You can’t be serious- background checks in this day are fundamental. Our presbytery had a youth pastor molest a 13 year old at youth group. Same pastor did same thing years later in different presbytery. 2nd incident would have been prevented by a background check. Thus is simply not optional. Pls rethink your position on this 🙏
I'm asking, not to be contentious, but because I know nothing about this case. How was it possible that a youth pastor molested a 13-year-old, had it go to the criminal courts (otherwise there would have been nothing to show up on a background check) and he was not brought under church discipline that should have prevented him from ever serving again in any church office?
I might understand if he had originally been a youth pastor in some independent church somewhere and became a fugitive from discipline, moved to some other state, and joined a Presbyterian denomination that knew nothing of his background and didn't mention his previous church. But apparently he was a member of a presbytery, or at least an unordained youth pastor in a Presbyterian denomination, and somehow managed to evade church discipline.
It sounds like this is a far more serious problem than failure to do a background check. I understand that false accusations happen and sometimes there are legitimate questions about whether church discipline is warranted, but anything that would show up on a criminal background check is so serious, and so public, that it would almost always warrant church discipline of a person with pastoral duties.
Brad, I'm not sure that this is really the precedent you suppose, even in the PCA. Are there not mandatory requirements that full time pastoral calls include pension provision and health care provision? If not, would it be improper for a presbytery to make such a requirement? I don't see how this is radically different from that?
Criminal background checks are a new phenomena and borderline worthless. They don't detect new offenders and neither do they identify those who were indicted but beat the rap. Relying on these secular devices gives our churches a false sense of security and breeds laziness in our leadership. If the PCA is going to be mandating anything, maybe it should instead be mandating a return to our age-old Reformed roots by requiring elders to visit their members annually, meet with the men of their church regularly and exercise a vigilant and discerning watch over the flock.
But I understand. People are messy, so let's just codify this outsourcing of spiritual duties to worldly 3rd parties and let them do the (ineffective) dirty work for us.
It's for this reason I have turned down nominations for elder and deacon at churches who require CBC's of their officers; I refuse to contribute to this delinquency.
You can’t be serious- background checks in this day are fundamental. Our presbytery had a youth pastor molest a 13 year old at youth group. Same pastor did same thing years later in different presbytery. 2nd incident would have been prevented by a background check. Thus is simply not optional. Pls rethink your position on this 🙏
I'm asking, not to be contentious, but because I know nothing about this case. How was it possible that a youth pastor molested a 13-year-old, had it go to the criminal courts (otherwise there would have been nothing to show up on a background check) and he was not brought under church discipline that should have prevented him from ever serving again in any church office?
I might understand if he had originally been a youth pastor in some independent church somewhere and became a fugitive from discipline, moved to some other state, and joined a Presbyterian denomination that knew nothing of his background and didn't mention his previous church. But apparently he was a member of a presbytery, or at least an unordained youth pastor in a Presbyterian denomination, and somehow managed to evade church discipline.
It sounds like this is a far more serious problem than failure to do a background check. I understand that false accusations happen and sometimes there are legitimate questions about whether church discipline is warranted, but anything that would show up on a criminal background check is so serious, and so public, that it would almost always warrant church discipline of a person with pastoral duties.
Brad, I'm not sure that this is really the precedent you suppose, even in the PCA. Are there not mandatory requirements that full time pastoral calls include pension provision and health care provision? If not, would it be improper for a presbytery to make such a requirement? I don't see how this is radically different from that?
Criminal background checks are a new phenomena and borderline worthless. They don't detect new offenders and neither do they identify those who were indicted but beat the rap. Relying on these secular devices gives our churches a false sense of security and breeds laziness in our leadership. If the PCA is going to be mandating anything, maybe it should instead be mandating a return to our age-old Reformed roots by requiring elders to visit their members annually, meet with the men of their church regularly and exercise a vigilant and discerning watch over the flock.
But I understand. People are messy, so let's just codify this outsourcing of spiritual duties to worldly 3rd parties and let them do the (ineffective) dirty work for us.
It's for this reason I have turned down nominations for elder and deacon at churches who require CBC's of their officers; I refuse to contribute to this delinquency.
Bottom line is that pastor buried it and it didn’t come to light for many years and now is a huge mess for that church and that presbytery