The ongoing crisis in the ARP Church has taken a new turn. Officers in the denomination are now refusing to release congregations with their property after their Presbytery has already granted them the right to dismissal. Does this recent turn in events indicate that the ARP is following the pattern of the PCUSA or the Episcopal Church by forbidding congregations and their ministers to disaffiliate with the denomination for the sake of their conscience? The events of the past several days seem to make one wonder.

The General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) Church approved at their annual meeting in June 2024 to dissolve Second Presbytery effective September 1 (How a 224-Year-Old ARP Presbytery was Dissolved in a Day). In response to this historic action, Second Presbytery scheduled a called meeting on August 13, 2024. They needed to consider several items of business related to their dissolution.1
Even before the moderator, Billy Barron, could open the meeting in prayer, an elder from the Greenville ARP Church, Dan Eller, stood to make a point of order. He declared that items 2-6 (see endnotes) were out of order because these items did not “require immediate attention” by Second Presbytery (Form of Government [FoG] 10.12) and that if the members of the court deliberated them, they would be violating their ordination vows by not submitting to the FoG and sowing discord among their brothers. The moderator agreed with Mr. Eller’s point of order. But his ruling was challenged and overruled by a roll call vote of 32-14. Therefore, the court proceeded to deliberate the 6 items of the “first called meeting.”
According to another notice distributed by the Stated Clerk, David Griffin, a “second called meeting” per FoG 10.12 was requested by three members of the Presbytery. The purpose of this second called meeting was to “provide for open response and any actions related to the dissolution of Second Presbytery for congregations and ministers.” This second called meeting was necessitated by the fact that the moderator, Mr. Barron, was not willing to amend item 6 in the first called meeting when requested by one of the three ministers.
Once again before the meeting could begin, Mr. Barron declared the second called meeting out of order and that he would not call the meeting to order. There was once again a challenge to the moderator’s ruling, and his ruling was overturned.
During business, the following motion was moved and seconded: “That Second Presbytery 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, per FoG 9.65 and 10.3.E, K.” (all emphases added)
After much debate, the motion was approved by a standing vote of 25-19. However, at the end of this second called meeting, Mr. Eller placed a Complaint (Book of Discipline [BoD] 5.12) on the Clerk’s desk protesting the approval of the motion. As of the writing of this report (8/20/24), Second Presbytery has not called a meeting to consider the Complaint (BoD 5.13.A).
The next day, August 14, the Principal Clerk of the General Synod, Kyle Sims, filed allegations2 against several members of Second Presbytery accusing them of breaking the Ninth commandment and/or violating their ordination vows. In his email to Mr. Griffin, Mr. Sims did not include any details.
On Sunday, August 18, 2024, at least three congregations in Second Presbytery at their duly called congregational meetings voted to be dismissed from Second Presbytery. The actions of these congregations were notified to the Clerk of Second Presbytery in writing via email that night and a hard copy of the notice was delivered to him on Monday, August 19. Furthermore, five ministers in good standing transferred their credentials to a non-ARP Presbytery on Monday as well, according to FoG 9.65.
However, later that day, August 19, Mr. Griffin, sent the following emails to the congregations and ministers:
“I am writing to let you know that I received your communication regarding your congregation’s vote to leave Second Presbytery and the Associate Reformed Presbyterian denomination. However, be advised that a Complaint has been filed against Second Presbytery’s actions, accusing Second Presbytery of violating the Standards of the ARP Church. As such, I would advise you to refrain from any legal action until such time that the appropriate church court can act upon this Complaint. There may be legal ramifications given the constitutionality of your actions, based not on the action of Second Presbytery, but instead on the Standards of the ARP Church. As such, I cannot remove your congregation from the roll until such time that this matter is adjudicated.”
“I am writing to let you know that I received your communication regarding your decision to leave Second Presbytery and the ARP denomination. However, be advised that a Complaint has been filed against Second Presbytery’s actions, accusing Second Presbytery of violating the Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. As such, I would advise you to refrain from any action until such time that the appropriate church court can act upon this Complaint. There may be ramifications given the constitutionality of your withdrawal, based not on the action of Second Presbytery, but instead on the Standards of the ARP Church. As such, I cannot remove your name from the roll until such time that this matter is adjudicated. If you are not properly transferred to another ecclesiastical body by September 1, you will no longer be considered ordained.”
What is being implied by the Clerk? What “legal ramifications” are being explored? Is the ARP facing another constitutional crisis (see Constitutional Crisis in the ARP Church: What is the Point of a Complaint?)? Complaints are not judicial matters and thus are not “adjudicated.” Even if Second Presbytery receives the Complaint at a called meeting and “reverses its alleged errors,” the actions that have properly taken place since the motion’s approval cannot be overturned. Is Second Presbytery trying to seize the properties of congregations and defrock ministers who acted in accordance with the will of Second Presbytery? On what basis can Mr. Griffin claim that the action of Second Presbytery was unconstitutional? Why is the Clerk of Second Presbytery or some other members not allowing these congregations and ministers to live in peace when they have acted properly? Does the Clerk have the authority to deny the removal of a congregation and a minister from the roll of Presbytery? Will the Executive Board of Synod declare “an emergency” to overturn the action of Second Presbytery when they were unwilling to do so when two Complaints were filed against the General Synod regarding the unconstitutional dissolution of Second Presbytery? Will the Executive Board violate the Manual of Authorities and Duties that clearly states that the “Executive Board has no authority to over-ride or act on any Presbytery matters” (p. 13 Authority of the Executive Board of Synod) to prevent these congregations and ministers from leaving in peace? The sad saga continues.
Seth Yi is a Minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and is the Pastor of Newberry ARP in Newberry, SC.

Endnotes
1. The items of business for the called meeting were announced as:

Approval of the retention of an attorney to advise on matters related to the dissolution of the corporation and distribution of funds.
Approve the dissolution of the Corporation of Second Presbytery of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church; also, approve the distribution of Second Presbytery assets, per Recommendation 6 of General Synod Report Index 11.
Appointment of Trustees to handle any matters directly related to the dissolution of the corporation and/or Second Presbytery before and after September 1.
Receive and vote upon the following two recommendations of the Stewardship Committee and any matters directly related hereunto:

a. That Presbytery NOT approve the $600,000.00 to the Board of Benefits for the purpose of reducing the debt on the Retirement Pension Fund
b. That an endowment be established for the purpose of church planting and revitalization in the footprint of Second Presbytery and that it be funded with $5 million in our Vanguard investment account. The additional outstanding mortgages due to Second Presbytery be added to this account upon receipt. A distribution of between 4 and 6% be distributed from the endowment for such purposes each year.
5. Receive a report on the Lower Long Cane Church and consider any action that needs to be taken.
6. Provide time for discussion regarding the decision of General Synod to dissolve Second Presbytery.
2. Mr. Sims’ allegation email:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 8:48 AM Principal Clerk [email protected] wrote:Mr. Clerk,I alleged that Mr. Seth Yi has broken the 9th commandment and violated his ordination vows.Praying for his repentance,Rev. Kyle E. Sims, D.MinPrincipal Clerk,Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Related Posts:

When I speak of the means of grace, I have in my mind’s eye five principal things,—the reading of the Bible, private prayer, public worship, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and the rest of the Lord’s day. They are means which God has graciously appointed, in order to convey grace to man’s heart by the Holy Ghost, or to keep up the spiritual life after it has begun. JC Ryle, Practical Religion, 14.

And enjoy him.
We all know the phrase. Our chief end is to glorify and enjoy God. This is the Presbyterian way.
Do we enjoy him? Do you enjoy him?
Do we enjoy the means given to us that allows us to know him, glorify, and enjoy him? These are important questions. This past week I was convicted by JC Ryle (as I often am) as he challenged his hearers on whether they are enjoying the means that God has given to them. I thought I would share a portion of that with you under this question:
Do you enjoy the means of grace? Ryle says,
When I speak of the means of grace, I have in my mind’s eye five principal things,—the reading of the Bible, private prayer, public worship, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and the rest of the Lord’s day. They are means which God has graciously appointed, in order to convey grace to man’s heart by the Holy Ghost, or to keep up the spiritual life after it has begun. As long as the world stands, the state of a man’s soul will always depend greatly on the manner and spirit in which he uses means of grace. The manner and spirit, I say deliberately and of purpose. Many… people use the means of grace regularly and formally, but know nothing of enjoying them: they attend to them as a matter of duty, but without a jot of feeling, interest, or affection. JC Ryle, Practical Religion, 14.
Read More

The Bible clearly shows that God favors some and not all. But God’s “favor” is not sin, where “favoritism” is indeed sin, as James rightly points out. Favoritism is when someone chooses a person or thing because of some perceived merit, worth, or bias; but, as Paul declares in Romans 3:23, all people have sinned and fallen short of God’s righteous requirements. There is no human being who justly deserves God’s favor. Instead, all people deserve the wrath of God. Yet, God, by his grace, chooses to give some people faith in Christ and the resulting righteousness that comes through this faith. This reality was as much in play in Israel’s history as it is today.

Have you ever seen someone play favorites based on a person’s appearance, bank account, employment, or some other factor—and you weren’t the chosen one? It’s not a good feeling.
Favoritism is nothing new under the sun, and it most certainly was an issue in the early church (James 2:1-4). If favoritism is bad, why do we find numerous passages in the Bible where God clearly favors some people over others, even in the matter of salvation? In his greeting to the Ephesian church, the apostle Paul states:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will. (Eph. 1:3-5)

Is God showing a form of favoritism in his election of only some of humanity for salvation? Let’s look closely at this issue and see why God’s electing grace is not favoritism.
What does the apostle James say about favoritism?
One of the earliest writings in the New Testament is the letter by James to “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion,” a way of referring to the Christian church that was scattered throughout Asia Minor due to the persecution of Christians circa AD 40 in Jerusalem. James’s letter was most likely intended to be read among many congregations to address issues that were becoming problematic in all the churches, one being favoritism—the giving of special attention to people because of their position, influence, or wealth.
In the first verse of chapter two, James warns believers against showing favoritism. He writes, “My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” (James 2:1). James is concerned about us, and he denounces this practice as one that should never be characteristic of God’s children. He goes on to write:

For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? (James 2:1-4)

God’s favor versus favoritism—what’s the difference?
The favoritism James warns against in James 2:1-4 is different in every way from the favor God shows in choosing to save some but not all humans. The salvation God graciously provides by the gift of faith (Eph. 2:8-9) begins in Genesis 3:15 with the promise to Adam and Eve of a Savior. His favor begins to take further shape in Genesis 4:25 with the birth of Seth to Adam and Eve. Even though sin seems to have won when Adam and Eve’s firstborn, Cain, murders his brother Abel, hope returns in Seth through whom the God-fearing ancestral line would run to the promised Messiah.
In the days of Noah, the increasing corruption on the earth results in God bringing judgment on all mankind. Yet, God, being rich in mercy, shows favor toward Noah (Gen. 6:9-22). God preserves Noah and his family through the water judgment so that the plan of God—announced in Genesis 3:15—would continue.
Of Noah’s three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, God chooses Shem, who alone is favored by being given faith to continue the ancestral line that would eventually lead to Jesus (Gen. 4:26). In Genesis 11:10-26, we read the list of Shem’s descendants.
Read More
Related Posts: