I like to say that I made a friend, and my friend was the apostle Paul. I started reading Paul’s letters and started to see how Paul integrates things of eternity into every aspect of the Christian life. Not just, “This is what happens when you die,” but, “This is why you repent from sin, this is why you share the gospel, this is why we have hope, and this is why we’re content.” It was all heavenly realities. I don’t think that the heavenly mindedness that I experienced after my son’s death would’ve been sustained if I hadn’t started to study Paul’s theology of heaven and started to realize that any person should be heavenly minded and have a heavenward life just based on the basic fundamentals of our own salvation.

Citizens of Heaven
The beginning of this book really starts with the death of my son. Back on November 10th, 2013, my oldest child, Cam, talked about wanting to go see Jesus, and he asked all kinds of questions like, “Can we get in the car and go visit with Jesus?” And we told him that we wouldn’t see Jesus until we were in heaven. And so then he started to ask a bunch of questions about heaven. The conversation ultimately ended with him professing faith in Christ and acknowledging that Christ had died for his sins and that Christ was his Savior.
And so he then mysteriously and without explanation died that night. My child now was living in heaven. He was a three-year-old who had a profession of faith, and he was with the Lord above. And so my heart and my mind were with my child. And he lived in the full glory of God in heaven.
When I went to college at Wake Forest, my mom had previously never had any interest in Wake Forest. But now that her precious baby boy was at Wake Forest, she had the sweatshirt, she had the bumper sticker on the car, she checked the website, and she’d watch all the Wake Forest sports, because that’s where her child was. And so she now was interested in it, and it was on her mind.
Well, that was true for me with heaven, but even more so. And so I just had this new extremely magnified sense of heavenly mindedness that really was transforming my life in a positive way.
Read More
Related Posts:

Christ has “ordained..his system of doctrine, government, discipline and worship.” All of these good things (and how to use them) are “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom.” From the means the men learn the method; from the oracles the officers learn the ordinances. The method and the means sweetly agree. Indeed they are inseparable, as medium and message almost always are.

The wonderful Preface to the Presbyterian Church in America’s Book of Church Order is an overlooked masterpiece of piety and practice—an especially helpful resource:
Christ, as King, has given to His Church officers, oracles and ordinances; and especially has He ordained therein His system of doctrine, government, discipline and worship, all of which are either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom; and to which things He commands that nothing be added, and that from them naught be taken away.– Section I, The King and Head of the Church
These words provide remarkable encouragement for both church members and officers, and they place a considerable responsibility on those ordained men who lead and care for the church. In this foundational paragraph, we learn that the ascended Christ (Eph. 4:8), the reigning king, has provided the church with the men, the means, and the method for accomplishing her mission.

The men are (for the first-century church) “the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists,” and (for the church since) those who hold the continuing office of elder—“the shepherds and teachers.”1 (Eph. 4:11)
The means2 are given by the Holy Spirit through the “the apostles (and) the prophets”—the oracles of God which are the inspired Holy Scriptures, the authoritative Word objectively existing, perfect and eternal.
The method is the employment of the ordinances—the divinely-ordained delivery system of grace and truth, including “the reading, but especially the preaching, of the Word”3 and the administration of the sacraments. It is worth noting that these are uniquely of the church and occur primarily (and best) in the church’s public worship on the Lord’s Day.

This is encouraging for church members because it means all necessary provision has been made for their souls in the ministrations of the church. It is good news, as 19th-century presbyterian Stuart Robinson understood when he titled his great book “The Church of God as an Essential Element of the Gospel.”
This is good news for church officers, too, who are not left to their own devices, creativity, or whims in ordering and caring for the church.
Read More
Related Posts:

Satan began by questioning what God said and the truth of who He was. All the serpent needed to do was begin to shift the woman’s thinking about God, a little at a time. The serpent also knew that if Eve began rewriting what she knew to be true in her own mind without going back to the original Source, he could lead her wherever he wanted. He uses the same tactic when you’re watching someone else suffer. He knows that if he can keep you asking questions without ever directing them back to the Lord, you’ll loosen your grip on what’s true.

Midway through a baby shower I attended earlier this summer, the momma-to-be walked to my table with a coat hanger filled with clothespins. She got the attention of those sitting nearby and began explaining the rules of the game: the goal was for each one of us to take hold of all twenty-something clothespins that were clipped to the hanger, unclipping them one at a time using only one hand and without letting any pieces fall to the ground. 
Once the rules were explained and all questions answered, the women who were preparing to play took off their jewelry, set down their phones, and began stretching their fingers. As each one angled and her hands to unclip and grip as many clothespins as she could, the rest of us watched her progress and counted along. 
With each passing round, there came an unspoken moment when everyone at the table knew that she had reached her limit. It didn’t matter how many clothespins a woman was holding at the time—she could have successfully grabbed six, twelve, or twenty-two clothespins—but if she showed signs of losing control, if her fingers started to shake, then we knew it was only a matter of seconds before all she was holding clattered to the table. 
When it happened, those of us watching couldn’t help but laugh. The final pieces seemed to fall in slow motion, and the pictures were priceless—a little goofy, but representing a fun afternoon. 
The Breaking Point
Have you noticed how we can often sense when a woman is reaching her limit in other areas of life? You’ve seen the friend or family member who already seems to be carrying more than anyone else you know. She’s been struggling over challenges in her marriage, or she’s been battling a chronic health issue for decades, or she’s been working a demanding job while juggling responsibilities as a single mom. Then she’s handed something else, another overwhelming and painful challenge, and you know instantly this could be her breaking point.
News clips capture these moments often. They call your attention to the woman standing in front of her home in the hours before a hurricane is predicted to hit her already poverty-stricken island. Before the new storm arrives, you feel the seeming injustice of her circumstances deep in your chest. It’s a thirty-second clip on your screen, but you suspect that if one more drop of rain falls on her roof, you’ll watch her whole world crumble. The thought is enough to surface questions: how could this happen on top of everything else she’s already experienced? Hasn’t this woman suffered enough? 
When Sympathy Skews Your View of God 
For the last decade, I’ve wanted to write to her: the woman overwhelmed by suffering, who feels herself crumbling under the weight of all that’s on her shoulders. But recently, I’ve been paying more and more attention to the woman watching from the other side of the television and the other side of the table. Her faith is also formed as she witnesses someone else’s suffering—her faith will either be forged by the reality of a sovereign and good God or be weakened one storm at a time.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Derek J. Brown |
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
The man’s calling in relationship to the woman is reaffirmed throughout redemptive history. Man is tasked in Scripture with spiritual and institutional leadership (Lev. 4:22; Judg. 11:6; 2 Sam. 23:2-4; 1 Kings 14:7; 1 Chron. 15:27; Neh. 11:17; Eph. 5:23; 1 Tim. 2:12-14; 3:1-8; Titus 1:5-9), as the physical and spiritual protector (2 Chron. 17:13; Jer. 41:16; Eph. 5:25-27; Philem. 2; 2 Tim. 4:1-2), and provider (Prov. 10:4; 12:24; 21:5 [Proverbs are addressed to Solomon’s son]; 1 Tim. 5:8; 2 Thess. 3:6-12). Sadly, however, these essential qualities of godly manhood are under direct assault today from both outside and inside the church.

On a weekend in early February, I had the privilege of speaking to about sixty men at a men’s retreat in Mendocino County, California. We all enjoyed encouraging fellowship, ate some excellent food, and worshipped the living God together. Some of us even found time to shoot guns, hike the nearby trails, and smack the golf ball around. It was a wonderful time.
I spoke to the men about the essential aspects of godly manhood. In relation to women, God has created men and recreated men in Christ to lead, protect, and provide for those under their care. These responsibilities are not a mere cultural hangover from a patriarchal era of history. No, God established these responsibilities for men at the beginning of creation.
God Made Men to Lead
For example, the very fact that man was created before the woman indicates that he bears the unique responsibility to lead in relation to her (see Gen. 2:7; cf. 1:26-27). In his first letter to Timothy, Paul restricts the authoritative teaching role in the church only to men, grounding his statements in this order of creation. “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:12-13; emphasis added). When God created Adam, he was signaling to the universe that he had vested man, by virtue of his manhood, with the responsibility of leadership in relation to the woman (see also 1 Cor. 11:6-8).
God Made Men to Provide
But we also see in the Genesis narrative that God tasked the man with providing for the woman. Immediately after God created Adam he placed him in the Garden of Eden to “work it and to keep it” (Gen. 2:15). Adam’s “work” would have included cultivation of the garden and many other aspects related to exercising dominion (see Gen. 1:26-31). Work and the responsibility to provide material sustenance for his family would be a fundamental aspect of the man’s existence. This truth is re-affirmed throughout Scripture (see below).
God Made Men to Protect
The word translated “keep” is used in the Old Testament to refer to protecting others. For example, after David crept undetected into and out of Saul’s camp, he rebuked Abner (the soldier charged with protecting Saul) for allowing a breach in the perimeter. David uses the word translated “keep” in Genesis 2:15 twice in his admonition to Abner.
Then David went over to the other side and stood far off on the top of the hill, with a great space between them. And David called to the army, and to Abner the son of Ner, saying, “Will you not answer, Abner?” Then Abner answered, “Who are you who calls to the king?” And David said to Abner, “Are you not a man? Who is like you in Israel? Why then have you not kept watch over your lord the king? For one of the people came in to destroy the king your lord. This thing that you have done is not good. As the LORD lives, you deserve to die, because you have not kept watch over your lord, the LORD’S anointed. And now see where the king’s spear is and the jar of water that was at his head.” (1 Sam. 26:13-16; emphasis added)
Abner was worthy of death because he failed to “keep watch” over Saul; David could have killed Saul had he wanted to. Similarly, God tasked Adam to “keep” the garden. This means Adam was to guard the garden from intruders. This protection would be physical, of course, but it would also be spiritual.
Read More
Related Posts:

“What I hope to accomplish … is to introduce thirteen different arguments that each point toward the reliability of the New Testament. I will be presenting these arguments as though it were the reader’s first time coming into contact with them. Hopefully, this will help the reader understand the different levels and angles at which the New Testament is trustworthy as well as give a new appreciation of the NT when reading it.”

As Christians, we are unapologetic about this fact: Everything hinges on the Bible. All we believe, all we proclaim, all we do, all we hope for—it all depends on Scripture. If the Bible is not true, our faith is not true. If the Bible is not reliable, our faith is not reliable. If the Bible is not trustworthy, we are most to be pitied.
Little wonder, then, that the trustworthiness of Scripture is an area of constant attack and one that has generated its own category of literature. To undermine the Bible is to undermine the faith and to undermine the faith is to discourage those who hold to it. However, if the Bible can be proven to be trustworthy, then Christians can have great confidence in their Book, in their Faith, in their Savior, and in their Hope.
The trustworthiness of Scripture has been an especially important area of study to Benjamin Shaw. Shaw is an adjunct professor of theology at Liberty University and an affiliate faculty member of Colorado Christian University. Perhaps more to the point of his area of interest, he has spent more than a decade working closely with Dr. Gary Habermas who has authored or co-authored many works of apologetics. In Trustworthy: Thirteen Arguments for the Reliability of the New Testament, Shaw proves himself to be deeply indebted to Habermas and his methods and does so in a concise and reader-friendly format.
This book, he says, “is for people who want to dig deeper into the New Testament and issues regarding its reliability, whether as a disciple or as a doubter.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Benjamin L. Gladd |
Monday, August 12, 2024
The Gospel writers include only the most pertinent information in their narratives. They don’t give us every historical detail at their disposal. For example, here in Mark 16:5, only one angel is found in the tomb, whereas Luke 24:4 says there were two. Is this a contradiction? No, Mark doesn’t claim there was only one angel. He simply aims his spotlight on the one angel and how that angel functions in the scene. The evangelists only included details that hold interpretive value.

Good stories often include odd details. But what first strikes the reader as odd or random may later turn out to be interesting and insightful. Have you noticed, for example, that Doc Brown’s bandana in Back to the Future Part III is made from the same material as his shirt in Part II? What appears to be a run-of-the-mill piece of clothing takes on new significance when it’s viewed in light of the larger narrative.
There’s a similarly odd but significant detail in Mark 16. The ending of Mark’s Gospel has long been problematic for some commentators because it lacks an explicit resurrection appearance (vv. 1–8). Matthew, Luke, and John narrate Jesus appearing to the disciples and to two women. But an odd detail in Mark’s ending may be one reason Jesus doesn’t make a post-resurrection appearance in this Gospel. Could an angel’s enigmatic posture hold an important clue?
Vivid Description
Mark 16 opens with three women—Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of John and James, and Salome—approaching Jesus’s tomb at dawn on Sunday (vv. 1–2). On their way, the women wonder who could roll away the large stone that sealed the tomb. But when they arrived, to their surprise, the stone had been rolled away (vv. 3–4).
The women ventured into the tomb and observed “a young man sitting on the right side [kathēmenon en tois dexiois], dressed in a white robe” (v. 5) Mark divulges three vivid details here: the presence of an individual (“young man”), the man’s apparel (“white robe”), and the man’s posture and location (“sitting on the right side”).
Repeated Wording
These concrete details certainly underscore the three women’s eyewitness account, but perhaps there’s another significant reason Mark mentions them. He may have included the odd detail of the angel’s “sitting on the right side” (kathēmenon en tois dexiois) because of its symbolic significance.
A literal rendering of the phrase is “seated on the right.” Often, the adjective “right” (dexios) occurs by itself and lacks a noun, so the context determines the implied noun (e.g., Matt. 6:3; Mark 10:40; Luke 1:11). In Mark 16:5, the “right” likely means the “right side” of the bench inside the tomb. But “sitting at the right” only occurs two other times in Mark’s Gospel:
David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand [kathou ek dexiōn], until I put your enemies under your feet.’” (12:36)
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Aaron D. Messner |
Monday, August 12, 2024
Pastors and elders should relate to the sheep humbly and with ongoing personal repentance. When one thinks about the responsibility of being a faithful shepherd of God’s people, it is awe-inspiring and, in a very real sense, terrifying. The stakes are high, and shepherds will be called to account for their work in shepherding the people of God. We will be called to account for our teaching (James 3:1) and for our spiritual leadership and shepherding (Heb. 13:17).

How should pastors and elders relate to the sheep? In a brief article such as this, we cannot cover all the facets of faithful pastoral care, but perhaps we can establish some fundamental principles to guide and instruct both shepherds and sheep concerning the proper character of the pastoral relationship. Let us consider four fundamental aspects of how pastors and elders should relate to those under their care.
First, pastors and elders should act purposefully and with gospel intentionality. As well-meaning pastors and elders, we are often content to relate to church members in ways that simply promote our general likability. We talk about work, what the kids are up to, shows we have watched, or the ball game from the past weekend. Now, there is nothing wrong with talking about such things. These kinds of conversations can play an important part in building genuine relationships. The problem is that sometimes our conversations never get beyond these kinds of easy, natural, and safe topics. And while such safe conversations may promote a sense that the pastor is likable, they generally fail to stir up and promote the genuine spiritual maturity that the Scriptures call for.
The Apostle Paul presents his pastoral purpose in various ways, but his language reveals an overriding gospel-centered intent and purpose. He labored to “make the word of God fully known” (Col. 1:25) so that he might “present everyone mature in Christ” (v. 28). He desired to see “Christ formed” in his readers (Gal. 4:19), and he longed to see “all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God,” achieving maturity, “to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). Paul was laboring not for people’s general approval but for their salvation and sanctification. Pastors and elders should have the same goals for the sheep in their care, and with these goals in mind, they must ultimately direct conversations to topics of repentance, faith in Christ, and new obedience. These kinds of deeper spiritual conversations require purposefulness and a pastoral willingness to initiate and take risks, often through thoughtful and direct questions and faithful persistence. Therefore, pastors and elders must pursue relationships with gospel purposefulness with the express goal of fostering spiritual maturity in the sheep under their care.
A second way that pastors and elders should relate to their flock is fervently and with genuine love. When Paul spoke of his desire to see Christ formed in the Galatians, he spoke of himself as one “in the anguish of childbirth” (Gal. 4:19). Paul’s ministry was not simply one of correct theological priorities but one of personal intensity and affection of the deepest order. He loved those in his care, and he longed for their spiritual welfare.
Read More
Related Posts:

Loy’s letter of April 2, 1935 to his cousin expressed his support for him in his testing times and his own personal outrage at the way the modernists had made their case against him. He described the action of the General Assembly as “an unqualified outrage—unconstitutional, ultra vires, un-Presbyterian, and altogether prompted by a spirit of narrow-mindedness and intolerance.” Loy believed the outcome of the case was assured from the beginning and “the cards were stacked against you.” But he also related the comments of Moderator of New York Presbytery Russell that the actions against Machen had backfired to a degree because the way he had been treated did not look good to the general public. Loy added that lots “of men who are not on your side will see that the boot has been shifted to the other foot, and that the very ones who have been raising the cry of intolerance have been guilty of that unpardonable sin themselves” to which he added that he could not “help feeling that this adverse decision is really in your favor and that it will lead to vindication in the end.”

Mary and John Jones Gresham had two children that survived to marry and have families, Mary Jones and Thomas Baxter. Mary Jones, who was also called Minnie, would live in Baltimore with her husband Arthur Webster Machen and they would enjoy the births of three sons, one of which was born in 1881 and named John Gresham Machen. At the time of his birth, Thomas and his wife Tallulah had been raising their son LeRoy in Madison, Georgia, since his birth September 21, 1871. When Thomas and Lula Gresham moved their family to Baltimore their residence was close to that of the Machens. Gresham and Loy, which was the name Machen most often used for his cousin, became more and more like brothers than just first cousins because of their many opportunities to socialize, share common interests, and experiences. The ten-year age difference between the boys put Loy in the position of being like an older brother to J. Gresham Machen.
The purpose of this article is to consider the relationship of J. Gresham Machen and LeRoy Gresham following their years growing up together in Baltimore. This will be accomplished using a selection of letters written between April 1921 and April 1935. The letters will show that the two cousins continued to be both friends and confidants regarding issues of common interest including the situation with the Presbyterians as it developed in the 1920s in both the PCUSA and the PCUS.
LeRoy Gresham
LeRoy Gresham’s education included study in Lawrenceville Academy in New Jersey before he travelled the few miles down the road to Princeton University to earn both a B.A. and a M.A. Returning to Baltimore, Loy studied for one year at Johns Hopkins University and then went to the University of Maryland for his legal studies earning the LL.D. Initially, he followed in his father’s footsteps by practicing law in Baltimore beginning in 1896 but then after six years of work he realized that God was calling him to the pastoral ministry. Loy was just over thirty years of age when he began seminary studies. Unlike Machen’s choice for seminary, Loy selected Union Theological Seminary, Virginia, where he earned the B.D. {4} in 1906. He was licensed that May by Potomac Presbytery of the PCUS, and then he was ordained by Orange Presbytery in November of the same year. Rev. Gresham’s first call was a brief one of three years to a church in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. His next call would be his last because he would serve the church in Salem, Virginia, beginning in 1909 and remain there until his retirement in 1946. LeRoy was honored with the DD by both King College in Bristol and Washington and Lee in Lexington, Virginia. Loy had married Jessie Rhett in 1903, and they had two sons, Francis, who was the youngest, and Thomas Baxter.
Machen Recommends LeRoy for a New Call and Preaches at Hollins College[2]
At one point in LeRoy Gresham’s ministry in Salem, Machen mentioned Loy in a letter to Rev. Stuart “Bill” Hutchison as a possible candidate for his soon to be vacant pulpit with the hopes that he would recommend Loy to the pulpit committee. The opportunity that Machen believed could be a suitable change for Loy was just across the state in the First Presbyterian Church of Norfolk. Bill Hutchison had been the minister of the PCUS church for about ten years, and his new call was to the East Liberty Church, PCUSA in Pittsburgh. If Loy was to move to Norfolk, the change would take him from a congregation of over three-hundred members to one of nearly a thousand. Dr. Machen believed that the Norfolk pulpit would be a good fit for Cousin Loy, so he presented his case to Bill regarding his qualifications.
I have come frequently into contact with his work at Salem, and every contact with it has been an inspiration and a benediction. Though on a smaller scale, it is more like your work at Norfolk than almost anything else I have seen. That is to say, it is the work of a genuine minister of the gospel, who is in full possession of the necessary intellectual and other gifts. I do not believe that a more absolutely unselfish, consecrated man ever entered the ministry than my cousin. To win one soul he will pour forth unstintedly all the treasures of mind and heart that God has given him. And that kind of painstaking work has produced a congregation which it is a joy to see.
Machen went on to comment to Bill that the Salem congregation believed Loy was content with his call and would not leave the church for any reason. He added that Loy believed “his great duty is to his own congregation, and that, especially since his work there is so highly blessed of God, he has absolutely no time to spend upon any attempt to seek a larger field.” Despite the confidence of the congregation regarding Loy’s happiness as their pastor, Machen thought there was a possibility his cousin would leave Salem for another call when he believed God was calling him to do so. He commented, “I am sure that Loy will not decline the real call when it comes.” The letter shows Machen’s exuberance as he spoke up for his cousin because he wanted the best for him, and it looked like First Presbyterian Church in Norfolk was a call suited for his gifts.
As the letter draws to its close, Machen mentioned that it was his hope to have a week of hiking in the Natural Bridge area of Virginia with Loy before he preached the baccalaureate sermon at Hollins College for Women in Roanoke the evening of Sunday, June 5. Though the {5} sermon is untitled, Machen’s text was 2 Corinthians 4:18, “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” According to the summary by the writer for Hollins Magazine, Machen’s emphasis was on the need for a deep faith that provides a solid and long-lasting foundation for Christian living. Machen also referred to the familiar text from Matthew 6:33, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” He encouraged the new graduates to pursue the Kingdom first and establish a sure foundation for practical Christianity. Hollins Magazine commented further.
Mr. Machen’s words served as a reminder to us that although we may aspire to be of much practical service to the world, our deeds will be futile unless they have beneath them a deep spiritual raison d’ếtre. We need first of all to be sincere believers in Christianity, and “it will follow as the night follows day” that our words and actions will have an unfailing power for good in the world.[3]
The baccalaureate sermon presented the simple message that Machen so often emphasized—the practical aspects of Christianity must be built upon a solid foundation of doctrine, which in this case he corresponded with seeking first the Kingdom of God. If the practical is sought without first having a solid foundation, then only a superficial and self-serving obedience will follow.
Christianity and Liberalism, New Testament Greek for Beginners, and the PCUS[4]
The year 1923 was a particularly important one for Machen’s academic career because two of what would become best-selling books, Christianity and Liberalism, and shortly thereafter, New Testament Greek for Beginners were published.[5] In a letter of May 2, 1923, Loy thanked Gresham for the recently received copy of his just released Greek grammar about which he observed, “it looks like an excellent little book” and “the preface is most interesting,” but he did not think he could assess it thoroughly until he had the opportunity to use it, hopefully, with his youngest son, Francis. Little did Loy or Machen know that the Greek textbook would be long appreciated and esteemed after their time. It remained in print with Macmillan for years, after which it was published by other companies with an updated edition in 2003.
Loy mentioned that he had “one or two interesting side-lights” on Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism. The local newspaper, Roanoke World-News, had published in its literary column a review of the book written by a member of Loy’s congregation whom he identified as Dr. Painter. Loy said the man was a former Lutheran minister, who was a widely read man, had a keen sense of humor, and was “altogether a most agreeable man personally.” But Loy speculated that the reason Dr. Painter was no longer a minister was because he fell out with the Lutherans, which Loy believed was due to his being “the only man in the ministry that I ever heard of that was president of a cigarette-machine company; and I am inclined to think that his business had something to do with his not getting along with the Lutherans.”
Dr. Painter was retired Professor of Modern Languages and Literature F. V. N. Painter of Roanoke College.[6] He was an accomplished scholar having written a number of books including A History of English Literature, Introduction to English {6} Literature, Introduction to American Literature, and several others. He was ordained into the Lutheran ministry and began teaching in 1878. In order to have more time for writing, and apparently as Loy mentioned, to try his hand at manufacturing by becoming president of the Bonsack Company, he retired from the college in 1906. The Bonsack Company had been founded by James Bonsack to manufacture the cigarette-rolling machine he had patented.[7]
Painter’s two-book review is titled, “Orthodoxy and Modernism,” with Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism representing orthodoxy and Percy Stickney Grant’s The Religion of Main Street representing the modernist perspective.[8] The review provides a brief account of Machen’s chief points as contrasted with those of Grant’s book. Machen is described as one of the “stand-patters,” while Grant is presented as a member of the “radicals.” Machen’s teaching regarding the plenary inspiration of Scripture, doctrines such as original sin, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and substitutionary atonement were not in accord with the modern, progressive, and liberal needs of the era. Grant’s progressive and liberal views are said to fit the needs of the scientific age and he believed traditional, creedal doctrine to be “archaic if not false.” Grant commented further that “‘in Adam’s fall we sinned all’ was the old theology” and its associated emphasis on sin “crushed humanity.” Painter ended his nine-hundred-word review saying, “After carefully reading these two theological polemics, this reviewer turned with relief and refreshment to the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians, in which Paul touched the stars, “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”
As a promoter of Machen’s work, Loy was crafty in his method. While a woman Bible teacher from Union Seminary Training School in Richmond was participating in the Presbyterial Auxiliary meeting, she visited the Greshams and found a copy of Christianity and Liberalism strategically placed in the house for her sure sighting. She picked up what Loy described as “bait” and commented that she was delighted with the book. Loy responded by giving her one of his extra copies, thanked her for her interest, and encouraged her to continue reading his cousin’s work.
Machen responded to Loy’s letter within a few days and after informing him that he would be too busy to visit Salem until the next year, he encouraged Loy regarding his selection to attend the PCUS General Assembly for his presbytery, but he also expressed concern about what he saw as troubling signs in the PCUS. Machen told his cousin that the “Southern Church puzzles and disturbs me.” In particular, he had noticed recently that Dr. Leighton Stewart, whom he described as “a liberal propagandist in China,” had recently been examined extensively and admitted into the Presbytery of East Hanover in Richmond. He also found unsettling the collective review of books in the spring issue of The Union Seminary Review that included Harry Emerson Fosdick’s, Christianity and Progress, 1922, and Charles A. Ellwood’s, The Reconstruction of Religion: A Sociological View, 1922.[9] The reviewer, John Calvin Siler, a Union alumnus and a pastor in Shenandoah Junction, West Virginia, concluded the review saying, “We must read these books not as theological treatises, but as books on practical religion. These books have no special message on doctrine, but they have a burning message on practice.” The separation of doctrine from practice was one of Machen’s chief concerns with the PCUSA, and seeing the same thinking in the denomination of his youth bothered him greatly. He added, “It looks to me sometimes as though the Southern Church were going to give Christianity up without even being conscious that anything particularly worth while is being lost.” However, he believed there were some “splendid men” who were concerned about the issues taking place in the PCUS such as R.C. Reed of Columbia Seminary.
Read More
Related Posts:

Essentially, our day becomes a twenty-four opportunity to worship our God, seeking to live a Christ-exalting life as we walk in the Spirit. We walk with Christ. He goes with us everywhere we go. The Spirit indwells us. We live in God’s world and in His presence. We are not alone today. Instead, we are loved and enjoy the presence of the Lord (Rom 8:31-38; Gal 6:16-26). We worship our God as we love Him supremely, known as the first Great Commandment, and as we love our neighbors sincerly, known as the second Great Commandment.

This morning, the day is new. We look at the day ahead and ask, “What is in a day?” What lies ahead of us this day?
None of us know. I spoke with a friend yesterday, and he had no idea the events of his day until they happened. Total surprise how his day went from one thing to another unexpectedly. Sometimes, we do know what we believe is generally going to happen, but, of course, we do not know the exact details.
Here’s the good news: regardless of who you are or where you are, we each share a series of commonalities regarding our day ahead. For the Christ-follower, this is really good news. If we take time to remember a few of these things at the beginning of our day, it really benefits us; in fact, I promise it will make your day better. Notice how the prophet Jeremiah emphasizes the benefits of remembering a few of these key ideas of “What is in a day.” He writes, “This I recall to my mind and therefore I have hope” (Lam 3:21).
Here are a few of those key realities to remember:
God’s Grace and Mercy Are New Every Morning
Our God is a covenant faithful God. He expresses his loyal love to us daily through His mercy and grace. As we get up and going today, God’s faithfulness provides us a fresh, full helping of grace and mercy – enough to last us all day! Back to Jeremiah:
Because of the Lord’s great love we are not consumed,for his compassions never fail.They are new every morning;great is your faithfulness.I say to myself, “The Lord is my portion;therefore I will wait for him.”
The Lord is good to those whose hope is in him,to the one who seeks him;it is good to wait quietlyfor the salvation of the Lord. (Lam 3:22-26)
God Loves Us and That Motivates Our Service
The loyal love that provides great mercy and grace every morning also serves us in another way. As we stop to remember God’s love, it serves to motivate us to serve Jesus Christ and others today. The Apostle Paul describes how God’s love for us through Christ, as we remember and meditate on it, begins to influence us and control how we respond to the people and pressures in our day. In reflection of God’s love through Christ to us, we determine to live for Him and not for ourselves.
For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. (2 Cor 5:14-15)
We Stand Righteous in Christ, Forgiven, and Capable of Honoring the Lord
Because we have a relationship with God through Jesus, which we often called being saved, we now stand as righteous in Christ. We are forgiven of our sins and are intimately known by God. Because we are in Christ, we are no longer condemned; instead, we are now capable of honoring our wonderful Lord. Because of this possibility, we diligently seek to grow in our walk with the Lord.
His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. (2 Pet 1:3-7)
My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2)
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph 2:8-10)
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, (Rom 8:1)
Read More
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: