Find a Bible-believing church where you can start building those relationships. Seek out a biblical counseling ministry so that a counselor can walk you through your struggles. Pray that God might bring a friend or mentor like that into your life. It might feel terrifying to admit your sin but remember that fear is a tactic of Satan. God is a God of light, not darkness. Bringing your sin into the light will bring healing; keeping it in the dark will only make it fester.

I sat with her that Sunday morning, my dear mentor, with tears welling up in my eyes, heart pounding. She slipped her arm around me and whispered in my ear her guess of what was tormenting me. I nodded, relieved that she had verbalized the sin I wasn’t able to confess. And then she drew me close and began praying for me—and didn’t stop praying for me throughout the battle that followed.
From that initial moment, the shame of darkness was lifted. I was able to confide in a few other friends as well, and together the accountability—however painful—brought the relief of knowing I was not alone in this struggle.
Accountability is raw and real. There are things we don’t want to say out loud, but the naming of them brings cleansing. When we choose to be accountable, we let another person in, choosing to be vulnerable and releasing any pretense of perfection. This is good for our souls. In order to be fully known, we have to trust others with our stubborn sins and wandering love. And in so doing, our faith is built up stronger.
Therefore, we will explore two main reasons why we need to confess our sins to one another in the church. Because this process is vulnerable, we also need to keep a few guidelines in mind so that more believers may be set free from the power of secret sin.
Confessing Sins Helps to Avoid Shipwrecking Our Faith
Isolation and self-dependency will bring great ruin in a believer’s life. The tending of shame and guilt will result in storms of chaos if we don’t do something about it. But we’re afraid. Afraid of what people will think if we admit we fell prey to that sin—the sin we never thought we’d be capable of.
In 1 Corinthians 10:12–13, Paul warns us of this, though: “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”
Our pride gets in the way of confessing seeds of sin in our hearts. We’re upstanding church members, Bible study leaders, and parents. How could we possibly have given in to that thought or secret habit? So we nod and smile in small group prayer times, asking for more patience and wisdom while skirting around the things we don’t want to admit.
But the more we convince ourselves that such a sin isn’t possible for us, the more we quietly give in to it, convincing ourselves it’s not that bad. And unfortunately, before too long, that sin will break forth into the open, causing scandal and more hurt than we could have dreamed of.
If we had only been honest with someone at the beginning, we could have sought help to fight that sin in its cloudy stages. We could have found counsel and not felt like we were drowning in a sea of darkness.
Confessing Sins Helps the Gospel Shine Brighter
Several years ago, I listened to an interview with Mike Donehey, lead singer of the band Tenth Avenue North. He said that if we refuse to talk about some sins, we are not believing the gospel because those sins are the very ones Christ died to save us from. Those temptations are the ones his sacrifice gives us power to overcome.
This was life-changing for me. I had given in to the lie that there were some sins that were too “big” for believers—and believing that lie gave those temptations power over me. Yet Christ is more powerful. He’s canceled the debt of every sin through his atoning death and resurrection; therefore I don’t have to fear when temptation comes my way.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Robert A. J. Gagnon |
Thursday, August 22, 2024
This is what is supposed to be the great pushback against the orthodox witness? It is extremely disappointing as a challenge. Even term papers at seminary (hey, even for an undergraduate college) have to treat the counterarguments and some of the scholarship against the position one is espousing. This doesn’t even rise to that level. They clearly don’t want readers to know about the massive arguments against their espoused view. Shocking for scholars.

