220th ARP General Synod

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Wanted to share a brief write up on our Synod meeting last week.

Hard Goodbyes and New Beginnings

A Report On the 220th General Synod of the ARP Church

benjaminglaser.substack.com

Blessings!

 

[MW]

"Presbyterianism is the Scripturally commanded form of government, and when it is used as a parlor game to abuse trust it is as ugly as anything man ever made. Yet, when followed is the best way to help."

That is one way of putting it, and right on the mark. Thankyou, Rev. Glaser, for a lively report.

 

[Edward]

Now I'm going to have to spend a chunk of my Saturday morning googling for the 'story behind the story'.

Edit - found a rant that gives one side of the story, but which probably requires background knowledge to parse properly. At least it identifies the Presbytery involved.

 

[CGS]

Now I'm going to have to spend a chunk of my Saturday morning googling for the 'story behind the story'.

Edit - found a rant that gives one side of the story, but which probably requires background knowledge to parse properly. At least it identifies the Presbytery involved.

Was that rant found on arptalk.org? If so, then just be aware that is the blog of the man that Rev. Glaser refers to as the "individual who did not have the church of Christ in his heart" in his synod article.

 

[Ploutos]

I didn't know there was a such thing as "dissolving a presbytery"!

 

[Edward]

Was that rant found on arptalk.org? If so, then just be aware that is the blog of the man that Rev. Glaser refers to as the "individual who did not have the church of Christ in his heart" in his synod article.

When there's only one voice speaking, it's likely to get heard.

I will note that every time I've seen major controversy in the ARP show up here, there's been some involvement of the Erskine Board.

 

[Edward]

I didn't know there was a such thing as "dissolving a presbytery"!

The PCA has dissolved several over the years. There was that mess with Louisiana Presbytery some years ago. (1992). That's probably the closest analogy.

Mid America is another dissolved Presbytery. Most of the rest of the former presbyteries were split or merged (and mid America was technically a merger, I suppose.)

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I'll just leave it at the gentleman who is the author of the blog is the center of the controversy and is the man who stands accused of the crimes that began the most recent conflagration in that presbytery.

 

[Gideon Steen]

I appreciate this summary of the 220th General Synod.

As a member and deacon in an ARP church from the presbytery that will be dissolved, I have to say that from watching the proceedings online, I was troubled by many things that I observed during the debate on whether or not to dissolve.

For one, I found the acting parliamentarian’s words and temperament unhelpful at the beginning of the debate. I have never seen a parliamentarian act in such a way. In my view, the moderator was also to be blamed for not properly maintaining an orderly debate. I was troubled that a member of the special committee was allowed to give an impassioned 30 minute speech but those of Second Presbytery were only allowed 5 minutes. Does Robert’s Rules not say it’s supposed to be 10 minutes? It also seemed that members of the committee constantly interjected when statements were made against something in the report.

I read the report and was troubled that accusations of sin and wrongdoing were made, but surprisingly the advice of Proverbs 18:13, 17 was not followed and no opportunity was afforded for a response from the presbytery. There was no grace shown and no opportunity for correction within the presbytery. There was no pastoral approach to this matter and that really scares me.

One part that I found particularly ironic and disturbing was when the principal clerk vehemently protested a statement that supposedly besmirched his name on the floor of Synod. Had he not been part of a committee that produced a report making serious allegations and besmirching the names of several ministers and elders? Was he not in favor of swiftly acting without the response from those who had been accused of wrongdoing?

I have also seen evidence that shows many of the assertions of the special committee were slanted, mistaken, and incorrect. By this, I am not referring to anything mentioned in the blog post from arptalk.org. This evidence was provided by my pastor, who is named on numerous occasions in the report by this special committee.

We have “kicked the can down the road” on many complex and controversial issues in our General Synod (including the local option of female deacons), but on this issue we were willing to act swiftly to dissolve a presbytery in no less than three months! I feel that the actions taken were entirely too hasty.

 

[Ploutos]

What do you think would have been a preferable course of action?

 

[Gideon Steen]

What do you think would have been a preferable course of action?

I think the presbytery should have had an opportunity to respond and the matter brought back at the next synod. As I said, there is evidence that the special committee erred in many of their findings. Giving someone 5 minutes is not sufficient to respond to a 9 page report and a 30 minute speech on the report.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I'm not going to get in a back forth about the content of the report, as the report is just that, a report of findings that state factual activities.

However, we did talk about the report for close to nine hours, and there were plenty of speeches that spoke against the dissolution, so plenty of time was given to both sides. It is historically common for a special committee or commission in the ARP to be given twenty minutes to present the report to the Synod. The individual is chosen by the committee or commission to make a presentation, which is what was done last week.

During the investigation, as is made clear in the report, there were plenty of opportunities given to meet with the commission about the matters contained therein, but those opportunities were not used as well as they maybe could have been.

Both the moderator and the vice-moderator oversaw the deliberations on Index 11.

One can get a sense from here:

Floor discussion about index 11 (starts at about minute 52):

- Index 11 pdf: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A7QaqsGHqbtpJtwOhYXtTc3I6jhsQ4OE/view

 

[Deleted member 6112]

@Backwoods Presbyterian - Thank you for your summary. For clarification, as far as the ministers of 2nd Presbytery and the congregations within its bounds, are they automatically transferred to the respective presbyteries that they are now within the bounds of, or do they have to make application to those respective presbyteries? Are they out of the denomination if they don't apply?

Thanks!

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The churches are automatically in the bounds declared by the Synod. The ministers will need to meet with their respective new presbyteries for transfer, however even in this case it is not a "full exam", but an ask to if their views had changed, or if they take an exception to the confession.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

The churches are automatically in the bounds declared by the Synod. The ministers will need to meet with their respective new presbyteries for transfer, however even in this case it is not a "full exam", but an ask to if their views had changed, or if they take an exception to the confession.

Thanks for this. So, if a minister doesn't meet with the new presbytery, is he effectively dismissed without censure?

100% hypothetical question. Just a disinterested party trying to understand how this works from a polity stand point. I remember when in the early days of the ARP, they had to dismiss or dissolve a presbytery (or maybe a synod?) over hymn singing and occasional communion, and they just ceased to be a part of the denomination. This seems to be a different sort of action.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Effectively, yes, he'd be dismissed without censure, but would have no "holding" presbytery.

 

[iainduguid]

Effectively, yes, he'd be dismissed without censure, but would have no "holding" presbytery.

Interesting; that raises some theo-nerd questions. When a local church is dissolved, the members automatically are under the oversight of the presbytery, to ensure some kind of continuity of pastoral care; do ministers not automatically come under the oversight of Synod? Otherwise, suppose one wishes to be released from his call and take a call in another denomination? Does he have to join another ARP presbytery simply in order to be released from it? Or do his credentials reside with the (now defunct) presbytery until they are reassigned? Who writes the letter affirming that he is a minister in good standing?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

It's a good question. What I've been told is that if a minister refuses to transfer before the September 1st date that basically their new presbytery would hold their credentials in absentia (not sure a better term for that) until they came into another body or transferred into their local presbytery, unless there is something more going on in that situation which could be seen as worthy of Synod involvement.

Of course since the ARP Synod is an appellate court the Synod itself cannot act in that case. Would be a unique question on the best way to deal with it.

 

[Edward]

Does the ARP anticipate some congregations departing for other denominations as a result of this?

 

[Ploutos]

Between the ARP having moderators for each presbytery and it being a Synod rather than a General Assembly, I have a feeling there are some noteworthy differences in ARP polity as opposed to PCA/EPC/OPC polity. Or perhaps I am deluded in thinking I know anything at all about the polity of those other denominations with which I imagine myself to have some first-hand familiarity!