Let’s Get Ready to Rumble!!!!
Well, maybe not! In the goings-on around the ARPChurch, we are too old to rumble. About all most of us can do is wobble.
However, if we were a Friday Night SmackDown event, I would introduce the participants in this manner: “Ladies and Gentlemen! Let me have your attention! In the top corner, wearing blue, Alex Lott, an ARP loyalist who holds the ARPChurch authoritative and inviolate. In the bottom corner, wearing red, Seth Yi, one of the founders of Veritas Presbytery, and he has walked away from the ecclesiastical tyranny of the ARPChurch.”
So let’s see what they have to say!!
Second Presbytery and the ARP Constitution:
A Response to Reverend Seth Yi
Written by Alex Lott | Wednesday, August 28, 2024
An Introduction
I do not believe that the current situation in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church should be characterized as an ongoing constitutional crisis. My belief is based on my reading of our ARP Standards, which are, of course, subordinate to the Holy Scriptures. Since reading is the art of noticing details and understanding them in context, all good biblical exegetes resist the temptation to extrapolate endlessly from one or two clauses.
A seminary classmate recently linked me Rev. Seth Yi’s article entitled The ARP Tightens It Grip on Congregations and Ministers. Although my friend now serves as a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) Teaching Elder, he interned with an Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) congregation, and he wanted to know my thoughts as an ARP Minister regarding the Second Presbytery controversy.
I was surprised by Rev. Yi’s allegations that our denomination is experiencing an “ongoing crisis” and his construal of the ARP Form of Government (FOG). Incongruously, he seems to believe that Synod did not have the authority to dissolve Second Presbytery but that presbyteries are empowered to grant carte- blanche advance approval for congregations to withdraw and ministers to transfer.
I told my PCA friend that in his several articles, Rev. Yi has apparently misread our governing documents, leading to incorrect assessments of how ARP courts operate. In particular, I noted the following actions:
A Response to Rev. Alex Lott’s
“Second Presbytery and the ARP Constitution”
Written by Seth Yi | Wednesday, September 4, 2024
An Introduction
In a recent article, Rev. Alex Lott responded to my articles that have been posted on The Aquila Report.
I appreciate Mr. Lott’s effort to dialogue with the substance of my articles, but we clearly do not agree on the particulars. We fundamentally disagree over how to read the Constitution. I advocate for a text-centered approach that carefully examines the words of the Constitution while Mr. Lott reads between and beyond the text of the Form of Government (FoG), a constitutional document of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Moreover, Mr. Lott and I disagree at points because he misses some of the clear facts about what happened in Second Presbytery. Minimally, this debate indicates that Synod was unwise in its hasty action to dissolve Second Presbytery.
I will work through his points to bring clarity to the matter.
The Appointment of the Special Committee
Written by Alex Lott
Rev. Yi claims the Special Committee to Investigate Second Presbytery’s Handling of Allegations Against Chuck Wilson was “unquestionably unconstitutional” because members were not appointed by the Synod Moderator.
This view misconstrues the language of the Form of Government (FOG) 13.13.B.(2): “The moderator, chairman or nominating committee shall appoint [a special committee’s] members whenever authorized by the court or board” (emphasis mine).
This is not an absolute requirement that the moderator must populate all special committees because the conditional phrase “whenever authorized by the court” clarifies that the moderator may only appoint special-committee members upon authorization. Robert’s Rules helpfully explains that authorization may be given either by motion from the floor or by standing rule, and Synod’s Manual of Authorities and Duties (MAD) contains no standing authorization regarding special committees. Since there was no special authorization by motion from the floor, it was in good Presbyterian order for the Synod itself to populate the committee by approving the members specified in the main motion.
The Appointment of the Special Committee
Written by Seth Yi
The unconstitutionality of the Special Committee that investigated Second Presbytery is not a misconstruing of the language of the FoG but a plain and direct reading of 13.13.B.(2) “Special Committees. A special committee shall be appointed whenever the work of the court or board requires it. The moderator, chairman or nominating committee shall appoint its members whenever authorized by the court or board.” The motion to appoint this special committee did not conform to the plain reading of the constitution. The motion’s last sentence that appointed the members of the special committee should have been ruled out of order. The former Moderator of Synod (2023-2024), Rob Patrick, said during the debate of the point of order, “I’ve heard it said that the special committee was appointed by the moderator. It was not appointed by the moderator. I was serving as moderator. What I wish to ask is...was the approval of the motion, by the Synod the moderator's appointment? Because I made no appointments.” Mr. Patrick’s response reflects his understanding of the clear language of the FoG. He as the moderator did not appoint the members of this special committee that Synod authorized.
