You would have to be very disconnected from the life of the higher courts of the Presbyterian Church in America not to be aware of the several high-profile cases that are or have been before our Standing Judicial Commission. Given the strong opinions held by many – both inside and outside the courts and churches of the PCA – it seems inevitable that some will be disappointed in whatever decision the SJC ultimately makes.
A question that has been building in my own mind is that of the interaction between my vow as a Teaching Elder to submit myself to my brethren in the Lord, the confessional statement that Synods may err, and whatever right to private judgment I may have in situations where I believe a Synod (or its commission) has erred.
As I have mulled this question over in own mind, I have come to the following general principle: I should accept those decisions with which I disagree in the same way I would expect someone to accept a decision with which I do agree. Thus, if I believed a man to be guilty, I ought to behave publicly as I would want someone who believed him to be innocent to behave publicly were he ultimately found guilty. Likewise, if I believed a man to be innocent, I ought to behave publicly as I would want someone who believed him to be guilty to behave publicly were he ultimately found innocent.
The preceding being said, no decision of a court can have the effect of removing my right to private judgment on a matter. We are not required to change our own judgment in cases where we believe a Synod to have erred. We ought, however, to recognize our responsibilities where the public discussion of our private judgments is concerned. If, after all, a voluntary prosecutor subjects himself to the potential charge of being a slanderer of the brethren if his charges are not proven, would we not open ourselves up to the same charge if we publicly declare someone guilty when all avenues of prosecution and appeal have been resolved? Are we not guilty of slander against the court if we publicly declare someone to be innocent in the opposite circumstance? Whatever our private judgments on matters before our courts, we must in all instances take seriously our responsibility not to slander one another after a judgment has been reached.
Cases of Scandal vs. Cases of Doctrine
I would also point out that doctrinal cases and cases of scandal are inherently different. In most doctrinal cases, the primary evidence against a person is by its nature public. Indeed, it is often the case (particularly with doctrinal cases involving Teaching or Ruling Elders) that such evidence is widely known – or, at least, easily available. In cases of public teaching, each court of the church has the responsibility to determine for itself if the content of that teaching is helpful or harmful to the body they serve. Thus, Sessions and Presbyteries and General Assemblies have the right and responsibility to speak against error and guard the flock against error. Declaring publicly within the context of a particular church (or court of the church) that a particular teaching is in error is not slander. This is the case even if a court of the church has found the promulgator of that teaching to be innocent in a doctrinal case.
Whatever our private judgments on matters before our courts, we must in all instances take seriously our responsibility not to slander one another after a judgment has been reached.
There is a world of difference between a person being declared “not-guilty” of a doctrinal offense and my right to private judgement as to the rightness or wrongness of that person’s doctrinal teaching. In other words, a person may not be guilty of an offense, but may still have promulgated error. What I should not do is publicly call that man a heretic or publicly denounce the members of the SJC. We must therefore not misconstrue our right to private judgment in matters of doctrine as a right to stand in public judgment over actual persons. Many of us have borne that responsibility from time to time. We never bear it severally, but always jointly and within the context of the rules for discipline laid out in our Book of Church Order.
Cases of scandal, however, are different in at least some respects. In most instances, the actual evidence of the offense is not widely known. It can often be the case that the allegations are widely known, and there can also be cases in which the scandal was so public that the evidence itself is widely known or available, but cases of scandal are much more likely to have occurred in private. Therefore, they are far more dependent upon the testimony of first-hand witnesses and whatever relative credibility the court eventually assigns to conflicting testimony. When such cases of scandal are judged contrary to what we might think is right, we should be even more circumspect in reaching our own private judgment. I might even go so far as to say that in many such instances, our private judgments are little more than private opinions. This is particularly the case when we ourselves were not in a position to examine and cross examine that testimony.
It is also important to recognize that according to our understanding of Scripture and the judicial procedures that all Elders agree to (and all members agree to be in subjection to), our church courts are by nature limited. We require that every charge be established by the testimony of two or more witnesses. While we do allow corroborating evidence, such evidence stands as independent witnesses to the offense. We are not at liberty to set aside such limitations when and as we deem it expedient or when we fear the comments or reprisals of a watching world. Unlike the civil and criminal courts of our land, our procedures are – must be – bound by the teaching of Scripture. While the light of nature and Christian prudence can guide the manner in which we pursue biblical justice through the courts of the church, these cannot subvert or contradict the basic rules of discipline that have been set down in the Word of God.
This, of course, means that courts can be unable to pronounce guilt because of the lack of credible witnesses. Even if a single witness is found to be extraordinarily credible, and even if the members sitting in judgment have little reason to doubt the truthfulness of that witness, absent another corroborating witness or some sort of corroborating evidence, a court cannot pronounce guilt. I do not state this to suggest that this is necessarily relevant to every case that has been, is, or may come before the SJC, only to point out that there may be cases where someone who is believed to be guilty must be found not guilty because of the biblical principles of justice set forth by none other than our Lord and Savior himself.
Likewise, it is ultimately the responsibility of the prosecutor to prepare and present his case. While the members of the court may ask their own questions (and may do a much better job of examining witnesses than the parties themselves do), they are limited by the charges, evidence, and witnesses that are presented to them by the parties. When a court of the church sits in judgment upon a judicial case, it is bound to determine guilt or innocence within these narrow limits. As frustrating as it can be to observe (or hear about later), a party that is unprepared or unskilled or is unsure of our procedures can easily lose their case. The court bears a certain responsibility to mitigate such issues as best they can, but the court remains bound by the limits of the procedures we have agreed to.
Ultimate Justice
There is, however, one court before which only one witness will be required, in which no procedural shortcomings will be found – that day when all men and women stand beneath the judgment seat of Christ. On that day, no error of judgment will occur. All those who were wrongly convicted will be vindicated, and all those who were wrongly acquitted will stand condemned. Particularly, those who were wrongly acquitted will find the errors of Synods to be little defense against their sins and will find even less comfort in the wrong decisions of church courts. Inevitably, each of us will – to differing degrees and for different reasons – find ourselves needing to rest upon the ultimate justice that we will only receive from our Lord on that day. Not only do we rest in that hope, we also should find solace in the realization that, if our Lord can work that outright evil done against us for good, so too can he work well-intended error for good. We are in no better place than when we rest in His sovereign care and submit ourselves to his revealed will.
I realize in writing this that victims of scandalous behavior may find little solace in such words. Indeed, we often subject ourselves to much ridicule from the wider world in clinging to such hope. But it is not false hope. It is not empty solace. We do much more damage to the cause of Christ when we insist upon justice – often, justice as we perceive it – now, rather than place even the treasures of our vindication where neither moth nor rust destroys, where thieves do not break in and steal, and where the judgments of Synods are cast like crowns before the sovereign throne of Christ. We are called to place the whole of our trust in Christ for the whole of our lives. Even, perhaps especially, when we believe ourselves to have been terribly aggrieved.
Inevitably, each of us will – to differing degrees and for different reasons – find ourselves needing to rest upon the ultimate justice that we will only receive from our Lord on the day of judgment.
Nothing, however, in the preceding paragraphs ought to be taken as mitigating or removing the responsibility for those who are called to be elders in Christ’s church from doing everything in their power within the principles laid out in Scripture to pursue justice and to prevent error and evil. Indeed, just as ours is now the greater responsibility (shepherding the flock which Christ himself bought with his own blood), so too will ours be the greater judgment. Yet I imagine that few know this better than the members of our Standing Judicial Commission. Yes, they often face the public disagreements of many presbyters. But they no doubt know well that they will one day be called to give account for every decision and every judgment.
Yet, one may still wonder what our right to private judgment in such instances is when we believe a court to have erred. I would start by saying it is just that – a right to private judgment. That does not mean that we cannot discuss this privately among other elders. It does mean that we ought not to discuss our private opinions and judgments publicly. I do regret that there is no mechanism for elders to clear their consciences by formally objecting to or protesting a decision of the SJC. While such an objection or protest would have no effect on the SJC’s judgment itself, if such a provision were available it might alleviate some (maybe even much) of the angst that is often experienced in the face of contrary opinions reached by the highest judicatory in our communion. Until such an avenue is available, I believe it to be the duty of every elder to keep their vow to submit to their brethren in the Lord. The vast majority of us do not hear the sworn testimony, do not directly examine the witnesses, and may know little about matter the beyond (often lopsided and uncross-examined) statements made in social media. Subjection in such cases of scandal will often require great humility before men and strong faith in Jesus Christ. These are, however, never bad things to cultivate in ourselves and among those whom we shepherd.
It must also be said that it is the right of any member to determine for themselves if a case of synodical error rises to such a level that they can no longer remain within that communion of saints. This is just as true when considering doctrinal positions or matters of polity as when considering the judgments of courts in judicial cases. I would counsel anyone who feels that this (or any other) decision of the SJC is of such great error that they cannot remain in communion with the PCA to limit themselves to statements of that fact: that you believe the SJC errors in a judicial case such that you can no longer in good conscience remain a member. The danger of slander is not merely that you might be charged with that offense in this life.
As I said above, with such a high-profile case in which many have their own opinion as to the accused’s guilt or innocence, it is inevitable that some will be sorely disappointed with whatever opinion the SJC renders. But if I can borrow a sentiment from the 1995 Rob Reiner/Aaron Sorkin movie The American President, instances such as these are exercises in advanced citizenship. It would be one thing if the SJC ultimately fails to uphold biblical principles for judging the case or fails to render judgment in line with the judicial procedures to which we have agreed. But if the end result is simply a decision with which we personally disagree, I hope that we each have the faith and hope and love that our Lord and Savior deserves that we would humbly submit ourselves to decision the court ultimately makes, reserving our right to private judgment, and cast our desired outcome upon the Lord who alone is perfect in all his judgment and final in all his decisions.
Stephen B. Tipton is pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church, Panama City, Florida