I have just received for review an advance copy of the book that is supposed to rock the orthodox position on homosexual practice and transgenderism: Christopher and Richard Hays, The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (Yale University Press, scheduled for public release early September). After scanning it for a few hours, I can already say that it doesn’t live up to the press build-up that it has received from “Christian” promoters of “LGBTQ+” immorality.
Remarkably, they don’t interact with virtually any scholar who has written significantly on the topic, on either side: Not me, or even Sprinkle, or even William Loader, Martti Nissinen, and Bernadette Brooten on their own side. It is as if virtually nothing was published since Richard Hays’ *Moral Vision of the New Testament* over a quarter of a century ago (1996). There is a passing mention to Eugene Rogers, a gay revisionist theologian, to Jeff Siker, a revisionist NT scholar, to Luke Timothy Johnson (ditto), and that’s about it.
They don’t treat any of the biblical texts that establish a foundational male-female prerequisite for sexual ethics. They don’t interact with Jesus’ divorce texts that establish a God-ordained sexual binary as a basis for limiting the number of partners to two (except to mention in a single clause that Jesus prohibited divorce which we don’t follow today). Indeed, they don’t even mention Gen and -24 specifically, let alone treat the implications of Gen and -24 for ruling out homosexual practice. They don’t treat the Levitical prohibitions, Romans -27 (mentioned only in a half sentence), 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy, let alone the constellation of Sodom related texts and the deuteronomistic “shrine guys,” inter alia. They latch onto the Apostolic Conference in Acts 15, and misinterpret that.
Nor do appear to deal with the multiple counterarguments that have been raised for years regarding their revisionist position. I have written hundreds of pages over the years (including 145 pages in *The Bible and Homosexual Practice*) refuting hermeneutical revisionist arguments for discounting the biblical witness (refuting the exploitation, orientation, and misogyny arguments for example, as well as the use of analogies like slavery, women’s roles, and divorce). There is no response to any of this.
This is what is supposed to be the great pushback against the orthodox witness? It is extremely disappointing as a challenge. Even term papers at seminary (hey, even for an undergraduate college) have to treat the counterarguments and some of the scholarship against the position one is espousing. This doesn’t even rise to that level. They clearly don’t want readers to know about the massive arguments against their espoused view. Shocking for scholars.
Source
Related Posts:

When depression and distress come, we can trust in the steadfast love of the Lord. His presence is with us. His promises are true. His protection is secure. And His power is sufficient. We can also rejoice in His salvation. In the middle of trials and tribulations we are not called to rejoice about what is not good. But we can always rejoice in God’s salvation in the midst of circumstances, even when they are unwanted.

When was the last time you cried out, “How long?” Was it another hurtful word or action in an important relationship? Did unexpected bills deplete your savings? Were the medical treatments barely tolerable? Were more hurtful words spoken by someone who didn’t like your leadership? Did your boss once again complain about your style of doing things? Did chronic physical pain interrupt your plans? Sadly, in this broken world everyone cries out, “How long?” especially when they are in the midst of distressing circumstances. But for believers, the cry, “How long?” reaches to the heavens. We can know for certain that God hears our cries and that our suffering has an end. One of the places we learn this truth is in Psalm 13. This psalm, composed by David, helps us pray when our hearts are filled with sorrow, so that we can once again sing to the Lord.
Sorrow
David begins his psalm with a cry, “How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever” (Ps. 13:1). To feel abandoned by the Lord is deeply distressing. David, who likely prayed often for the Lord’s face to shine upon him and God’s people (Num. 6:25), was experiencing what it was like for God’s face to be hidden from him. In his solitaire state he suffered from sorrow of the soul because he felt the enemy had won and God had forsaken him, “How long must I…have sorrow in my heart all the day” and “my enemy be exalted over me?” (Ps. 13:2). But in the pit of sorrow he prayed that the Lord would remember him, reveal Himself to him, and restore him to good spiritual, mental, and emotional health, “answer me, O LORD my God; light up my eyes…lest my foes rejoice because I am shaken” (vv. 3-4).
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Aaron M. Renn |
Thursday, August 22, 2024
For many of us, we can spend so much time focusing on the problems of men in society, or complaining about the latest attack on toxic masculinity in the media, that we forget how good our own opportunities are. Just because there’s so much bad in the world doesn’t mean you can’t personally succeed. And the more that you succeed, the more you are able to do to help other people and be a positive influence in society. 

Two things can be true at the same time:

Men in general are underperforming in society relative to women, and have a large numbers of struggles in education, employment, with finding purpose in life, substance abuse, etc.
It’s never been a better time to be a man who has his act together.