Moreover, it is not necessary to appeal to Robert’s Rules or even Synod’s Manual of Authorities and Duties (MAD) when the FoG, clearly addresses a matter. The Constitution is the final authority, subject to the Scriptures, in any assembly. The clear reading of this section should not require the support of Robert’s Rules or the MAD. No one on the floor of Synod made the arguments that Mr. Lott makes in his article. The admission of this unconstitutional act was simply accepted by the Moderator. Consequently, the point of order was overruled by the Moderator and the acting Parliamentarian.
Synod’s Consideration of the Special Committee Report
Written by Alex Lott
Rev. Yi also believes Synod violated the ARP constitution when it took up the Report of the Special Committee (Index 11). He is, of course, entitled to hold his opinion in good conscience, but the opinions of individual members do not determine order in a Presbyterian court. In fact, FOG 12.25.C. says that the General Synod has responsibility to hear appeals to “make final decisions in all controversies respecting doctrine, order, and discipline,” so, effectively, any controversy over whether Index 11 was in order according to the Form of Government was settled by the fact that General Synod voted to hear the report and enact its recommendations.
Both Rev. Tanner Cline and Rev. Yi asked the chair to declare the entirety of the report out of order due to the committee’s composition, the scope of its work, and the submission of its report. Technically, these appeals are likely themselves out of order because the speakers were actually objecting to the considerations of motions, not merely raising points of order. Even had the appropriate motion been raised, though, Index 11 and its recommendations would still have been taken up because Synod’s MAD requires a two-thirds majority to carry an objection to consideration. As it was, a clear majority voted to sustain Moderator Alan Broyles’ ruling that the report was in order, and this resolution of parliamentary questions by the assembly’s judgement was also good Presbyterian procedure.
Synod’s Consideration of the Special Committee Report
Written by Seth Yi
Both Rev. Tanner Cline and I made point of order speeches that cited the unconstitutional nature of the formation of the Special Committee (FoG.13.13.B.(2)) and its Report (FoG 13.12.D; 13.12.A.; Book of Discipline 4.2.). These points of order were not denied or opposed in debate but chided by the acting Parliamentarian as being mere “technicalities.” If there are some sections of the constitution that are mere technicalities and apparently do not need to be followed, why are these technicalities in the constitution? Who has the authority to determine when a technicality applies or not. The unconstitutional origin of the Special Committee and its Report should have been sufficient to rule the Report out of order.
Mr. Lott states that “FoG 12.25.C. says that the General Synod has responsibility to hear appeals to ‘make final decisions in all controversies respecting doctrine, order, and discipline,’ so, effectively, any controversy over whether Index 11 was in order according to the Form of Government was settled by the fact that General Synod voted to hear the report and enact its recommendations.” However, Index 11 was not an “appeal” to Synod per FoG 12.25.C. In fact, Second Presbytery was not given an opportunity to debate the merits of Index 11 before it was distributed to the Synod just two weeks before its start.
The Authority of General Synod to Dissolve a Presbytery
Written by Alex Lott
Most importantly, Rev. Yi argues that the General Synod had no right to enact the dissolution of Second Presbytery on the basis of his reading of FOG 12.22, which states: “The General Synod shall advise Presbyteries in its processes, but not the outcome, of the actions of the Presbyteries, in order to: A. Organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve Presbyteries in keeping with the advancement of the Church” (emphasis mine). While I feel the force of his argument—and the language here is undoubtedly confusing—it seems to me that crucial wording has again been overlooked.
First, this section of the FOG speaks most clearly of “the actions of the Presbyteries.” That is, while it clearly prevents the General Synod dictating any presbytery vote to dissolve itself, it arguably does not limit the actions of Synod itself to that end. In fact, a close reading suggests the singular possessive pronoun “its” refers back to “the General Synod,” meaning that the essential processes of presbytery organization and dissolution belong to Synod itself with presbyteries also playing a secondary role in receiving congregations and ministers as a result. In this part of the process, the higher court may not simply dictate the outcome.
