I do not believe that the current situation in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church should be characterized as an ongoing constitutional crisis. My belief is based on my reading of our ARP Standards, which are, of course, subordinate to the Holy Scriptures. Since reading is the art of noticing details and understanding them in context, all good biblical exegetes resist the temptation to extrapolate endlessly from one or two clauses.

A seminary classmate recently linked me Rev. Seth Yi’s article entitled The ARP Tightens its Grip on Congregations and Ministers. Although my friend now serves as a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) Teaching Elder, he interned with an Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) congregation, and he wanted to know my thoughts as an ARP Minister regarding the Second Presbytery controversy.
I was surprised by Rev. Yi’s allegations that our denomination is experiencing an “ongoing crisis” and his construal of the ARP Form of Government (FOG). Incongruously, he seems to believe that Synod did not have the authority to dissolve Second Presbytery but that presbyteries are empowered to grant carte-blanche advance approval for congregations to withdraw and ministers to transfer.
I told my PCA friend that in his several articles, Rev. Yi has apparently misread our governing documents, leading to incorrect assessments of how ARP courts operate. In particular, I noted the following actions:

The Appointment of the Special Committee

Rev. Yi claims the Special Committee to Investigate Second Presbytery’s Handling of Allegations Against Chuck Wilson was “unquestionably unconstitutional” because members were not appointed by the Synod Moderator. This view misconstrues the language of the Form of Government (FOG) 13.13.B.(2): “The moderator, chairman or nominating committee shall appoint [a special committee’s] members whenever authorized by the court or board” (emphasis mine). This is not an absolute requirement that the moderator must populate all special committees because the conditional phrase “whenever authorized by the court” clarifies that the moderator may only appoint special-committee members upon authorization. Robert’s Rules helpfully explains that authorization may be given either by motion from the floor or by standing rule, and Synod’s Manual of Authorities and Duties (MAD) contains no standing authorization regarding special committees. Since there was no special authorization by motion from the floor, it was in good Presbyterian order for the Synod itself to populate the committee by approving the members specified in the main motion.

Synod’s Consideration of the Special Committee Report

Rev. Yi also believes Synod violated the ARP constitution when it took up the Report of the Special Committee (Index 11). He is, of course, entitled to hold his opinion in good conscience, but the opinions of individual members do not determine order in a Presbyterian court. In fact, FOG 12.25.C. says that the General Synod has responsibility to hear appeals to “make final decisions in all controversies respecting doctrine, order, and discipline,” so, effectively, any controversy over whether Index 11 was in order according to the Form of Government was settled by the fact that General Synod voted to hear the report and enact its recommendations.
Both Rev. Tanner Cline and Rev. Yi asked the chair to declare the entirety of the report out of order due to the committee’s composition, the scope of its work, and the submission of its report. Technically, these appeals are likely themselves out of order because the speakers were actually objecting to the considerations of motions, not merely raising points of order. Even had the appropriate motion been raised, though, Index 11 and its recommendations would still have been taken up because Synod’s MAD requires a two-thirds majority to carry an objection to consideration. As it was, a clear majority voted to sustain Moderator Alan Broyles’ ruling that the report was in order, and this resolution of parliamentary questions by the assembly’s judgement was also good Presbyterian procedure.

The Authority of General Synod to Dissolve a Presbytery

Most importantly, Rev. Yi argues that the General Synod had no right to enact the dissolution of Second Presbytery on the basis of his reading of 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” (emphasis mine). While I feel the force of his argument—and the language here is undoubtedly confusing—it seems to me that crucial wording has again been overlooked.
First, this section of the FOG speaks most clearly of “the actions of the Presbyteries.” That is, while it clearly prevents the General Synod dictating any presbytery vote to dissolve itself, it arguably does not limit the actions of Synod itself to that end. In fact, a close reading suggests the singular possessive pronoun “its” refers back to “the General Synod,” meaning that the essential processes of presbytery organization and dissolution belong to Synod itself with presbyteries also playing a secondary role in receiving congregations and ministers as a result. In this part of the process, the higher court may not simply dictate the outcome.
This reading seems most reasonable because it is difficult to understand how Synod could be excluded from the organization, reception, transfer, dismissal, or dissolution of entire presbyteries. FOG 10.1 declares that “the Presbytery is the essential court of the Presbyterian system in administering its general order, the higher courts being constituted simply by a wider application of the general principles of the Presbytery” (emphasis mine). By analogy then, if the Presbytery has power to “unite, divide, organize, dissolve, receive, dismiss, and transfer congregations” (FOG 10.3 E.), the higher court would be able to “organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve Presbyteries” (FOG 12.22). Certainly, the power to act directly upon other presbyteries is not conferred upon the presbyteries themselves anywhere in the Form of Government. One or more presbyteries may not simply vote to receive into the ARPC a breakaway presbytery from a different denomination. Neither may one presbytery sovereignly dismiss another ARP presbytery. This exact logic was on display during day three of the 2024 General Synod when the higher court voted to grant Canadian Presbytery’s petition for dismissal to form a coordinate Canadian ARP Synod.
Additionally, the Presbyterian principle of oversight and accountability through graded courts would seem to demand that Synod be able to dissolve one of her presbyteries if necessary. This principle seems to find expression in FOG 12.24 I., which gives the General Synod power to “oversee the affairs of the entire denomination, directing such measures as are necessary for the promotion of the peace, purity, and prosperity of all congregations under its care.” Ultimately, these are the concerns, I believe, that drove Synod to dissolve Second Presbytery and reallocate her congregations. Many men—myself included—arrived at Bonclarken prepared to vote these recommendations down but found themselves convinced by floor debate that the peace and purity of Christ’s Church required such an unprecedented step.

The Second Called Meeting of Second Presbytery on August 13

Sadly, in contrast to Synod’s disputed authority to dissolve Second Presbytery, actions taken by Second Presbytery itself on August 13, as reported by Rev. Yi, represent clear constitutional overreach.
First, Rev. Yi’s description of the August 13 proceedings describes a second meeting of Second Presbytery being called immediately following the close of a previous called meeting. This is presented as necessary because Moderator Billy Barron refused to allow an amendment to one item of business. I was not present at the meeting and so cannot say whether Rev. Barron ruled correctly, but I will note that Robert’s Rules permits amendments in regular order to a main motion specified in the notice of a special meeting. Whatever the case may be, there are proper remedies to violations of parliamentary law, and these remedies do not include demanding another meeting be called without giving sufficient notice. This unconstitutional action plainly violated FOG 10.12, which requires that “at least one week’s notice of called meetings shall be given to all members of the Presbytery specifying the time and place of the meeting and the particular business for which the meeting is called.”

Second Presbytery’s Authority to Release Her Congregations Before September 1

Likewise, the Form of Government speaks clearly to the process of how ARP congregations may withdraw from the denomination, and that process cannot be modified by any motion at the presbytery level. Second Presbytery again violated our constitution when they voted to “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.” This motion cited FOG 10.3.E and 10.3.K as justification for the action, but these sections cannot be read to empower a presbytery to grant dismissal in whatever manner it sees fit. FOG 10.3 only enumerates the presbytery’s authority and duties.
The actual process for congregational withdrawal is detailed in FOG 3.13, where any congregation that has voted for withdrawal is required to advise the presbytery “in writing at its next stated meeting.” At that meeting “the Presbytery shall appoint a commission to counsel, advise, and mediate with the local congregation…. If the commission decides that it is in the best interest to proceed with the withdrawal, they shall conduct a second election and certify the results thereof to the stated meeting of the Presbytery, one year after the meeting upon which the application for withdrawal was received.” In simple terms, the constitutionally mandated process for withdrawing from an ARP presbytery requires a minimum of two stated meetings and at least one year; it cannot be accomplished in twenty days, and one called meeting. The penalty for failing to comply with these prescribed procedures, according to FOG 3.13 G., is that the “congregation shall forfeit all its right, title, and interest in and to its property to the Presbytery within which it is located.”

Second Presbytery’s Authority to Preemptively Release Ministers to Transfer

In the same way, FOG 9.65 and 10.3.K. do not vest presbyteries with untrammeled authority to transfer ministers. As noted above, FOG 10.3 enumerates the duties and authorities of a presbytery in a general way, so the specifics of how ministers are actually transferred to another denomination are clarified by FOG 9.65. That particular section, however, simply states: “The procedure for transferring ministers to another denomination shall follow in substance the procedure for transfer to another Presbytery within the ARPC.” Therefore, Second Presbytery is bound to follow the process specified in FOG 9.62, the “Procedure for Transferring Ministers from Another Presbytery.” There, any transferring minister is required to initiate the process by “informing his Presbytery of his desire to be transferred, and securing a letter of standing which shall be presented to the receiving Presbytery prior to any examination and approval for reception.” This letter of standing in the dismissing presbytery “shall be issued only after the pastoral or other relationship has been dissolved” (FOG 9.62.C.).
In Presbyterian polity, a pastoral call is a covenant involving a congregation, a minister, and the presbytery which oversees both, and this covenantal relationship is sealed by oaths and vows solemnly sworn by all the parties before God. Accordingly, under the ARP FOG, there is no possibility of a minister transferring his own credentials into another ecclesiastical body while this pastoral covenant stands. Clearly, a single omnibus presbytery motion cannot obviate fundamental Presbyterian principles or constitutional requirements. A preemptive blanket “grant of transfer” does not constitute presbytery’s action to dissolve a call, without which no certificate of standing may be issued, and a valid letter of standing is prerequisite for any transfer to be in order, whether within the denomination or outside it.
Our polity also does not contemplate a minister transferring his credentials without the letter expressing presbytery permission for the simple reason that he has sworn vows to “submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Presbytery” (FOG 9.24.F.). Notably, that authority extends to the reception and dismissal of gospel ministers (FOG 10.3 K.), just as the lower court properly receives and transfers members of congregations (FOG 6.8.E.&F.). This such a serious matter that FOG 9.67 requires ministers who “accept work not under the jurisdiction of any ARPC court or agency” without permission from their presbytery to be either divested of office without censure or charged with violating ordination vows.
Summary
As stated above, I do not believe that the current situation in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church should be characterized as an ongoing constitutional crisis. My belief is based on my reading of our ARP Standards, which are, of course, subordinate to the Holy Scriptures. Since reading is the art of noticing details and understanding them in context, all good biblical exegetes resist the temptation to extrapolate endlessly from one or two clauses. The same basic hermeneutical principles apply to denominational standards, as well, and I am convinced that the full context of the ARPC Constitution fundamentally supports Synod’s authority to dissolve Second Presbytery. Unfortunately, for the same reasons I am equally convinced many of Second Presbytery’s recent actions are expressly prohibited by our Form of Government.
Following stated procedures when releasing ministers and congregations from their covenant obligations is not tyranny. On the contrary, it is right Presbyterian polity in good and decent order. Conversely, any theory which treats presbyteries as autonomous ecclesiastical bodies unbeholden to any higher court is actually a polity of Independency, simply one step removed from the local congregation.
I am praying all parties will work together to keep the covenants we have made as members of ARP courts and congregations during this sad and difficult time. All members of our congregations have solemnly promised God that they will submit to the government and discipline of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (FOG 4.5.A.). Likewise, all ARP elders have also vowed “to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Session and to the higher courts of the Church” (FOG 8.17.), with all ministers similarly promising “to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Presbytery in subordination to the General Synod“ (FOG 9.30.5.).
This holy submission isn’t merely a function of church polity. Instead, it is the true expression of the indwelling Spirit of Christ, who humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:8). If we are to truly be the Body of Christ, we must have his same mindset, doing nothing from rivalry or conceit, but instead humbly counting others more significant than ourselves as we look to their interests (Phil 2:3–4). After all, when brothers dwell together in peace and unity, it is very good and a pleasant thing to see! So whether we join to live as one in the same presbytery or whether our denominations are as far apart as Hermon is from Zion’s hill, we are all obligated to be full of affection and sympathy, being of the same mind, having the same love, and comforting one another in love (Phil 2:1–2). In this way, Christ’s Church will truly be peaceful, pure, and prosperous (FOG 4.5.A.; FOG 8.17.; FOG 9.30.5.).
Alex Lott is a Minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and is Pastor Starmount ARP in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Tuesday, February 6, 2024
At the founding, and for most of America’s history, the moral formation at America’s schools and universities included instruction in religion. George Washington warned, for example, in his Farewell Address that we must not “indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” Massachusetts’ Constitution speaks similarly: “The happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depends upon piety, religion, and morality.” John Adams’ comments on the necessity of religion for true virtue show that it was Christianity, not some nebulous sense of the divine, that must be promoted. Christians recognize, or should do so, that education independent of moral formation is not only impossible, it is undesirable.

Every day or so I encounter a conservative (sometimes even an exasperated moderate on the left) bemoaning the capture of America’s educational system by woke zealots; 2+2=5 and related nonsense. I bemoan the capture of this system too. Although my children are home-schooled I know how bad it is going to be when today’s publicly-schooled children grow up and land in positions of power and influence in government, business, and culture. We’ve got plenty of signs already for what that will mean. However, what I can’t do is join in the refrain of well-meaning conservatives: “Just teach the facts. Education, not indoctrination. Etc.” Such slogans are not only impossible; they are undesirable, even if attainable. They arise out of the same mentality that has left conservatives unable to respond adequately to transgenderism and other social maladies. Instead of addressing the root problem, they address a symptom. We get opposition to men in women’s sports and locker rooms, when the real problem is that transgenderism is a perverse rebellion against the created order that must be opposed in its totality. Likewise, timid conservatives think that the only way to remove harmful ideologies from the nation’s schools is to require schools to teach nothing but supposedly neutral facts, the basics of math, grammar, writing, and so on.
But education cannot avoid moral formation. That is the point of education. Schools exist (they should anyway) to form hearts and minds, to provide students with facts and the moral framework in which to understand those facts. “Education, not indoctrination,” if pressed to its logical conclusion, would produce mindless repositories of random facts, perhaps capable of performing tasks in the marketplace and making money, but little more.
No subject can be adequately taught in a moral vacuum. Consider history. Is the study of history simply the memorization of names, places, and dates? I suppose one could attempt to approach it in that way. In addition to being intensely boring, however, such a study would be utterly pointless. The reason we study history is to learn from the past, not in a superficial “history repeats itself” way in which we think we can predict the future based on historical parallels, but in the sense that we see in our study that people, despite many technological advances, tend to act in certain ways. We learn that certain kinds of situations tend to produce certain kinds of outcomes; “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom,” Benjamin Franklin warned; “As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” And so on (all quotations in this column are from Thomas West, The Political Theory of the American Founding, chapters 8-9). What about literature? Is literature of value only as a diversion and time-waster? Or is it not beneficial because it enables us to peer into the human soul in its manifold diversity? Can math facts, or physics facts, or grammar facts, be learned without considering the use to which those facts should be put?
With a little reflection I think most people can see that an amoral approach is not only impossible, it is undesirable. While I share the dismay of my fellow citizens as they watch leftist ideologies destroy America’s schools, what is needed is moral formation in what is good, true, and beautiful, rather than an attempt to reject moral formation completely. American conservatives would do well to return to the founders of our nation to see what they thought about education. Doing so would reveal how thoroughly out of step the “neutral” approach to education is with the founding spirit.
Read More
Related Posts:

We praise God for ordaining government and for providentially establishing the government of the United States as a constitutional republic. We further praise Him that the highest court in the judicial branch of our government properly exercised their authority in making a righteous ruling by overturning the wicked ruling of Roe v. Wade. While this does not mean that unborn babies will now be afforded equal protection under the law, it is a step in the right direction.

In the providence of God, the Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was handed down five days after I began an exposition of Romans 13:1-7. My first sermon on that passage (which came during an ongoing study of the whole letter) involved an overview of it, outlining the argument that Paul makes and the way that he makes it. I also explained the nature of authority and the jurisdictional realms in which God has delegated His authority in His world, namely the home, the church, and the state.
My sermon after that decision focused on verse 1, which states the thesis for the whole paragraph: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Because God has instituted civil governments, everyone is obligated to be submissive to them. The idea of government and governmental authorities comes from God. This is a fundamental truth that all Christians must remember as we work out our public, and especially our political, theology. We are submissive to governmental authorities because we are subject to Jesus Christ, who possesses “all authority” (Matthew 28:18).
We must remember this as we think about the Supreme Court’s recent decision (in Dobbs) to overturn the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States. Because God has even the heart of kings in His hands (Proverbs 21:1) we know that, ultimately, that decision is His work. Since it is a work that offers some legal protection to unborn children, everyone who loves mercy and justice should unashamedly rejoice. By its ruling the current justices determined that Roe v. Wade was an unjust decision—a mistake made by an earlier iteration of the court.
No one can legitimately doubt the accuracy of this ruling. In 1973 the right to abortion was invented out of thin air and attributed to the fourteenth amendment. But any honest reader will study in vain to find the right to kill unborn babies in that amendment. Certainly, those who adopted the amendment in 1868 had no thought of it being used to justify abortion.
So, praise God that on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed an unrighteous decision by overturning Roe v. Wade.
Read More
Related Posts: