“In order to uphold our ordination vows, before God, our Father, the Lord Jesus, our Savior, and the Holy Spirit, who guides us into all truth, and to adhere to the Holy Scripture with utmost honesty and integrity and therefore obey God over the ungodly whims of hierarchal human manipulations, this new presbytery is being constituted on this day, Monday, 19 August, in the year of our Lord Christ Jesus 2024.”

On August 19, 2024, five ministers in good standing of Second Presbytery, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, gathered in Greenwood, SC, along with elder representatives from three former ARP churches to constitute Veritas Presbytery, an independent unaffiliated presbytery. These founding ministers, Tony Locke, John Paul Marr, Peter Waid, Mark Wright, and Seth Yi, took a page out of the ARP Church history books in following the pattern of the Associate Presbytery of Scotland which was organized at Gairney Bridge, near Kinross, on Dec. 6, 1733. Ebenezer Erskine, James Fisher, William Wilson, and Alexander Moncreiff seceded from the Church of Scotland and therefore were sometimes called “Seceders.”
The roots of Veritas Presbytery stem from a properly called Second Presbytery meeting on August 13, 2024, in Due West, SC. The stated purpose of the meeting as notified by the Stated Clerk, David Griffin, was to “provide for open response and any actions related to the dissolution of Second Presbytery for congregations and ministers.” During that meeting, the following motion was approved (25 Yes, 19 No) by Second Presbytery, “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.” (Minutes pg. 1) This motion enabled congregations to be dismissed from Second Presbytery and ministers to be transferred into their respective Presbyteries with the authority of Second Presbytery.
On August 18, 2024, the Newberry, Troy, and Unity congregations at their properly called congregational meeting voted to be dismissed from Second Presbytery. From the three congregations, there was only one dissenting vote, and five abstentions. That evening, an email was sent by the respective clerks of session to Mr. Griffin notifying him of their congregation’s vote to be dismissed. The next day, a hardcopy letter of the same notice was delivered to Mr. Griffin.
Prior to the constitutional assembly on August 19, all five of the founding ministers had secured a letter of good standing from Mr. Griffin. A service of worship was conducted in which hymns were sung, Scripture read, as well as the Westminster Confession of Faith 20.1-4, prayers offered, and a sermon preached on 1 Peter 5:1-4. Several items of business related to the constitution of Veritas Presbytery were accompanied. The following declaration was proclaimed:
“In order to uphold our ordination vows, before God, our Father, the Lord Jesus, our Savior, and the Holy Spirit, who guides us into all truth, and to adhere to the Holy Scripture with utmost honesty and integrity and therefore obey God over the ungodly whims of hierarchal human manipulations, this new presbytery is being constituted on this day, Monday, 19 August, in the year of our Lord Christ Jesus 2024.”
Included in the business was the reception of the Newberry, Unity, and Troy congregations into Veritas Presbytery. Elders from these congregations presented their transfer paperwork in accordance with the actions they took at their congregational meetings.
That afternoon, August 19, the newly elected Moderator, John Paul Marr, notified Mr. Griffin in writing of the five ministers’ transfer and reception into Veritas Presbytery via email and a certified letter. However, Mr. Griffin replied in an email of his unwillingness to remove these transferred ministers from the roll of Second Presbytery. He concluded by stating, “If you are not properly transferred to another ecclesiastical body by September 1, you will no longer be considered ordained.”
Similarly, Mr. Griffin sent the following email to the clerks of session of the newly received congregations. [email]
“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.”
There has been no additional communication from Mr. Griffin or anyone else from General Synod regarding the Complaint (see Minutes above) that was filed against Second Presbytery which was dissolved on September 1.
Since its constitution, Veritas Presbytery has met on two other occasions. At those meetings, two more ministers in good standing from Second Presbytery, Jonathan Cook and Stacey Cox, were received into membership. Other ministers and elders have attended as guests where they have been allowed to ask questions about Veritas Presbytery.
Since September 1, Catawba Presbytery of the ARP Church has unilaterally assumed the role of Second Presbytery in presuming authority over the ministers and congregations of Veritas Presbytery. The State Clerk of Catawba Presbytery, Benjamin Glaser, has circulated the following email and letter to an unknown number of stated clerks of Presbyteries in SC:
Good Morning,
Pray y’all are doing well. This email serves as official correspondence from Catawba Presbytery of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church to let you know that the following men in the attached letter have demitted office and are no longer to be considered ordained ministers in Christ’s church. Likewise it is the position of Catawba Presbytery and the ARPC that the congregations recognizing themselves as the “Veritas Presbytery” are in fact member churches of Catawba Presbytery and should be treated as such.
If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. 
Blessings in Christ,Rev. Benjamin Glaser Pastor, Bethany ARP Church Stated Clerk, Catawba Presbytery
[Attached letter]
September 3, 2024
To Whom It May Concern:
Greetings in the name of our common Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This letter is to inform our NAPARC brothers that the following men have demitted their office due to their failure to transfer their credentials by the September 1st date allotted through actions of the 220th ARP General Synod in June of 2024 and are no longer to be considered ordained ministers in Christ’s Church.
Jonathan Cook, Eldredge Kelley, Peter Waid, Craig Weiberdink, Mark Wright, Seth (Soku) Yi
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at you leisure.
Blessings in Christ,Rev. Benjamin Glaser Pastor, Stated Clerk of Catawba PresbyteryJohn Barron, Moderator of Catawba Presbytery
Furthermore, Mr. Glaser mailed the following letter to the sessions of Veritas Presbytery congregations.
Good Morning,
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the pure hope of His gospel grace we greet you in the beauty of His love. Catawba Presbytery in its dedication to serve our common Savior welcomes you to the fellowship which has only been broadened in blessing to now encapsulate all of the State of South Carolina. As we seek to find ways to grow in mutual beneficence I wanted to send this letter as a word of welcome and provide you with contact information if you have need or have any particular questions when it comes to our new bond.
As part of this witness it is our duty to inform you that it is the position of Catawba Presbytery that your pulpit is considered vacant due to the failure of your pastor to follow the proper transfer procedures as provided for in submission to our Form of Government (FOG 9.62A-B, 10.3A, 10.3S). Because he has failed to maintain his ministerial credentials in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church or a recognized denomination it is our understanding that he is now not an ordained minister and therefore unable to fulfill the requirements of his duties, including overseeing the sacraments. While we understand that your congregation voted to join another group, and while we have no desire to hold anyone captive, we must strive to follow the spirit of 1 Corinthians 14:40 and do all things decently and in order in the keeping of the vows we took as officers in Christ’s Church.
We look forward to working with you in order to name an interim moderator and be of help in this time of transition.
Blessings in Christ,Rev. Benjamin Glaser, Stated Clerk of Catawba PresbyteryJohn Barron, Moderator of Catawba Presbytery
Despite the proper steps that these congregations and ministers have taken in accordance with the will of Second Presbytery (at the time of action) and the ARP FoG, the Stated Clerk and Moderator of Catawba Presbytery are refusing to accept these actions and allow these congregations to live in peace. These officers are using their office to “hold captive” these congregations who were dismissed from Second Presbytery and the ARP Church. What sort of brotherly love and charity is this overreach of presumed authority? To what lengths will these men go to keep harassing these Veritas congregations? Are these men acting any differently than the PCUSA, UMC, or the Episcopal Church in trying to rule over these congregations? How is this advancing the work of Christ’s Church?
Veritas Presbytery along with her member congregations are moving forward. They desire nothing more than to focus their time, energy, and resources to advance the Kingdom of Christ. Those who are interested in learning more about Veritas Presbytery can visit https://veritaspresbytery.com or email [email protected] to communicate with our moderator.
Seth Yi is a Minister in Veritas Presbytery and is Paster of Newberry Reformed Presbyterian Church in Newberry, SC.
Related Posts:

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:

There was no further discussion on the motion to declare an emergency, and it was defeated by a vote of 11-2. Therefore, since the Executive Board did not declare the two complaints to be an emergency, they were not considered, and the meeting was adjourned. The two complaints were declared as not being an emergency and not even deliberated.

On August 5, the Executive Board of the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church met via Zoom to consider declaring an emergency to deliberate on two complaints (Complaints Filed Against An Action of the 2024 ARP General Synod) against the General Synod in response to its decision to dissolve Second Presbytery effective September 1, 2024 (How a 224-Year-Old ARP Presbytery was Dissolved in a Day). According to the Manual of Authorities and Duties for Officers and Agencies and Rules of Order of the General Synod (MAD, p. 12), four voting members (Marc Faulkenberry, John Paul Marr, GJ Gerard, Seth Philbrick) can call a meeting of the Executive Board for a specific purpose. Apparently Mr. Philbrick (Tennessee-Alabama Presbytery Representative) received some pushback from some unnamed individuals who questioned his participation in calling the Executive Board (his email was attached to the notice for the called meeting). There was opposition from some members of Synod even to deliberate on the two complaints.
The Book of Discipline (BoD), one of the constitutional documents of the ARP Church, states in 5.12: “A complaint is a written representation made against some act or decision of a court of the Church. Unlike an appeal which may only be made by one who has been tried by a court, any communing member in good standing of an ARP Church or Presbytery has the right to make a complaint against any court to which he is subject, except in judicial cases that are in the appeals process.” (all bold is added in the article). The interpretation and application of this section of the BoD played a critical role as to why the Executive Board did not consider the two complaints.
Furthermore, BoD states in 5.13: “Complaint Process A. Before filing a complaint with a higher court, a complaint shall first be made to the court whose act or decision is alleged to be in error. The complaint shall be made in writing, specifying the errors of the court along with supporting reasons and evidence, and filed with the clerk of the court within 60 days following the meeting of the court where the alleged error occurred. The court shall consider the complaint at its next stated meeting or at a called meeting prior to its next stated meeting.”
Because the next stated meeting of the General Synod is not scheduled until June of 2025, it was necessary that the Executive Board consider these complaints at a called meeting. The MAD (p.13) regarding the authority of the Executive Board states: “The Executive Board of the General Synod is the agency empowered to carry out the work of the General Synod in the interim period between meetings of Synod,…When the Executive Board acts in an emergency case on behalf of Synod, only those eligible to vote at the meeting of Synod shall be entitled to vote.” Furthermore, the MAD also states that the first duty of the Executive Board is: “To act on behalf of Synod in emergency situations.” In other words, the Executive Board has the authority to act on behalf of the General Synod when it deems a situation as an emergency.
After preliminary matters, the business opened with the Principal Clerk, Kyle Sims, not the Moderator, Alan Broyles, making the statement, “Our first order of business is to declare an emergency; we can’t really do anything until we declare an emergency” (audio Called Ex Bd Aug 5 8min 20sec; all time markers relate to this recording). Declaring these complaints as an “emergency” per the MAD was necessary even to consider discussing them.
The first person to speak was Rob Patrick (former Moderator of Synod 2023-2024, a voting member). He said (8m 30s), “Mr. Moderator, I’d like to ask the parliamentarian to explain that. In recent years, it seems like we’ve been told we can’t even discuss the merits of a case rising to the level of emergency without first declaring an emergency. I know that we cannot act on behalf of Synod unless a matter is deemed an emergency, but are we not allowed to discuss a matter? The action of the court is one thing, deliberation of the court is another. And it seems like the interpretation is that any deliberation is effectively acting on behalf of the court. So I just want to be clear about that. Because it just seems nonsensical to me that we can’t discuss the merits or the matter to determine is this an emergency or not without first declaring it an emergency. So, if, Mr. Moderator, the Parliamentarian could explain that.”
Andy Putnam, a minister in Catawba Presbytery and the former Parliamentarian of Synod, was appointed as the acting Parliamentarian by Mr. Broyles because Patrick Malphrus recused himself as the Parliamentarian so that he could participate in the debate and vote (as a former Moderator of Synod 2021-2022). Mr. Putnam said (9m 31s), “Yes, I will, Mr. Moderator. Under the Manual of Authorities and Duties, the Executive Board of Synod has as its first duty to act on behalf of Synod in emergency situations. Within that authority paragraph, it states, when the Executive Board acts on an emergency case on behalf of Synod, only those eligible to vote at the meeting of Synod shall be entitled to vote. The Executive Board has no authority to override or act on any presbytery matters. That’s all we were given. So to answer your question, debate about the motion, which has yet to be made, to act on behalf to declare this emergency is limited to whether or not it is an emergency. We do not open up the entirety of the discussion topic because there are various layers to that about whether or not the topic itself is even correct, appropriate, whatever, as any situation goes on. So, the debate is limited merely to whether or not it is an emergency.”
Mr. Patrick responded (10m 30s), “Okay, thank you. That clarifies it. In some recent situations it seemed like it was indicated we couldn’t even discuss those matters.”
Then Mr. Van Dyk, author of one of the complaints, a member of the Special Committee that investigated Second Presbytery, and the Northeast Presbytery Representative at the meeting, said (10m 44s), “Mr. Moderator, I move that we declare complaint number one and number two an emergency.” The motion was seconded, and the floor opened to discussion.
Mr. Patrick started by saying (11m 8s), “Again, this is a parliamentary question, I think. Rob Patrick. Mr. Moderator, I would assume that the Executive Board is not a court of appeal from any action taken at the General Synod. My assumption would be that we would perhaps have latitude to act if it were determined there were some new information not available to the Synod. And so really, I think my question is twofold. The first is parliamentary. Am I correct in that, that we’re not a board of appeal to any action taken? And secondly, would it be the case if there is some new information the Synod did not have that rises to the level of emergency, then that would validate approving this motion?” It turned out to be the case that Mr. Patrick’s statement about “some new information” was the hinge upon which this motion failed.
Mr. Putnam responded (12m 1s), “Yes. I’ll give you the short answer…We do not view the Executive Board as yet another court or another level. General Synod is the final court of the denomination. So there is no appeal from that. There is no complaint from that. There is nothing.” Mr. Putnam’s last three statements, especially, the two bolded, is questionable based on the definition of a complaint per the BoD, “A complaint is a written representation made against some act or decision of a court of the Church.” The two complaints are against the decision of the General Synod, the highest court of the ARP Church, namely, to dissolve Second Presbytery. For the parliamentarian to give his opinion that “there is no complaint from that,” does not conform to the clear definition of a complaint.
Mr. Van Dyk noticed this incongruity and responded (12m 28s), “Point of order. Mr. Moderator. This, the complaints that have been offered up, are not an appeals process. And so there is a right of all members of the assembly to offer up a complaint not as a matter of appeal because that is really into the judicial aspect of this chapter of the Book of Discipline. Appeal is a separate issue. And as a complaint it’s not a judicial matter. It’s an administrative matter. It is simply calling attention to the fact that someone realized, maybe post-meeting, that there was an error or perhaps even a violation of our form of government, our constitutional standards, and calling the attention to that of the Executive Board at this point.” Mr. Van Dyk’s clarification was critical to this portion of the debate, but it did not resonate with the majority of the Executive Board. They struggled to distinguish a complaint from an appeal.
Mr. Sims then entered the debate by saying (13m 19s), “Mr. Moderator. May I ask the parliamentarian a question. I believe Mr. Van Dyk misspoke. He said that anyone who is a member of the General Synod has the right to complain against the General Synod. I think the actual, the Form of Government is very clear. The Book of Discipline is very clear. Complaints can only be made by those who have standing or subject to the court they’re complaining against. No one has subject or standing in the General Synod. That’s why we could not have a judicial commission formed, even though we had five attempts to do it at General Synod. You have to be a member. And so really, these complaints will be out of order because no one has the ability to do that because no one is subject to the General Synod directly. They’re either subject to their local session or their Presbytery.”
While claiming that “Mr. Van Dyk misspoke,” Mr. Sims added further confusion to the purpose and intent of a complaint. First, a complaint can be made by “any communing member in good standing of an ARP Church or Presbytery” against “any court to which he is subject.” The eight men who filed the 2 complaints are either “communing member(s) in good standing of an ARP Church” as elders or a “Presbytery” as ministers. As members of an ARP Church or a Presbytery they are all subject to the court of the General Synod, the highest court of the ARP Church. Webster defines subject (adjective) as “owing obedience or allegiance to the power or dominion of another.” Both elders and ministers must affirm in their ordination vows to the following statements respectively: “Do you promise to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Session and to the higher courts of the Church?” and “Do you promise to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Presbytery in subordination to the General Synod, and to promote the unity, peace, purity, and prosperity of the Church?” According to the definition of subject and the ordination vows of elders and ministers, it seems logical that these eight men are clearly subject to the actions of Synod. For example, when Synod makes a change to the constitution (Westminster Confession of Faith or the Form of Government), elders and ministers are subject to that action. In fact, all communing members of local congregations are subject to the Synod according to the church membership vow, “(7) In loving obedience, do you submit yourself to the government and discipline of this church, promising to seek the peace, purity, and prosperity of this congregation as long as you are a member of it?” Here, the “church” refers to the ARP Church as a denomination while “congregation” refers to the local assembly. That is why local church members are subject to the Book of Discipline (BoD) which is formulated and ratified by the General Synod. The decision of General Synod to dissolve Second Presbytery will personally impact all the ministers and members of congregations in Second Presbytery.
Second, Mr. Sims confused the debate by conflating a complaint with an appeal (BoD 5.1.A.-B., 5.12). Appeals relate to judicial proceedings (allegations, investigation, charges, trial. etc.) while complaints concern court actions or decisions. This confusion is evident in Mr. Sim’s statement, “That’s why we could not have a judicial commission formed, even though we had five attempts to do it at General Synod. You have to be a member.” What Mr. Sim’s is possibly referring to is the matter of original jurisdiction, BoD 2.25 “Original jurisdiction describes the court that has primary jurisdiction over a member or officer of the Church. For members of churches and ruling elders, the court of original jurisdiction is the session of the Church where they hold their membership; for ministers, the court of original jurisdiction is the presbytery to which he belongs.” In matters of judicial process, only the court of original jurisdiction has authority over its members. Therefore, the General Synod cannot be the court of original jurisdiction for church members, elders, and ministers unless a transfer of jurisdiction has been made through the proper process (BoD 2.25 A.-D.) However, courts of original jurisdiction do not apply to complaints since they are not judicial matters. This critical distinction was rejected by the majority of the Executive Board.
This misunderstanding was reiterated by the acting Parliamentarian, Mr. Putnam, when he followed up by saying (14m 31s), “I will tell you that a complaint is, as was stated, different than an appeal, but it is not possible to complain to the General Synod about the General Synod. You complain to the court which you have authority. It’s very straight forward. Book of Discipline 5.13. So, no, it is out of order to complain to the General Synod about the General Synod. You can call a meeting of the General Synod that’s different.”
How is it “not possible to complain to the General Synod about the General Synod,” when a complaint is “made against some act or decision of a court of the Church”? Is the General Synod not a court of the Church? To give the opinion that “it is out of order to complain to the General Synod about the General Synod” seems to contradict the very definition of a complaint. Since it was the decision of General Synod to dissolve Second Presbytery, General Synod is the only court to which these complaints can be made. And since the Executive Board has the authority to act on behalf of General Synod in emergency situations, the Executive Board was called to handle these complaints against General Synod.
The debate continued with Mr. Patrick posing an important issue (15m 51s). “Mr. Moderator, I wonder if anyone who is, would speak in favor of this motion to make this as an emergency can…I’ve read the documentation. I just haven’t read anything that General Synod did not hear on the floor, which is why I’m a little bit confused and perhaps an appeal is not the proper term, but it seems like this is just rehearing everything we’ve already discussed. But if I’ve missed something in my reading of the documentation.”
At this point a critical oversight was made by the Executive Board. Mr. Patrick claimed that he did not find in the documentation, the complaints, anything that he had not heard on the floor of Synod. However, the complaint made by the seven members of Second Presbytery did contained new information and contradicted what was stated at Synod. In particular, during the floor debate of Synod, Mr. Putnam made these remarks (ARP Synod 2024 Day 2 Part 2 1h 8m 24s), “Mr. Moderator, Andrew Putnam, Catawba Presbytery, former moderator, former parliamentarian for Synod. A couple of things. I really didn’t want to have to speak at this meeting. I’m standing to speak in favor of the motion. I can recount some of the things everyone else has said on both sides that I think prove the necessity. But just some things I want to clarify that I think need to be clarified also. General Synod has the authority to organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve presbyteries. That is the judicial process. We do not have a way of censuring them. We did in 1799. In that Form of Government, we dropped it by 1953. 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.”
The Complaint from Second Presbytery cited Form of Government (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 ….” The complaint went on to state, “It is clear that the General Synod does not have the authority to initiate and execute the dissolution of a Presbytery. Rather, the General Synod shall advise a Presbytery if a Presbytery pursues dissolution and requests the advice of General Synod (FoG 12.22.B.).” Mr. Putnam’s statement “what I just read to you is from the latest [edition of the FoG] but was also in the 53 and 71 editions. It’s a standard thing that we have the authority to do;” is clearly inaccurate. That authority was given to the General Synod in the 1953 and 1971 editions of the FoG, but the most recent 2014 edition of the FoG clearly limits the Synod to an advisory role not the executor of dissolution. Somehow, this glaring piece of new information was ignored by the Executive Board.
The debate moved back to the motion to declare an emergency. Mr. Sims spoke in opposition to it by saying (17m 12s), “The Executive Board does not have the right to overturn the actions of the General Synod and further these complaints before us do not constitute an emergency. The Manual of Authorities and Duties gives power to the Executive Board to act on behalf of the Synod in emergency situations. Webster defines an emergency as an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action. The Executive Board cannot declare an emergency without violating the Manual of Authorities and Duties, and the reason is simple, there is no emergency at hand. There are no circumstances that are being brought forward that were not anticipated by the Synod, and there is nothing that calls for immediate action. Just because the action of Synod will take effect on September 1 does not mean there is an emergency. What is being asked for us here is not for us to act for the General Synod but to undo what Synod has already acted with overwhelming support of over 82%. The highest court of the church has acted. There is no court to overturn it. The Executive Board is not empowered to overturn that action. I spoke with the former principal clerk, and between the two of us, we go back to 1971. We both concur that the Executive Board has never declared an emergency to overturn the act of the General Synod. Furthermore, it has not been our rights. The proper procedure to do this, what’s being asked, would be to have a called meeting of the General Synod and have someone who voted in the affirmative move for reconsideration. We would set a dangerous precedent by even declaring an emergency at this point. This emergency power is something that the Executive Board has been extremely careful to use only in bona fide emergencies. To allow this to be declared an emergency is to open Pandora’s box. Anybody who had a complaint or thought of something could come back to the Executive Board and say, wait, let’s do this over again. It’s not how we do things. Let me be clear. If we declare an emergency this morning on these issues, then going forward, any issue coming before us, we could declare an emergency. This would be a violation of our authority. We could be expected to be rebuked by the Synod. And steps taken by the Synod to limit or even do away with existing powers of the Board. And this would be a great tragedy because there are times when we need this. Our work here this morning is clear. Do not declare this an emergency because it’s clearly not one. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.”
There are several fallacies and/or factual errors in Mr. Sim’s speech:

