Share this Digg Del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Slashdot Furl Yahoo Technorati Newsvine Googlize this Blinklist Facebook Wikio Print E-mail

An Interview

No one with a soft heart enjoys the process of disciplining another. No one with a backbone simply stands by while severe problems fester. So we get ourselves—reluctantly—into judicial cases from time to time.

Such an experience is so infrequent or rare, however, that most of us find a disciplinary or remedial case unfamiliar territory, and there are lots of conundrums that arise. How can we involve ourselves using that right combination of integrity, compassion, insight, and perseverance?

ReNEWS editors James D. Berkley and Pam Bowman spent a morning conversing with an executive presbyter and a pastor, both experienced in more than one disciplinary case. To allow them the freedom to speak forthrightly while protecting the confidentiality of all the parties involved, we have changed their names and some of the inconsequential details of the stories. The experiences, however, remain true, along with the good lessons that derive from them.

Briefly, what kinds of cases have you had experience in?

Margaret: Let me share two examples. First, I was a presbytery’s representative on the synod Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC). Charges were brought against a pastor in our presbytery, filed by his former head of staff in another presbytery because of sexual inappropriateness with a member of that church. It became the business of our presbytery because that’s where his membership was. The synod rules did not allow me to be involved in decision making in that case, but I facilitated the process. So I had experience from the PJC perspective before I became an executive presbyter.

My second example had its beginnings years before I came to my current presbytery as executive presbyter. A pastor had demitted his ordination in the process of a disciplinary case against him for sexual misconduct. We revisited this case after receiving a request from a church that wanted to call him as pastor. He had preached there occasionally, and they were aware of his history.

Scott: We discovered that an associate pastor was embezzling church funds by disguising receipts to pay for sexual activities. Our business manager raised a question about some of his expenses, so I followed up by visiting the address on the receipt. It turned out to be a massage parlor! A sexy young woman in a tight sweater asked how she could help me. I gulped and asked, “Do you sell educational materials and clip art here?” She laughed and told me what she did sell (I won’t repeat it), and verified that the receipt was for services in her establishment.

Having determined what was going on, I talked to the clerk of session, and we called the presbytery Committee on Ministry (COM). The presbytery was very helpful. We met as a session and moved forward. Allegations were presented, he immediately admitted to them, and we all worked together toward a solution.

Unfortunately, I can speak as both prosecutor and victim. Some time ago, allegations of sexual misconduct were leveled against me by a woman in our church who suffered from some severe emotional problems. The session handled it exceptionally well. Presbytery pressed on with the formation of an investigative committee that did its work thoroughly. I was investigated for nine months. No charges were filed, and eventually I received a letter of apology from the person who initiated the charges.

What kinds of actions and circumstances simply demand a disciplinary or judicial action? Can you give us a short list?

Scott: When it involves the integrity of the church, of a ministry, or of persons, then you need to step in to see that justice is handled fairly, both for the person accused and the congregation involved. Some accusations are false. When a ministry is questioned for integrity or ethics, there must be either vindication or correction. Financial issues and issues of sexual impropriety must be looked into, as well as churches that stand in definite defiance of the Book of Order. That questions the integrity of our system.

Margaret: If things are overlooked or brushed aside, it hurts everyone in the long run. We’ve just seen that in the Roman Catholic Church. Primarily it hurts the integrity of the ministry of Jesus Christ. As leaders in the church, we absolutely must not shirk this duty.

I am grateful for our rules of discipline and for our process. Judicatory leaders from other denominations, where it’s not so clearly spelled out, have asked me for help. I am thankful we have a good disciplinary system in place. Any action you take is subjective, and I don’t want to be in the role of punishing or seeking retribution, but you must have a process of maintaining integrity of ministry. People must be able to trust the church and our leadership.

In my first example, the PJC went beyond the call of duty to do the right thing. Unfortunately, the investigating group had hired a private investigator who, even more unfortunately, knocked on doors and asked questions. As a result, the woman who was involved filed a complaint with the synod PJC against our presbytery. But she was no longer a part of the Presbyterian Church, and so had no standing to file charges. In spite of that, the PJC wanted to address her pain and do what would be of help to her.

It sounds like a pastoral response. What did you and the others do right, and what made it right? And what was the outcome?

Margaret: Helping the woman pastorally was a part of the remediation. She lived a distance from us, and our lawyer said that if our presbytery paid her expenses to come here, it would be acknowledgement of culpability. So we did it by hours on the telephone. Listening to her anger and frustration made a difference to her. We treated the woman in a pastoral way, and she felt at peace.

As for the pastor in my second example, he had not been removed from ministry; he had demitted his ordination vows. In order for us to reopen the case, we required of him a full written confession. We figured he had to feel this new call strongly to do that. Then, because it was a judicial process, he had to be reinstated to inactive status in the presbytery without any explanation. There were many questions, and the COM chair had to ask the presbytery to trust us. It was a sobering discussion, but the presbytery did vote to reinstate him.

The PJC met with him and recommended a two-year process of counseling and working with a small group of COM members. He also agreed that, at the end of two years, they would receive a report and recommendation from the counselor to make their final evaluation. He and two members of the COM met with people from the session where it had happened. They prayed together. He spoke and apologized in person. He submitted himself totally to the discipline of the church. It has proven to be wonderfully redemptive for him and for the church where it happened. They were pleased at the way we dealt with them, with the questions we asked, and with the process. I feel good about that.

What about the case with the associate pastor, Scott?

Scott: We were willing to agonize with and for that associate pastor, trying to reach a good sense of what should fairly and pastorally be done. It was good that we were able to move quickly. (Sometimes the process, excellent as it is, can drag on a long time because people who are doing this are volunteers, and a synod PJC may meet only twice a year.) He was willing to resign. We required and paid for inpatient counseling at a center approved by the presbytery, gave him a separation package, kept his insurance going, and so on. We wanted to help him.

But sadly, even the best of intentions don’t always pan out. Recently I was told that this pastor ended up in two other churches where he also embezzled funds. It is now my understanding that he has left the denomination.

Margaret: What did you do about reference checks after he left?

Scott: Needless to say, I was not listed as a reference. Of the one person who did call, I asked, “Do you have his permission to speak with me?” When I was informed that the committee did not have such permission, I referred them to the executive presbyter.

Margaret: I have a standard question that I ask, or answer, in every reference check, whether or not people ask me: “To your knowledge, has this person ever been accused of any sexual impropriety, drug or alcohol abuse, or any financial malfeasance?” Usually the answer is “absolutely not,” but if there is a hesitation, or if they don’t want to answer, then I ask if the person has been convicted of any of those things to their knowledge.

When I answer like questions, if the person has been accused but fully acquitted, of course I say that.

How do we keep from participating in a cover-up, as our Roman Catholic friends are being accused of doing?

Scott: Trust the laity! And trust the process. I could have gone to the associate and said, “I know what you’re doing. I want you to be gone in a few months or I’ll expose you.” But our system of justice does not allow that. Trust the Session to be able to handle such delicate information with the best decision for the good of the church. Our situation happened a number of years ago, and the process is even more clearly outlined now: First ask the COM for help, then deal with it in your session, and then work through the process. In trusting the laity to deal with the process, justice emerges.

I don’t understand what the Roman Catholic pattern of disciplinary process is, or even if they have had a defined process, but it seems that it would have been helpful if there hadn’t been such a hierarchical view of ministry with so much power resting in clergy alone.

Margaret: I agree. Use confidentiality, not secrecy. Lay people tend to take discipline very seriously.

What did you do wrong? In other words, what are some mistakes that others might avoid?

Margaret: My concern is that people’s lives are at stake. The other presbytery’s hiring of a private investigator was inappropriate.

Scott: With the associate pastor situation, things were resolved quickly and well with full concurrence of the presbytery. One of the steps we took was to trust that he would come to grips with his problem through counseling that we provided.

Margaret: It’s better to get it on the record. It would have taken longer and been more agonizing for your church, Scott, but when you don’t have anything in writing, then there is nothing except accusations for future reference checks. In your case, the outcome of a judicial case probably would have been the same, but there would have been a record. While all of us would probably rather just have a negotiated settlement, allowing the pastor to demit rather than go through the judicial process, I wouldn’t advise it.

Scott: I agree with you, Margaret.

This can be a pretty wrenching thing to be involved with, fraught with the possibility of being judged yourself. What price did you pay to be involved?

Scott: On many levels there is a price to pay: emotional and physical, the intense wear and tear of the process and intense personal conflict as a result of taking a stand. But there is also a price to pay in not being involved. My seminary professor would say in summation of the Gospel: “Obedience equals blessings.” When we do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with our God, God can bless that and continue to bless ministry. We are seeking to do what Jesus would do—leading the kind of life God longs to bless.

Margaret: In this presbytery, there still are people who feel this guy “waltzed back in.” They make assumptions because they don’t know the details. I did what I thought was right, and it proved to be right. But you do run the risk of losing a little credibility with people in your presbytery. I don’t know any way around it. If you are a church leader at any level, sometimes you take a hit. Do what you must in as gracious a way as possible. Be clear in your own motives, and then live with it!

Scott: We need to remember that churches are inevitably wrenched, too. When allegations are made and the process begins, any momentum you may have in ministry is put into neutral. It may take a church years to regain that momentum.

What were the positive aspects of being involved? Did you feel good, or did you get any kind of reinforcement?

Margaret: You get a boost of respect and appreciation from the small number of people who know what is going on. It strengthens you as a leader, and it strengthens their sense of integrity and fairness.

Scott: When it is out of our control, we reach a point of having to trust God in the process, having faith that our God who has been faithful in the past will be faithful in the future. It can be a growing experience in faith.

When it’s a moral case—embezzling or sexual problems—it’s straightforward. But if it is heresy or defiance, there’s more judgment involved on whether or not you should step in. Are there any indicators that a particular case is worth taking on?

Margaret: Give it strong, prayerful consideration. Hold it up before the Lord: “Why should I do this? Is there some other way to deal with it?” Ask the Spirit for direction.

Scott: Well said! You must feel called by God, because it is a time-consuming venture. If an elder or pastor has the opportunity to say yes or no, the question might be “Is the Holy Spirit leading me to do this? Does this have my name on it?” It would be wise to make sure your information is accurate and your perspective is on target. Talk as confidentially as possible with two or three others in the congregation whose leadership and confidentiality you respect.

How do you handle the opinion that to judge at all is hypocritical or rigid?

Margaret: There are always people who will take issue, either because of what has happened in their own lives, or because they don’t especially like the person who is filing charges. That’s a double reason to examine your motives, and only do it if you feel the Spirit is leading you. If someone is being hurt, or the ministry of Jesus Christ is being destroyed, that takes precedence over being accused of being rigid or hypocritical.

Scott: We are called to work for the peace, unity, and purity of the church. If we hold to biblical standards, the purity of the church can’t be relativistically defined all the time. We hold the personal admonition “not to judge” in balance with the general admonition to “do justice,” because the purity of the church is important. It’s a spiritual issue.

What are resources you could recommend to anyone embarking on this disciplinary path with eyes wide open?

Margaret: I would hope every presbytery clerk or executive would be ready to answer questions and try to stand with the person who has a complaint. Certainly the Stated Clerk’s office in Louisville is always helpful. Our synod offers PJC training.

Scott: Every presbytery and every synod has legal counsel available to explain the process to a neophyte and also point out consequences.

Scott, when you were the subject of an investigation, how did you go about getting yourself up to speed?

Scott: First, by desperately grasping for spiritual resources: God’s assurances, grace, and favor, and looking for the hand of God in this somewhere. Then, to speak rather practically, a good lawyer is worth it. Legal counsel was very helpful. The executive presbyter can muddle things badly or move justice beautifully. The hard thing—and it sounds like you were able to do it, Margaret—is to balance pastoring and mercy with justice and necessary action.

Margaret: I tell pastors in difficult circumstances, “I want to be very clear that I care about you and your call to ministry, but my first commitment is to the church. If the will of the Body of Christ is that what you have done and who you are are judged to do damage to the Body, I will stand with that judgment.” It may break my heart personally, but my first commitment is to the church. But you do have to be pastoral throughout, so when a person is found to be innocent, that person knows you were with him or her.

God help us! None of us except Jesus Christ has full knowledge. We do our best to follow our process and go where the Spirit leads us.

Looking at the current problems in the Roman Catholic Church, in this day and age is it really wise to give a person a second chance? Are those found guilty simply in the wrong profession?

Scott: When all is said and done, we are a people of truth and grace in Christ. In balancing justice with mercy, there’s a place for the issue to be presented and confession to be made, if indeed the person should rightly make a confession. But then there’s a place for restitution, reconstruction, forgiveness, and moving on. I think Jesus makes that abundantly clear. At the same time, if there are deep psychological issues, they should be firmly and clearly addressed before there is any reinstatement to ministry. Would you say that, Margaret?

Margaret: We gave our pastor another chance, and we all have received the blessing of God as a result. I called him before I agreed to do this interview. His response was, “I really owe my life to the process and discipline of the PC(USA), and to the love and mercy that I’ve experienced. Redemption has come into my life as a result. I want you to tell that story.”

The purpose of discipline

from Book of Order

Principles of Church Discipline D–1.0101, D–1.0102

To honor God by making clear the significance of membership in the body of Christ,

to preserve the purity of the church by nourishing the individual within the life of the believing community;

to correct or restrain wrongdoing in order to bring members to repentance and restoration;

to restore the unity of the church by removing the causes of discord and division; and

to secure the just, speedy, and economical determination of proceedings.

The power that Jesus Christ has vested in his Church, a power manifested in the exercise of church discipline, is one for building up the body of Christ, not for destroying it, for redeeming, not for punishing.