As previously reported in this journal, allegations have been brought in two separate Presbyteries (Regional groups) of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.

In First Presbytery, Ruling Elder Dr. Parker Young. a member of the Pinecrest ARP Church in Flat Rock, NC (near Hendersonville) has been accused by the Session of New Perth ARP in Troutman, NC of violating the Scriptures and the church standards by being one of the three Erskine College trustees who filed a civil suit in State Court against the ARP Synod for actions taken at their Called Meeting in March and the Pinecrest Session for failing to take any action on the allegations. (Full story of the allegations here: http://bit.ly/aTzJHF)

In Second Presbytery, the Session (Board of Elders) of Unity Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in Piedmont, NC alleges that a minister in their Presbytery failed “to promote the unity, peace, purity and prosperity of the church.” Additionally, the Session alleges that The Reverend James Hering, a faculty member at Erskine Seminary filed a “public civil suit against his brother in Christ in the denomination.” (Full story of the allegations here: http://bit.ly/d2lKjh)

At simultaneous meetings called to order at 2:00PM on Tuesday, June 8, the two presbyteries met, in the custom of ARP Presbyteries gathering for their stated summer meetings just prior to the annual Synod meeting. First Presbytery gather in the sanctuary of the Pinecrest ARP Church in Flat Rock – a stone’s through from the Bonclarken conference center and site of the Synod meeting to begin that evening, where Second Presbytery gathered.

The results of both meetings were quite similar – but how they arrived there is a story in and of itself. Both First and Second Presbyteries voted to have a committee charged with investigating the allegations and report back their findings with recommendations as to whether to proceed to judicial process at the fall meetings.

In Second Presbytery, that motion was passed by voice vote in less than 15 minutes. They simply assigned the matter to a Permanent Committee on the Minister and His Work and asked them to report at the fall meeting.

In First Presbytery, it took well over two hours to get to that point.

The Memorial (a document from a church Session to the Presbytery) seeking action came from the Session of the New Perth church. The action they requested was to do three things:

1 – “sustain this complaint (which in simple terms meant to approve their request); and

2 – “to assume original jurisdiction” (which meant for the Presbytery to take authority over the allegations presented by the New Perth Session from the Pinecrest Session in Flat Rock which had not taken any action since first requested to do so by New Perth on April 20; and

3 – “and to direct the Moderator to appoint an ecclesiastical commission with judicial authority to conduct itself in accordance with the Book of Discipline in regard to his matter.” This action would put all of the future actions of the Presbytery in the hands of a smaller group of men who would investigate the allegations, and if they felt there was a presumption of guilt, to proceed to judicial process, conduct a trial if necessary, and pronounce judgment – all in the name of the Presbytery.

This is a normal activity in many other Presbyterian bodies, but since the ARP’s have had very view discipline cases at the Presbytery and Synod level in the past 50 years (by at least one speaker’s recollection only 3) it was not normal for this group.

When the floor was open for motions as to what course of action the Presbytery wanted to follow, the first motion was to ‘table indefinitely’. This is a rare motion in parliamentary procedures, for it immediately shuts off debate and simply ignores the issue until some later meeting when someone would have to move to take the issue up again. The vote was quickly taken on that motion, and it failed with 40 yes votes and 43 no votes, thus demonstrating the deep divide within the group

Next a Ruling Elder from the Pinecrest Session read a letter from that Session, which had been approved the previous night, in which they stated that they were able and willing to deal with the matter concerning the Ruling Elder in their church , but had not acted yet because, in their words “we did not know what the court (South Carolina civil court) would decide in the pending lawsuit…We are prayerfully waiting and watching in order to not hinder or hamper righteous judgment for all concerned.”

This Elder, with permission of the Moderator which he had gained before he read the letter, then made a motion ‘to delay action.’ (Editor’s Note: Many parliamentarians might be raising eyebrows to know that this motion was not ruled out of order, but no one asked it be so ruled.)

Motion then went on for the better part of an hour on the merits of delay. Questions were asked about why delay, how long was the delay, was it improper to delay if indeed sin had been committed, delay would give the Pinecrest Session more time to act, and several other points.

At one point a vote was taken and approved to discontinue debate and move to a vote. It was then voted to go into executive session for the vote and all visitors were asked to leave.

The court continued for nearly another hour, during which they took a secret ballot vote on the motion to delay. This motion lost by a vote of 41 yes, 50 no.

That meant that the floor was open for another motion as to what to do with the memorial from the New Perth Session. On a standing vote that was so clear it did not need counting, the Presbytery approved a motion to appoint a Committee (a group without the power to take judicial action) to investigate the allegations to determine if there was a presumption of guilt and to report back to the fall meeting of the Presbytery concerning judicial process, if required.

The Moderator of First Presbytery, The Reverend Vaughn Hathaway, will appoint the members of this committee some time after he returns home and has opportunity to seek members who will have the time to do the work.