A Reluctant ARP Pastor's Take on Synod

I am a reluctant ARP pastor. Don’t get me wrong, I love being Presbyterian (see my love letter to Presbyterianism at https://seventeen82.blogspot.com/2022/09/i-love-being-presbyterian-james-mcmanus.html?m=1 ). Yet, in that love is some amount of reluctance. 

When I say I am a reluctant ARP pastor, I am mainly thinking about the meetings of presbytery and Synod. My personality is very much geared to getting things done. When I go to a meeting, I want to get to work and get the work done so I can move on to what is next. If you are familiar with the workings of a presbytery and/or Synod meeting, you know that doesn’t always happen. It’s a time for every voice that wants to be heard, to be heard. It’s the occasion where when you speak, people have to listen (or at least pretend to). You can stand up and say the same thing you’ve already said before. You can say what the previous 16 people before you said. You can go to the mic and ask the moderator a question that has other people scratching their heads. But, that’s Presbyterianism. That’s the way these meetings are set up. If you are a registered delegate at these meetings, then you have the right and freedom to do that. That is, in part, the beauty of Presbyterianism. Speak early, speak often! 

Therein lies my reluctance as an ARP pastor. This past meeting of Synod was my 16th Synod (I’m too lazy to do the math about how many presbytery meetings I have attended - I like to think it’s more than 16). Out of those 16 Synods, I can count on one hand, with some fingers left over, how many times I have stood to speak on the floor of Synod. The first was when then-moderator Lee Shelnutt asked me to share about my experience as a small-town pastor (thanks, Lee, for breaking my record of self-silent Synods). The next was to make a motion as chairman of the Catawba Presbytery Church Extension Committee. The last was a few years ago to speak against the budget the Stewardship Committee recommended. I don’t speak much because I don’t find much I want to speak about, and, I figure, if I keep my mouth shut, it will help the meeting move along faster. 

So, all of that to say is please take my account of some parts of the recent Synod with a grain of reluctant salt. 

I walked away from this past Synod meeting discouraged … discouraged in ways I have never felt during my years as an ARP minister and I don’t like it. The meeting began with dealing with the old business of a discipline case against an ARP minister. There is much that could be said about this case and its particulars, and I will let someone else do that, if they wish. Suffice it to say that it didn’t serve as a good “appetizer” to what came next. 

My discouragement began in earnest with the issue of ARP church’s having female deacons. For those who aren’t familiar, the short and sweet is that since the early 1970s, the ARP allows for women deacons. Doesn’t force. Doesn’t coerce. Doesn’t demand. Simply allows. Each congregation has the freedom of choice when it comes to that matter because the ARP believes that the Bible isn’t clear enough on that issue to make a hard stand either way. Therefore, we don’t take a hard and fast stand on the issue. We allow for freedom of conscience. 

It’s probably obvious by now where I stand on this issue. My discouragement isn’t so much with the debate. As a Presbyterian, I’m fine with debate - it’s part of my Scot-Irish Presbyterian blood! It’s needed. It can be good. It can help one either get more familiar with their position, or maybe change their position. Debate is fine … when debate is done in a Christian fashion. 

This gets to the heart of my discouragement. The tenor of the debate over female deacons, at times, got too personal and dismissive for my liking. We are dealing with a sensitive issue, as has been made clear in previous discussions at previous Synods. Yet, to my ears, what I heard from some (not all) at this Synod is that if you are either pro-female deacon, or for letting each church decide if they want female deacons or not, then you are in grievous sin and, in part, responsible for the current condition of the denomination. That’s quite the thing to say. 

Quick side note to this - as I heard this said and repeated on the floor of Synod, I wondered why, if someone found this position to be so sinful, did they choose to join the ARP? This is a clearly stated position of the denomination, clearly defined in the Form of Government in Chapter 5, especially in 5.4. where it says “Unless otherwise determined by the Session, the Diaconate shall be chosen from male members of that congregation. The Session of each congregation shall determine whether women can serve as deacons in their own particular congregation. In either case, the Church shall not neglect the raising up of qualified men to serve in this position.” When a pastor/elder is ordained and/or installed in the ARP, they have to answer the question, “do you accept the government, discipline, and worship of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian church?” Which means that they declared before God and the court that they accepted this position of female deacons in the ARP church. Maybe these men took an exception to this and explained their position to the presbytery. Maybe these men came back to their presbytery to explain that they had changed their view on this position. I hope and trust they had. I really do.

Now, back to my discouragement. Part of the beauty of the ARP is our family-like nature. There can be some weakness to that, but I believe the strength of it far, far, far outweighs any weakness. We refer to each other as “fathers and brothers”. That is language of family and love and respect and honor. Yet, there were times when the tenor seemed more like “wrong adversary”. I didn’t always hear familial love, respect and honor. There were times when I heard “I am right, you are wrong, and you need to get on my side.” 

We are instructed in Ephesians 4.15 to “speak the truth in love.” Not just speak the truth - but to speak it in a loving manner. As a parent of three, I am learning more and more how important that is for my children. As a pastor, I am finding out that it helps my people more when I speak the truth in love, instead of using the truth as a weapon to beat them up. There are times when blunt truth is needed. Yet, there are a lot of times when truth needs to be said from love, in love and for love. People want to hear truth from someone they believe loves them and wants what’s best for them in Christ, and all from the love of Christ. It’s good to speak the truth in love because that is what God has called us to do. 

I hear of admiration of men like Luther, Calvin and Knox taking a stand for the truth. And, they did. Sometimes very bluntly. Yet, these men also spoke the truth in love. I think especially of Calvin’s letters to other pastors and especially missionaries and church planters. I would say that what made their bluntness effective is because there was love at times. Love can do a lot for communicating truth. We don’t always need a sledgehammer. Sometimes a simple holding of the hand can work wonders. 

There was also enough shading to personal comments that the moderator had to issue a few warnings about it. It’s one thing to debate an issue. It’s another to question ability or even motive. Debate the matter all the day long (but, please, not for that long). But, just debate the matter, and nothing else. It was our fathers and brothers who spent prayerful time in research, discussion, debate, writing and editing. That should be respected. It was discouraging to hear what sounded like almost-attacks on these men who worked on the report. Dislike the report all you want - that’s your right and prerogative. But, respect the fathers and brothers who worked on it. Go and ask them personally about it. Take them to lunch. Hear them out. Consider what they say. Treasure them as the fathers and brothers of faith that they are. 

There is more I could say, but my reluctance wins through at this point. If you have made it to this point, thanks for bearing along so far. I will end with this note - no matter where we stand on this issue, as we deal with it in the future, let us mean it when we say “fathers and brothers”, and have the tenor of familial love resound in our meetings. We may not agree with each other, but we can love each other. We may not see eye to eye, but we can be on knees together in prayer before the God who is love. We may not be on the same page, but we can speak the truth in Christ-like love in such a way that says more “I love you” than “I am right, you are wrong, and you need to change.” 

These are my reluctant thoughts. I now go back to my blissful silence … until another moderator instructs me breaks my streak (thanks again, Lee, because I was really enjoying that streak).