appropriately and protect those with lesser power. Let the terrible lessons from this church speak to us; let us amend D-7.0501 to protect people who are at particular risk so we can foster safety, wholeness and integrity.
The Presbyterian Outlook is committed to fostering faithful conversations by publishing a diversity of voices. The opinions expressed are the author’s and may or may not reflect the opinions and beliefs of the Outlook’s editorial staff or the Presbyterian Outlook Foundation. Want to join the conversation? You can write to us or submit your own article here.