This reading seems most reasonable because it is difficult to understand how Synod could be excluded from the organization, reception, transfer, dismissal, or dissolution of entire presbyteries. FOG 10.1 declares that “the Presbytery is the essential court of the Presbyterian system in administering its general order, the higher courts being constituted simply by a wider application of the general principles of the Presbytery” (emphasis mine). By analogy then, if the Presbytery has power to “unite, divide, organize, dissolve, receive, dismiss, and transfer congregations” (FOG 10.3 E.), the higher court would be able to “organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve Presbyteries” (FOG 12.22). Certainly, the power to act directly upon other presbyteries is not conferred upon the presbyteries themselves anywhere in the Form of Government. One or more presbyteries may not simply vote to receive into the ARPC a breakaway presbytery from a different denomination. Neither may one presbytery sovereignly dismiss another ARP presbytery. This exact logic was on display during day three of the 2024 General Synod when the higher court voted to grant Canadian Presbytery’s petition for dismissal to form a coordinate Canadian ARP Synod.
Additionally, the Presbyterian principle of oversight and accountability through graded courts would seem to demand that Synod be able to dissolve one of her presbyteries if necessary. This principle seems to find expression in FOG 12.24 I., which gives the General Synod power to “oversee the affairs of the entire denomination, directing such measures as are necessary for the promotion of the peace, purity, and prosperity of all congregations under its care.” Ultimately, these are the concerns, I believe, that drove Synod to dissolve Second Presbytery and reallocate her congregations. Many men—myself included—arrived at Bonclarken prepared to vote these recommendations down but found themselves convinced by floor debate that the peace and purity of Christ’s Church required such an unprecedented step.
The Authority of General Synod to Dissolve a Presbytery
Written by Seth Yi
As noted by Mr. Lott, this issue is the crux of the matter: Does General Synod have the authority to dissolve a Presbytery? FoG 12.22 clearly addresses this question. It states, “The General Synod shall advise Presbyteries in its processes, but not the outcome, of the actions of the Presbyteries, in order to: A. Organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve Presbyteries in keeping with the advancement of the Church.” (emphasis added) Rather than trying to respond to all of Mr. Lott’s arguments, I will apply basic hermeneutics to this section of the FoG. Furthermore, this section of the FoG should supersede all other sections since it most clearly relates to the matter at hand. Generally speaking, in hermeneutics, what is more clear should override what is less clear.
As I learned in Greek exegesis, the first observation that needs to be established in a sentence is the main verb. The main verb of FoG 12.22 is “shall advise.” Shall in our FoG is understood as required, a must. Next, the definition of shall means to give a recommendation or to advise. I’m sure other definitions can be added, but the plain understanding of this action is not the same as execute or perform. Moreover, the 2014 revision of the FoG revised the language of Synod’s authority over Presbyteries. The previous edition, XII.B.2.d. stated, “2. In order to carry out its responsibility, the General Synod has power: d. To organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve Presbyteries in keeping with the advancement of the Church.” (emphasis added) It does not take an English professor to recognize that there has been a clear change in Synod’s power over Presbyteries. The previous edition established Synod’s authority to act unilaterally to dissolve a Presbytery, but the current edition has limited Synod’s responsibility to an advisory role. The plain reading of this sentence is hard to avoid. “Shall advise Presbyteries in its processes” is not the same as the “power...to dissolve.”
Furthermore, the rest of the sentence clearly points to a limited role of Synod in its relation to the Presbytery. The phrase “but not the outcome” is tied to the advisory role of the Synod. A plain reading of this phrase would mean that Synod does not have the authority to determine the outcome, i.e., the dissolution. Furthermore, the phrase “of the actions of the Presbyteries” is added to clarify who is the actor and who is the advisor.
I appreciate Mr. Lott’s efforts to prove his point by using “the art of noticing details,” but if the language of FoG 12.22 is “undoubtedly confusing,” should there not have been a reasonable debate on the floor of Synod to resolve this apparent confusion before such an extreme action was taken? Instead, all such debate was undercut when the former Parliamentarian of Synod wrongly stated, “General Synod has the authority to organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve presbyteries. ... And what I just read to you is from the latest but was also in the 53 and 71 editions. It’s a standard thing that we have the authority to do.” Whatever edition he was reading from, it was not the latest.
The current wording of the constitution should have been read and debated before the recommendation to dissolve was approved. The acting Parliamentarian, in accordance with his duties, should have read the current section of the FoG to inform the court in its deliberations. Even if the Synod would have come to the same conclusion, it was not provided accurate information. Rather it was given misinformation during a critical point in the debate.
The Second Called Meeting of Second Presbytery on August 13
Written by Alex Lott
Sadly, in contrast to Synod’s disputed authority to dissolve Second Presbytery, actions taken by Second Presbytery itself on August 13, as reported by Rev. Yi, represent clear constitutional overreach.