So much of the discussion of men today talks about their problems. The problems they have, as with Richard Reeves book Of Boys and Men. Or the problems they cause, as with the endless complaints about “toxic masculinity.”
But you shouldn’t just look at the world through the lens of averages, but through the lens of yourself.
What opportunities and challenges does this world provide you personally?
The truth is, for a man who has it together, there’s a ton of opportunity out there. In many ways, it’s a golden age.
Just consider the availability of knowledge. Think about all of the facts and insights that just I myself have provided in this newsletter. The information I’ve posted on attraction, on how relative attractiveness shifts as we age, and on the dynamics of online dating is knowledge people of my generation never had access to. We had no choice but to listen to official messages that sent out a lot of false information, including the equivalent of claiming that women are attracted to servant leaders (hint: not true).
Or think about the vast amount of information available about health and fitness. Yet, there’s a ton of conflicting info, and plenty of “misinformation and disinformation.” You really do have to “do the research.” But at least there’s actual availability of information, something you didn’t have back when the USDA’s food pyramid was telling you to load up on carbs.
Then there’s the products we can get, such as for actually eating healthy. When I grew up, we had delicious vegetables from our garden, but for the most part, everybody was forced to eat mass market, highly processed food because that was all that was available. The 1970s and 80s were a low point for consumption amenities. Today, farmers markets are everywhere. They are all sorts of options for buying fresh, healthy, ethically sourced food. Yes, it’s often expensive. But it’s available. When I was a kid, you couldn’t get a lot of this stuff no matter how much money you had.
Want to start a business? The barriers are lower than ever. Prior to the Internet, I would never have been able to get my message out unless a miracle occurred and some newspaper hired me as a columnist. Until five to ten years ago, making a living from online writing was essentially impossible.
Read More
Related Posts:

Human beings are intentional creatures, meaning that every action we take has a purpose.  As Voegelin says, “Truth is never discovered in an empty space,” meaning that we only differ from the opinions imposed on us by society when those opinions clash with a given project in which we are personally involved14.  If the truth isn’t actively compromising our preconceived notions, it is not present.  This is the core insight of critical consciousness: if we never directly confront a lie in society, we cannot expect it to suddenly appear, specter-like, before us.  Hegemonic power functions through the peer-pressure of others, who do not find themselves in a situation where they need to challenge a social lie and use the opportunity to mock and scorn those who are attempting to flee the chains of Plato’s Cave.

