It is the position of the undersigned that (overturning the Moderator’s opinion) was an error of the Presbytery and constituted an “irregular” action by the Presbytery. It is the position of the undersigned that the remanding of the matter to the Session was an error of the Presbytery.

As previously reported First Presbytery of the ARP declined to proceed to judicial process on charges brought against an Erskine College Board member. In a very close vote, they voted to remand the entire matter concerning Ruling Elder Parker Young to the Session at Pinecrest ARP Church.

Members of the Presbytery who desired to overture this action had ten days to complain against that action. The Stated Clerk of t he Presbytery, The Reverend Tom Patterson, informs us that twelve men have signed on to the complaint.

This complaint will be forwarded to the General Synod for action. The text of the complaint is as follows:

COMPLAINT AGAINST ACTIONS OF FIRST PRESBYTERY OF THE ASSOCIATE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

And now, this 19th day of October, A.D. 2010, comes __________and complains against the delinquency of First Presbytery in failing to appoint an ecclesiastical commission for judicial purposes (see FOG.XIV.B.) in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee to Investigate the alleged public
offenses of Dr. Parker Young, a member of the Pinecrest Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC), in instituting civil judicial proceedings against the Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (see BOD.V.3., 5., 5c.);
and against the action of First Presbytery in remanding the matter to the Session of the Pinecrest ARPC; and in support of said complaints sets forth the following reasons:
1. On or about March 10, 2010, Dr. Parker Young, a member of the Congregation and Session of the Pinecrest ARPC, contrary to the Word of God and the government and discipline of the ARPC, entered into a civil law suit
against the General Synod of the ARPC relative to certain decisions the Synod had taken on about March 3, 2010, in reference to the Board of Trustees of Erskine College and Seminary.
2. On or about March 19, 2010, Dr. Parker Young, contrary to the Word of God and the government and the discipline of the ARPC, voluntarily appeared as a witness in the Court of Common Pleas, County of Abbeville, South Carolina, in support of the civil suit against the Synod of the ARPC.
3. On or about April 20, 2010 the session of the New Perth ARPC, by US mail communicated with the session of the Pinecrest ARPC expressing its concern over the alleged public offenses of Dr. Parker Young and inquiring into the intentions of the session of the Pinecrest ARPC concerning those actions.
4. On or about May 4, 2010, the session of the Pinecrest replied in writing to the inquiry of the session of the New Perth ARPC suggesting that no disciplinary action was intended with reference to Dr. Parker Young’s alleged sinful actions.
5. On or about May 23, 2010, the session of the New Perth ARPC memorialized First Presbytery of the ARPC informing the Presbytery of the inability or unwillingness of the session of the Pinecrest ARPC to exercise jurisdiction in regard to the alleged sinful actions of Dr. Parker Young and requesting the Presbytery to assume original jurisdiction in the case (BOD.III.3.).
6. On or about June 8, 2010, First Presbytery of the ARPC by a majority vote assumed original jurisdiction in the matter concerning the alleged sinful actions of Dr. Parker Young.
7. On or about June 8, 2010, First Presbytery directed the moderator of First Presbytery to appoint a Special Committee to investigate the alleged sinful actions of Dr. Parker Young with instructions to report to the Presbytery no later than the Fall 2010 Stated Meeting of First Presbytery.
8. On or about July 12, 2010, the moderator of First Presbytery appointed two ministers and one ruling elder to serve as a Special Committee to Investigate the alleged public sinful actions of Dr. Parker Young as per the directive of First Presbytery, meeting in stated session on or about June 8, 2010.
9. On or about October 12, 2010, at the Fall Stated Meeting of First Presbytery of the ARPC, the Special Committee to Investigate the alleged sinful actions of Dr. Parker Young reported to the Presbytery on the findings of the investigation and recommended that an ecclesiastical commission with judicial authority be appointed to enter into judicial process of Dr. Parker Young.
10. The Special Committee to Investigate informed the Presbytery of the documentary records obtained from the Court of Common Pleas, County of Abbeville, South Carolina, indicating that Dr. Parker Young had been a party to
the filing of a civil suit against the General Synod of the ARPC on or about March 10, 2010, and that on or about March 19, 2010, the said Dr. Young had voluntarily appeared in the hearing of the Court of Common Pleas, County of Abbeville, South Carolina, as a witness in support of the suit.

11. The Special Committee informed the Presbytery of its several unsuccessful attempts to meet with and/or to interview Dr. Parker Young.
12. The Special Committee informed the Presbytery that Dr. Parker Young had remained adamant in his refusal to meet with and/or to be interviewed by the Special Committee.

13. On or about October 12, 2010, during debate on the recommendation of the Special Committee, a motion was offered and seconded to remand the whole matter concerning the alleged sinful actions of Dr. Parker Young to the session of the Pinecrest ARPC.
14. The moderator ruled that the motion was a motion to rescind a previously adopted action thereby requiring a two-thirds (2/3) majority to pass. [At its June 2010 Stated Meeting, First Presbytery voted to assume original jurisdiction relative to the alleged public sins of Dr. Parker Young.].

15. The decision of the chair was appealed.

16. The Presbytery did not sustain the decision of the chair.
Note: it is the position of the undersigned that this was an error of the Presbytery and constituted an “irregular” action by the Presbytery.
17. The Presbytery proceeded to remand the matter to the session of the Pinecrest ARPC with the provisions: (1) that the report of the Special Committee be delivered to the session of the Pinecrest ARPC and (2) that the session of the Pinecrest ARPC report to First Presbytery at the Spring 2011 Stated Meeting on the actions it had taken in regard to the alleged sinful actions of Dr. Parker Young with supporting Biblical justifications attached.
Note: it is the position of the undersigned that the remanding of the matter to the Session was an error of the Presbytery.

It is the prayer of the undersigned that the 2011 General Synod of the ARPC will reverse the erroneous actions of First Presbytery.