Thread by @jasonpiland

A few thoughts about #pcaga O13 that failed this year.

(1) It has been said that using depositions or testimony from civil/criminal court in PCA judicial trials is better than removing restrictions on witness competency. While it may be possible to do this in /1

some cases, church courts should be very careful before receiving these as evidence. The parties in the civil/criminal process are not the same parties in the church court. They may have different interests, and cross-examination by a prosecutor in a church court will have /2

different goals than a Plaintiff in a tort action. Parties don't align, and interests don't align. It can be unfair to the accused to bring these in, if they even exist at all. And reading a transcript is dramatically different from seeing somebody testify. /3

So to say that these transcripts can always be used isn't correct, and neither is it always wise to use them. This is an argument in favor of change in line with O13.

(2) O13 is not about abuse per se. It is about a fundamental conception of what the courts of the church /4

should and ought to do. Does it have implications for abuse cases? Yes, both on the side of the prosecution (allowing more testimony against the accused) and of the defense (allowing more exculpatory evidence to be introduced). Does it help the prosecution or the accused? /5

It depends on the facts of the case. I haven't heard one person say that this provision has affected a single case one way or another. So arguments saying this is inherently and only a pro-victim change does not compel me now. I haven't seen that backed up with facts. /6

(3) The church does not have inherent authority to prosecute lying to the court of the church unless that person is a PCA church member. If a witness is a Christian at another church, believes in God generally, or believes in a state of rewards and punishments, we can have /7

some assurance that they have a legitimate motivation to tell the truth. We cross the line into someone who does not believe in God or a state of rewards and punishments, we can have no assurance that the witness has motivation to tell the truth, the argument goes. /8

This overlooks the myriad ways false statements made in church court proceedings could be the basis for criminal or tortious liability. Charges of obstruction of justice or even perjury could be made in some, maybe all, states. Civil suits for slander are fair game. /9

In short, there are some threats of the civil government against those who lie to a church court, even if those means are not perfect or easy. Yes, the church does not have inherent authority, but it can appeal to the civil government who can be involved in such cases. /10

In all, here we have maybe two points in favor of O13, one point neither for nor against, but against some of the arguments made for O13. /end