Rejecting Due Process - American Reformer

On Abuse, Discipline and Justice

The years since George Floyd’s death have seen an acceleration of many troubling trends in evangelical churches. Few to my mind are more disturbing than the way in which certain basic principles of justice have been abandoned without so much as even an attempt to justify their abandonment, and this even among ostensibly “conservative” pastors, elders, and seminary professors.

One of the most important principles of justice is the notion that guilt must be proved, not assumed. Due process, or the presumption of innocence, which has a long history in English common law, is central to America’s judicial system (at least formally so, even if this principle is being eroded in practice). It is also at the heart of the Bible’s teaching on justice. We see this in a variety of places.

In Deuteronomy 25:1–2 there is a basic statement of what judges and courts are for, namely, to acquit the innocent and condemn the guilty, then to punish the one who is guilty. In order to ensure that all parties receive a fair trial it is required that there be at least two witnesses (Deut 17:6). It is indispensable to true justice that a “single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed” (Deut 19:15). Although the Bible frames things in terms of the necessity of multiple witnesses, this is meant to accomplish exactly what the presumption of innocence does in our nation’s courts: you cannot condemn a man unless you have proven him guilty. A single witness can easily lie. With multiple witnesses, it is possible to cross-examine them and compare their individual testimonies with each other to more accurately determine the truth.

This Old Testament judicial principle is reaffirmed in Hebrews 10:28, though the New Testament focuses on the necessity of multiple witnesses in discipline cases within the church. No one may be disciplined merely on the basis of one witness (Matt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1; 1 Tim 5:19). This means that guilt must be proven in church courts, just as in secular courts. At stake is the possibility of wrongly condemning the innocent and the very existence of justice itself.

The presumption of innocence, however, is in peril in the evangelical world. In fact, there are many who believe that a presumption of innocence is the very opposite of justice.

A recent church court case in my denomination (the Presbyterian Church in America) provides a shocking example. Pastor Ryan Biese, in a multi-part series, has documented this case in extensive detail. Here are the basic facts. In 2020 a PCA church plant in Jonesboro, Arkansas had a temporary ruling body (called a temporary session). They also had a church planter who had been appointed by the regional body of the PCA (Covenant Presbytery). Members of the church were concerned that the church-planting pastor was too progressive, farmed preaching out to others too often, and was overbearing in his leadership. Seven men in the church, following the teaching of our savior (Matt 18:15–20), presented their concerns to the temporary planting pastor and to the temporary session, and explained that they would like to consider pastoral candidates other than the planting pastor. As a still-organizing church plant, they would not yet have issued a call to a man to be their permanent pastor. In response, the temporary session brought church discipline charges against all seven men, eventually barring them from the Lord’s Supper.

The seven men appealed their discipline to Covenant Presbytery, which ruled against them as well. Then they appealed to the highest court of the PCA, the General Assembly. The General Assembly, through its Standing Judicial Commission (SJC), ruled in favor of the seven men, overturning the rulings against them by the lower courts, although not until March 2023.

As I said, the details can be found in Pastor Biese’s series of articles. What I want to focus on is the reasoning that was used by the lower courts to discipline these seven men. The courts claimed that the men had violated the fifth commandment in expressing their desire for a different pastor eventually to become their permanent pastor, and the ninth commandment in speaking critically of the pastor and their temporary elders. They indeed spoke critically of them, but they did so to those men, not behind their backs. How, in keeping with Matthew 18, would it be possible to express such concerns if not precisely by bringing them to the parties themselves?

What is extremely concerning in this case is that the basic principle of due process seems to have been treated as a hindrance to justice, rather than the heart of justice. To say this does not require one to determine motives or to speculate. This was the ruling of the PCA’s SJC itself. The discipline imposed on the “Jonesboro 7” was “unfair to an accused and violates basic principles of due process as required by our standards” (The ruling of the SJC as recorded in GA50 Handbook, p. 2065, cited by Biese). The SJC also wrote that there “Were No Transgressions of the Fifth Commandment” and “There Were No Transgressions of the Ninth Commandment” (GA50 Handbook, pp. 2068, 2070, cited by Biese) by the seven men.

Covenant Presbytery was also determined to have introduced new evidence in trial that had not been part of the original indictment:

A court may not consider matters outside an indictment at a trial on that indictment. Conduct and events that occurred after May 5, 2021, the date of the Indictments here, were outside of the scope of the proceedings fairly at issue. Any finding of guilt or censure related to or arising out of such alleged conduct or events is void for lack of the due process our Constitution requires. (GA50 Handbook, pp. 2067-2068, cited by Biese)

In the end, justice prevailed, precisely because due process was adhered to. Guilt must be proved, and the Presbytery could not do so. This is as it should be, but the very lack of due process throughout much of this ordeal is extremely worrying.

A second example comes from a growing movement within evangelical churches regarding how to deal with abuse. It is now commonplace to hear that churches must “believe all women” when they claim abuse has occurred. It is sad that one has to even say this, but of course, there is horrific abuse in the church, and it must be dealt with appropriately (legally and spiritually). However, this cannot be done by denying a fundamental principle of biblical justice, that guilt must be established, not presumed.

I recently heard a presentation on abuse by one who claimed that officers in the church must always take a posture of belief toward the victim. There were some things in the presentation that were helpful, but this specific claim (which is also becoming increasingly common) simply cannot withstand scrutiny. This certainly does not mean that we can be careless in protecting victims from their abusers. It also doesn’t mean that officers of the church should instantly indicate that they don’t believe the one claiming to have been abused. Due process requires proof, not a hostile or dismissive stance toward someone claiming to have suffered great evil. What worries me most is that the danger presented by the charge to take a posture of belief toward victims is so subtle. Since is it usually presented in the midst of some true information about how to protect the innocent from abuse, and how to ensure that victims of abuse receive justice (in court and in the church), it will be easy not to notice how radically opposed to true justice the claim actually is.

Godly men and women in the church want victims to receive justice and perpetrators to be legally punished, as well as disciplined by the church. If it is claimed, or implied, that insisting on due process will prevent justice, how many will be able to withstand the resultant pressure to give up the principle of due process? “So you’re on the side of abusers?” or “Don’t you want justice for victims?” or “You’re an abuse apologist.” You can guess how many will be willing to stand firm in the face of that kind of emotional blackmail. It is a different form of “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” It is impossible to insist on due process and appear to be on the side of justice when the claim is that there can be no justice unless the church always takes a posture of belief toward one claiming abuse. The very framing of the issue won’t allow it.

And yet biblical justice demands that we never abandon the principle that guilt must be proven rather than assumed, that all men and women are rightfully subject to the protections of due process.

Image Credit: Unsplash