This was exhausting and taxing synod emotionally, mentally, and physically. But I came out loving ARP more because, in the end, I saw how we were all brothers who knew how to laugh and have fun.
Thank you for your summary. As a member of a NAPARC church, I'm saddened to hear that an entire presbytery is leaving the ARP---I would assume that it's not leaving for another NAPARC denomination. You didn't get into detail in your summary, but where can folks go to find out what has happened (Synod Minutes, perhaps)?
Christian, thank you for both of these resources; they give me more of an informed glimpse into what sounds to have been a very complicated matter for quite some time.
What a heavy and sad situation.
May the sheep of Jesus be loved and shepherded well through this hard and very consequential decision made by Synod in seeking to best care for Christ's lambs.
Something I found odd and, to be honest, troubling was how the dissolution of the presbytery happened. From my understanding, the chain of events leading to this were: a committee was created at last synod to investigate a case, the committee came back with the recommendation to dissolve the presbytery, and by a simple majority vote the presbytery was dissolved. That doesn’t sound particularly Presbyterian to me and it seemingly goes against some of what you were saying in this article regarding the synod not giving “top down” commands. Might it make sense for something like this to go to the presbyteries to vote on? (Similar to the PCA’s method of constitutional changes)
Obviously, there is a good amount of negative history regarding Second Presbytery, but the proceedings were concerning. The quote from the parliamentarian was particularly shocking (“stinks to high…”).
I don't want to relitigate things here too much, but the chain of events goes back much further than that. Also the Committee was formed to investigate the handling of a case, not the case itself, which had already been resolved when the man at the center of the case apostatized and renounced the jurisdiction of the ARP. What the committee found was a pattern of behavior that showed a catastrophic failure to maintain the third mark of the church. The vote to dissolve was 254-43 which would have easily passed a 3/4 or 2/3 threshold. According to our Form of Government the authority to create, merge, dissolve presbyteries is granted to the Synod, which is in keeping with other NAPARC constitutions.
This was exhausting and taxing synod emotionally, mentally, and physically. But I came out loving ARP more because, in the end, I saw how we were all brothers who knew how to laugh and have fun.
Thank you for your summary. As a member of a NAPARC church, I'm saddened to hear that an entire presbytery is leaving the ARP---I would assume that it's not leaving for another NAPARC denomination. You didn't get into detail in your summary, but where can folks go to find out what has happened (Synod Minutes, perhaps)?
Hi Brandon,
A few helpful links regarding what happened:
- floor discussion about index 11 (starts at about minute 52): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPCYVJDi3yM&list=PLNIBbDq8LSBWb9ws-XGwjnzX3WHuQdav9&index=3
- index 11 pdf: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A7QaqsGHqbtpJtwOhYXtTc3I6jhsQ4OE/view
Ben may be able to provide other links to prior decisions regarding Second Presbytery.
Christian, thank you for both of these resources; they give me more of an informed glimpse into what sounds to have been a very complicated matter for quite some time.
What a heavy and sad situation.
May the sheep of Jesus be loved and shepherded well through this hard and very consequential decision made by Synod in seeking to best care for Christ's lambs.
Just for clarity the presbytery didn't leave, it was dissolved and its member churches were given to other presbyteries in the ARP.
Wow. I totally misread that; thank you for clarifying!
Thanks for this summary, it is very encouraging to read. Lord willing we can catch up at NAPARC in KC this November.
Looking forward it!
Something I found odd and, to be honest, troubling was how the dissolution of the presbytery happened. From my understanding, the chain of events leading to this were: a committee was created at last synod to investigate a case, the committee came back with the recommendation to dissolve the presbytery, and by a simple majority vote the presbytery was dissolved. That doesn’t sound particularly Presbyterian to me and it seemingly goes against some of what you were saying in this article regarding the synod not giving “top down” commands. Might it make sense for something like this to go to the presbyteries to vote on? (Similar to the PCA’s method of constitutional changes)
Obviously, there is a good amount of negative history regarding Second Presbytery, but the proceedings were concerning. The quote from the parliamentarian was particularly shocking (“stinks to high…”).
Good Morning,
I don't want to relitigate things here too much, but the chain of events goes back much further than that. Also the Committee was formed to investigate the handling of a case, not the case itself, which had already been resolved when the man at the center of the case apostatized and renounced the jurisdiction of the ARP. What the committee found was a pattern of behavior that showed a catastrophic failure to maintain the third mark of the church. The vote to dissolve was 254-43 which would have easily passed a 3/4 or 2/3 threshold. According to our Form of Government the authority to create, merge, dissolve presbyteries is granted to the Synod, which is in keeping with other NAPARC constitutions.