“It was just one bad choice,” the former member of the church said to me. “And pastors have a lot of opportunities for temptation, right?”
I had this conversation at breakfast earlier this week. It’s been almost five years since I came to Sunnyside Presbyterian Church in South Bend, Indiana, and over those five years, I’ve had to navigate conversations like this again and again. Such conversations are familiar to “after pastors” — ministers who follow a pastor removed for misconduct.
It’s these sorts of conversations that inform the work envisioned by CON-06, an overture coming before the Constitution Interpretation Committee on Wednesday. This proposal would offer much-needed guardrails around the process of restoration for pastors who are censured because of sexual misconduct.
My predecessor was removed for sexual misconduct involving the misuse of technology. His censure was a temporary exclusion from ordered ministry with supervised rehabilitation, and two years after receiving that discipline, he was restored to ministry. While this outcome is permissible under our Book of Order, I believe it falls far short of the mandate to “uphold the dignity of those who have been harmed by offenses” (D-1.0301).
As I have cared for and loved this congregation, I have tried to understand how unique such situations are. I have also learned they happen more often than many realize. According to sexual misconduct data submitted to the General Assembly by presbyteries from 2019–2025, there have been more than 150 allegations of sexual misconduct made against pastors, and nearly 50 resulted in charges being filed.
Looking at documents from other presbyteries, it is clear that our church’s experience with the sexual misconduct of ordained leaders is not unique. Yet the Book of Order offers little guidance for navigating these painful, high-anxiety crises. This leads to a lack of parity among presbyteries when answering important questions: What is the appropriate censure? What are compassionate and just requirements for restoration?
Some presbyteries have imposed 18–36 months of temporary exclusion. Others have imposed indefinite temporary exclusion. Nearly all have required some form of supervised rehabilitation. But without concrete guidance in our Book of Order regarding how to address ordained leaders convicted of sexual misconduct, we do a disservice to our presbyteries, forcing them to create a patchwork of procedures on their own. This risks compounding the harm already experienced by survivors of misconduct and abuse.
Other denominations have offered similar guidance. The Church of the Nazarene Manual requires between two and four years of exclusion from the practice of ministry (532.7). The Disciples of Christ General Commission on Ministry requires 36 months to elapse before restoration may be considered after sexual misconduct (VII.A). Additionally, those harmed are invited to address the commission regarding restoration (VII.A.iii).
CON-06 cites church ethics and misconduct prevention specialist E. Larraine Frampton’s chapter in When a Congregation Is Betrayed, which suggests that prerequisites for a perpetrator’s reinstatement include five years of exclusion, a preparation and re-formation process, and a consideration of the voices of those harmed. These are the three things CON-06 seeks: a minimum timeline for restoration, meaningful accountability, and space to hear the voices of those harmed.
I would encourage folks not only to read the overture, but also the comments from the ACSWP, ACWGJ, ACQ+E, and ACC. All speak to a real concern about the scourge of sexual misconduct in our denomination. I am grateful for their engagement, as well as for the overtures GEN-04 and GEN-05, which are also coming before the General Assembly. These committees have raised legitimate questions about whether the voting-threshold provision in D-9.0303 could inadvertently place an undue burden on survivors, and I believe those concerns point to an area where overture could be strengthened. However, they should not obscure what CON-06 gets right: a minimum timeline for restoration, meaningful accountability, and space for survivor voices.
What seems clear is that pastors can currently be restored too quickly, without meaningful accountability and without any formal opportunity for those harmed to be heard. This is damaging, it lacks transparency and it is not in keeping with our calling to “achieve justice and compassion for all participants involved” (D-1.0301).
It also leads to conversations like the one I had at breakfast, where sexual misconduct is reduced to “just one bad choice.” Instead of “just one bad choice,” sexual misconduct “is a violation of the role of pastors… a misuse of authority and power… [and] takes advantage of the vulnerability of persons who are less powerful” (PC(USA) Sexual Misconduct Policy, pp. 1-2). As my predecessor was restored in a way allowable under Church Discipline, those he harmed – both the individuals and the community – were still healing. He could move on. They couldn’t.
In the last five years serving as an “after pastor,” I have learned much about how our Church Discipline section works. I have seen the on-the-ground realities and the ways in which it falls short of its stated goals. I have grieved with church members when justice was not achieved, and I have worked with our presbytery to revise our systems. However, the system most in need of guardrails is our polity.
Regardless of what happens to CON-06 at this year’s General Assembly, I long to see this denomination respond to sexual misconduct with a minimum timeline for restoration, meaningful accountability, and space to hear the voices of those harmed. Sexual misconduct cannot simply be set aside as “one bad choice.”