First, Rev. Yi’s description of the August 13 proceedings describes a second meeting of Second Presbytery being called immediately following the close of a previous called meeting. This is presented as necessary because Moderator Billy Barron refused to allow an amendment to one item of business. I was not present at the meeting and so cannot say whether Rev. Barron ruled correctly, but I will note that Robert’s Rules permits amendments in regular order to a main motion specified in the notice of a special meeting. Whatever the case may be, there are proper remedies to violations of parliamentary law, and these remedies do not include demanding another meeting be called without giving sufficient notice. This unconstitutional action plainly violated FOG 10.12, which requires that “at least one week’s notice of called meetings shall be given to all members of the Presbytery specifying the time and place of the meeting and the particular business for which the meeting is called.”
The Second Called Meeting of Second Presbytery on August 13
Written by Seth Yi
Mr. Lott is misinformed on this point. The second called meeting of Second Presbytery was in conformity to FoG 10.12.
The Stated Clerk notified Second Presbytery of the second called meeting with the following email which I received on 8/6/24, 10:57 AM:
Dear Brothers of Second Presbytery,
On behalf of Moderator Barron, I am letting you know that, per FoG 10.12, a called meeting of Second Presbytery has been requested by Jonathan Cook, Peter Waid, and Mark Wright.
The purpose of the meeting is to: "Provide for open response and any actions related to the dissolution of Second Presbytery for congregations and ministers.”
This additional called meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 13, immediately following the adjournment of the meeting of Second Presbytery previously called by Moderator Barron.
Kind regards, David
Second Presbytery’s Authority to Release Her Congregations Before September 1
Written by Alex Lott
Likewise, the Form of Government speaks clearly to the process of how ARP congregations may withdraw from the denomination, and that process cannot be modified by any motion at the presbytery level.
Second Presbytery again violated our constitution when they voted to “grant dismissal or transfer to any minister or congregation who requests so in writing to the Stated Clerk of Second Presbytery prior to September 1.” This motion cited FOG 10.3.E and 10.3.K as justification for the action, but these sections cannot be read to empower a presbytery to grant dismissal in whatever manner it sees fit.
FOG 10.3 only enumerates the presbytery’s authority and duties.
The actual process for congregational withdrawal is detailed in FOG 3.13, where any congregation that has voted for withdrawal is required to advise the presbytery “in writing at its next stated meeting.” At that meeting “the Presbytery shall appoint a commission to counsel, advise, and mediate with the local congregation…. If the commission decides that it is in the best interest to proceed with the withdrawal, they shall conduct a second election and certify the results thereof to the stated meeting of the Presbytery, one year after the meeting upon which the application for withdrawal was received.”
In simple terms, the constitutionally mandated process for withdrawing from an ARP presbytery requires a minimum of two stated meetings and at least one year; it cannot be accomplished in twenty days, and one called meeting. The penalty for failing to comply with these prescribed procedures, according to FOG 3.13 G., is that the “congregation shall forfeit all its right, title, and interest in and to its property to the Presbytery within which it is located.”
Second Presbytery’s Authority to Release Her Congregations Before September 1
Written by Seth Yi
The FoG, as noted by Mr. Lott, does prescribe a process by which congregations can initiate a withdrawal from a Presbytery (FoG 3.13), but it also gives the Presbytery the authority to dismiss congregations. The language of withdrawal and dismissal are differentiated in the FoG.
As outlined in the FoG 3.13.A-G withdrawal is a process that a congregation initiates and undertakes to seek release from a Presbytery. It is explicit in this section of the FoG that a congregation begins the process without the involvement of the Presbytery by taking a vote to withdraw and submitting their application along with the results at the next stated Presbytery meeting. The word withdrawal is used only in this section, 3.13, of the FoG.
However, dismiss(al) is used in multiple sections of the FoG with a different meaning. An analysis of its uses will show that it is not the same act as withdraw(al).
- FoG10.3.E, K gives the Presbytery the power to dismiss congregations and ministers. No procedure is outlined as to how a congregation or a minister is dismissed.
- FoG11.22.B states that the Presbytery can give an Evangelist the authority to “dismiss members in a mission.” No procedure is outlined as to how a member of a mission is dismissed.
- FoG12.22.A states that the General Synod can advise Presbyteries in its processes in order to dismiss a Presbytery. No procedure is outlined as to how the General Synod dismisses a Presbytery.
These sections of the FoG that authorize the Presbytery, the Evangelist, and the General Synod to dismiss its “members” without requiring a process, unlike a withdrawal. In fact, the authority to dismiss may be required when immediate action is necessary. A situation may arise when the authority to dismiss is enacted because time is of the essence and a lengthy process is not possible or advisable.
Several congregations at their duly called congregational meetings following the called meeting of Second Presbytery voted to be dismissed from Second Presbytery and notified the Stated Clerk via email that day and a hard copy letter the next day. These congregations acted in accordance with the will of Second Presbytery per the FoG. Their notice to the Stated Clerk finalized their dismissal.
Second Presbytery’s Authority to Preemptively Release Ministers to Transfer
Written by Alex Lott
In the same way, FOG 9.65 and 10.3.K. do not vest presbyteries with untrammeled authority to transfer ministers. As noted above, FOG 10.3 enumerates the duties and authorities of a presbytery in a general way, so the specifics of how ministers are actually transferred to another denomination are clarified by FOG 9.65. That particular section, however, simply states: “The procedure for transferring ministers to another denomination shall follow in substance the procedure for transfer to another Presbytery within the ARPC.” Therefore, Second Presbytery is bound to follow the process specified in FOG 9.62, the “Procedure for Transferring Ministers from Another Presbytery.” There, any transferring minister is required to initiate the process by “informing his Presbytery of his desire to be transferred, and securing a letter of standing which shall be presented to the receiving Presbytery prior to any examination and approval for reception.” This letter of standing in the dismissing presbytery “shall be issued only after the pastoral or other relationship has been dissolved” (FOG 9.62.C.).
In Presbyterian polity, a pastoral call is a covenant involving a congregation, a minister, and the presbytery which oversees both, and this covenantal relationship is sealed by oaths and vows solemnly sworn by all the parties before God. Accordingly, under the ARP FOG, there is no possibility of a minister transferring his own credentials into another ecclesiastical body while this pastoral covenant stands. Clearly, a single omnibus presbytery motion cannot obviate fundamental Presbyterian principles or constitutional requirements. A preemptive blanket “grant of transfer” does not constitute presbytery’s action to dissolve a call, without which no certificate of standing may be issued, and a valid letter of standing is prerequisite for any transfer to be in order, whether within the denomination or outside it.
Our polity also does not contemplate a minister transferring his credentials without the letter expressing presbytery permission for the simple reason that he has sworn vows to “submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Presbytery” (FOG 9.24.F.). Notably, that authority extends to the reception and dismissal of gospel ministers (FOG 10.3 K.), just as the lower court properly receives and transfers members of congregations (FOG 6.8.E.&F.). This such a serious matter that FOG 9.67 requires ministers who “accept work not under the jurisdiction of any ARPC court or agency” without permission from their presbytery to be either divested of office without censure or charged with violating ordination vows.
Second Presbytery’s Authority to Preemptively Release Ministers to Transfer
Written by Seth Yi
The initial transfer of the five ministers who formed Veritas Presbytery was in accordance with the Constitution. The motion that Second Presbytery approved (“grant dismissal or transfer to any minister or congregation who requests so in writing to the Stated Clerk of Second Presbytery prior to September 1.”) at its second called meeting on August 13 resolves the concerns raised by Mr. Lott. After this called Presbytery meeting the following steps were taken:
- The motion cited above gave all ministers the permission, without further action of Second Presbytery, to transfer their credentials into another ecclesiastical court before Sept. 1. This motion applies to all ministers who are transferring, whether into another ARP Presbytery or any other Presbytery since Second Presbytery will not exist on Sept. 1. This motion was in order and necessary for all ministers to make a transfer.
- The five ministers properly followed FoG9.65/9.62.C in transferring our credentials into another ecclesiastical court. We secured a letter of good standing from the Stated Clerk of Second Presbytery prior to our transfer.
- We were “received” by a new Presbytery. According to FoG9.62.C. “He shall be a member of the dismissing Presbytery until he has been officially received by the Presbytery to which he is transferring, and an official notice of his reception has been sent to the dismissing Presbytery.” (emphasis added) An official notice was emailed by an officer of Veritas Presbytery to the Stated Clerk of Second Presbytery. The Stated Clerk acknowledged the reception of such notice to us in an email on August 19, 2024.
- Therefore, the Stated Clerk of Second Presbytery had no authorityaccording to Second Presbytery’s Manual of Procedure (MoP) not to remove from the roll any minister who has properly transferred into another ecclesiastical court. The MoP outlines the duties of the stated clerk and at no point does it give him the authority to make a ruling or act in contradiction to the will of the Presbytery. He is a recorder of actions that are communicated to him not the official “gatekeeper” of the Presbytery. MoP p.8 states that one of his duties is “(12) Receive and record all documents coming before the court.” He received a notice/document from our receiving presbytery that we had transferred into the Veritas Presbytery. All that remained for the Stated Clerk to do was to remove (officially record) our name from the roll of Second Presbytery of which we were no longer members. From a historical perspective, the Associate branch of the ARP Church was formed in a similar manner on December 6, 1733, when Ebenezer Erskine, James Fisher, William Wilson, and Alexander Moncreiff seceded from the Church of Scotland to organize the Associate Presbytery of Scotland.
Concluding Thoughts
Written by Alex Lott
As stated above, I do not believe that the current situation in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church should be characterized as an ongoing constitutional crisis. My belief is based on my reading of our ARP Standards, which are, of course, subordinate to the Holy Scriptures. Since reading is the art of noticing details and understanding them in context, all good biblical exegetes resist the temptation to extrapolate endlessly from one or two clauses. The same basic hermeneutical principles apply to denominational standards, as well, and I am convinced that the full context of the ARPC Constitution fundamentally supports Synod’s authority to dissolve Second Presbytery. Unfortunately, for the same reasons I am equally convinced many of Second Presbytery’s recent actions are expressly prohibited by our Form of Government.
Following stated procedures when releasing ministers and congregations from their covenant obligations is not tyranny. On the contrary, it is right Presbyterian polity in good and decent order. Conversely, any theory which treats presbyteries as autonomous ecclesiastical bodies unbeholden to any higher court is actually a polity of Independency, simply one step removed from the local congregation.
I am praying all parties will work together to keep the covenants we have made as members of ARP courts and congregations during this sad and difficult time. All members of our congregations have solemnly promised God that they will submit to the government and discipline of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (FOG 4.5.A.). Likewise, all ARP elders have also vowed “to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Session and to the higher courts of the Church” (FOG 8.17.), with all ministers similarly promising “to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Presbytery in subordination to the General Synod“ (FOG 9.30.5.).
This holy submission isn’t merely a function of church polity. Instead, it is the true expression of the indwelling Spirit of Christ, who humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:8). If we are to truly be the Body of Christ, we must have his same mindset, doing nothing from rivalry or conceit, but instead humbly counting others more significant than ourselves as we look to their interests (Phil 2:3–4). After all, when brothers dwell together in peace and unity, it is very good and a pleasant thing to see! So whether we join to live as one in the same presbytery or whether our denominations are as far apart as Hermon is from Zion’s hill, we are all obligated to be full of affection and sympathy, being of the same mind, having the same love, and comforting one another in love (Phil 2:1–2). In this way, Christ’s Church will truly be peaceful, pure, and prosperous (FOG 4.5.A.; FOG 8.17.; FOG 9.30.5.).
Concluding Thoughts
Written by Seth Yi
Let me conclude by expressing my appreciation for Mr. Lott’s effort to debate the substance of the matter instead of making unsubstantiated allegations or baseless name-calling. I trust that with more information and a clearer reading of the ARP’s Constitution, he, and others, can understand why some men’s consciences are bound to pursue ministry in another communion of the visible church.
If anything, I think Mr. Lott’s article and my response clearly point to the fact that the dissolution of Second Presbytery was not planned biblically, methodically, and thoughtfully, considering the magnitude of the decision and all its constitutional and legal ramifications.
The fact that a motion to postpone the deliberation of Index 11 for a year was defeated indicates the hasty nature of the decision. Could not the alleged dysfunctions and offenses of Second Presbytery have been handled in a more biblical, loving, constitutional, and presbyterian manner? Are not our church courts’ practices rooted in 1 Corinthians 14:40, “all things should be done decently and in order”?
How did such an explosive action promote “the unity, peace, purity, and prosperity of the Church?”
As reported by,
Charles W. Wilson
Mr. Lott,
I see you’re not a legacy ARP. You are a newbie from the PCA.
Where were you in 1973 when the congregations which formed the PCA withdrew from the old PCUS? Were any of your family members congregants in a congregation which withdrew to form the PCA?
I was at RTS/Jackson watching the story unfold. The arguments made by the PCUS loyalists (many who were evangelicals) sound like the arguments you are making.
I’m interested in your thoughts.
Regards,
Chuck Wilson