A major part of Shenvi’s dismissal of the so-called “woke right” is on the basis of their opposition to the “Global American Empire,” and his rejection of the possibility of social hegemonic power as described in Critical Theory, especially of the notion of Critical Consciousness. All he demonstrates, however, is that Wolfe and Isker do a poor job of articulating the nature of the current American elite and that he fails to understand the vast body of work in Philosophy of Consciousness dealing with the way the human mind filters information. I’m lumping these two together because hegemonic cultural power can’t be understood until we have a firm grasp as to why the claims of Critical Theory about consciousness are scientifically valid. People are, in fact, blind to certain truths due to their background, life history, and basic moral tenor, and are incapable of acknowledging these truths without a comprehensive worldview adjustment, or in Christian language, a conversion experience1.
A consistent theme throughout Shenvi’s works is that he doesn’t claim that Critical Theory is factually wrong, he claims that its consequences are undesirable.  Replete through this section of his essay are quotes like:
In practice, these assumptions make appeals to reason or logic or Scripture nearly impossible because they require us to “see through” people’s arguments to discover the “real” reasons that they are making particular claims.
Again, I raised the same criticisms with the woke left: once you accept the idea that all truth claims can be dismissed as mere power plays, no claim will emerge unscathed. In fact, this reasoning devours itself.
Moreover, this approach to truth leads to a purity spiral. Once you accept the argument that you are blind to the ways your reasoning itself has been corrupted, there is no easy way to push back against any claim that the woke decide to make.
Also, keep in mind that wokeness admits of no ecclesiocentric (i.e. church-based) solution to the problems it discovers. Wokeness is primarily a political project. According to its proponents, the only solution to the marginalization of straight White men (or LGBTQ Black women) is the radical transformation of our nation’s government and culture. That is why woke churches eventually loosen their hold on the gospel to free up resources for sociopolitical activism. We saw this clearly on the woke left. We will see it on the woke right.
What if we do need to understand why a person is saying such a thing in order to understand their meaning?  Take, for example, something as simple as a child’s ploy.  On my last birthday, I told my wife to forget the cake because we’ve been eating too much recently.  My children waited until I left and raced to their mother, to explain to her how birthday cakes are a tradition and it would be thoughtless of her to let me go without cake on my birthday.  How thoughtful!  My children must truly be devoted to the upholding of family traditions!  In all four of these arguments, there is no substantial rebuttal of the facts that 1) people twist the truth in order to achieve ulterior ends, 2) power players use legitimizing narratives to secure their positions, 3) each of us possess unexamined biases and sinful self-loves that prevent us from aligning our will to that of God and to the truth, and 4) there is no place in Scripture where God promises an ecclesiocentric solution that eschews all political action to the problems of this world.  Luther must sometimes go to the Princes.  Instead, Shenvi fears that the consequences of these facts will be detrimental to the Church and its mission.  That may be so, but denial is not a solution to those consequences.  Facing the consequences is the only solution.
Despite this, I’m going to treat this argument as if he had asserted that the principles of critical consciousness are untrue rather than merely undesirable.  I will have to borrow from another of Shenvi’s essays, Part 3 of his Social Justice and Critical Theory essays.  In those essays, Shenvi is demonstrating a characteristic that Mark Noll identifies as a key feature of Evangelical thought, the stubborn adherence to obsolete scientific paradigms and the conflation of these scientific paradigms with the Christian worldview2.
Despite my overall negative appraisal of the book’s effect on Evangelical intellectualism, Noll is correct in identifying a number of characteristics of Evangelical culture and their relation to 18th and 19th Century theories in epistemology and psychology.  The notion that every truth is equally accessible to all people, that any text can be read simply and plainly to derive an objective meaning, and that human beings are essentially rational creatures who are open to changing their beliefs on the basis of a logical argument belong to a past paradigm of science that was readily absorbed by Evangelical thinkers.
First, it should be explained that there is nothing anti-Christian about the fundamental principles behind the idea of critical consciousness.  Evidence of the basic phenomenon can be found right in Scripture.  Take, for example, the second half of Romans Chapter 1, in which the Apostle Paul describes the consequences of ungodly and unrighteous life.  In verse 21, it shows that the first thing to go in the unbeliever are their intellect and their moral compass.  Those who stand against God are left to their own devises, losing their reason, degenerating into further wickedness, until finally they sink so low as to lose the inhibitions that are writ into human nature itself, glorifying in their evil and calling it good.  This passage is certainly describing a person who is beyond reason, incapable of right judgment, and outside of the power of persuasion.
Augustine of Hippo reiterates this point in Book 1 of De Libero Arbitrio, in which he argues that it is only through the restorative power of the Holy Spirit that humans are capable of reasoning and judging correctly.  If we were left in our sins, all of us would suffer the consequences of Romans 1, but because Christ redeemed us, we have regained the patrimony of reason which was lost.  This is one of the reasons that I strongly reject both the arguments of Russell Moore as well as those of Wolfe regarding our ability to reason with and work jointly with unbelievers towards a common ultimate goal.  While an unbeliever can be accidentally correct on an individual issue, it is impossible for them to be right about the right things in the right way.  Alliances of convenience will always become inconvenient in time, just as Christians became inconvenient to establishment Fusionist Conservativism; Christians cannot rely on movements and parties that are not explicitly Christian in orientation to promote our principles and goals.  Instead, Christians need to be prepared to take up leadership for ourselves, stand on our own moral, institutional, and political legs, and to assert for ourselves an “Evangelical Mind.”  To paraphrase a theme from Hauerwas and Willimon’s Resident Aliens, if you agree with unbelievers on the same issues, for the same reasons, then how is your worldview Christ-centered3?  If Christ hasn’t made you incomprehensible to the unbeliever, and doesn’t make the unbeliever incomprehensible to you, have you really been changed?  Have you really embraced that which is a stumbling block unto the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks?
Let me use an example to illustrate a principle of modern philosophy of mind which illustrates a problem with Shenvi’s archaic epistemology.  I grew up in the generation that ripped open PCs and rebuilt them, not the generation that rebuilt cars.  As a pre-teen, I familiarized myself with the key components of a PC and built myself a computer from parts as soon as I had an independent checking account.  When my father would ask me to help him work on his car, we would open the hood and I would merely see an undifferentiated mass of engine.  Likewise, when my father would help me with my computer, I could see every component and piece, but he only saw a mass of electronics.  I could no more “see” the alternator than he could “see” the RAM, because conceptualization precedes perception.  I did not know what an alternator did or what it looked like, and so it was functionally invisible to me.  Everything under the hood looked like undifferentiated engine to me.  Explaining the workings of the engine to me, at that point, would have been meaningless because I had no conceptual basis on which to attach the concepts I was being taught.  I was, in fact, blind to auto mechanics in the same way that my father was blind to electronics.
It would be long and deeply cumbersome to cite the mountains of proofs for the notion that conceptualization precedes perception.  This concept is not even vaguely controversial in professional circles.  We can only assimilate concepts to comparable concepts already in our possession because human consciousness works by means of metaphor.  An unfamiliar concept can only be understood in its relation to a known concept4.  In layman’s terms, if you wish to describe an object that I’ve never seen or heard of before, the only way you can describe it to me is through a comparison.
The fullaberry is a fruit – comparison to a known classThe fullaberry is sweet – comparison to a known sensationThe fullaberry is round – comparison to a known shapeThe fullaberry tastes like a pear – comparison to a known tasteThe fullaberry is purple – comparison to a known color
Based on this brief description, I’m sure most readers have a very similar image in their head of the kind of object that is a fullaberry.  Let’s say, however, that one reader is blind, and therefore doesn’t know what “purple” means.  His mental image is going to be deficient compared to others.  If he has never tasted a pear, it will be even more deficient.  If we have a series of five people, each of whom does not understand the meaning of one of the five terms, then each of them has a flawed mental model of the fullaberry that differs along a different essential attribute.  Finally, if we had a hypothetical person with no understanding of the concepts of fruit, sweet, round, pear, or purple, then my description of the fullaberry is meaningless.  Without these essential points of similarity, this person is utterly incapable of comprehending my description of this fictional object.
When we perceive reality, all perception is inherently intentional.  Nobody is a passive observer of reality, but each of us is embedded in a particular project through which our perceptions of the world are colored.  When we act, perception highlights for us the things most relevant to our goal.  When we choose one of these available paths, new objects of interest are again highlighted that fulfill our intended ends, as well as objects that we did not expect to perceive as a result of our actions.  Objects that are neither desired nor unexpected fade into the background and are not perceived because perception is essentially the act of sensing variations in the experienced lived-body state5.
We perceive the variations we expect, and those we do not expect, but do not perceive that which we does not vary, relative to our intentional project.  We don’t often recall the color of the grocery store wall unless someone was painting it.  We don’t notice the color of the car three spaces down from our own unless it was particularly gaudy.  Critical theorists point out that what achieves our attention is defined by norms, and it is only the breach of those norms that raises something to our consciousness.  We notice these things because they’re out of order6.
Critical theorists rightly argue that our norms form the expectations we have of social phenomenon, and we do not perceive that which fulfills those expectations.  I can’t, for the life of me, remember the last person to stand in line with me at a grocery store.  If you were driving past a scene on the side of the road in which the officer was making an arrest, and the person was elderly, white, and wearing a formal suit, your attention would be held in a way that isn’t true if the suspect was young, black, male, and wearing street clothes.  More often than not, you wouldn’t even notice the arrest.
Critical Race Theorists are correct to say that the latter fulfills the dominant normative expectations of our society.  In order to perceive an act as unjust, we first must possess the conceptual frame that such an action is non-normative because our attention is a limited resource and our minds will naturally conserve that resource for our intentional ends.  A person who expects to see such arrests on the side of the road doesn’t actually perceive them but permits them to fade into the generic background of one’s immediate goals, such as driving to work.  This is the meaning of the “blindness” described by Critical Theory, whatever misuse that Kendi and DiAngelo put it towards.  If we acknowledge, even implicitly, the normativity of an injustice, we will fail to recognize when it occurs because such things will be normal and possess a low priority in our minds as compared to the problems of our immediate situation.
For this reason, we are all blind to certain phenomena around us on the basis of our backgrounds, life experiences, and basic moral tenor.  As someone whose house has been burglarized, I am especially aware of vulnerabilities to breaking-and-entering into my home that would be invisible to people without that experience.  Women describe a heightened awareness of potentially dangerous places when walking alone at night which most men would not even perceive.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by R. Albert Mohler |
Wednesday, August 21, 2024
Be not confused. The Widening of God’s Mercy is a call for a new religion to replace Biblical Christianity. What it calls for is not a revised vision of Christian morality. This is a call for complete theological surrender.

In case you haven’t caught on, here’s how the world now works. If you want major attention and applause from the cultural left and its influencers, offer a loud and apologetic shift to a more liberal position on an issue of cultural obsession—especially an issue related to LGBTQ priorities. If you have ever affirmed a Biblical vision of human sexuality, you had better apologize profusely. If you ever put your more Biblical convictions into print as a book, you better be ready with another book that explains your newfangled beliefs.
That is exactly what New Testament professor Richard B. Hays, for decades a major figure at Duke Divinity School, has done in the new book he has co-authored with his son Christopher B. Hays, an Old Testament professor at Fuller Theological Seminary. In The Widening of God’s Mercy, the father and son team now offer a call for the full inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the Church and its ministry. This book is sending shockwaves through the Christian community, precisely because a book released almost 30 years ago by the elder Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, is one of the most-cited works of New Testament scholarship that presents a clear argument that the Bible condemns homosexual behaviors.
Back then, Hays argued that “the New Testament offers no loopholes or exception clauses that might allow for the acceptance of homosexual practices under some circumstances.” As he rightly noted, the New Testament “requires a normative evaluation of homosexual practice as a distortion of God’s order for creation.” As he wisely said then, the church must be ordered by “the univocal testimony of Scripture and the Christian tradition” on such issues. What was not so clear, even then, is that Richard Hays meant for now.
Read More
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:

Over the last six years, Will Huss has served as the National Coordinator for RUF leading the ministry through a number of substantial organizational initiatives including growing to over 190 ministries, developing a new recruiting model for future ministry staff, securing the cooperative ministry agreements, as well as celebrating the 50th anniversary of the ministry. 

The permanent committee of Reformed University Fellowship met today and issued the following statement:
At the most recent meeting of the Permanent Committee for Reformed University Fellowship on August 19, 2024, Mr. Will Huss announced his intention to step down from his position as National Coordinator in the upcoming year. Mr. Huss’ resignation will be effective June 27, 2025, following the regularly scheduled meeting of the General Assembly. The Permanent Committee is grateful for the ministry and impact of Will Huss. The Lord has graciously used him and his leadership to help RUF mature in organizational health, financial stability, ecclesiastical connection, and ministry development all toward our goal of reaching students for Christ and equipping them to serve.  We celebrate his ministry among us and look forward to his service to RUF and the PCA over the next 10 months.
Read More
Related Posts:

Only genuine belief in the goodness of God and his commitment to his promises will get anyone to say “yes” to a deal that will make our lives harder. Why suffer for the sake of Christ? Because he calls us to do it and we believe he is good and he will work for our good in it.

God is not shaken by our honesty at how circumstances feel. We sometimes seem to think the only acceptable Christian response to anything terrible is to say, ‘God is good’ or ‘God is working this for good’ or some other Christian cliché. Those things are true, of course. God is good. God is working whatever it is for our good. But knowing that in our head doesn’t necessarily change how it feels.
I doubt Paul, when he was having his head bashed in with rocks for preaching the gospel, was going ‘God is working all things for my good’. Paul, I suspect, theologized about it later. Sometimes things just suck. We know our theology, we believe it, but what is happening is just awful. God isn’t offended nor undermined when we admit it.
It bears asking what we think we’re doing anyway by pretending to God—who knows everything—that we don’t feel the way we do. Like he’ll be fooled if we just go, ‘praise God because he’s good’, as if he doesn’t know how terrible we’re feeling. I think many of us are tempted to pray in such a way that you basically throw theological facts at God that he already knows, almost cliched phrases, to cover up the fact that you just feel awful, wish things would stop and frankly you think what you’re suffering is God’s fault! If I believe in a sovereign God, to some degree, I clearly do (theologically) think it is God’s fault. And if not quite so theologically driven, I am well aware—just like the rubbish Jeremiah had to put with simply because he was faithful—that much of the time it is doing what God wants i.e. being faithful that is the cause of my trouble.
The truth is, God knows what we think. He knows we believe what’s true. He knows, despite that, we feel awful because the situation is terrible. He isn’t undermined or upset when we admit we feel like we’re in the pit and we wish he’d do something about it. He isn’t even undermined when we tell him—because he knows we think it already—that we think it’s his fault. He’s sovereign, he’s in control, so why doesn’t he do anything. God is perfectly happy for us to tell him what we feel because he knows already. You’re not going to surprise him. We’re foolish if we think we can hide our true feelings from him.
Read More
Related Posts:

Every day he breaks and tears down strongholds of rebellion, willfulness, egoism, self-reliance, and hope and comfort in earthly people and things—anything and everything that hinders us from trusting and loving him in our totality.

An old friend of mine has been telling me about her granddaughter, who is only ten years old and loves to play sport.
She fell off of a trampoline last year and shattered her ankle. The surgery was difficult, and her bones didn’t heal properly. Fearing that her leg might not develop properly, her medical providers re-operated and re-broke and re-splinted the bone. They are still not sure whether the bone is properly healing, so she faces the possibility of yet another re-break and re-splint.
My friend grieves for her little granddaughter’s suffering. She wouldn’t hesitate to take her place, to suffer in her place if only she could.
We understand why the orthopedic specialists do this. They must bring short-term distress and suffering for her long-term benefit—so that in years to come she might run and play sports again with her friends.
We see Joseph doing just this to his brothers in Genesis chapters 42 to 44. He wounds them and brings them to their knees, so that he can heal and lift them up to full health. It is a picture of what Jesus does time and again with his beloved.
Desperation brings us to the Savior.
“When Jacob learned that there was grain in Egypt, he said to his sons, ‘Why do you look at one another?’” (Gen. 42:1).
The predicted seven-year famine threatened to destroy the region, including the covenant family—the sons of Jacob from whom God would raise up a blessed people to be a blessing to the nations. We see their pasturelands desiccating, herds emaciating, silos diminishing, wells turning first to mud, then to dust. Anxious Jacob sends his anxious sons to Egypt. “Behold, I have heard that there is grain for sale in Egypt. Go down and buy grain for us there, that we may live and not die” (Gen. 42:2).
This is how the journey to Christian faith often begins.
A financial crisis, a terrible accident, or a deadly sickness cripples us. A broken marriage or family crisis brings us to our knees. A great life disappointment slays us. Or we commit a great sin: something that shatters our idea of who we think we are. Sometimes all of these at once.
You look around for help, but the deluge has swept away every earthly support and hope. You are forced to look beyond: “I have heard that there is grain in Egypt.” “I have heard of the one they call Jesus.”
God had revealed to Jacob’s family his special plan for Joseph: that one day they would bow before him to receive his sustenance. The dreams made them jealous; they dismissed them as hubris. When the opportunity came, they plotted to murder Joseph, tossed him into a pit, and then sold him into foreign slavery.
Now in their hour of distress God forced them back to the one they tried to destroy, the only one who could help them.
President Eisenhower said that “there are no atheists in the foxholes…. In times of test and trial, we instinctively turn to God for new courage and peace of mind.” There is nothing wrong with this. This is no less sensible than dialing 911 in an emergency, or firing a distress flare from the life raft.
The Savior may harshly test us.
His brothers were prostrate before Joseph, pleading for his help. Yet, Joseph did not immediately throw his arms around his brothers with shouts of comfort and joy.
He recognized them but pretended to be a stranger and spoke harshly to them. “Where do you come from?” he asked. “From the land of Canaan,” they replied, “to buy food.” “You are spies,” he replied, “You have come to see the nakedness of the land” (“nakedness of the land” meaning “where our land is unprotected”; Gen. 42:7–9).
So Joseph initiated a long and difficult trial for his brothers. Why?
When last he saw his brothers, Joseph was in distress and pleading for his life (42:21). They cruelly ignored his pleas and sold him as a slave, never to see his home or family again.
Read More
Related Posts: