The context of this overture is the rehabilitative best interests of an offender. A recommendation of restitution would be at the discretion of the body that convenes the disciplinary trial, either a presbytery's Permanent Judicial Commission or a session. This overture respects the church's intent in disciplinary cases to pursue constructive rather than punitive measures. Practically, the church lacks means to enforce a mandatory requirement of restitution. It does not make sense to introduce into the Rules of Discipline an item that can not be realistically implemented.
Voluntary restitution allows the offender to assume direct responsibility for the harm inflicted.
If the act of restitution is performed voluntarily, then it comes as a choice by the offender. A concrete act that helps right a wrong done to a victim would be a more authentic demonstration of an offender's remorse and repentance than a simple apology or verbal assertion. Voluntary restitution is more likely to be an outward sign of an inner reality. Kenneth S. Kantzer, a senior editor of the journal Christianity Today , wrote a set of guidelines, based on scripture, for how the church should address issues of restoration of leaders who commit moral wrongs. In part this means repayment for losses, but more important is the symbolic statement involved.