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

On August 19, 2024, five ministers in good standing of Second Presbytery, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, gathered in Greenwood, SC, along with elder representatives from three former ARP churches to constitute Veritas Presbytery, an independent unaffiliated presbytery. These founding ministers, Tony Locke, John Paul Marr, Peter Waid, Mark Wright, and Seth Yi, took a page out of the ARP Church history books in following the pattern of the Associate Presbytery of Scotland which was organized at Gairney Bridge, near Kinross, on Dec. 6, 1733. Ebenezer Erskine, James Fisher, William Wilson, and Alexander Moncreiff seceded from the Church of Scotland and therefore were sometimes called “Seceders.”
The roots of Veritas Presbytery stem from a properly called Second Presbytery meeting on August 13, 2024, in Due West, SC. The stated purpose of the meeting as notified by the Stated Clerk, David Griffin, was to “provide for open response and any actions related to the dissolution of Second Presbytery for congregations and ministers.” During that meeting, the following motion was approved (25 Yes, 19 No) by Second Presbytery, “That Second Presbytery grant dismissal or transfer to any minister or congregation who requests so in writing to the Stated Clerk of Second Presbytery prior to September 1, per FoG 9.65 and 10.3.E, K.” (Minutes pg. 1) This motion enabled congregations to be dismissed from Second Presbytery and ministers to be transferred into their respective Presbyteries with the authority of Second Presbytery.
On August 18, 2024, the Newberry, Troy, and Unity congregations at their properly called congregational meeting voted to be dismissed from Second Presbytery. From the three congregations, there was only one dissenting vote, and five abstentions. That evening, an email was sent by the respective clerks of session to Mr. Griffin notifying him of their congregation’s vote to be dismissed. The next day, a hardcopy letter of the same notice was delivered to Mr. Griffin.
Prior to the constitutional assembly on August 19, all five of the founding ministers had secured a letter of good standing from Mr. Griffin. A service of worship was conducted in which hymns were sung, Scripture read, as well as the Westminster Confession of Faith 20.1-4, prayers offered, and a sermon preached on 1 Peter 5:1-4. Several items of business related to the constitution of Veritas Presbytery were accompanied. The following declaration was proclaimed:
“In order to uphold our ordination vows, before God, our Father, the Lord Jesus, our Savior, and the Holy Spirit, who guides us into all truth, and to adhere to the Holy Scripture with utmost honesty and integrity and therefore obey God over the ungodly whims of hierarchal human manipulations, this new presbytery is being constituted on this day, Monday, 19 August, in the year of our Lord Christ Jesus 2024.”
Included in the business was the reception of the Newberry, Unity, and Troy congregations into Veritas Presbytery. Elders from these congregations presented their transfer paperwork in accordance with the actions they took at their congregational meetings.
That afternoon, August 19, the newly elected Moderator, John Paul Marr, notified Mr. Griffin in writing of the five ministers’ transfer and reception into Veritas Presbytery via email and a certified letter. However, Mr. Griffin replied in an email of his unwillingness to remove these transferred ministers from the roll of Second Presbytery. He concluded by stating, “If you are not properly transferred to another ecclesiastical body by September 1, you will no longer be considered ordained.”
Similarly, Mr. Griffin sent the following email to the clerks of session of the newly received congregations. [email]
“I am writing to let you know that I received your communication regarding your congregation’s vote to leave Second Presbytery and the Associate Reformed Presbyterian denomination. However, be advised that a Complaint has been filed against Second Presbytery’s actions, accusing Second Presbytery of violating the Standards of the ARP Church. As such, I would advise you to refrain from any legal action until such time that the appropriate church court can act upon this Complaint. There may be legal ramifications given the constitutionality of your actions, based not on the action of Second Presbytery, but instead on the Standards of the ARP Church. As such, I cannot remove your congregation from the roll until such time that this matter is adjudicated.”
There has been no additional communication from Mr. Griffin or anyone else from General Synod regarding the Complaint (see Minutes above) that was filed against Second Presbytery which was dissolved on September 1.
Since its constitution, Veritas Presbytery has met on two other occasions. At those meetings, two more ministers in good standing from Second Presbytery, Jonathan Cook and Stacey Cox, were received into membership. Other ministers and elders have attended as guests where they have been allowed to ask questions about Veritas Presbytery.
Since September 1, Catawba Presbytery of the ARP Church has unilaterally assumed the role of Second Presbytery in presuming authority over the ministers and congregations of Veritas Presbytery. The State Clerk of Catawba Presbytery, Benjamin Glaser, has circulated the following email and letter to an unknown number of stated clerks of Presbyteries in SC:
Good Morning,
Pray y’all are doing well. This email serves as official correspondence from Catawba Presbytery of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church to let you know that the following men in the attached letter have demitted office and are no longer to be considered ordained ministers in Christ’s church. Likewise it is the position of Catawba Presbytery and the ARPC that the congregations recognizing themselves as the “Veritas Presbytery” are in fact member churches of Catawba Presbytery and should be treated as such.
If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. 
Blessings in Christ,Rev. Benjamin Glaser Pastor, Bethany ARP Church Stated Clerk, Catawba Presbytery
[Attached letter]
September 3, 2024
To Whom It May Concern:
Greetings in the name of our common Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This letter is to inform our NAPARC brothers that the following men have demitted their office due to their failure to transfer their credentials by the September 1st date allotted through actions of the 220th ARP General Synod in June of 2024 and are no longer to be considered ordained ministers in Christ’s Church.
Jonathan Cook, Eldredge Kelley, Peter Waid, Craig Weiberdink, Mark Wright, Seth (Soku) Yi
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at you leisure.
Blessings in Christ,Rev. Benjamin Glaser Pastor, Stated Clerk of Catawba PresbyteryJohn Barron, Moderator of Catawba Presbytery
Furthermore, Mr. Glaser mailed the following letter to the sessions of Veritas Presbytery congregations.
Good Morning,
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the pure hope of His gospel grace we greet you in the beauty of His love. Catawba Presbytery in its dedication to serve our common Savior welcomes you to the fellowship which has only been broadened in blessing to now encapsulate all of the State of South Carolina. As we seek to find ways to grow in mutual beneficence I wanted to send this letter as a word of welcome and provide you with contact information if you have need or have any particular questions when it comes to our new bond.
As part of this witness it is our duty to inform you that it is the position of Catawba Presbytery that your pulpit is considered vacant due to the failure of your pastor to follow the proper transfer procedures as provided for in submission to our Form of Government (FOG 9.62A-B, 10.3A, 10.3S). Because he has failed to maintain his ministerial credentials in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church or a recognized denomination it is our understanding that he is now not an ordained minister and therefore unable to fulfill the requirements of his duties, including overseeing the sacraments. While we understand that your congregation voted to join another group, and while we have no desire to hold anyone captive, we must strive to follow the spirit of 1 Corinthians 14:40 and do all things decently and in order in the keeping of the vows we took as officers in Christ’s Church.
We look forward to working with you in order to name an interim moderator and be of help in this time of transition.
Blessings in Christ,Rev. Benjamin Glaser, Stated Clerk of Catawba PresbyteryJohn Barron, Moderator of Catawba Presbytery
Despite the proper steps that these congregations and ministers have taken in accordance with the will of Second Presbytery (at the time of action) and the ARP FoG, the Stated Clerk and Moderator of Catawba Presbytery are refusing to accept these actions and allow these congregations to live in peace. These officers are using their office to “hold captive” these congregations who were dismissed from Second Presbytery and the ARP Church. What sort of brotherly love and charity is this overreach of presumed authority? To what lengths will these men go to keep harassing these Veritas congregations? Are these men acting any differently than the PCUSA, UMC, or the Episcopal Church in trying to rule over these congregations? How is this advancing the work of Christ’s Church?
Veritas Presbytery along with her member congregations are moving forward. They desire nothing more than to focus their time, energy, and resources to advance the Kingdom of Christ. Those who are interested in learning more about Veritas Presbytery can visit https://veritaspresbytery.com or email [email protected] to communicate with our moderator.
Seth Yi is a Minister in Veritas Presbytery and is Paster of Newberry Reformed Presbyterian Church in Newberry, SC.
Related Posts:

Job has lost everything. He is devastated and grief-stricken beyond words. He has gone from being the greatest man of the east to living on the town dunghill, scratching his skin with pieces of pottery to ease his itchy pain. But despite all of this, nothing can separate him from the love of God, certainly not the scheming of Satan. Despite every appearance to the contrary, Job is more than a conqueror. And so are we, if our trust is in Jesus Christ. For nothing can separate from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Not sickness. Not loss. Not death. God has not promised that we will not suffer. But be has promised that he will turn all evil to good. And this is what we learn from the sufferings of Job, who points us to the suffering and dying of our Savior, that one whose suffering redeems us from our sin, that Savior who knows what human suffering is like, and who promises to restore us and vindicate us in the end.

Everyone reading this essay has suffered loss. We have all lost something we prize. Some of us have suffered greatly and must live in constant pain, either physical or emotional, and sometimes both. Yet, no one reading this has lost as much as Job. Like a series of Tsunamis, the bad news of Satan’s handiwork begins to come, wave after wave after wave.
As we continue our look at Job, the suffering prophet, we come to verse 13 of chapter one, where we read “one day [probably that day when Job offered burnt offerings] when Job’s sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother’s house, a messenger came to Job and said, `The oxen were plowing and the donkeys were grazing nearby, and the Sabeans attacked and carried them off. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!” The Sabeans are Arab Bedouins, who not only took all of Job’s livestock, they killed all of the servants. But this is only the beginning.
According to verse 16, the earth itself seemed to turn against Job. “While he [the first messenger] was still speaking, another messenger came and said, `The fire of God [probably a reference to a lightening storm] fell from the sky and burned up the sheep and the servants, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!” A devastating blow. Yet another wave of bad news was still to hit. “While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, `The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and carried them off. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!’”
But Job’s loss is still not over. Another, even more painful blow was soon to fall. “While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, `Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother’s house, when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”
In but the span of a few moments, Job learns that all his wealth has been destroyed and stolen. The joy of his life–his seven sons and three daughters–had been taken from him. Only the messengers have been spared so as to bring Job the news that the accumulated fruit of a lifetime of work is now gone. Marauding enemies and the forces of nature appeared to conspire to bring Job to his knees.
The way in which this horrible loss occurred not only conceals the hand of God, but also the hand of Satan. Remember, Job does not know of the heavenly scene, nor the divine permission given to Satan to afflict him. If Job were an atheist, he would have had an explanation for what has just happened. The world is a cruel place, red in tooth and claw. If Job were a polytheist, a dualist, a materialist, or a fatalist, he would have had a ready explanation for his loss–human weakness, the forces of nature, or the eternal struggle between good (spirit) and evil (things material).[1]
But Job believes in the living God, who is sovereign over the forces of nature as well as the enemies to the east. Job knows that his God is supremely good. Therefore, Job knows that these things have befallen him only because the good and almighty God has either brought these things to pass, or else has permitted these things to occur. And this brings us to the mystery of the suffering of the righteous.
Job Praises God Despite All that Has Happened
The knowledge that God is both good and sovereign serves as the basis for Job’s reaction to this horrible news, as recounted in verses 20-21. “At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head,” a common gesture of grief. Overcome with shock at the realization of his loss, Job “fell to the ground in worship and said: `Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.’” Even as the reader’s heart aches for Job, this grief-stricken man still utters words of faith. As one writer puts it, Job knows “that a man may stand before God stripped of everything, and still lack nothing.”[2] Surely, the sentiment expressed in Psalm 73:25 comes to Job’s mind, “Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you.” And yet Job’s faith does not relieve his suffering, it only makes it worse.[3]
The God whom Job loves has brought this to pass. Job has done nothing to deserve what has happened. And still, Job praises God. As we read in verse 22, “In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.” Job knows there is a reason for this situation, even if he must wait to discover it. From his now-broken heart, Job pours forth a doxology of praise at news of the loss of everything.
Yet, Job’s ordeal is far from over. Things are only going to get worse as yet another heavenly scene is revealed.
The Second Heavenly Scene
Satan is once again summoned before the heavenly court but this time is strangely silent about the results of Job’s first ordeal. It is the Lord who calls Satan’s attention to what has happened to Job. As we read in 2:1-3, “On another day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him. And the LORD said to Satan, `Where have you come from?’ Satan answered the LORD, `From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.’ Then the LORD said to Satan, `Have you considered my servant Job?
Read More

The kingdom of God will not be advanced by the sword. Peter wanted to pick up the sword in the Garden of Gethsemane. “We’re not going to build the kingdom that way,” said Jesus. You cannot point me to a single verse in the New Testament—there is not the slightest whiff in the New Testament—that we advance the kingdom of God by the sword. Isaac Backus again: “Our glorious Head [Jesus] made no use of secular force in the first setting up of the gospel church.” Jesus and the apostles didn’t need the sword to set up churches, which are the pathway to true righteousness and justice and love of neighbor.  Do we? 

My ostensible purpose for standing here is to present a defense for religious liberty. I’ve been invited as the Baptist after all. And if you’ve never attended a Baptist church, you should know that religious liberty is really the only thing we try to teach our kids in their Sunday school classes. Presbyterians teach their kids about the Bible’s glorious covenants. Lutherans teach their kids about the law and the gospel. Methodists are talking about sanctification and piety. Baptists, well, we got religious liberty.
Of course, a growing number of Christians wonder if religious liberty is really the best doctrine to be teaching in this morally chaotic and, frankly, neo-pagan age. In fact, couldn’t it be that this Baptist emphasis really is just classical liberalism talking, because we’ve been co-opted, and that it’s led to the rampant individualism and anti-authority-ism, that’s participated in creating our present moral chaos? Honestly, those are good questions to ask. I think in some cases, I assume the answers are “yes.”
For our purposes here, I don’t want to merely think through the matter as a theologian or theoretician. Instead, I want to place the conversation inside a pastoral framework. Meaning, let’s think about real people, at this moment in history, and put our theology into the service of that.
Recently, I had breakfast with a friend whose 18-year-old nephew—let me call him “Sam”—committed suicide a few months back. Sam, who struggled with mental health issues, lost his way. Yet my friend also talked about the larger world of TikTok, and deconstruction, and questions about gender, and a whole culture telling Sam he was free to be whoever he wanted to be. Sam lacked the structures, the moorings, the fixed points of moral evaluation, to answer the question, “Who am I?” He couldn’t get a grip. So he took his life.
It should make you angry—angry at all those cultural forces which have set themselves to destroying the good, the true, the beautiful, undermining and destroying 18-year-olds like Sam. Others, you know, turn to drugs, or shopping, or body cult, or a hundred other distractions. There’s nothing to live for.
My friend’s story hit home because my nephew is 19 and is trying to find his way. His sister is 17. My three older daughters are 16, 15, and 13. All of them have grown up with weekly church attendance, family worship, parental discipleship. But they’re facing the same world as Sam.
What do my daughters, and my niece and nephew, as they leave homes which have been shaped by the truths of Christianity, need? Most of all, they need Jesus. Both for the sake of this life and the next, they need Jesus. And so my wife and I pray and pray and pray, and then we’ll wait.
But let me refine the question: what do these teenagers need and not need from societies larger structures, like church and state, so that they might know Jesus? I’m setting the conversation up this way, because I think it puts us in the right framework. Christians should approach every action, structure, and decision in life asking the question, how will this help me and my fellow Christians, and the world, better know Jesus? It should be our driving question in everything. Sam’s story, tragically, is over. But there are millions more Sams launching into the world. So what do my niece and nephew and my teenage daughters need and not need? Seven things.
1. They don’t need to be treated like children any longer, but like adults, and a state which seeks to implement the first table of the law treats them like children.
The Magisterial Reformers may have believed the magistrate’s jurisdiction “extends to both tables of the law” and to protecting true worship because “no polity can be successfully established unless piety be its first care.” So argued John Calvin by appealing to the Davidic kings. And in one sense he’s right. People will not truly love their neighbors and refrain from murder, stealing, lying, and sexual deviancy if they don’t first love God. The second table depends on the first. Love of neighbor depends on love of God.
Therefore—the Magisterial Reformers reasoned—we should criminalize violations of the first table.
It’s that “therefore” that I disagree with. There’s a difference between recognizing moral truths and realities and granting the state the authority to enforce them. A moral “is” does not equate to a governmental “ought.” So it’s true that laws against murder and stealing will only be fully obeyed among a people who worship no other gods—see heaven. Yet that doesn’t mean the nations of the world outside of ancient Israel, whether today or in the days of the Old Testament, have been authorized to wield the sword against first table infractions.
Furthermore, how well did the Mosaic Covenant’s call to enforce the first table work for Israel? Did it, as Calvin says, establish piety as Israel’s first care? Don’t the lessons of Israel’s failure and exile teach the exact opposite? Isn’t the takeaway lesson that human beings can have God’s own law written on stone, God’s hand selected kings and priests, God’s own presence in the temple, and yet they still worship other gods and sacrifice their children to idols? If laws against blasphemy didn’t work for them, why do we think it will work for us? If the answer is, “Well, we have Holy Spirit-indwelled churches now,” then, yes, we do. But we don’t have a Holy-Spirit-indwelled nation. So why, again, would we expect first table enforcement to work any differently for our nation than for the Israelite nation?
For as much as our doctrine of total depravity depends on Reformed theologians like Calvin, a Reformed Baptist like me would suggest he failed to apply that doctrine adequately to his political theology. The divinely-intended political theological lesson of Israel’s failure is that our hearts are so corrupt that the sword can do nothing—absolutely nothing—to change them, which is why Jesus refused Peter’s grab at a sword in the Garden of Gethsemane. Nothing other than the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit will yield obedience to the First Table of the law, so look for such obedience in your churches. Patrol those borders for First Table adherence. The church now possesses this priestly job, not the nation. To seek to enforce the First Table should necessarily lead to the death penalty and exile, because “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God” (Rom. 3:11). Indeed, that’s why God exiled Israel.
Second Table enforcement, however, is different. By God’s common grace, non-Christians really can be expected and made to keep aspects of it. We really can enforce laws against murder and stealing. Idolatry? Good luck. That’s one lesson of ancient Israel.
Not only that, it’s true I require my children to attend church and endure family worship at home. But I’ve never criminalized or punished violations of the first table in my home. Can you imagine punishing your children for—all by itself— not loving God?
The question I’d ask of the First Table-Enforcers today is, do they think that launching my children and theirs into a society that punishes First Table infractions, if only by making them second-class citizens, really helps them to know Jesus? Do they assume our children will respond well to that?
Suppose I had a rebellious child. Suppose she evidenced this rebellious nature from a young age, and it continues through her teenage years. What exactly do the First-Table enforcers think governmental laws will do that my home laws, combined as they are with love and personal knowledge and affirmation and affection, will accomplish?
Magisterial Protestantism, and various forms of theonomy, and a certain variety of Christian nationalism, sometimes draw an analogy to the “Christian family.” They argue that, in the same way a so-called Christian parents establish structures, rules, and practices that are conducive to Christian belief, so can the state. Yet in so doing, they treat adults as children. They infantilize them.
My point here is not, “That’s insulting. How dare you treat people like children!” The point is, adults aren’t children. They’re not wired like children, particularly children living in the homes of Christian parents. Recall how Jesus said we need the faith of a child? Therefore, we launch them from the home. We remove the strictures we placed on them. For one, we stop requiring them to attend church with us. In general, we should not expect such structures-conducive-to-belief, whatever those are, to work for adults like they do for children. It’s strange to me, therefore, that the First-Table enforcers want to extend the parental hand out of the home, down the street, and into all of life for the child that the parent has let go of.
And that brings me to a second point.
2. Our sons and daughters, launching into the world, don’t need false gods and false Christianities established in the public square.
For every time you manage to get hold of the sword to prosecute your religion or your sect, seven other times someone else will get a hold of it to prosecute theirs against yours. Isaac Backus commented, “the same sword that Constantine drew against the heretics, Julian turned against the orthodox.”
One question those who call for the legal implementation of first table matters never answer is, how can you guarantee it’s your God or your version of Christianity, and not, say, Joe Biden’s Christianity, which is being established? And here’s where the whole comparison to the so-called  “Christian family” breaks down. What’s the starting point for what people call a “Christian family”? Christian parents. Great. Christian parents should implement Christian structures and expectations. Yet then folks make the quick analogy. “The government should do what Christian parents do.” Okay, but with Christian parents, you are, by definition, starting with the most important thing: Christians. With a government, you’re not. So how can you guarantee it? Because the whole theory of government propounded by First-Table establishers depends on it.
Not only that, the Bible assigns parents with the broadest authority of any authority on earth. It’s effectively totalitarian, extending from learning to wipe your bottom to instructions on worship. Are you sure that you want to draw that analogy, and hand such a broad, totalitarian authority to the government? In Russia, you’ll get a Roman Orthodox church. You want that? In Italy, a Roman Catholic one. Do you want that? And never mind what you’ll get in the nations governed by other religions.
No, I don’t want any of these things for my daughters in order for them to know Jesus, nor do I want the government treating them with the same authority as my own.
3. They need the freedom to make their own decisions about who God is and whether or not they will follow him.
Friends, get into your heads any non-Christian you know. Can you really imagine trying to induce them toward Christianity with any type of threat? Any type of penalty? Any type of tax? Any type of second class citizenship? Can you imagine saying to that non-Christian you’re thinking of, “We’re going to fine you for not loving Jesus like we think you should?” Do you think that will work?
If so, I question your understanding of psychology, not to mention the Holy Spirit, the new birth, and conversion. Again, do you do that even with your kids now? Is it law that Paul says will bring us to repentance? Or the kindness and the grace of God (see Rom. 2:4)?
The kingdom of God will not be advanced by the sword. Peter wanted to pick up the sword in the Garden of Gethsemane. “We’re not going to build the kingdom that way,” said Jesus. You cannot point me to a single verse in the New Testament—there is not the slightest whiff in the New Testament—that we advance the kingdom of God by the sword. Isaac Backus again: “Our glorious Head [Jesus] made no use of secular force in the first setting up of the gospel church.” Jesus and the apostles didn’t need the sword to set up churches, which are the pathway to true righteousness and justice and love of neighbor.  Do we?
To put this third point another way: enforcing the First Table operates by kingdom of man logic (triumph through power) rather than kingdom of God logic (triumph through weakness). What do our teenagers and non-Christian friends, what does the church itself, need to learn about Jesus? That with his first-coming, he foregrounded his work of priestly weakness and sacrifice. He does not foreground his work of kingly triumph until his second coming. That’s one of the things that changed from the old covenant to the new. Isaiah teaches that the Davidic King, who established the kingdom of Israel in strength, would turn out to be the suffering servant, who established the kingdom of God in weakness. And yet now, folk think we’re to do it like Israel did it? Did we miss how Christ said he would build his kingdom?
Read More
Related Posts: