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:

Was it really because Christians are misogynists? Was it really because men don’t care about the happiness and health of their wives? Was it really because Evangelicals hated black people? Or is it because they—like the rest of the world—are staring into a genderless, plastic abyss wherein women and men are not who God says they are, whereby they must, the cultural law says they must, enact their desires or they will not be whole and healthy?

I made some dear (IRL) friends upset yesterday who have been helped by Gregoire’s previous book. The day was also one of unrelenting frustration whereby I spent the whole of it in the car driving people around instead of doing what I planned. I was not able to respond to anything, nor even beat back my own sink full of dishes, nor walk the dog, nor keep up online. I did manage to read a second chapter of Gregoire’s new book but I’d like to do two chapters in one post, so I’m going to pick that up tomorrow. Instead, I want to try to put words to something that I think is swirling around in the cultural air. This will be hard because I prefer to have a tweet or an article to bounce off of, but, it’s International Women’s Day—so let’s celebrate with a listicle.
One. An alluring and powerful narrative has formed about the plight of women and the reasons things are so bad today. It goes something like this: Christians have irreparably damaged their witness, the Christian faith, and the lives of women by their unacceptable view of marriage and sex; and Christians have damaged the Christian faith by their view of the Bible.
Where did this narrative come from? How did it form? It has two or three sources. The first source, I think, is the culture itself which, in a short time, radically shifted from one view of what it means to be human, to another. It took a whole century for the new view to become entrenched, but I really think contraception was the millstone that sunk a “biblical view of the family” under the sea for most people. Even if they had some idea with their heads about human relationships, what they knew with their bodies radically contradicted that view. In a world where women can control if and when they have children, the biological reality of being a woman is not meaningful or substantive enough to undergird and support a society.
The second source of this narrative was the Christian reaction to this change. Christians reacted strongly, as they should have. But, in many cases, wildly and with a hint of hysteria. As the western world shifted from a positive to a neutral to a negative view of Christianity, it is not surprising that those people who refused to shift away from “traditional” and biblical norms became the bad ones. Moreover, as the defacto conscience of the whole, they are discovering that they ought to be quiet, but that they may not go away. In family systems theory, the “biblical view of the family” is the trap that holds all the toxic fumes of the larger system. The western family needs Christianity as its scapegoat. It needs Christians to occasionally react in sorrow and outrage. But secular culture cannot absolutely get rid of Christianity or it will have to face who it is, and that’s not pretty, so of course it won’t do that.
In the usual way of these sorts of cultural shifts, the outside assault on the “biblical view of the family” was helped by the inside repudiation of it. Many “Christians” now unreservedly accept a secular view of what it means to be a self. Assumptions about the needs and requirements of this new kind of humanity, though largely, I would say (after reading just two chapters of Gregoire) unexamined, drive the internal “culture war” that Christians are enduring. Health—both physical and emotional—are at the center of these assumptions.
It is hard for me to overstate how deeply I feel this shift myself. That is because I came in and out of American culture at key moments and was able to observe how it was changing. Christians through time and space have not had this new assumption of “health” at the heart of their faith. And not just Christians either. Most cultures around the world continue not to pursue this idea of “health.”
Read More

Related Posts:

A heart of thanksgiving is always looking for ways to help others, as well as understanding in humility the temporality of the world. Selfishness is the opposite of Christian character. Arrogantly assuming the earth was made for your pleasure and that you have a right to all regardless of who or what gets in the way is sign number one that you are breaking the 8th Commandment.

I don’t mean to take away from your time doing other things (an 8th Commandment joke), but this week we are going talk about the sin of theft. While financial resources are no question the main focus of the law there is a lot more going on here than just that. Let’s look at the Catechism questions for further clarification:
Q. 73. Which is the eighth commandment?
A. The eighth commandment is, Thou shalt not steal.
Q. 74. What is required in the eighth commandment?
A. The eighth commandment requires the lawful pro­curing and furthering the wealth and outward estate of our­selves and others.
Q. 75. What is forbidden in the eighth commandment?
A. The eighth commandment forbids whatsoever doth or may unjustly hinder our own or our neighbor’s wealth or outward estate.
As noted wealth is of course an important thing when it comes to being obedient on this point. However, that which constitutes wealth encompasses matters like land, material goods, and even family heritage. As an example, taking care that the Gospel which we have received from our forefathers is properly preached and taught is a matter of the 8th Commandment. We have no right to steal from future generations the words of life, in fact in the Old Testament the prophets will call out false teachers in this particular way, of taking from the people under their care what Jehovah had provided in His word. Central to this statute is remembering our relationship to reality as it is, and who it is that has made all things for His glory. As stewards of God’s creation we are neither to make new nor go on our own way.
The call of the Israelites to procure the country then owned by the Canaanites is placed in terms of gaining property which belongs to the LORD. In other words they are reclaiming something God had set aside for His covenant people through the promises made to Abraham. In Leviticus 25 as the year of Jubilee is laid out one of the consequences of the law was to see any land which had been sold should be returned to the family it was originally owned by. The reasoning behind this kind of idea is made clear in v.23-24, “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the country you possess, you shall allow a redemption of the land.” When we read that the whole concept is quite foreign to us. Especially since several folks in our church live on grants given to their forefathers by the last king of America, George III. However, unlike the English sovereign whose ownership was temporary, the proprietorship of the land of God never changes.
Read More
Related Posts: