The meeting of General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church this year was at Geneva College in Beaver Falls, PA. In 2015, at our invitation, the delegates of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America traveled south, to Bonclarken, to meet with us, and this year, at their invitation, the delegates of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church traveled north (or most of us did) to meet with them.
Traveling roundtrip, a total of 24 hours in the backseat of a Lexus, with my knees stuck under my chin was not the high point of the meeting of General Synod. For me, the high points were two: (1) Geneva College and (2) an ax-throwing excursion in Pittsburg. Doubtlessly, Geneva College, tucked away in the rugged hills of western Pennsylvania, is beautiful — and the weather was accommodating for us.
As is my custom, I hung out with a gaggle of young guys. On Wednesday afternoon, when we should have been attending a myriad of boring meetings with the old people, we snuck off to Pittsburg to an ax-throwing joint. And, yes, photographs on Facebook are posted in order to convict the guilty.
Now, I want the reader to know, I did not participate in ax-throwing. There are some things I am afraid to do. It is not wise for a legally-blind man to throw an ax at a wooden bullseye, for the ax bounces back on a miss. My goal was to leave the premises with ten fingers, ten toes, and without an ax sticking out of my forehead. Besides, I am too cheap to pay $35 to throw an ax. Nevertheless, the experience was great fun, the camaraderie with those young men was delightful, and the experience was a high point I will long remember.
Well, this is a report of the meeting of the 2019 General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. What happened? I shall not attempt to cover everything: rather, the significant issues.
The task presented to this committee was to study why congregations are reticent to give to the DMF. The answer by the committee was received as information and is now buried deeply in the paper of the minutes where the light of day rarely shines. Actually, the action by Synod is a mercy. Neither the committee nor General Synod understands why we struggle to get our people to give. Guilt manipulation in the name of denominational loyalty does not work. People give when a great vision is put before them. Somewhere in the Bible we read, “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29.18). Now, I am very aware the word “vision” refers to Scripture. Indeed, this makes the point. Are the congregants of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church being challenged with a Scriptural-based and God-exalting vision for Christ and His church which seizes the heart, inspires the soul, and loosens the wallet for a God-honoring goal which is so great it is bound for failure if God is not in it? All we seem to do is chide our folks for not financing our bureaucratic agencies in the manner to which they want to become accustomed.
Another year was given to do this.
Why? Why are we doing this? Why do we need to slay more trees for paper for new books and study papers on this subject? Why not Google or visit the local Christian bookstore? Here is the best question: What do pastors do?
Outstanding work was done by this committee. The “Position Statement on Human Sexuality” was adopted along with the committee’s “A Brief Explanation of the Statement” as a footnote (see randki piotrków kujawski).
The position statement is excellent, and the exegesis is no less excellent.
This is a protracted issue involving a disciplinary action by (old) First Presbytery concerning Rev. Scott Robar. This has turned into a complex mess because so many things have been mishandled. The latest was the losing of Robar’s appeal to Synod last year. A special commission has been appointed to deal with the matter.
Perhaps this commission can figure out how to read and calculate the sequence of procedures in our antiquated Book of Discipline which is not a flowchart. If not, in a couple of years, I feel sure a North Carolina judge can help us in our reading and calculating sequence, and especially in writing a large check.
In the name of sweet church relationships, why do we inflict such agonizing pain on ourselves. Why insist on hearing from our cousins in NAPARC? Do we not have an official meeting of NAPARC yearly? Interestingly, we are keen on hearing from our cousins in NAPARC, but we ignore our daughters in Mexico and Pakistan. When was the last time a delegate from Mexico or Pakistan spoke to a meeting of General Synod?
Years ago, I voted for the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church to join NAPARC. At the time, it seemed to be the right thing to do. Today, I think I must have left my sane-pills at home. What does NAPARC do? Why are we in NAPARC? I know why NAPARC was founded. When he returned to Jackson, MS, Dr. Morton Smith took about 20 minutes of our Systematic Theology class to tell us. Nevertheless, what does NAPARC do now that we should spend time to hear from our cousins, and we should send delegates to inflict the same pain on them?
Now, give me a reason to spend my time, and I am with you. Actually, I think General Synod should be longer. Instead of reports and greetings, I think there should be some 2 Chronicles 7.14 time with us claiming these words of God: “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven. . . .” In 45 meetings of General Synod, I have never seen such a thing done. Silly me! There are reports to be heard and motions to be made!
Once again, we are studying the office of deacon. Honestly, many have never been comfortable with what is or isn’t a deacon. Our vows of congregational obedience are problematic for many. Dr. Mark Ross brought reason and direction to the debate when he argued in favor of the committee’s recommendation to change the vows based on the nature of the office as interpreted by our Standards. He also added that a change will be helpful for those members of General Synod who object to women deacons on the grounds that placing women in the diaconate as the office is now framed places them in a position of authority over men in the local congregation.
We have now approved the Book of Psalms for Worship and the Trinity Psalter Hymnal to be added to our “Recommended Psalters and Hymnals” to be published on Synod’s website and to be ignored by many of us.
Before I comment, let me say I am a traditionalist in worship style, a lover of singing the Psalms and traditional hymns, and one who finds most contemporary Christian music and worship styles painful. Brothers and sisters, we are double-minded here. We say one thing and often practice another. And what does it mean when someone says, “We’re going to start a contemporary service”? It means he going to find a guitar, a set of drums, and his version of the “Dixie Chicks” to lead the singing of Christian radio music badly — very badly.
Where I find this divide the most acute is in our church planting. The perception of many is that church planting is being pushed along by those who have a vision for “church” as “contemporary.”
If only all our ministries were administered this well. I know the benefits of this ministry through the Collins Children Home in Seneca, SC, which is about 5 or 6 miles from where I live.
I have a friend in the PCA who describes the relationship between the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and Erskine College and Seminary as a love-hate relationship. The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church is unable to do the things necessary to reform Erskine but is also unwilling to let the institution go. Others have referred to the relationship as symbiotic; however, the relationship is not beneficial to either the church or the college. It is a parasitic relationship which is killing both. The relationship is also a crazy-maker. That is, it makes us crazy.
At the 2018 meeting of Synod, the following motion was made and passed: “That the President of the Erskine Alumni Association as an ex-officio member of Erskine College and Seminary’s Board of Trustees be removed from Synod’s Manual of Authorities and Duties (p.45)” (Minutes, p. 510). This year, the following two motions were made and passed: (1) “That Synod reinstate the Alumni President’s position as an advisory, non-voting member of the Board of Trustees,” and (2) “That, in the interest of consistency with all other boards of the church, and in compliance with SACS, Synod make the Moderator’s position on the Board of Trustee as advisory, non-voting member”(randki piotrków kujawski).
As I said before, Erskine issues make us crazy. Last year the motion to remove the alumni president from the Erskine board was made with the knowledge of and approval by President Gustafson. Standing near him, I heard him say, “This needs to be done.” Remember the motion was then passed overwhelmingly. Now, a year later, the board asks General Synod to reverse itself and reinstate the alumni president, and, then, in the name of consistency and compliance to SACS, to remove the Moderator of the General Synod from the board as a voting member and give him the status of “advisory, non-voting.”
Who says we are not crazy? How does one know when he is an Associate Reformed Presbyterian? The answer: when the above makes perfect sense.
There is a difference between the alumni president and the Moderator of General Synod. The Moderator is the chief officer of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church which owns Erskine. “Consistency” is a red herring. I have been in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church for nearly 50 years, and the Moderator has always served on the Erskine board as a voting member. I can safely say there is no living person in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church who can remember when the Moderator was not a voting member of the Erskine board. It takes genius to come up with such nonsense. It is pure political hokum.
Well, it has been a while sense we have seen the SACS boogieman brought out to frighten the children of General Synod. The folks at SACS do not give a good tittle whether the Moderator serves on or votes on the Erskine board. As I said, the Moderator has served on the board for more than 50 years with voting status. However, there is something the folks at SACS care about. They care about the $1,708,490 deficit Erskine ran last year.
In the last audit, the warning from SACS was do not make more than a 5% draw from the endowment. Well, here is what has been done. In preparing the budget for this year, a 7% draw was made on the endowment (that is, a 7% draw on an endowment of about $42 million is about $2.94 million). At the end of the year, how is a deficit of $1.7 million resolved? There are only three possibilities: a very large gift; a bank loan; or another draw on the endowment. If there was a gift, we would have heard about it. Money from a bank is possible because there is a revolving line of credit; however, I doubt if the credit line is large enough to absorb the whole deficit. The horn-of-plenty is the endowment. This means the actual endowment draw is well over 7%. Now, add this: the Annual Fund failed to reach its goal by $500,000 and the reported earning on investments was about -7%. And this during an up-market!?! So, when do the auditors from SACS return for a peek? And what do we call that day? Doomsday?
So, what is going on? President Gustafson is attempting to find a way to pay the salaries of a shrinking and less than stellar faculty and a growing athletic staff of coaches-and-more-coaches. My sources tell me of the 300+ expected freshmen this fall, only about 40 are non-athletes. Perhaps, Dr. Gustafson should entertain the possibility of getting rid of the entire academic staff; it is not needed and a waste of resources for the athletic programs. The coaches can be paid extra for teaching the academic subjects — like in high school.
In his recent meeting with the alumni in Columbia, President Gustafson announced the need for a new dorm. There is no room for the female students who are being pushed off-campus by the overwhelming number of male athletes — 135 football players and 100 baseball players this fall. But how on earth is a new dorm to be funded? Now, remember the bill for the renovations to Carnegie during the Carson years has yet to be repaid.
To make matters worse, the alumni association is up in arms. As I was told, they do not trust President Gustafson or Paul Bell, the director of the Erskine Alumni Association — and neither do I. At this time, the alums are investigating the formation of an independent association, and my sources tell me it is going to happen. Well, we shall see, but I am not going to bet against them. What will this mean for Erskine? I do not know! This is a field I have never seen plowed.
The situation at Erskine is like going to a dance and finding out all the all girls look like Olive Oil. What a nightmare! One of the members of the Facebook alums described Erskine as “Lost in space.” Either metaphor works.
Well, was there a bright spot in the Erskine report? Yes! The seminary ended the year $28,247 in the black.
Since the retirement of Ed Hogan as the Director of Central Services, the retirement fund for our ministers has not had the best leadership. Thankfully, Roger Wiles is giving competent leadership, and he is not afraid to deliver bad news, offer corrections and alternatives, and change personnel.
The retirement fund was greatly impacted by the “Great Recession” of 2008 and 2009. The fall of the market and the lack of timely management of the assets turned an advancing program south (see Index 34: Board of Benefits, “History of Benefit and Contribution Rates,” (randki piotrków kujawski).
I served on the Moderator’s Committee on Benefits in 2013. When I asked how often the fund was checked, I was astounded to hear the representative from the board say they were obliged to check it twice a year. After that, Synod was informed if the plan the Board of Benefits was presenting was not adopted the Retirement Fund would be underwater by $14,000,000 by 2019. Well, we adopted the plan, absorbed the pain of reduction in benefits while increasing larger contributions, and are underwater $13,200,000, which means 20% of our active ministers will be without retirement coverage if drastic measures are not taken immediately.
What happened? We are in the midst of the “Trump bump” in the market, which is one of the greatest “bull markets” ever. Well, when the actuary makes a mistake, financial pain follows. The questions now are two: (1) how do we re-capitalize the retirement fund? and (2) do we turn to an alternate plan?
As Rev. Andy Putnam pointed out, we may be on the verge of a “fire-sale.” A plan has to be put together whereby the retirements of those presently retired are protected and the contributions of those presently serving are compensated. The implications to fix this are drastic. What happens if we have to redirect the funds of our boards to the Retirement Fund? What happens if we have to sell one of our hard assets (and our hard assets are the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Center, Bonclarken, Dunlap, and Erskine College and Seminary)? What happens if we have to redirect the DMF for a protracted period? Obviously, all the issues involving the Retirement Fund are going to be painful. And, if we do not know how to fix this mess, there is a Federal judge who does.
Time was bought by the passing of the following motion: “That all matters regarding the Board of Benefits Report concerning the Retirement Plan be referred to a ‘blue ribbon’ committee appointed by the Moderator made up of six members (with the Vice Moderator as a member and Chairman) (1) to investigate and prepare an independent report on all matters relating to the ministers’ retirement plan, (2) to work in cooperation with the Special Committee on DMF spending, (3) to develop a plan for the recapitalization of the Retirement Plan and offer alternative options, and (4) to report back to the next meeting of the General Synod.”
Since Synod, I have received a number of phone calls regarding our retirement plan. The question asked was: “Do we have to participate in the retirement plan?” According to the directives of Synod and our presbyteries, the answer is Yes. The next question was: “What would happen if we chose to do something else?” My answer: “Nothing! You will be fussed at about denominational loyalty; however, at the end of the day, you will not be thrown out of your presbytery, and you can do what you want.”
The most controversial matter was an issue regarding the resignation of a missionary. The resignation was disputed by members of First Presbytery. They contended First Presbytery has not dissolved the call of the individual involved.
There is a hard question which needs to be asked of our office of World Witness: what is World Witness doing to advance the footprint of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church? In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, our missionary endeavors advanced the footprint of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church by planting, discipling, and growing the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church of Mexico and the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church of Pakistan. Where are such efforts today? Since 1972 when I became an Associate Reformed Presbyterian, I have not seen the footprint of our our denomination advanced by our office of World Witness.
What I have seen is the Office of World Witness become our denominational parachurch. We support others; we do not advance the footprint of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Let me repeat: World Witness has become something like a parachurch organization. It is to be fed; it does not advance the footprint of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.
The new editor of The Quarterly, our adult Sunday School magazine, is Dr. Ian Dugid, who teaches at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. This is a good thing; however, it is also a sad thing, for there was no one in Due West, at the college or seminary, found for this job.
What does Outreach North America do?
In the RPCNA, the director of their home missions is an unpaid volunteer who is the pastor of a congregation. In the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church our director of ONA is paid $167,000 and attends a Baptist church. In the RPCNA, their denomination budget for church planting is less than $300,000 for everything. In the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, we budgeted $537,000 to ONA this year. Both the RPCNA and the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church have the same number of active church plants. In the RPCNA, public worship involves singing the psalms exclusively and a cappella (and, according to my sources, this is happily embraced by their young people). In the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, public worship style is a matter of contention.
Once again, why do we need ONA? Church planting is the responsibility of our presbyteries. If our presbyteries are not willing to do the work of church planting, throwing money at a denominational bureaucratic agency is not the solution. It is a waste of precious resources. And, in the case of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, it is the breeding ground for unproductive and protracted conflict.
One, we are to study whether Freemasonry is compatible with being an Associate Reformed Presbyterian. As a good friend pointed out, Masonry is similar to Rotary but the vows are secret. He continued, “A better question is whether being a member of the Democrat Party is compatible with being an Associate Reformed Presbyterian. With the views we affirm on abortion and homosexuality, those views would preclude membership in the Democrat Party.” Now, that is insightful. I think this is a better question to study.
Two, voted not to create a position of “Assistant Pastor.” The main difference between an Associate Pastor and an Assistant Pastor is this: an Associate Pastor is called by the congregation and an Assistant Pastor is hired by the Session.
Three, the Moderator is directed to write a letter to the members of Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, and the Canadian counterparts reminding them of the sacredness of life and also reminding them they will give account of their actions before the Lord Jesus Christ. Who can speak evil of this? However, it is a waste of paper.
The present Vice Moderator Rob Roy McGregor III was elected Moderator by acclamation. His Vice Moderator is Rev. Rob Patrick.
I really enjoyed the ax-throwing excursion. It was a lot of fun. Some of the young men were Associate Reformed Presbyterians and some were Reformed Presbyterians. All of them (some ex-athletes) were bested by the geeky 20-year-old son of an Associate Reformed Presbyterian minister. Righteous!
Synod was not much fun. I do not think our delegates understood the gravity of the issues.
In an extended conversation, I was asked: “Aren’t you praying for God’s blessing on the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church?” I did not know how to answer. I am fearful of asking God to bless what He is judging with withering. A sense of repentance and of changing of direction I do not see.
These are my thoughts,
Charles W. Wilson
Chuck, I am presently serving on the committee that is preparing a Directory for Family and Private Worship. The reasons for the committee being formed can be found in the 2018 Minutes of General Synod (it was the recommendation of another committee, and I believe unanimously approved) and in the address given by Rev. Matt Miller to General Synod the previous year. The Directory is designed to do several things: 1) supplement our current worship directory (which really only deals with matters of public worship); 2) provide a means of consensus among our churches; 3) encourage pastors and sessions to lead their people in this area; 4) provide a simple guide for congregants to follow.
The desire is also to provide a short directory (hopefully around 2 pages), so very few trees will be felled and hopefully no Pittsburgh axes will be needed. Hopefully, the recommendations of the committee in this year’s report will be heeded, and Christian Education Ministries can assist in ensuring that this report does not get buried in the Minutes of Synod, never to see the light of day again (e.g., carrying resources in the ARP Bookstore; possibly having this be a theme at a future Family Bible Conference). If approved, this will potentially become a part of our Standards (alongside the current Directory of Public Worship), so it will not disappear into the pages of the Minutes.
If we truly want to see continued reform in our churches (and we all should), helping to encourage family worship, at the denominational level and the local level, is an important way to go about this.
Dear Tim Phillips,
Thanks for your comments.
The constitutional documents of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian church are: (1) the Form of Government, (2) the Directory of Public Worship, (3) the Book of Discipline, (4) the Manual of Authorities and Duties, (5) the Rules of Order, (6) the Bylaws of General Synod, (7) the Confession of Faith, and (8) the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. (MAD, p. 97)
And now you inform me we are going to add another document to our constitution.
We guarantee that many trees die. With so many documents with pages and pages of words and words and word we become like “the swamp in Washington” and no one pays much attention to what is written.
Chuck, we tend to laud the things we think are important. Above, you lauded the paper on Homosexual Orientation (which I agree is outstanding work). The paper is helpful to our denomination. It is also several pages long and undoubtedly will result in more trees being cut down. Pittsburgh hammers may or may not be used.
George Will once said that the most beautiful thing about a tree is what you do with it after you cut it down. You get to make pianos and baseball bats and books from it. And we might add committee reports to that list.
The recommendations from past Synods were to produce a directory. A directory implies that it become a part of our corpus of standards as is the current directory, but the Synod may see it a different way. Again, we tend to laud the things we think are important. I think that that the way we worship — corporately, privately, and in families — is extremely important, as I hope you and other do as well.
Dear Chuck, thank you for saying something about my case.
Here are some corrections:
1. The word “mishandled” is euphemistic.
2. “losing of Robar’s appeal” – as with every other mistake, in this article, I see this as unintentional, on your part. There was more than an appeal. Rev. Vaughn Hathaway filed two complaints (July 2017 and October 2017) and my complaint (July 2017) and appeal (October 2017) were not simply “lost.”
For those who do not know, Rev. Hathaway was, at that time, the Parliamentarian of First Presbytery. He is also a former Parliamentarian of the ARP Synod. Chuck, you stick your neck out for the good of the ARP; you supply some amount of needed transparency. The last thing that you need is to be fed misinformation. Did someone misuse your good intentions, and by doing so misuse the platform you provide? Please provide your source’s name(s) for the Judicial Commission. The entire court has been circularized with false information, since you published this, nearly a month ago. Since no one has taken issue with the misinformation, it could seem true to your readers, therefore I have replied. I received a variety of explanations, in writing; “lost” was not among those reasons.
3. “A special commission has been appointed” – No, not yet.
4. Our “antiquated Book of Discipline” isn’t really unknown to those ARPs, who make use of them; rather, they are purposefully misused to obtain desired results. In another place, you wondered about the usefulness of the NAPARC and mentioned Morton Smith. Smith’s comments on the PCA’s Book of Church Order (the equivalent to our BOD) make their rules very clear. Additionally, most, if not all of the NAPARC churches have their rules of discipline available through the NAPARC website. I have compared them on various points. Our rules come from the same Reformed background, e.g., Ramsey is quite clear on what constitutes a confession of sin (cf. BOD V.A.8.), which, some, for several years, have used to deprive ARPs of trial process. Some present-day denominations are just as clear as Ramsey was. Even the BOD is clear enough; there actually is a flow to it. Chuck, you were clear about what that sort of confession is, and what it is not, when you spoke at Synod 2016. You were clear about the fact that a trial and transcript were, altogether, missing for the sorely abused Lakeside Elders; yet needed. (I became a target for defending them). Clarity can be had, if it is desired; but it’s not desired by those who abuse the BOD, and, to a much greater extent, it’s not desired by those who are indifferent to, and ignorant of, the BOD.
5. I have been defamed in the sphere of my vocation, since early 2015. I wish to be restored ASAP. New Covenant was closed; because of defamatory lies about me in relation to the church’s finances. I have legally obtained audio tapes, and I have made transcripts. Those who are responsible for these things have seen and heard my evidence. Most of this has been confined to committees that they have controlled. I intend to say nothing more in this public forum. I have confronted the individuals and I have written extensively to the Minister and His Works Committee of First Presbytery, to no avail (that isn’t a dig against current members, men move onto and off of the committee frequently).
Again, thank you Chuck for making this matter known to your readers.
Dear Scott Robar,
With reluctance, I have approved your comments. Please, do not think I agree with you. As I have often stated, I am concerned for the process.
FYI, I assure you a special commission has been appointed.
I do not think further comments regarding this matter are beneficial.