He starts with, “The Executive Board does not have the right to overturn the actions of the General Synod,” but then he follows up with, “The Manual of Authorities and Duties gives power to the Executive Board to act on behalf of the Synod in emergency situations.” Therefore, in an emergency situation the Executive Board can act on behalf of the Synod, if necessary to overturn an action of the General Synod. The authority to act is given to the Executive Board, including the right to overturn an action of the General if it is necessary.
“There are no circumstances that are being brought forward that were not anticipated by the Synod, and there is nothing that calls for immediate action.” A circumstance that was not accurately presented to the General Synod during the debate of dissolving Second Presbytery was that constitutional prohibition of such an act. General Synod according to the FoG does not have the authority to dissolve a presbytery on its own initiative. This constitutional “circumstance” was “not anticipated” by the Synod when it decided to approve the dissolution of Second Presbytery.
“What is being asked for us here is not for us to act for the General Synod but to undo what Synod has already acted…” That is the point of a complaint, to bring to the attention of the proper court an action that is alleged to be in error and to be remedied.
“We both concur that the Executive Board has never declared an emergency to overturn the act of the General Synod.” Just because something has never been done before does not make it out of order or unconstitutional. An extreme action, the dissolution of a 224-year old presbytery, demands an extreme response, vacate the dissolution. A complaint is designed to address such extreme errors.
“The proper procedure to do this, what’s being asked, would be to have a called meeting of the General Synod and have someone who voted in the affirmative move for reconsideration.” A complaint is not a motion to reconsider. It is a separate procedure in the BoD.
“It’s not how we do things.” Is this a declaration that complaints are unconstitutional? If that’s the case, when are complaints ever valid? The BoD is the constitutional document that governs these matters.
“This would be a violation of our authority.” The Executive Board has the authority per the MAD to declare an emergency if the evidence is compelling. That act is not a violation of their authority but one that is prescribed to them.
“Do not declare this an emergency because it’s clearly not one.” What evidence did Mr. Sims present to demonstrate that these complaints are not an emergency? Is the Synod making an unconstitutional decision not an emergency?

The rest of the business consisted of Tony Locke, a minister in Second Presbytery and one of the signatories of the complaint related to FoG 12.22, requesting voice. He was denied by a 10-2 vote. The Executive Board overwhelmingly denied a filer of one of the complaints the opportunity to speak. There was no further discussion on the motion to declare an emergency, and it was defeated by a vote of 11-2. Therefore, since the Executive Board did not declare the two complaints to be an emergency, they were not considered, and the meeting was adjourned. The two complaints were declared as not being an emergency and not even deliberated. So, what is the point of having a complaint in the constitution? Are all the actions of the highest court irrevocable?
Seth Yi is a Minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and is the Pastor of Newberry ARP in Newberry, SC.
Related Posts:

The enabling motion behind the debate: “That a special committee be formed to investigate Second Presbytery’s handling of the allegations against Chuck Wilson and that this special committee report back any irregularities and/or deviations from our Standards to the Executive Board at its Fall 2023 meeting along with any recommendations for further action.”

In truth, the title of this article should be How a 224-Year-Old Presbytery was Dissolved in a Year not in a Day, since the unprecedented action, which could be ruled unconstitutional (see below), taken by the 2024 General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) Church has its genesis in the 2023 General Synod. The timeline below will outline the significant events, along with corresponding explanation and support (hyperlinks to sources), that culminated in the action of General Synod to dissolve Second Presbytery effective September 1, 2024.
June 7, 2023: The motion that sparked this saga was made by Rhett Carson and approved by the 2023 General Synod: “That a special committee be formed to investigate Second Presbytery’s handling of the allegations against Chuck Wilson and that this special committee report back any irregularities and/or deviations from our Standards to the Executive Board at its Fall 2023 meeting along with any recommendations for further action. This special committee shall be composed of members from Executive Board’s judicial commission on Matthew Miller and the Executive Board’s Investigative Committee on Chuck Wilson.” (p. 4 2023 Minutes of the General Synod, p. 11 of the file 2023 Minutes of General Synod ARP) The “Standards” comprise the constitutional documents of the ARPC (Standards of the ARPC).
Mr. Carson, a minister in First Presbytery, served as the advocate for one of Chuck Wilson’s daughters. It could be said that Mr. Carson had a bias against Mr. Wilson because he was the advocate for one of the daughters against Mr. Wilson in the proceedings against him. This motion was unquestionably unconstitutional based on the ARP Form of Government 13.13.B.(2) (FoG, one of the seven constitutional documents of the ARPC). This subsection which relates to Special Committees states, “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” (FoG p. 95 of file). As noted in the last sentence of the motion, Mr. Carson specified the composition of the special committee in violation of our constitution. At no point during the discussion of this motion did Synod’s Parliamentarian, Patrick Malphrus, inform the Moderator, Rob Patrick, or the Synod that this motion was in conflict with the FoG. Unfortunately, no one else in the assembly was familiar with this section of the FoG to make a point of order and defeat the motion.
During the 2024 Synod two facts came to light that also pointed to the unconstitutional nature of this motion. First, the Special Committee’s Report, Index 11 (Index 11 p. 1), which was included in the digital Synod Packet for all registered delegates, quoted the original motion above but strangely left out the last sentence. Secondly, during the preliminary discussion of Index 11, Mr. Patrick (the moderator during the 2023 Synod) made these comments from the floor: “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” (time marker 1 hr 9m 55s video of Day 2 Part 1). How did such an unequivocal constitutional requirement get overlooked by the officers of General Synod? The formation of the Special Committee was unconstitutional from its inception.
Oct 26, 2023: The Executive Board of Synod met for its stated Fall Meeting. It was apparent at that meeting (which Seth Yi participated as an advisory member) that Kyle Sims, Principal Clerk of General Synod, and Patrick Malphrus, Synod’s Parliamentarian, were both active members on the Special Committee. This was confirmed in Index 11, p. 1: “The composition of the committee included: Kyle Sims, Patrick Malphrus, Ken Wingate, Clint Davis, Jonathan Cowan, Brian Murray, Aaron Rozeboom, Brian Taylor, Jack Van Dyk, Phil Williams, David Walkup, Donald Bean, Brian Schouwstra, and Scott Smith. (Brian Murray and Scott Smith were inactive members.) In an attempt to divide this considerable workload, we formed two subcommittees: one to address the actions/inactions of Second Presbytery, and a second to examine weaknesses in the Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church that contributed to issues with Second Presbytery’s handling of allegations.”
The composition of this special committee further revealed the illegitimate nature of its work. Neither Mr. Sims nor Mr. Malphrus were appointed members to either the Executive Board’s judicial commission on Matthew Miller or the Executive Board’s Investigative Committee on Chuck Wilson. These men were only advisory members on the judicial commission by virtue of their office on the Executive Board. To make matters worse, Mr. Sims eventually confessed on the floor of Synod that he served as the chairman of the Special Committee (time marker 1h 5m 50s Day 2 Part 1). The truth of Mr. Sims’ chairmanship was not reported in Index 11 which again was unconstitutional since it failed to conform with FoG 13.12.D. (relates to Committee’s Authority and Responsibility) which states that: “All written reports shall be signed by the chairman and secretary” (FoG p. 102). How was this constitutional requirement overlooked by the Principal Clerk of Synod of all people? Moreover, Mr. Sims and Mr. Malphrus served on the subcommittee (roughly half of the Special Committee) that addressed the actions/inactions of Second Presbytery. They participated as voting members despite not being appointed to this Special Committee.
Prior to the Fall Meeting of the Executive Board, the subcommittee interviewed members of Second Presbytery’s Minister and His Work Committee (which was delegated with the original allegations against Mr. Wilson) for no more than one hour and 15 minutes over a Zoom call on Oct. 6, 2023. Mr. Yi participated in that Zoom meeting because as the moderator of Second Presbytery during that period he was an ex-officio member of all of presbytery’s committees. Subsequently, the investigative subcommittee never communicated again with these men. At the Fall 2023 Executive Board meeting, an incomplete report was submitted (Special Committee Report 10.16.23) and the following 3 motions were approved related to the Special Committee:

That the committee be extended more time to complete its investigation and that it report back with findings and recommendations to the Executive Board at its 2024 Spring Meeting.
That the committee be authorized to relay pertinent discovered information to courts of original jurisdiction.
That the paragraph of the report which reads “Given the magnitude of materials associated with this investigation and the appearance of evil, the committee makes the following recommendations:” be stricken from the report (Exec Bd Minutes Oct 26 2023 p. 2).

Based on public knowledge, in relation to motion #2, no “pertinent discovered information” was relayed to Second Presbytery regarding any of its members. However, as evident in Index 11, several unsubstantiated allegations were purported throughout the report. None of these concerns were ever addressed by this subcommittee with the members of Second Presbytery, including the Minister and His Work Committee and the moderator, Mr. Yi who participated in the M&HW Committee’s meetings, before the Special Committee submitted its final report to the Executive Board on May 23,2024 (Called Meeting ExBd 5.28.24 Notice).
March 21, 2024: At the Spring meeting of the Executive Board of General Synod no report was submitted by the Special Committee. All that was recorded in the minutes was: “Kyle Sims reported that the committee continues to work and will have a report for Synod 2024” (Ex Bd Minutes 3.21.24 p. 2).
April 22, 2024: Mr. Yi wrote the following email to the members of the Executive Board:
Due to a prior engagement, I was not able to attend the last EB Meeting on March 21, 2024. After reviewing the minutes, I have a couple of questions (below) regarding the work and report of the Special Committee to Investigate Second Presbytery’s Handling of Allegations Against Chuck Wilson.
According to the minutes of Synod, the motion that was approved regarding this special committee was: “That a special committee be formed to investigate Second Presbytery’s handling of the allegations against Chuck Wilson and that this special committee report back any irregularities and/or deviations from our Standards to the Executive Board at its Fall 2023 meeting along with any recommendations for further action. This special committee shall be composed of members from Executive Board’s judicial commission on Matthew Miller and the Executive Board’s Investigative Committee on Chuck Wilson.”
Furthermore, at the EB’s Oct 26, 2023, meeting the following motion was approved: “That the committee be extended more time to complete its investigation and that it report back with findings and recommendations to the Executive Board at its 2024 Spring Meeting.”
According to the EB’s March meeting minutes, “Kyle Sims reported that the committee continues to work and will have a report for Synod 2024.”
Questions: Will the Special Committee report to the Executive Board any findings and recommendations before presenting their report to the Synod? Will the EB be convened at a called meeting to review the Special Committee’s Report before the Synod Packet is distributed?
Based on the wording of the original motion approved by Synod, and the previous actions of the EB, it seems that this Special Committee is required to submit its report to the EB before anything is submitted to Synod. As was the case at the Fall 2023 EB Meeting, 2 of the Special Committee’s recommendations were approved by the EB, as well as an additional recommendation by the EB to remove a paragraph from the Special Committee’s report.
Thank you for your clarification.
April 22, 2024: Mr. Sims sent this email to the Executive Board (Email):
I am hesitant to “reply all” to this email given the fact that the court is not in session and mass emails are often not decent or in order. Even so, at the Moderator’s request, I am writing to remind you that the special committee has not finished its work. When completed, the committee will report back to the executive board with Its findings and recommendations.
May 28, 2024: The Executive Board approved to forward to the 2024 General Synod the Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Second Presbytery’s Handling of Allegations Against Chuck Wilson (Index 11). Jack van Dyk, one of the members of the Special Committee who also served on Executive Board’s judicial commission on Matthew Miller voted in opposition to forwarding the report along with 2 other voting members. There were multiple attempts to amend or postpone the Report, but they were ruled out of order. It was argued by Mr. Sims and Mr. Malphrus that the report could only be forwarded or rejected as a whole.
May 29, 2024 (13 days prior to the start of Synod): An email was sent to all the online registered delegates of Synod informing them that the Special Committee’s Report (Index 11) had been upload to the online packet, and it was available to download.
June 12, 2023: Synod took up the discussion of Index 11:
Mr. Sims, the Chairman of the Special Committee, made the suggestion that Jeff Kingswood of Canadian Presbytery be appointed as acting Parliamentarian (time marker 53m 5s Day 2 Part 1).
Before the debate ensued on Index 11, Tanner Cline made the following speech (time marker 54m 20s Day 2 Part 1): “Mr. Moderator, I rise to a point of order. I ask you, sir, to rule this report out of order because it violates the Form of Government, it violates the Book of Discipline, and it violates Robert’s Rules of Order. First, this report is out of order because it fails to comply with FoG 13.12.D, which states that all committee reports shall be signed by the chairman and the secretary. The report does not even indicate if there is a chairman for the committee, let alone contain his signature. Therefore, this report is out of order.
“Secondly, this report is out of order because the committee expanded its mandate without General Synod’s authorization. FoG 13.12.A. states that a committee must perform its work ‘according to the specific instructions’ of the General Synod. Moreover, Robert’s Rules of Order 50:10 specifies that select or ad hoc committees are appointed ‘to carry out a specified task.’ The Special Committee was tasked with investigating Second Presbytery’s handling of the Chuck Wilson matter. However, the Committee’s report far exceeds this mandate. The report addresses other judicial cases besides the Wilson case. It comments on the ‘culture’ of Second Presbytery and raises issues totally unrelated to the Wilson matter. Therefore, Mr. Moderator, this report is out of order because the report and its recommendations far exceed the scope of business assigned to it by the General Synod.
“Finally, this report is out of order because it violates Book of Discipline 4.2. The report states that Second Presbytery violated the Book of Discipline by failing to appoint investigators when receiving allegations and instead allowed a committee to conduct a preliminary investigation. This is ironic. The great irony is that the special committee has violated the Book of Discipline in the same manner. Last year, the maker of the motion, who happened to be an advocate for one of Chuck Wilson’s daughters, moved that the special committee be formed by purporting allegations of sin and wrongdoing on the part of Second Presbytery, even comparing the current situation to the Roman Catholic pedophilia scandal. And instead of appointing investigators per Book of Discipline 4.2, this special committee conducted an investigation. That’s even the wording of the motion that created the committee. Their report is full of allegations of sin that are not substantiated. It is clear that this committee has acted as investigators without being so appointed per the Book of Discipline 4.2. Therefore, this report violates Book of Discipline 4.2. So Mr. Moderator, for these reasons, I humbly ask you, sir, humbly move that this point of order, request that the report and the recommendations be ruled out of order.”
The Moderator, Alan Broyles, chose (time marker 58m 31s Day 2 Part 1) not to make a ruling but turned the microphone over to the acting Parliamentarian, Mr. Kingswood, who said:
“The moderator [sic] of the committee has not signed it. That’s true. I think I would appeal to the moderator to decide whether that makes something ineligible for entry. I don’t think it rises to the level of dismissing a report. It’s a technical thing.” The Moderator responded by saying, “With respect to the allegation about the signatures, I don’t believe that affects the intent of this commission, of this committee.”
The “technical thing” that was disregarded by the acting Parliamentarian and the Moderator was a clear violation of the ARP constitution. If a court does not conform to a “technical thing” of its constitution, what is the purpose of the constitution? All of these delegates took ordination vows agreeing to “accept the government, discipline, and worship of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church as agreeable to and founded on the Word of God.” The “government” and “discipline” correspond to the Form of Government and the Book of Discipline respectively.
Mr. Yi then rose to make another point of order (time marker 1h 3m 15s Day 2 Part 1):
“I would continue to argue that this document, this report is out of order based upon FoG Chapter 13, which deals with boards, commissions, and committees. Subsection 13, composition and organization of committees. Subsection B, classification of committees. Subsection 2, special committees. A special committee shall, 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 full wording of the original motion regarding this special committee, which was made, again, by the Advocate of one of Mr. Wilson’s daughters, included this final sentence, which is left out in the Special Committee’s report. That is, ‘This special committee shall be composed of members from Executive Board’s judicial commission on Matthew Miller and the Executive Board’s Investigative Committee on Chuck Wilson.’ The genesis of this special committee is unconstitutional. It is a fruit of a poisonous tree. It clearly disregards FoG 13.13.B. (2).
“Furthermore, two members of this Special Committee, Mr. Sims and Mr. Malphrus were not duly appointed members to either of the Judicial Commission or the Investigative Committee. They were merely advisory members of the Judicial Commission by virtue of their office on the Executive Board of Synod. So to have them serve on this special committee is highly irregular. And to make the matter worse, did we ever find out who the chairman of this committee was?…To have one of them, who is unnamed,…[Mr. Sims answered that he was],…an advisory member serve as the chair of this SC is entirely irregular.
“For these reasons, Mr. Moderator, I believe that this report is clearly out of order and unconstitutional according to our standards and form of government.”
The Moderator then looked over to the acting Parliamentarian and turned over the microphone to him. He proceeded to say, “I’m disturbed by a pattern I’m seeing here of parliamentary stonewalling by appealing to this or that minutia or irregularity. Something being irregular does not make it out of order. Someone who holds an office ex officio is entitled to participate in the work of that committee….Okay, advisory. It does not preclude his service. You may not like it, but it doesn’t preclude it. And I keep hearing that the motion was made by…that is absolutely out of bounds. It matters not who the motion was made by or who he is related to and that is underhanded, and it demonstrates in my opinion the exact spirit that this committee is dealing with in this presbytery and it stinks to high heaven. Excuse me for overstepping my bounds.” This loaded outburst by the acting Parliamentarian set a tone for the rest of the debate.
According to Manual of Authorities and Duties for Officers and Agencies and Rules of Order (MAD p. 83, file p. 84):
“The Parliamentarian should be a person with expert knowledge of the rules and use of adopted parliamentary procedures. He should be a person who is impartial, systematic, knowledgeable, and reliable. He should see to it that the business procedures are carried out according to these Rules of Order. He should call attention to an improper procedure and on request advise the Moderator on procedural matters.” Furthermore, his duties include, “At the meeting of the General Synod, the Parliamentarian shall call attention to procedures which are not in accord with the Rules of Order of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. On request, he shall advise the Moderator on procedural matters. However, all questions of order shall be decided by the Moderator, subject only to the appeal of two or more members of the Court” (MAD p. 9, file p. 10).
Rob Patrick, the former Moderator, then made the inquiry noted above about the appointment of this Special Committee last year. When it was determined that it was the court, the Synod, that made the appointment, the acting parliamentarian advised to “seek the will of the court to determine whether or not we would like to proceed.” The Moderator called for a vote on whether to proceed with Index 11, and the court voted to proceed. The majority of the court knowingly ignored the Form of Government in moving forward with Index 11.
Mr. Yi then rose to make the following motion (time marker 1h 12m Day 2 Part 1):
“I move that deliberation on the Special Committee’s report and its recommendations be postponed until the 2025 General Synod so that members of Second Presbytery, including members of the 2022 Minister and His Work Committee can respond to the findings in this report….I speak in favor of this motion to postpone for several reasons. We should postpone deliberation because of the enormity of the decision and the potential ramification of these recommendations. Many of us still remember what happened during the ‘Snow Synod’ and following when actions were taken hastily on information resulting in lawsuits, years of rupture, and broken relationships within our denomination. Could the same thing happen if these recommendations are dealt with by the Synod in such a hasty manner?
“Secondly, because of the limited time that the Synod has had to consider this report. Proverbs 21.5 reads, ‘The plans of the diligent lead surely to abundance, but everyone who is hasty comes only to poverty.’ Most of us have had less than two weeks to consider prayerfully this report and its unprecedented recommendations. Some here have had less than a couple days if they registered while at Synod.
“Third, we ought to postpone deliberation so that we can understand the legal ramifications of these actions. Can Synod legally dissolve Second Presbytery, which is an independently incorporated entity in South Carolina? Does the Form of Government give Synod the authority to claim the assets of a presbytery? What kind of legal defense does the Synod have if it is sued?
“Fourthly, we should postpone so that we can weigh the precedent we are setting. Second Presbytery is not the only court that has had difficult judicial matters presented to Synod in the past several years. Recall that the only time that the Synod has dissolved a presbytery was with the Pacific Presbytery for many legitimate reasons, primarily due to language, which they could not speak clearly, in English, their culture, and noncompliance to our Standards on multiple levels. Furthermore, before such an extreme action was taken, diligent and pastoral intervention was provided by Synod with members of Pacific Presbytery.
“Fifth, we should postpone so that Catawba and Tennessee-Alabama Presbyteries can give their input. Is it proper and considerate to force Catawba and Tennessee-Alabama Presbyteries to receive these supposedly highly dysfunctional churches and ministers without any input or preparation in less than three months? How would that actually remedy the alleged problems within these churches? Shouldn’t Catawba and Tennessee-Alabama have the right to approve formally this plan without Synod giving a top-down directive?
“And then lastly, we should postpone deliberation because it is in keeping with the Scriptures. Proverbs 18.17 reads, ‘The one who states his case first seems right until the other comes and examines him.’ 1 Timothy 5.19, ‘Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.’ Synod should allow Second Presbytery and the men mentioned in this report to make their case before it takes the harsh, punitive action of dissolving the whole Presbytery. The vast majority of Second Presbytery has not had the opportunity to engage the Special Committee. Second Presbytery was not even given an advanced copy of this report, and a response was not solicited. In fact, the Special Committee only met with the Minister and His Work Committee and myself once in a Zoom meeting for maybe an hour and 15 minutes on October 6, 2023, and did not raise most of the concerns asserted in this report. What kind of loving father, that is in this case the Synod, disciplines his child publicly, in this case via dissolution of a whole presbytery before carefully examining the situation? Superiors according to the fifth commandment should not treat inferiors in such an unloving manner.
“Furthermore, yesterday Second Presbytery approved the following motion to be shared with General Synod. ‘We, the members of Second Presbytery, on this day, June 11, 2024, hereby express our sadness, shock, and surprise at the recommendations from Synod’s Special Committee. We believe that acting on these recommendations would be unfair and unjust. The report and its recommendations violate our Presbytery’s rights to due process. No allegations have been filed against the Presbytery as an entity, no trial has been held, and the Presbytery has had no opportunity to defend itself. Moreover, the recommendations give the strongest censure possible to the Presbytery; it’s dissolution for the alleged actions on the part of at least a handful of members who are named in this report. Furthermore, the report does not mention the involvement of members of other presbyteries and congregations outside of Second Presbytery who have been involved in the recent strife. We hereby object to this report and request the General Synod take no hasty action regarding the future of our presbytery without first giving us a fair and impartial hearing.
“For these reasons, I speak in favor of the motion to postpone.”
Mr. Yi’s motion to postpone was defeated by voice vote. At this point it seemed that the tide to move forward with Index 11 was insurmountable. Mr. Malphrus, one of the members of the Special Committee, proceeded to make a presentation on behalf of the Committee for over 37 minutes. Afterwards, the assembly began debating Recommendation #1: “That Second Presbytery be dissolved as of September 1, 2024.”
At this point, the Moderator began limiting floor speeches to five minutes, even though Mr. Malphrus was given far more time to make the case for the Special Committee. As the debate continued, it was evident that the Moderator (a ruling elder from Catawba Presbytery) struggled to moderate the debate in an orderly and impartial manner. The debate lasted over one hour and 50 minutes, but after several highly emotional speeches, the recommendation was approved. The 2024 General Synod voted to dissolve the second oldest presbytery of the ARP Church effective September 1, 2024.
However, at no point during the debate did the acting Parliamentarian, Mr. Kingswood, nor Synod’s Parliamentarian, Mr. Malphrus, nor the former Parliamentarian, Andy Putnam, inform the Moderator or the court of Form of Government 12.22 (FoG p. 95, related to General Synod’s AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES) 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 and B. Review the Presbytery records, provide counsel and advice when requested.”
Was this recommendation even constitutional? Did Synod actually have the authority to initiate the dissolution of a presbytery? Would Synod have acted accordingly if this point of order was brought to the attention of the assembly? How did Synod’s Parliamentarian, Mr. Malphrus, who served on the Special Committee that wrote Index 11, not know about FoG 12.22? The dissolution of Second Presbytery was not only unprecedented but unconstitutional. Several of the technicalities of the ARPC’s Constitution were egregiously violated.
On July 5 and 8, two separate complaints were filed with the Principal Clerk of the General Synod, Mr. Sims (see https://theaquilareport.com/complaints-filed-against-an-action-of-the-2024-arp-general-synod/), the first complaint by seven members of Second Presbytery, and the second complaint by Jack Van Dyk, a minister in Northeast Presbytery and a member of the Special Committee.
As of July 19, the Moderator, Mr. Broyles, has declared the complaints out of order and declined to call a meeting of the Executive Board of Synod to discuss the complaints. Tony Locke, who emailed the complaint on behalf of the members of Second Presbytery, and Mr. Van Dyk received the same reply from Mr. Broyles (Email Response to the Complaints).
Seth Yi is a Minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and is the Pastor of Newberry ARP in Newberry, SC.
Related Posts:

One of the most obvious perversions of this ecclesiastical overreach was the “administration of virtual communion” by some sessions! In their rejection of first principles, they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and issued declarations that bordered on idolatry. They tried to convince their flock that “virtual worship” was a viable substitute for corporate worship, and many have drunk the “Kool-Aid.”

Recently, Peter Van Doodewaard wrote COVID-19 Reflection on The Aquila Report, which I highly recommend to everyone before reading this article. It serves as a springboard for my thoughts here. Van Doodewaard concluded his article by saying: “We touched holy things, and this requires humble reflection. Maybe your next leadership meeting ought to include time for prayerful reflection on actions taken, followed by some honest communication with your congregation. May God help us in this work of reflection, give us true repentance where needed, and by this renew our commitment to the public worship of His holy name” (emphasis added).
These words convey a deep conviction that I have about the necessary response of church leaders (as a Presbyterian minister, I will refer to elder(s) and session(s) as the leaders of a congregation) who participated in the actions noted by Van Doodewaard (see his article). I agree with Van Doodewaard that church leaders, especially sessions of Presbyterian congregations, need to evaluate their actions and respond biblically in light of the truth that has been manifested.
Furthermore, I agree with Van Doodewaard that “true repentance” needs to be manifested by the leadership through public confession, “honest communication.”
I am convinced, especially with the truth that has been confirmed by the overwhelming weight of epidemiological research and data, that church leaders acted sinfully by shutting down weekly public corporate worship services. They usurped an authority that did not, does not, and will never come under their or the state’s jurisdiction. The worship of God is governed by the Lord Almighty Himself, and His Word alone has authority over the frequency and orderliness of corporate worship. Any session who prevented willing members from the opportunity to worship corporately on the Lord’s Day ruled and acted on matters that are way “above their pay grade.” They stood on holy ground without removing their sandals. They enforced actions that caused “little ones” to sin by preventing them to come into the house of the Lord to offer worship that is due His name. They abused their God-ordained authority by prohibiting corporate worship rather than promoting it.
One of the most obvious perversions of this ecclesiastical overreach was the “administration of virtual communion” by some sessions! In their rejection of first principles, they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and issued declarations that bordered on idolatry. They tried to convince their flock that “virtual worship” was a viable substitute for corporate worship, and many have drunk the “Kool-Aid.” Consequently, the church is still hemorrhaging from this soul-draining charade. It is no wonder that 20%-30% of former worshippers have not returned to weekly worship gatherings. Israel’s history should have taught us that idolatry will lead worshippers to pursue lesser gods.
Regardless of the uncertainties and fears that surrounded COVID-19, the unequivocal teaching of Scripture (“Remember/observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Ex 20:8; Dt 5:12; cf. Heb 10:25) should never have been overruled by circumstantial reasoning (“love your neighbor” or “submit to the governing authorities”) based on less relevant Scriptures. We must allow the more clear and more applicable passages of Scripture to be our guide over the less clear and less applicable passages of Scripture.
I suspect that most sessions are willing to admit that they would have acted differently in 2020 (for some churches as late as 2022) knowing what they know now about the “pandemic.” But if their retraction is only based on the reality of the undisputable data that has been gathered and reported, then they are still not humbling themselves under the revelation of God’s Word. I believe, as implied by Van Doodewaard, that the repentance of the session should not merely be based on the “science” alone but based fundamentally on the eternal truth of God’s Word.
Scientific research and data analysis will change in the days to come, but the truth of God’s Word endures forever. It is applicable to any and every age of human history. Therefore, elders must not only learn the many valuable lessons on how to respond in the future from this “test” but fundamentally they must repent of the sins that took them down some dark paths. Circumstances may change but our fleshly temptation will be not to trust in the Lord with all our hearts but lean on our own understanding (or the experts) and be wise in our own eyes rather than to be fools for Christ’s sake.
The need for ongoing repentance is vital not only for all believers but especially for elders who are called to shepherd God’s flock. Since the grace of repentance is a work of the Holy Spirit, we must not presume upon it. Rather, in humble reliance upon the Holy Spirit, we must pursue repentance in proportion to the light of truth that has been revealed to us. More light demands clearer and deeper repentance.
In the case of COVID-19, the truth is manifest to anyone who is willing to see and acknowledge it for what it was. Therefore, elders must be humble enough to confess how they have transgressed the law of God. In fact, the unique ecclesiastical authority that Christ has appointed to elders corresponds to a greater responsibility to demonstrate and model their willingness to confess sin, especially public sins that directly impacted the flock. “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” (Luke 12:48) The session’s heavy-handed lockdown of corporate worship needs to be the starting point for genuine repentance and confession.
Is public confession really necessary with regard to COVID-19 even when the session’s intentions were noble or for the congregation’s well-being? The Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q. 14) defines sin as “any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.” As the WSC rightly summarizes the teaching of Scripture, sin is not limited to those actions or thoughts that are purely malicious in nature. All sin is judged against the holy nature of God who cannot even look upon evil, regardless of the motives. The Bible categorizes sin as anything that falls short of the glory of God. Preventing willing congregants to gather for corporate worship did not conform to God’s commandments and transgressed what God requires regarding worship. Even if the session’s motives were pure, the action in and of itself was sinful, contrary to the Word of God. By their authoritative actions, the session denied and prevented God’s people from gathering for corporate worship as prescribed in Scripture. Sessions abused their appointed authority from God to restrict what God requires. They took upon themselves a prerogative that does not belong to them. They touched holy things that were forbidden for them to touch.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon those elders and sessions who participated in the COVID-19 overreach “not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man’s duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly” (Westminster Confession of Faith 15.5). Particular sins require particular repentance so that the gravity of each sin is confronted and mortified before God. Denying God His rightful worship entails a litany of sins (see Westminster Larger Catechism concerning the Ten Commandments).
The grace of repentance bears fruit in a believer’s life as the Holy Spirit produces “grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavour after, new obedience” (WSC Q. 87). The Holy Spirit graciously works repentance in a sinner’s heart to reveal the reality and heinousness of sin before a holy God and turns him in a way that conforms to God’s righteousness. Such a work of grace is necessary to restore sinners to God and to enjoy Him as they ought. It is also instrumental as a deterrent for faithful followers of Christ so that they will not easily succumb to the same sin. Elders need to examine the Scriptures carefully (additionally for Presbyterians their constitutional documents that they took an oath to uphold) and bear their souls before the Lord so that they might repent of their specific sins.
Moreover, the grace of repentance should manifest itself in the public confession of sin. Public sins require public confessions. For elders who have repented of their sins related to their oversight during COVID-19, these sins should be confessed to their congregation. Moving forward as though nothing deleterious happened during COVID-19 in the church will only normalize the sins that were committed. Such normalization has tragically infected many former churchgoers. The suspension of corporate public worship should be an extremely rare exception and only for a limited period of time. We must be wiser and more biblically discerning in the future and not be swept away by the urgency of the moment.
Confession is not only beneficial for the one who has repented and acknowledged his sins before God (1 Jn 1:9) but in the case of public sins, it facilitates reconciliation and restores trust between the parties affected by the sins. Many church members were negatively affected by the actions of the session as it related to COVID-19. Even though much of life in the world and in the church has returned to “normal,” many in the flock have been wounded, and some have even been driven away from the flock. Unfortunately, sheep were scattered by the shepherds and left to the wolves to fend for themselves. There are lost sheep who still need to be sought and returned to the fold.
Those who have returned to corporate worship would be blessed and encouraged to see their elders exemplify gospel repentance and confession. Elders need to lead the congregation in modeling this grace. Confession glorifies the forgiving grace of the gospel. It magnifies the sanctifying power of the gospel that should be active in the hearts of the elders. If these elders have not publicly confessed to their flock how they mismanaged the household of God, they are denying that their actions were harmful and sinful. They need to demonstrate their willingness to be accountable for their failures in leadership and for promoting foreign worship. Their humble confession would provide the congregation the glorious opportunity to extend forgiveness to them and experience the reconciling grace of the gospel. Displaying such gospel humility will go a long way in engendering trust between the session and the members and nurturing the relationship that the Lord has entrusted to the session.
We have witnessed over the past three years a rapid decline in the spiritual and moral state of our nation. The rejection of biblical truths has increased visibly and forcefully. Biblical realities of right and wrong have been discarded and replaced with demonic lies. Perversion to God’s creation ordinances is promoted by the state and even some “churches.” It is hard to deny that a Romans 1-like judgment of God is being revealed from heaven against our nation. It appears that God has given our nation over to her sins and there does not appear to be any slowing down of our moral and spiritual freefall. Barring a miraculous intervention of God’s mercy, our nation appears to be running headlong into the spiritual darkness that has already consumed much of Europe and Canada.
Is there a spiritual link between the current cultural decline and the response of the church to COVID-19? Is it merely coincidental that the spiritual decay of our nation has dramatically accelerated since 2020? I believe that the church is harboring an Achan in her camp. The decisions that many church leaders made were a direct affront to our covenant Lord. The church publicly bowed to various idols denying the Lord as her sovereign. The Lord’s judgment begins at the household of God and apart from repentance and confession, the American church will go the way of Israel into exile.
The time is now for church leaders to heed Jesus’ warning, “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.” (Rev 2:5) As the salt and light of the world, the church has a direct impact on our culture, either for good or for ill. She can be faithful in worshiping and serving God so as to be a blessing to the world or neglect her unique calling and be mocked by the world.
In rejecting her call to prioritize the public worship of God, the church is being thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. By putting the public worship of God under a basket, the church has allowed the darkness to take a foothold in our culture. Rather than glory, dishonor has been given to our Father because of the shame that the church has brought upon His name.
During an unprecedented season in our nation when so many people needed the truth and hope of the gospel lived out, the church vanished. She fell in line with the spirit of the age and forfeited her high privilege to proclaim boldly and unashamedly the power of the gospel.
Are we beyond the point of no return? Are we witnessing the first wave of another exile? That remains to be determined, but what is undeniable is the need for church leaders to repent and confess to their congregations the sins committed against God and God’s people during COVID-19. If the church has any hope of having her lampstand restored to her, she must begin by returning to her First Love.
Thankfully, God’s mercy and grace are greater than our sins, and He delights to magnify the glory of the gospel in His people’s lives. May the shepherds of God’s flock lead the way in humble repentance and confession so that public worship may be the light that our dark world so desperately needs.
Seth Yi is a Minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and is the Pastor of Newberry ARP in Newberry.
Related Posts:

How should the Session deal with these providential hinderances? When dealing with such rare and unavoidable circumstances, the Session must clearly be guided by biblical wisdom and principles, objective certainties, and sound reasoning, and not by speculation, worldly wisdom, and unsupported fear. The Session should lean on what is “known” rather than what is “unknown” to determine its decision. The importance of corporate worship demands that clarity, thoughtfulness, and sobriety dictate how the Session wrestles with this “solemn duty.” It should be a matter of last resort to suspend corporate worship.

What is the scope of a Session’s authority regarding a congregation’s public corporate worship?[1] This question primarily relates to the statement found in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church’s (ARP) Form of Government (FOG) concerning the Authorities and Responsibilities of the Session:
6.8 In order to carry out its responsibility, working under the proper jurisdiction of the higher courts, the Session shall: L. Exercise, in accordance with the Directory of Public Worship, authority over the time and place of the preaching and teaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments, and over all other religious services.
Based on the Directory of Public Worship (DPW) “the preaching and teaching of the Word and the administration of the sacrament, and…all other religious services” clearly include the weekly Lord’s Day worship service. Therefore, a Session has the authority in accordance with the DPW[2] to set the time and place of a congregation’s public corporate worship.
The Responsibilities of a Session and the Congregation
A subtle but formal distinction that needs to be recognized in resolving this question is the difference between the responsibility of the Session in setting and calling its[3] members for worship and the response of the members in assembling for worship.[4] Though the visible outcome may be the same for both groups, the question of authority is not. The Session in this instance calls and the members respond. The elders, by virtue of their office,[5] have a greater obligation than the members to gather for worship, but in this instance the Session also acts as a governing body of the congregation. The Session exercises its authority to guard and promote the spiritual welfare of the congregation in setting the time and place for the Lord’s Day worship.[6]
In shepherding the flock of God, the Session is regulated by Scripture and the Standards. The Session should, as caring and wise under-shepherds, take into consideration how its governance affects the members, but that should not be the only or even the primary factor in what the Session determines. The Session must patiently and graciously uphold the directives of Scripture calling God’s people to faithfulness and progressive spiritual maturity. Providential circumstances and individual consciences may prevent all members from responding uniformly, but that should not deter the Session from upholding biblical directives. The lack of ability or commitment of some members to fulfill or submit to the Session must not compromise the authority of Scripture.[7] The Session must demonstrate to the congregation an unswerving commitment to the precepts and principles of Scripture while doing all it can to encourage the congregation in joyful obedience to the Lord. Neither the degree nor the proportion of the congregation’s compliance should persuade the Session to disregard the commandments of Holy Scripture.
Several related topics need to be addressed and clarified in order to determine the scope of a Session’s authority in this sphere. Even within section L, there are qualifications, “in accordance with the Directory of Public Worship” and “the time and place,” that set certain limits to the Session’s authority. Moreover, other portions of the ARP Standards provide vital insights that necessarily regulate this authority.
The Essential Nature of Corporate Worship for a Congregation
This discussion begins within the context of the local congregation. A congregation, a local visible expression of the ARP Church, is defined by the FOG as “a company of Christians, with their children, associated together according to the Scriptures for worship and ministry in the name of Christ.”[8] According to this definition, the two necessary and visible[9] attributes of a congregation are worship and ministry. Therefore, worship[10] is essential in defining what a congregation is; so much so that a congregation that ceases to worship regularly and corporately is on the verge of desisting as a congregation. This fact is confirmed by the FOG 3.21 when it states, “When a congregation becomes so reduced in its membership and strength as to be unable to maintain the ordinances of regular public worship…in the judgment of Presbytery, best served by dissolving the congregation, Presbytery shall formally declare it dissolved” (emphasis added). One of the stated reasons for a Presbytery to dissolve a congregation is its inability to maintain regular public worship. Public worship is so essential to the essence of a congregation that its existence is contingent on its regular[11] gatherings.
The FOG continues to express the purpose of a congregation as being “to glorify God by conducting public corporate worship, bringing the lost to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, building them up in the Christian faith, and preparing them for Christian service” (emphasis added). [12] In summary, the chief end of a congregation is consistent with the chief end of man (WSC Q.1), namely, to glorify God (and to enjoy Him forever). One of the four means (listed with the use of the preposition “by”), and the first, by which a congregation fulfills this purpose is “by conducting public corporate worship.” This first means, along with the other three means,[13] is how a congregation seeks to glorify God. A congregation is not limited to these means alone (as long as they conform to the Bible and our Standards), but they are the primary and necessary means in fulfilling its purpose.
In considering the various means, or ministries as they may be called, of a congregation, what becomes evident is that the other three means can be fulfilled by conducting public corporate worship. In other words, if a congregation is only able to conduct public corporate worship but not the other three means, it is still possible to fulfill its purpose. On the other hand, even if the other three means are being expressed in some other form or ministry, but public corporate worship is not being conducted, then it can be argued based on the inclusive nature of the conjunction “and”[14] that a congregation is not fulfilling its purpose. In fact, there are many para-church ministries that seek to glorify God by performing one or all three of these other means in their efforts in “bringing the lost to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, building them up in the Christian faith, and preparing them for Christian service.”[15] But in fulfilling these ministries they are not rivaling or replacing the church/congregations by conducting public corporate worship services. Public corporate worship is essential to the being and doing of a congregation. It is what defines and directs a congregation as a distinct visible corporate body within a community.
Ten or so years ago, the definition of “public” and “corporate” would have never been questioned or scrutinized by anyone reading the Standards. However, with the technological advancements in media and communication in the recent years, the definitions of these words are being stretched to their breaking point. Even though the FOG allows for members to vote via electronic media,[16] the application of this medium to public corporate worship is an overreach of the clearly intended meaning of the Scriptures and the Standards. The intended meaning of public corporate worship requires that a congregation gather physically in a common location at the same time and not remotely via electronic media. The Scriptures and the Standards clearly establish this view.
The Session’s Responsibility in Calling the Congregation Together
The concluding paragraph of the Preamble of the DPW opens with this statement: “Finally, since this is a directory for the public worship of God’s people as they meet together corporately, we must recognize that public worship flows most beautifully when the people of God also meet with the Lord in private, as individuals or families” (emphasis added). This sentence expresses two points that qualify the scope of a Session’s authority regarding worship services. The expression “as they meet together corporately” clearly indicates that congregants will be physically present for worship based on the meaning of “corporately.”[17] The notion of gathering virtually or remotely via electronic media is excluded by this word. Secondly, “public worship” is maximized (“most beautifully when”) as a corporate gathering with the Lord when His people additionally, “also,”[18] meet with the Lord in “private, as individuals or families.” In other words, public worship, or gathering with the Lord, is distinct from private worship where individuals or families meet with the Lord in separate or remote locations. Thus these private gatherings are neither public nor corporate. Public and private gatherings with the Lord are not intended to compete or be a substitute for the other but to work in concert with each another so that regular private worship enhances and benefits public worship.[19]
Clearly the Session is responsible for gathering[20] the congregation together for public corporate worship. The FOG speaks to this matter directly in stating that it is the Session’s responsibility to: “Assemble the people for worship in the absence of the pastor.”[21] The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “assemble” as “to bring together (as in a particular place or for a particular purpose).” As it applies to the Session, it is responsible to gather the congregation for public corporate worship at a set time and place. When a congregation has a pastor, he is responsible to “serve with elders in all matters pertaining to the…worship…of the congregation,” this includes specific duties of corporate worship such as: “read the Scriptures; preach the Word;…administer the sacraments; pronounce the blessings of God upon the people.”[22]
The Nature of Corporate Gatherings
Paul’s admonishment to the Corinthians leaves no doubt about defining the corporate nature of congregational worship. They failed to share the Lord’s Supper as a unified body when they came together as a congregation from various households.
But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?…What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up (1 Cor 11:17–22; 14:26 ESV; emphasis added).
The verb συνέρχομαι that Paul uses in 1 Cor 11:17, 18, 20, and 14:26 means to come together, literally to assemble, to gather[23] as the church (ἐκκλησία). The fact that there was a visible division between the “haves” and the “have-nots” (the wealthy and the poor) implies that their gatherings were in body not just in spirit. Their bodily presence was necessary for this division to be manifest. Moreover, in chapter fourteen their gatherings in worship involved the members’ exercise of spiritual gifts by the various individuals who were present. Edmund Clowney provides clarity on this point when he writes:
Corporate worship at Corinth was distinct from gatherings at homes. Paul rebukes them for evident divisions when they came together as a church. The language is definitive: “When you come together as a church [en ekklesia]” (1 Cor. 11:18). This is in distinction from being in their homes. Paul reminds them of the difference of eating meals at home and coming together at the table of the Lord in the fellowship of the church….The very word ekklesia has its Old Testament background in the gathering of the people of God at Sinai to hear God’s spoken word. The church is an assembly, called out of dwellings to stand together before the Lord.…To be sure, the definitive assembly for the church catholic is the assembly in the heavenly Zion (Heb. 12), but for that very reason those with access by faith to the festival assembly of heaven are “not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some” (10:25).[24]
No matter how much modern technology advances remote communication, a necessary and essential component of public corporate worship is the physical gathering of God’s people at a common location. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Session to establish the place, the physical location, where the congregation is to gather for these weekly services.[25]
The Time of Corporate Worship
The Session also has the authority in accordance with the DPW to determine the time of all religious services. However, there are again qualifications that regulate the exercise of this authority. According to the DPW, the time of the weekly public corporate worship is fixed with respect to the day of the week while other matters or circumstances[26] are to be “guided by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”[27] So the day on which public corporate worship is prescribed is the Lord’s Day, Sunday.[28] This aspect of time for the weekly public corporate worship is not a matter of choice or Christian prudence. On the contrary, the DPW states that it is “necessary that a due proportion of time be set apart for offering to God that worship which He has commanded all people to give. Such worship is to be given individually, in families, and in corporate gatherings of public worship” (emphasis added).[29] Individual, family, and corporate worship are all commanded by God on the Lord’s Day, the “due proportion of time,” and all three forms, inclusively, are to be offered to the Lord.
Indeed, the Session has the authority to call the congregation on other special days for worship, but the Lord’s Day worship is prescribed and required by God’s command.[30] The gathering of the congregation for corporate worship on the Lord’s Day is not a matter of circumstance for the Session to decide. The question of whether or not weekly public corporate worship is to be set by the Session on the Lord’s Day is outside their authority. That decision has been commanded by God.[31] The Creator and Redeemer has revealed in his Word that it is imperative that corporate worship be offered to him on the Lord’s Day. Therefore, when it comes to calling God’s people to corporate worship on the Lord’s Day it is a responsibility and duty, not an option, that the Session must fulfill. It does not have the authority to suspend corporate worship indefinitely or for an undetermined period of time. Such an authority is not granted to the Session.
Dealing with Providential Hinderances
Having established the biblical necessity of the Session to call God’s people to public corporate worship on the Lord’s Day, the issue of providential hinderances needs to be addressed. Chapter four of the DPW (THE SANCTIFICATION OF THE LORD’S DAY) concludes with “it is both the happy privilege and the solemn duty of all God’s people to assemble for worship on the Lord’s Day as they are able” (emphasis added).[32] How does the expression “as they are able” fit with the command of God to offer corporate worship on the Lord’s Day? What sort of providential hinderances might warrant the Session in considering the suspension of corporate worship?
In working through this question, a subtle but necessary distinction needs to be made between the responsibility of the Session and of the congregation. The calling of the congregation for weekly public corporate worship is an exercise of authority that belongs to the Session, not the congregation or members of the congregation. The Session as the ruling court of a local congregation sets the specific time and location of the Lord’s Day corporate worship. The Session’s authority is to be exercised according to the rules of the Scripture and the Standards.
Members of the congregation, on the other hand, have the corresponding responsibility to make every effort to be present for these weekly gatherings because it is both their “happy privilege and solemn duty.” However, there may arise from time to time an exception that prevents a member or several members from being able to assemble with the other members. These exceptions may be occasions of works of necessity and mercy or even unforeseen “acts of God” that occur outside of one’s control (rare and unavoidable as they may be), true providential hinderances. But when these exceptions occur for some members, the rest of the congregation is still required to assemble as long as they are not hindered. If a member can attend despite the inability of others, then he must. Each member must act in accordance with his ability, circumstance, and conscience to honor the Lord.
Moreover, the Session should not suspend corporate worship because a certain percentage or even a majority of the congregation is prevented from assembling. The Session does not have the authority to make that decision based on such unbiblical grounds. The number of congregants who may or may not be present should not determine whether or not the Session calls for corporate worship. No such authority is found in, or by good and necessary consequence deduced from, Scripture. The Lord meets with his people who are gathered for corporate worship regardless of the size.
What about in situations when the safety and health of the congregation is at risk when gathering? How should the Session deal with these providential hinderances? When dealing with such rare and unavoidable circumstances, the Session must clearly be guided by biblical wisdom and principles, objective certainties, and sound reasoning, and not by speculation, worldly wisdom, and unsupported fear. The Session should lean on what is “known” rather than what is “unknown” to determine its decision. The importance of corporate worship demands that clarity, thoughtfulness, and sobriety dictate how the Session wrestles with this “solemn duty.” It should be a matter of last resort to suspend corporate worship.
Providential hinderances such as natural disasters which are objective in some measurable way, along with the effects of them, may pose an immediate and tangible threat to the overall health and safety of the whole congregation so that the Session may suspend corporate worship for a given Lord’s Day.[33] The location of the gathering and/or means of travel may be so hazardous that suspension is the wisest and most loving course of action until the way be cleared to reassemble. In such incidences, it may be prudent for the Session to take into account the local authorities in determining their decision. The Session may defer to the civil authorities who should be acting in the best interest of its citizens. When such restrictions are lifted, the Session should seek every avenue to regather the congregation, and if the normal location is not safe, to another suitable place and time on the Lord’s Day. In these rare situations, the Session is balancing the principles of honoring the Lord through corporate worship, honoring lawful civil authorities, and promoting the life of the congregation. When the Session suspends corporate worship for a set period of time because of such providential hinderances, it does so with the knowledge and definitive plan of reassembling as soon as possible.
In the Case of a Pandemic
How should these principles be applied in the case of a pandemic when the threat to the congregation’s health and safety is a novel pathogen that is highly contagious especially in mass gatherings? Should the Session approach this situation the same way it does for natural disasters? Even though the two scenarios may seem comparable, there are some critical differences that the Session should contemplate before suspending corporate worship. The issues of clarity and mitigation differentiate the two situations.
In dealing with a pandemic, the Session must weigh the potential risk that is associated with a contagious pathogen in relation to the command of God for corporate worship. Should the principle of acting out of “an abundance of caution” to prevent the possibility of any infection be a greater determining factor than what has been established above concerning the necessity of corporate worship? In other words, is the Session acting in accordance with the DPW when it suspends indefinitely public corporate worship out of an abundance of caution to prevent the spread of a novel pathogen in promoting the health and safety of the congregation? On the surface it may appear to be the proper decision, but under closer examination, the Session does not, and should not, have to suspend worship indefinitely.
Unlike a natural disaster or some other tangible expression of a providential hinderance, the risk to the congregation’s health and safety with a contagious pathogen is subjective and uncertain. With some pathogens, it can be difficult to know with a reasonable measure of certainty who is infected if he is asymptomatic. In fact, some carriers could be asymptomatic to the pathogen all together. In such cases, is it biblical and necessary for the Session to suspend public corporate worship for the whole congregation? Instead, should not the Session maintain corporate worship for those who are asymptomatic while advising others to refrain from attending until their symptoms have cleared? Has this not been the faithful practice of the church throughout its history in times of pandemic and seasonal illnesses? When has the church ever suspended its corporate worship indefinitely because of a pathogen? Even during the “Black Death,” which at the height of the epidemic the mortality rate ranged from 30 to more than 90 percent,[34] Martin Luther stood fast to the need for God’s people to gather for corporate worship knowing the risk that was involved in such gatherings. He discouraged taking any unnecessary risks of being exposed to or exposing others to the contagion, but the duty for those who were healthy and asymptomatic, both ministers and congregants, was to gather for worship.
Those who are engaged in a spiritual ministry such as preachers and pastors must likewise remain steadfast before the peril of death. We have a plain command from Christ, “A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep but the hireling sees the wolf coming and flees” [John 10:11]. For when people are dying, they most need a spiritual ministry which strengthens and comforts their consciences by word and sacrament and in faith overcomes death (Emphasis added).[35]
Because this letter will go out in print for people to read, I regard it useful to add some brief instructions on how one should care and provide for the soul in time of death. We have done this orally from the pulpit, and still do so every day in fulfilment of the ministry to which we have been called as pastors. First, one must admonish the people to attend church and listen to the sermon so that they learn through God’s word how to live and how to die. It must be noted that those who are so uncouth and wicked as to despise God’s word while they are in good health should be left unattended when they are sick unless they demonstrate their remorse and repentance with great earnestness, tears, and lamentation. A person who wants to live like a heathen or a dog and does not publicly repent should not expect us to administer the sacrament to him or have us count him a Christian. Let him die as he has lived because we shall not throw pearls before swine nor give to dogs what is holy [Matt. 7:6]. Sad to say, there are many churlish, hardened ruffians who do not care for their souls when they live or when they die. They simply lie down and die like unthinking hulks. Second, everyone should prepare in time and get ready for death by going to confession and taking the sacrament once every week or fortnight… Those who have been careless and negligent in these matters must account for themselves. That is their own fault. After all, we cannot set up a private pulpit and altar daily at their bedside simply because they have despised the public pulpit and altar to which God has summoned and called them (Emphasis added).[36]
Clearly, Luther did not minimize the risk of infection and potential death that the Black Death posed to all, but that threat did not eclipse the need for God’s people who were healthy and able to gather for corporate worship. Not even the possibility of being exposed to the pathogen or unwittingly spreading it to others was sufficient to suspend corporate worship despite the tangible destruction it was having on people’s lives.
Unlike a natural disaster and its immediate affects, the risk that is involved with a contagious pathogen in gravely compromising the congregation’s health and safety is uncertain. Therefore, the Session should not base its decision to suspend corporate worship, which is explicitly commanded in Scripture, on some uncertain probability that those who are gathered may become infected. Instead, the Session can make reasonable efforts to mitigate the spread of the pathogen while continuing corporate worship. This approach honors both the need to gather for corporate worship on the Lord’s Day and to promote the life of others.
Conclusion
The Session does have the authority to make reasonable adjustment to the circumstances[37] of corporate worship in order to mitigate the potential spread of a pathogen. Based on the specific needs and circumstances of its congregation and its facilities, the Session can alter the times and places of corporate worship to ensure the health and safety of those gathered, to a reasonable degree. The Session can institute guidelines and protocols that greatly limit the potential threat of infection and still conduct corporate worship with all the ordinary parts of public worship.[38] In so doing, both priorities are honored in good conscience. Furthermore, those who are symptomatic of disease should be directed to stay home for the sake of others. Lastly, if there are members of the congregation who are at high risk for severe illness or potentially death due to the pathogen (those who have underlying medical conditions that greatly endanger them), they likewise may be encouraged to stay home. However, if they decide in good conscience knowing the risk involved in gathering with others, they should not be prohibited from attending. That is a decision each congregant is at liberty to make in seeking to honor the Lord.
So even in a season with a contagious pathogen, the Session can properly exercise its authority in accordance with the DPW to adjust the time and place of corporate worship to effectively mitigate the spread of a pathogen. Undoubtedly, no number of precautions is fool proof (considering the limitations of human behavior), but within reason and some degree of certainty (no one is guaranteed his next breath since there is even some risk in driving to worship) the Session can implement the appropriate and necessary mitigation measures to provide a safe environment to conduct corporate worship. The Session’s aim in such times is to uphold the biblical mandate for public corporate worship without putting the congregation at an unnecessary risk of infection and illness while not compromising anyone’s conscience. In God’s providence all three of these priorities can be pursued when the Session is willing to be creative, flexible, and committed to honoring the Lord.
Seth Yi is a Minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, and is Pastor of Newberry ARP in Newberry, SC.

[1] Throughout this paper, “public corporate worship” (FOG 3.2) or public worship or corporate worship is defined in accordance with the DPW as “a holy convocation in which the Triune God meets with and ministers to His assembled covenant people through Word and sacrament, and His people respond with praise, thanksgiving, repentance, confession of sin, supplication, and confession of faith.” (3.6) It is to be understood in the narrow sense of particular occasions of worship that are public, formal, and planned. (DPW 3.3 and 3.4)
[2] DPW 2.5 The service of worship shall be under the authority of the minister and the session.
[3] The possessive pronoun “its” will be used to refer to the Session as in FOG 6.6.
[4] FOG 4.4 (RESPONSIBILITY OF CHURCH MEMBERS) Church members are required to: A. Make diligent use of the means of grace. (Is not corporate worship a primary, if not essential, means of grace?) B. Share faithfully in the worship and service of the Church. F. Submit to the authority of the elders (emphasis added).
[5] The minister, the moderator of the Session, is a member of a Presbytery but he is under similar obligations according to his ordination vows.
[6] FOG 6.4, also 6.5 and 6.6.
[7] For example, in a congregation if several households, as much as half or more, will not be present for corporate worship on a particular Sunday for various reasons (vacation, illness, work, travel, etc.), the Session should not and cannot suspend corporate worship that Sunday. This issue will be developed later in the article.
[8] FOG 3.1.
[9] The conjunction “and” requires that both attributes be present. It implies inclusiveness. By saying “A and B” (or “A, B, C,…., and T”), it means BOTH A and B are required. This understanding of “and” will be critical in clarifying the responsibility of the Session.
[10] Worship with respect to a congregation is specified as “public corporate worship” FOG 3.2.
[11] The meaning of “regular” should be governed by the Standards. Based on the Fourth Commandment, the Sabbath is to be observed on a weekly basis.
[12] 3.2.
[13] The means by which a congregation glorifies God are listed (by conducting…, bringing…, building…, and preparing…) and joined by the conjunction “and” which implies that all these means are necessary and must be included.
[14] See footnote #2.
[15] FOG 3.2.
[16] Footnote #28 to FOG 3.25.F. (The Congregational Meeting) The presiding officer of the meeting shall determine the meaning of “present” in light of electronic media.
[17] Corporately is an adverb based on the adjective corporate. Corporate is borrowed from Latin corporātus, past participle of corporāre “to form into a body, form (an organized social group),” verbal derivative of corpor-, corpus “body, organized group of people.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporate#other-words
[18] “Also” is used here to mean “in addition to” which implies inclusion.
[19] This pattern is born out in the Reformed Presbyterian heritage with the promotion of directories of private/family worship.
[20] Acts 20:7 “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.” συνάγω: BDG 2. bring or call together, gather a number of persons. Arndt, William et al. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, 1979: 782. This pattern is continued in the early church in the second century. Justin Martyr (ca. 100–ca. 165), writing about A.D. 160 in his Apology, says, “On the day which is called Sunday, all who live in the cities or in the countryside gather together in one place” (quoted by Hughes O. Olds in Worship: Reformed according to Scripture, 2002, p. 27).
[21] FOG 6.8.L.
[22] FOG 9.6.A.
[23] Arndt, William et al. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, 1979, p. 788.
[24] “Corporate Worship: A Means of Grace” in Give Praise to God: A Vision for Reforming Worship, 2003, p.98.
[25] DPW 3.4 “Though no part of worship is tied to or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, yet it can be convenient and helpful for particular places to be set apart for worship, especially for public worship.” This statement is not an endorsement for substituting public corporate worship with virtual/live stream services or eliminating the need for corporate gatherings but emphasizing the need for worshipping in spirit and in truth.
[26] These matters include such things “as the order of worship which is to be followed, the appointed time or place for the gathering of God’s people, or the music to be used in singing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” This is not an exhaustive list but what is assumed in this section is that there are aspects of worship which have “been fixed by a definite rule in the Holy Scriptures.” (DPW 2.3) In particular, the day of the week on which public corporate worship is held. The matter of the appointed time relates to the specific time of the gathering on Sunday (i.e., 10:00 AM, 11:00 AM, 5:30 PM, etc.) not what day of the week. This issue is fixed by the Holy Scriptures.
[27] DPW 2.3.
[28] DPW 1.3 “From the creation of the world God has set apart one day in seven as holy to Himself. It is therefore imperative for all people, especially the people of God redeemed in Christ, to gather together in public assemblies for offering to God the worship He is pleased to receive and has revealed to us in His Holy Word” (emphasis added). DPW 4.1 “From the beginning of creation to the resurrection of Christ, this day was the seventh day of the week, but following the resurrection this day became the first day of the week and is called the Lord’s Day.” (emphasis added)
[29] DPW 1.2. The use of the conjunction “and” implies that all three expressions of worship be rendered to God on the Lord’s Day, the “due proportion of time” that God has commanded to be set apart. God has commanded that public corporate worship be offered on Sunday. Hughes O. Olds states (Worship: Reformed according to Scripture, 2002, p. 23) concerning the fourth Commandment, “The commandment means much more than ‘Don’t forget today is the Sabbath.’ The commandment has in mind far more than a mere mental noting of the fact that it is the Sabbath Day when it rolls around each week. It has much more the meaning of, ‘Hold a service of memorial on the Sabbath….’ In Deuteronomy we find that the fourth commandment begins, “Observe the sabbath day” (Deut. 5:12). To remember the Sabbath Day means to observe the day, to celebrate the religious rites appropriate to the day.”
[30] DPW 4.4 “Other days of public worship may be provided besides the Lord’s Day, but it is both the happy privilege and the solemn duty of all God’s people to assemble for worship on the Lord’s Day as they are able” (emphasis added). Concerning other days of worship, R. C. Sproul comments “that there are special services that the church holds in addition to its normal weekly corporate worship” (emphasis added). Truths We Confess, (Kindle Location 8527).
[31] DPW 2.1 “The God who calls us to worship also directs us how to worship. The Word of God given to us in the Holy Scriptures is the only rule to direct us in how we may worship and glorify Him. What He commands us, we must do, neither adding to nor taking away from anything which He commands” (emphasis added). The fourth commandment regulates public corporate worship on the Lord’s Day.
[32] DPW 4.4.
[33] This principle can be drawn from Num 9:6-13; 2 Chr 30:1-5, 13-15, 21-22.
[34] Carl J. Schindler, Introduction to Martin Luther’s Whether One May Flee from A Deadly Plague. https://davenantinstitute.org/whether-one-may-flee-from-a-deadly-plague/?fbclid=IwAR21vyyXBKmSuZi8kwi2Fkc4GJN45Lh6m8-LaPQvhnszCV3ZyRG4vhio474#_ftn2
[35] Whether One May Flee from A Deadly Plague, from Luther’s Works Vol. 43, p. 121.
[36] Ibid., p. 134.
[37] DPW 2.3.
[38] DPW 5.B.

In Luke 13, Jesus responds to two recent tragedies with a sobering and eternal warning that we all need to heed carefully lest we stumble upon the Rock of offense (1 Pet 2:8). In the first instance, Pilate, no friend of the Jews, mingled the blood of some Galileans with their sacrifices (v. 1). Even though Luke does not explicitly identify who these Galileans were, based on Pilate’s disdain for Judaism and the involvement of “sacrifices,” it is reasonable to think that they were Jews worshipping at the temple. Moreover, it is likely that it happened around Passover since that was the only festival when the laity could slaughter their own animals. To the disappointment of the crowd, likely composed of Jews, Jesus’ reaction to the tragic event is unsympathetic at best and at worst callous. Surprisingly, He does not applaud them as martyrs or unsuspecting heroes. Furthermore, Jesus does not address the political, social, or national issue, but turns the sensation of the event to a call for repentance. To Jesus, what is supremely significant about this sudden loss of lives, regardless of the cause, is that it serves as a wakeup call to the living of the coming judgment and eternal death to all unrepentant sinners.
Then in v. 4, Jesus recounts another recent event where 18 were suddenly killed in an accident. Based on the Jewish historian Josephus (Jewish War 5.145), the 18 victims were likely Jews in Jerusalem. In like manner, Jesus expresses little compassion about this tragedy but reiterates the warning pronounced earlier, “repent or perish!” His response (v. 5) is identical to the first except the word “likewise” (Greek hōsautōs rather than homoios) which is slightly stronger in force and suggests by the repetition a more emphatic call to respond (BAGD 899). Jesus deliberately uses the passions that surround these tragic deaths to warn them about the need for repentance. In so doing, Jesus highlights how tragedy exposes the fragility and unpredictability of life and thus the eternal significance of being right with God. Therefore, no matter how protected or sheltered one’s life may appear to be (clearly not as much as we assumed before COVID-19), death shows no favoritism. Whether we are prepared for it or not, there is an appointed time for everyone to die and face judgment (Heb 9:27).
In both of these instances, what Jesus focuses on is not the occasion, circumstances, or timing of a person’s death, but the inevitability of eternal death for all those who do not repent. In other words, there is a far greater calamity that awaits those who do not repent and trust in Christ than any untimely, sudden death that one could suffer in this life. The Greek word for “perish” (vv. 3 and 5), apollymai, generally means to destroy, to ruin, to die, but here Jesus uses it with the force of eternal destruction (as in the case of Matt 10:28, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Compare also 1 Cor 1:18, “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” “Perishing” is antithetically parallel to “being saved” which clearly has an eternal significance.). The death that Jesus warns about is the wages of sin which the soul must pay for eternity. Jesus believes that repentance is so essential in this life that He accentuates these two tragic events to warn His hearers about it. For those who did not have an eternal perspective on life, Jesus’ word would have appeared cold and uncaring.
An important note to make at this point is that repentance is not merely a one-time act that happens at conversion but a way of life. Even though believers are justified by faith in Christ, they continually war against indwelling sin in this life (Rom 7:13-25). Therefore, as disciples of Christ, the call for persistent repentance is a must (Luke 9:23). In writing to a group of churches, John declares in 1 Jn 1:8, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Moreover in Rev 2:1-7, Jesus confronts the church in Ephesus for abandoning their “first love”—their fundamental love for Christ and for one another. Consequently, Jesus declares to them, “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.” In the same way, we must continue to repent of our sins lest our hearts become dull and hardened (Mt 13:15) and fall short of finishing the race (2 Tim 4:7-8).
Read More