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 its 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:

The Appointment of the Special Committee

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.

Synod’s Consideration of the Special Committee Report

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.

The Authority of General Synod to Dissolve a Presbytery

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 Second Called Meeting of Second Presbytery on August 13

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.”

Second Presbytery’s Authority to Release Her Congregations Before September 1

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 Preemptively Release Ministers to Transfer

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.
Summary
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.).
Alex Lott is a Minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and is Pastor Starmount ARP in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Related Posts:

Keith Hamilton is a 69-year-old member of our local church. After church on Sunday, we made plans to meet up in the next few days to discuss life and Scripture. A couple of nights earlier he sent a text asking, “What are some big topics or needs you’d like to discuss on Wednesday morning?” I took about a day to think about it and responded, “Fatherhood and unity are always good topics.” We settled on fatherhood and made arrangements to meet at The Hub, a favorite local coffee shop, at 7 a.m.
On that Wednesday morning we were greeted by the familiar smoky smell of freshly roasted coffee. We ordered our java, grabbed a hearty breakfast, and sat at a table next to the window. The air conditioning was chilly and the ambient music particularly upbeat. I grabbed my pocket-sized leather notebook, my favorite Pilot G-2 .05 ink pen, and my Bible to learn from this missionary and father of three. We opened with a word of prayer before digging into our breakfast.
After some brief small talk, Keith opened up his iPad, propped it up on a neat little tablet stand, and shifted the screen so I could see it. He had prepared a page of Scripture notes for us to discuss. The notes were focused around two simple and familiar passages. Though I knew them by heart, I wasn’t prepared for how impactful these verses would be that morning. Keith said, “The first two passages that came to mind for the topic of fatherhood were Ephesians 6:4 and Colossians 3:21. Here are some of the word study notes I came up with. Sorry I didn’t quite have time to get to the application points yet.”
At that moment, I was astonished that Mr. Hamilton, a man who also teaches Bible classes online, took time out of his busy schedule, full of responsibilities, to prepare a Bible study to help me grow as a father. He didn’t opt for his own opinions. He also didn’t choose a good book from his shelf. Instead, he humbly opened God’s Word to help me. Keith modeled the discipleship I have so earnestly desired.
A Lesson in Failure and Success
In contrast to the brisk air in the room, my time with Keith was warm. Though I’d read and preached those fatherhood passages numerous times, they were a fresh and welcome word from this seasoned saint. He weaved his own stories of successes, failures, and lessons learned from his own experience of fatherhood on the mission field, the times when ministry and work separated him from his family. He didn’t mince words either. I listened as Keith said, “In that season, I failed.” He didn’t dress his failures with excuses about his calling or the necessary sacrifices he needed to make for the cause of the gospel. He was honest. Painfully honest. I needed to hear that.
He shared specific memories from the early 90s when his kids, like me, were just toddlers running around.
Read More

You also say that “strangers have attacked strangers behind the safe confines of computers, news agencies, and conferences,” which “proliferates fear and distrust,” and that “there will always be people who are all about power.” In all of this I remind you that you hide yourselves behind confines safer than the things you mention here, all of which are at least public, and that your organization has a clever scheme to use committee assignments and other machinery of the General Assembly and presbyteries to accomplish a desired agenda.

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Argumentative Method and Use of Scripture
Your appeals are essentially emotional in nature and misuse Scripture, as seen in the following excerpts from “The Letter.” Perhaps you will say that this is no creature of yours, but it was written by one of your number, you discussed and commended it among yourselves, and it bears the signature of many of your foremost members who are known. He who signs a document attests his assent to the veracity thereof, and so the arguments of the Letter might be deemed your own, even if they are accepted by many others as well.
In the Letter you say that in the midst of our controversies “specific brothers in good standing have been labeled.” All offenses in the church are committed by people who are in good standing; if they were not in good standing they would not be in the church. You should not be zealous to use such an argument which was widely used by liberals in other denominations to deflect criticism. The, too, you seem to object, not so much to the particular labels used, but to the mere fact that polemic labels have been applied to some, since you draw a contrast between the labels and the “straw men” you say have been erected “even more frequently.” Labels are permissible in our discourse: Christ himself denounces the Nicolaitans, and he refers to a false prophetess as Jezebel (Rev. 2:14, 20).
You later say that “if the sins of unbiblical practice and unconfessional belief that are currently being voiced with such vigor were true, we would agree that they should be opposed.” Men are not known by self-testimony (Jn. 5:31), but by their deeds: “You will recognize them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:16). A professed orthodoxy that does not stand at the point at which truth is attacked is useless speculation, not the robust, active faith that confesses Christ before men. So it is with you in this matter, for the culture’s view of sexuality invades our communion and rather than joining the battle you criticize the war effort and plead the glories of making peace in parliament. You continue:
We hear the concerns of our brothers and rarely disagree with the principles behind them. We believe that we desire the same commitment to Scripture and our Standards that they do!
It is hard to see that there is as great an agreement as you suggest when you maintain a secret organization where others act publicly, and when you elsewhere dispute the propriety of public polemics and favor private interactions between those that disagree. In questions of polity there is of course utter disagreement between your view of subscription and that of others, concerning which it also makes for a strange claim that you have the same commitment to the standards when you consider the permissibility of taking and even teaching exceptions to be essential to the PCA’s effectiveness and assert it incessantly. You then denounce:
Social media characterizations that turn suspicions into speculations that become accusations without proof – to achieve political ends within our church. Where compromise or sin is true and can be proven, we have sessions, presbyteries, and judicial processes to engage.
As “wisdom is justified by her deeds” (Matt. 11:19), so also do the nature and consequences of bad deeds testify against them, whether done in public or brought there by exposure. We do not dream up our criticisms, but use as proof that which you yourselves have furnished. A thing is not proved true by the judgments of the courts but can be witnessed and testified to by those who act outside of official processes. You continue:
If we do not find more ways of speaking charitably and biblically to one another in our national discussions, we run the risk of doing damage to the nuanced work of individual local churches.
“You brood of vipers! Who told you to flee from the wrath that is to come? . . . do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’” (Matt. 2:7,9). Was John’s personal address there uncharitable? No, for he bore sound testimony to the Pharisees’ true nature – and no one who speaks truth rightly can be deemed uncharitable. Why then do you imagine we wrong you when we testify to the course of your deeds?
Instead of raising and publishing suspicions about brothers we do not know in other regions and presbyteries, it is far healthier and more biblical to trust our churches and sessions to follow our Standards, to believe that they were acting in as good faith as we were, when they took their vows to uphold the Faith. If we can prove otherwise, then we have processes to adjudicate error. But until error is proven, restraint of suspicious expression is a key mark of true faithfulness.
This demands a level of trust that the Holy Spirit works beyond our immediate setting – that pastors will continue to preach “the gospel of God’s grace,” and “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:24, 27), and presbyteries and sessions will address sin and sins as they and their sessions see fit in their contexts.
These are the next four verses of Acts 20:
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.
Blind trust in other professing believers is not a gift of the Spirit, nor is it a virtue. Discernment, however, is. Your point above directly contradicts the passage to which you allude and supplants true wisdom with a naïveté that is not commanded, but rather warned against repeatedly. As for your claim that “until error is proven, restraint of suspicious expression is a key mark of true faithfulness,” I remind you again that all process is instituted against men who are in good standing when charged. If we are not able to oppose the bad behavior of some because they are in good standing and the offense has not been proved by the courts, then you condemn, by implication, Peter’s rebuke of Simon Magus (Acts 8:20-22), Paul’s of Peter (Gal. 2:11-14), and John’s concerning Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9-10), in all of which condemnation of wrong was public (or via letter to a third party) rather than private, and in which it apparently occurred toward people who were in good standing who had not been censured under the prescribed form of the Matthew 18 process. You later say that:
Before the Internet connected everyone, and before online news agencies became conduits for agendas, we trusted local churches, Sessions, and presbyteries – We want to propose that we continue to see this as the most excellent way of caring for the Church, and to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
This is historically doubtful. What is done now via the Internet was done in print with equal vigor in previous generations – The Presbyterian Journal comes to mind – and far from trusting others, our forefathers organized and published against them, and eventually separated to form our present denomination. If you mean the period between the PCA’s formation and the popularization of the Internet, your remarks still run counter to what I have heard of the tone of our own polity in its early days. In addition, Jude’s enjoinder to recognize and resist heretics is twisted to say ‘trust other professing believers without question,’ the direct opposite of his point. You continue:
Yes, there will be inaccuracies, even heresy – not because we trust one another, but because God’s Word tells us that there will be. Demas will always be in the church (2 Timothy 4:10). There will always be wolves (Matthew 7, Acts 20).
Misplaced confidence in man does in fact allow the proliferation of heresy, which can only be stopped by decisive action (as is the church’s duty, 1 Cor. 5:1-6; 1 Tim. 1:20; Tit. 1:9, 11) or else divine judgment (Rev. 2:15-16). Such mistaken trust receives God’s censure: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength” (Jer. 17:5). As for Demas, whether or no he was a final apostate or one who stumbled temporarily, his failure recorded in 2 Tim. 4:10 was not being in the church when Paul needed him (“Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me”). As for the universality of wolves, that is no excuse to an apathetic trust, which is what you imply at several points in this letter. You say later:
When we pick apart words and statements, often out of context, we do damage to the fabric of our Witness – We are the better to not go there (and all of us have been guilty!), because to the watching world, we would no longer appear as a community that graciously holds forth truth, but one that is torn and divided – and this invalidates our proclamation.
What you call picking apart words is simply exercising prudence, and far from it being better to “not go there,” we are commanded to test all things in order to hold fast what is good and reject what is bad (1 Thess. 5:21-22). My own belief is that your statements have not been frequently taken out of context by others; and I can attest that I have done my utmost to avoid doing so myself, for I have scoured this letter and other primary sources for many hours and have excised many points, including several full paragraphs, because further reflection made them seem debatable. You also say:
When we speak in extremes, in order to press a position, we hurt those we love, and do damage to our Witness
Scripture deals in extremes: life and death, truth and falsehood, wisdom and folly, wickedness and righteousness. This is no quirk of Hebrew literature but is a true testimony to the nature of our world. There are many matters in which the question is one of two or more alternatives that are largely questions of preference, and which bear consequences that touch rather upon form than essential substance. It is not so with many of our present controversies, which touch upon the essential form of our denomination and the course it will follow in the coming years, not least the question of whether we will be faithful to the truth about sexuality or will follow after other denominations in increasingly tolerating wrong conceptions of it. You later say:
Under the flag of, ‘they said it publicly, so we can challenge them publicly,’ friends have been pitted against friends – with no attempts to contact one another personally!
If the friends in question, whomever they may be, are worthy of the name they will no doubt contact each other personally rather than allow strangers to stir them up to mutual distrust. Also, there is no mandate to speak privately with those whom one believes err publicly, and the scriptural data suggest the propriety of public confrontation when it affects third parties (Prov. 18:17; Gal. 2:11-14; 1 Tim. 5:20).
You also say that “strangers have attacked strangers behind the safe confines of computers, news agencies, and conferences,” which “proliferates fear and distrust,” and that “there will always be people who are all about power.” In all of this I remind you that you hide yourselves behind confines safer than the things you mention here, all of which are at least public, and that your organization has a clever scheme to use committee assignments and other machinery of the General Assembly and presbyteries to accomplish a desired agenda.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.