A Response to Rev. Alex Lott’s “Second Presbytery and the ARP Constitution”

In a recent article (Second Presbytery and the ARP Constitution: A Response to Reverend Seth Yi), Rev. Alex Lott responded to my articles (The ARP Church Tightens its Grip on Congregations and Ministers, Constitutional Crisis in the ARP Church: What is the Point of a Complaint?, How a 224-Year-Old ARP Presbytery was Dissolved in a Day) that have been posted on The Aquila Report. I appreciate Mr. Lott’s effort to dialogue with the substance of my articles, but we clearly do not agree on the particulars. We fundamentally disagree over how to read the Constitution. I advocate for a text-centered approach that carefully examines the words of the Constitution while Mr. Lott reads between and beyond the text of the Form of Government (FoG), a constitutional document of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Moreover, Mr. Lott and I disagree at points because he misses some of the clear facts about what happened in Second Presbytery. Minimally, this debate indicates that Synod was unwise in its hasty action to dissolve Second Presbytery. I will work through his points to bring clarity to the matter.

1.         The Appointment of the Special Committee

The unconstitutionality of the Special Committee that investigated Second Presbytery is not a misconstruing of the language of the FoG but a plain and direct reading of 13.13.B.(2) “Special Committees. A special committee shall be appointed whenever the work of the court or board requires it. The moderator, chairman or nominating committee shall appoint its members whenever authorized by the court or board.” The motion to appoint this special committee did not conform to the plain reading of the constitution. The motion’s last sentence that appointed the members of the special committee should have been ruled out of order. The former Moderator of Synod (2023-2024), Rob Patrick, said during the debate of the point of order, “I’ve heard it said that the special committee was appointed by the moderator. It was not appointed by the moderator. I was serving as moderator. What I wish to ask is...was the approval of the motion, by the Synod the moderator's appointment? Because I made no appointments.” Mr. Patrick’s response reflects his understanding of the clear language of the FoG. He as the moderator did not appoint the members of this special committee that Synod authorized.

Moreover, it is not necessary to appeal to Robert’s Rules or even Synod’s Manual of Authorities and Duties (MAD) when the FoG, clearly addresses a matter. The Constitution is the final authority, subject to the Scriptures, in any assembly. The clear reading of this section should not require the support of Robert’s Rules or the MAD. No one on the floor of Synod made the arguments that Mr. Lott makes in his article. The admission of this unconstitutional act was simply accepted by the Moderator. Consequently, the point of order was overruled by the Moderator and the acting Parliamentarian.

2.         Synod’s Consideration of the Special Committee Report

Both Rev. Tanner Cline and I made point of order speeches that cited the unconstitutional nature of the formation of the Special Committee (FoG.13.13.B.(2)) and its Report (FoG 13.12.D; 13.12.A.; Book of Discipline 4.2.). These points of order were not denied or opposed in debate but chided by the acting Parliamentarian as being mere “technicalities.” If there are some sections of the constitution that are mere technicalities and apparently do not need to be followed, why are these technicalities in the constitution? Who has the authority to determine when a technicality applies or not. The unconstitutional origin of the Special Committee and its Report should have been sufficient to rule the Report out of order.

Mr. Lott states that “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.” However, Index 11 was not an “appeal” to Synod per FoG 12.25.C. In fact, Second Presbytery was not given an opportunity to debate the merits of Index 11 before it was distributed to the Synod just two weeks before its start.

3.         The Authority of General Synod to Dissolve a Presbytery

As noted by Mr. Lott, this issue is the crux of the matter: Does General Synod have the authority to dissolve a Presbytery? FoG 12.22 clearly addresses this question. It 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 added) Rather than trying to respond to all of Mr. Lott’s arguments, I will apply basic hermeneutics to this section of the FoG. Furthermore, this section of the FoG should supersede all other sections since it most clearly relates to the matter at hand. Generally speaking, in hermeneutics, what is more clear should override what is less clear.

As I learned in Greek exegesis, the first observation that needs to be established in a sentence is the main verb. The main verb of FoG 12.22 is “shall advise.” Shall in our FoG is understood as required, a must. Next, the definition of shall means to give a recommendation or to advise. I’m sure other definitions can be added, but the plain understanding of this action is not the same as execute or perform. Moreover, the 2014 revision of the FoG revised the language of Synod’s authority over Presbyteries. The previous edition, XII.B.2.d. stated, “2. In order to carry out its responsibility, the General Synod has power: d. To organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve Presbyteries in keeping with the advancement of the Church.” (emphasis added) It does not take an English professor to recognize that there has been a clear change in Synod’s power over Presbyteries. The previous edition established Synod’s authority to act unilaterally to dissolve a Presbytery, but the current edition has limited Synod’s responsibility to an advisory role. The plain reading of this sentence is hard to avoid. “Shall advise Presbyteries in its processes” is not the same as the “power...to dissolve.”

Furthermore, the rest of the sentence clearly points to a limited role of Synod in its relation to the Presbytery. The phrase “but not the outcome” is tied to the advisory role of the Synod. A plain reading of this phrase would mean that Synod does not have the authority to determine the outcome, i.e., the dissolution. Furthermore, the phrase “of the actions of the Presbyteries” is added to clarify who is the actor and who is the advisor.

I appreciate Mr. Lott’s efforts to prove his point by using “the art of noticing details,” but if the language of FoG 12.22 is “undoubtedly confusing,” should there not have been a reasonable debate on the floor of Synod to resolve this apparent confusion before such an extreme action was taken? Instead, all such debate was undercut when the former Parliamentarian of Synod wrongly stated, “General Synod has the authority to organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve presbyteries. ... 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.” Whatever edition he was reading from, it was not the latest.

The current wording of the constitution should have been read and debated before the recommendation to dissolve was approved. The acting Parliamentarian, in accordance with his duties, should have read the current section of the FoG to inform the court in its deliberations. Even if the Synod would have come to the same conclusion, it was not provided accurate information. Rather it was given misinformation during a critical point in the debate.

4.         The Second Called Meeting of Second Presbytery on August 13

Mr. Lott is misinformed on this point. The second called meeting of Second Presbytery was in conformity to FoG 10.12. The Stated Clerk notified Second Presbytery of the second called meeting with the following email which I received on 8/6/24, 10:57 AM:

Dear Brothers of Second Presbytery,

On behalf of Moderator Barron, I am letting you know that, per FoG 10.12, a called meeting of Second Presbytery has been requested by Jonathan Cook, Peter Waid, and Mark Wright.

The purpose of the meeting is to: "Provide for open response and any actions related to the dissolution of Second Presbytery for congregations and ministers.”

This additional called meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 13, immediately following the adjournment of the meeting of Second Presbytery previously called by Moderator Barron.

Kind regards,

David

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

The FoG, as noted by Mr. Lott, does prescribe a process by which congregations can initiate a withdrawal from a Presbytery (FoG 3.13), but it also gives the Presbytery the authority to dismiss congregations. The language of withdrawal and dismissal are differentiated in the FoG.

As outlined in the FoG 3.13.A-G withdrawal is a process that a congregation initiates and undertakes to seek release from a Presbytery. It is explicit in this section of the FoG that a congregation begins the process without the involvement of the Presbytery by taking a vote to withdraw and submitting their application along with the results at the next stated Presbytery meeting. The word withdrawal is used only in this section, 3.13, of the FoG.

However, dismiss(al) is used in multiple sections of the FoG with a different meaning. An analysis of its uses will show that it is not the same act as withdraw(al).

1. FoG 10.3.E, K gives the Presbytery the power to dismiss congregations and ministers. No procedure is outlined as to how a congregation or a minister is dismissed.

2. FoG 11.22.B states that the Presbytery can give an Evangelist the authority to “dismiss members in a mission.” No procedure is outlined as to how a member of a mission is dismissed.

3. FoG 12.22.A states that the General Synod can advise Presbyteries in its processes in order to dismiss a Presbytery. No procedure is outlined as to how the General Synod dismisses a Presbytery.

These sections of the FoG that authorize the Presbytery, the Evangelist, and the General Synod to dismiss its “members” without requiring a process, unlike a withdrawal. In fact, the authority to dismiss may be required when immediate action is necessary. A situation may arise when the authority to dismiss is enacted because time is of the essence and a lengthy process is not possible or advisable.

Several congregations at their duly called congregational meetings following the called meeting of Second Presbytery voted to be dismissed from Second Presbytery and notified the Stated Clerk via email that day and a hard copy letter the next day. These congregations acted in accordance with the will of Second Presbytery per the FoG. Their notice to the Stated Clerk finalized their dismissal.

6.         Second Presbytery’s Authority to Preemptively Release Ministers to Transfer

The initial transfer of the five ministers who formed Veritas Presbytery was in accordance with the Constitution. The motion that Second Presbytery approved (“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.”) at its second called meeting on August 13 resolves the concerns raised by Mr. Lott. After this called Presbytery meeting the following steps were taken:

1.   The motion cited above gave all ministers the permission, without further action of Second Presbytery, to transfer their credentials into another ecclesiastical court before Sept. 1. This motion applies to all ministers who are transferring, whether into another ARP Presbytery or any other Presbytery since Second Presbytery will not exist on Sept. 1. This motion was in order and necessary for all ministers to make a transfer.

2.   The five ministers properly followed FoG 9.65/9.62.C in transferring our credentials into another ecclesiastical court. We secured a letter of good standing from the Stated Clerk of Second Presbytery prior to our transfer.

3.   We were “received” by a new Presbytery. According to FoG 9.62.C. “He shall be a member of the dismissing Presbytery until he has been officially received by the Presbytery to which he is transferring, and an official notice of his reception has been sent to the dismissing Presbytery.” (emphasis added) An official notice was emailed by an officer of Veritas Presbytery to the Stated Clerk of Second Presbytery. The Stated Clerk acknowledged the reception of such notice to us in an email on August 19, 2024.

4.   Therefore, the Stated Clerk of Second Presbytery had no authority according to Second Presbytery’s Manual of Procedure (MoP) not to remove from the roll any minister who has properly transferred into another ecclesiastical court. The MoP outlines the duties of the stated clerk and at no point does it give him the authority to make a ruling or act in contradiction to the will of the Presbytery. He is a recorder of actions that are communicated to him not the official “gatekeeper” of the Presbytery. MoP p.8 states that one of his duties is “(12) Receive and record all documents coming before the court.” He received a notice/document from our receiving presbytery that we had transferred into the Veritas Presbytery. All that remained for the Stated Clerk to do was to remove (officially record) our name from the roll of Second Presbytery of which we were no longer members. From a historical perspective, the Associate branch of the ARP Church was formed in a similar manner on December 6, 1733, when Ebenezer Erskine, James Fisher, William Wilson, and Alexander Moncreiff seceded from the Church of Scotland to organize the Associate Presbytery of Scotland.

Let me conclude by expressing my appreciation for Mr. Lott’s effort to debate the substance of the matter instead of making unsubstantiated allegations or baseless name-calling. I trust that with more information and a clearer reading of the ARP’s Constitution, he, and others, can understand why some men’s consciences are bound to pursue ministry in another communion of the visible church. If anything, I think Mr. Lott’s article and my response clearly point to the fact that the dissolution of Second Presbytery was not planned biblically, methodically, and thoughtfully, considering the magnitude of the decision and all its constitutional and legal ramifications. The fact that a motion to postpone the deliberation of Index 11 for a year was defeated indicates the hasty nature of the decision. Could not the alleged dysfunctions and offenses of Second Presbytery have been handled in a more biblical, loving, constitutional, and presbyterian manner? Are not our church courts’ practices rooted in 1 Corinthians 14:40, “all things should be done decently and in order”? How did such an explosive action promote “the unity, peace, purity, and prosperity of the Church?”