Crisis of Conscience, Not Constitution
Andrew Putnam
The ARP Church is one of the oldest presbyterian denominations in the United States. It is organized in a series of ‘courts’ or congresses that bring accountability to each level of the church. The highest court of the ARPC is the General Synod, which is comprised of the various presbyteries (geographical groupings of churches). Being Presbyterian is quite different than being Episcopal (rule by one individual or small group of bishops etc) or being Congregational (each congregation individually decides what is right and only associates, as it pleases, with others). It is however striking the number of times those claiming to be Presbyterian really are desiring to be Episcopal or Congregational.
At the center of this current issue in the ARPC is Second Presbytery, which has been comprised of the state of Georgia and roughly half of the state of South Carolina (primarily the Greenville area). It is the opinion of many that a cult of personality centered around Chuck Wilson has been running Second presbytery through favoritism, intimidation and manipulation of church rules. This has been going on for some years. Even after he requested removal from the roll (while in the middle of an investigation into charges of child molestation), Mr Wilson continued to have influence through a handful of ministers and elders that followed him and retained power within Second Presbytery. They attempted to derail the action of the General Synod, at it’s meeting this past June, with all sorts of creative methods of interpreting parliamentary minutia. Some were blatantly absurd, such as the application of a rule requiring written reports to have signatures (commonly done for handwritten reports submitted during the meeting) towards the packet of reports sent out to the delegates of Synod. (Which does not contain ANY signatures on any reports, nor has it in the past 50 years). Each of these spurious attempts were incorrect and addressed in the June meeting.
Some have continued to portray this as a violation of the church constitution, though it clearly is not, and in general (whether they realize it or not) make an even stronger argument, by their actions, of the presbytery’s dysfunctional situation. There is no crisis of the ARP church constitution, more a crisis of conscience on the part of a few, who would prefer to continue in their ways rather than repent or be held accountable.
At it’s June meeting the General Synod voted overwhelmingly (86% voted in the affirmative) to dissolve Second presbytery effectively September 1, 2024. This merely takes away the perceived authority of the few who cling to power . No churches were to be closed, nor ministers automatically excluded. All that happened was the physical boundaries of Second presbytery were absorbed into the two adjoining presbyteries (Georgia into Tenn/Al and SC into Catawba/rest of SC). An orderly effort was begun to matriculate the churches and pastors into their new presbyteries. By action of the Synod, ARP Churches within those geographic bounds were assigned to the new presbyteries Sept 2, 2024. Should any wish to leave the denomination, there is a process outline in the Form of Government for the churches (takes approximately a year). Since a ministers ordination credentials reside with a presbytery, the ministers were to make appropriate transfer applications by that date (otherwise they would be without ordination credentials after Sept 1). At the synod level a commission was formed to handle any matters overall, such as any distribution of property etc. At no time has there been any discussion regarding funds that Second presbytery has accumulated from the closing & sale of former church properties. It is well presumed that it would be in some way set aside for the continued work of the churches in the former presbytery. There have been attempts by some, yet again, to frame this as some sort of violation of the church’s constitution and procedures as an effort to gain funds. Since the Synod meeting, there have been attempts to twist and torture the wording of the Form of Government to have it confess to all sorts of nonsense, in an effort to undo, cast doubt upon or reverse the action of the highest court of the denomination. One can only hope these men handle the Word of God with more care than they do the church constitution. Since June we have seen a continuation of the pathetic attempt hold onto power by about a half dozen ministers and the churches they influence. Additionally, some have reached out to Second Presbytery churches with lies and disinformation (telling them that one Presbytery seeks to gain/sell/dissolve the church etc).
The overwhelming majority of the ministers and churches in the former Secondpresbytery are excited about this transition.
As to the constitutional questions:
As some would know, I’ve been a minister in the ARPC for 33 years. During that time, I have served as the Moderator of the General Synod, on every board and agency of the Synod, and for 26 years I served as the parliamentarian of the denomination (until 2023). I also chaired the committee that wrote the current Form of Government.
I’ve been a bit surprised that folks even questioned whether Synod had the authority to dissolve a presbytery. My first thought was “if not them, then who would?” In concept, a Synod is sort of like a big presbytery (made up of presbyteries instead of congregations/session)- Our FOG {Form of Government}from 1953 makes this observation. The authority to dissolve a session or a congregation rests with the presbytery (presbyteries are not required to go get the sessions approval etc) and the corresponding is true of the relationship of Synod to Presbytery. The Synod advises the Presbyteries regarding the business of presbytery, the matters it takes etc, but cannot tell them how to vote on those matters. Presbyteries have a similar relationship with church sessions.
The Current FOG (begun in 2007) was written with the immediately previous FOG in mind (1971 version), but this relationship is shown in each of the versions, back to the 1799 version (first).
The clearest was the previous FOG (1971), under the chapter on “The Synod”,
subsection B (Synod’s authority and Responsibility)
”To organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve Presbyteries in keeping with the advancement of the Church”
(A bit further down in that section it says): “To review the records of the Presbyteries, giving what ever counsel and advice is necessary.”
The new/current FOG under chapter 12 on The Synod, Authority and Responsibilities:
12.22
“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 and
B. Review the Presbytery records, provide counsel and advice when requested.”
When we rewrote the FOG We DID NOT ALTER the authority of the General Synod. There was no attempt to undo 200+ years of Presbyterian polity!
We remain firmly Presbyterian in polity, with the highest court being the General Synod.
What seems to be at the center of this confusion is a short phrase in the new FOG ‘in order to: ”
That phrase indicates that the synod has the authority to do those things (organize, receive, divide, dissolve etc). And that it consults with presbyteries regarding the presbytery’s business/actions - not to get their approval of synod’s actions.
The sentence says essentially; synod can advise presbyteries as to their (presbytery’s) actions (but not how to vote/outcome regarding presbytery’s internal business), so that (in order to) SYNOD can do Synod’s business/carry out its (synod’s) authority to organize, divide, dissolve etc
12:22.A clearly states that Synod has the authority to dissolve a presbytery, just as the FOG before it did as well.
The General Synod is the highest court of the ARPC and has the authority to (12.24.I) “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.”
For the General Synod to be compelled to gain the presbytery’s approval before dissolving it would be comparable to a parent having to get a child’s approval before discipling it. It would be disastrous, as there are a number of scenarios where rogue presbyteries could run amok unchecked. Additionally, that sort of misreading of the FOG would somehow require the synod to get approval of a presbytery to organize it or receive, before it was even organized or received!
What we are seeing is a pathetic attempt by followers of Chuck Wilson to twist the constitution of the ARP Church for the benefit of staying in power. They are doing exactly what they did in Second presbytery, attempting to manipulate the situation to stay in control. In this case, the General Synod, in compliance with its constitution, decided the issue.
Reverend Andrew Putnam