The enabling motion behind the debate: “That a special committee be formed to investigate Second Presbytery’s handling of the allegations against Chuck Wilson and that this special committee report back any irregularities and/or deviations from our Standards to the Executive Board at its Fall 2023 meeting along with any recommendations for further action.”

In truth, the title of this article should be How a 224-Year-Old Presbytery was Dissolved in a Year not in a Day, since the unprecedented action, which could be ruled unconstitutional (see below), taken by the 2024 General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) Church has its genesis in the 2023 General Synod. The timeline below will outline the significant events, along with corresponding explanation and support (hyperlinks to sources), that culminated in the action of General Synod to dissolve Second Presbytery effective September 1, 2024.

June 7, 2023: The motion that sparked this saga was made by Rhett Carson and approved by the 2023 General Synod: “That a special committee be formed to investigate Second Presbytery’s handling of the allegations against Chuck Wilson and that this special committee report back any irregularities and/or deviations from our Standards to the Executive Board at its Fall 2023 meeting along with any recommendations for further action. This special committee shall be composed of members from Executive Board’s judicial commission on Matthew Miller and the Executive Board’s Investigative Committee on Chuck Wilson.” (p. 4 2023 Minutes of the General Synod, p. 11 of the file 2023 Minutes of General Synod ARP) The “Standards” comprise the constitutional documents of the ARPC (Standards of the ARPC).

Mr. Carson, a minister in First Presbytery, served as the advocate for one of Chuck Wilson’s daughters. It could be said that Mr. Carson had a bias against Mr. Wilson because he was the advocate for one of the daughters against Mr. Wilson in the proceedings against him. This motion was unquestionably unconstitutional based on the ARP Form of Government 13.13.B.(2) (FoG, one of the seven constitutional documents of the ARPC). This subsection which relates to Special Committees states, “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” (FoG p. 95 of file). As noted in the last sentence of the motion, Mr. Carson specified the composition of the special committee in violation of our constitution. At no point during the discussion of this motion did Synod’s Parliamentarian, Patrick Malphrus, inform the Moderator, Rob Patrick, or the Synod that this motion was in conflict with the FoG. Unfortunately, no one else in the assembly was familiar with this section of the FoG to make a point of order and defeat the motion.

During the 2024 Synod two facts came to light that also pointed to the unconstitutional nature of this motion. First, the Special Committee’s Report, Index 11 (Index 11 p. 1), which was included in the digital Synod Packet for all registered delegates, quoted the original motion above but strangely left out the last sentence. Secondly, during the preliminary discussion of Index 11, Mr. Patrick (the moderator during the 2023 Synod) made these comments from the floor: “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” (time marker 1 hr 9m 55s video of Day 2 Part 1). How did such an unequivocal constitutional requirement get overlooked by the officers of General Synod? The formation of the Special Committee was unconstitutional from its inception.

Oct 26, 2023: The Executive Board of Synod met for its stated Fall Meeting. It was apparent at that meeting (which Seth Yi participated as an advisory member) that Kyle Sims, Principal Clerk of General Synod, and Patrick Malphrus, Synod’s Parliamentarian, were both active members on the Special Committee. This was confirmed in Index 11, p. 1: “The composition of the committee included: Kyle Sims, Patrick Malphrus, Ken Wingate, Clint Davis, Jonathan Cowan, Brian Murray, Aaron Rozeboom, Brian Taylor, Jack Van Dyk, Phil Williams, David Walkup, Donald Bean, Brian Schouwstra, and Scott Smith. (Brian Murray and Scott Smith were inactive members.) In an attempt to divide this considerable workload, we formed two subcommittees: one to address the actions/inactions of Second Presbytery, and a second to examine weaknesses in the Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church that contributed to issues with Second Presbytery’s handling of allegations.”

The composition of this special committee further revealed the illegitimate nature of its work. Neither Mr. Sims nor Mr. Malphrus were appointed members to either the Executive Board’s judicial commission on Matthew Miller or the Executive Board’s Investigative Committee on Chuck Wilson. These men were only advisory members on the judicial commission by virtue of their office on the Executive Board. To make matters worse, Mr. Sims eventually confessed on the floor of Synod that he served as the chairman of the Special Committee (time marker 1h 5m 50s Day 2 Part 1). The truth of Mr. Sims’ chairmanship was not reported in Index 11 which again was unconstitutional since it failed to conform with FoG 13.12.D. (relates to Committee’s Authority and Responsibility) which states that: “All written reports shall be signed by the chairman and secretary” (FoG p. 102). How was this constitutional requirement overlooked by the Principal Clerk of Synod of all people? Moreover, Mr. Sims and Mr. Malphrus served on the subcommittee (roughly half of the Special Committee) that addressed the actions/inactions of Second Presbytery. They participated as voting members despite not being appointed to this Special Committee.

Prior to the Fall Meeting of the Executive Board, the subcommittee interviewed members of Second Presbytery’s Minister and His Work Committee (which was delegated with the original allegations against Mr. Wilson) for no more than one hour and 15 minutes over a Zoom call on Oct. 6, 2023. Mr. Yi participated in that Zoom meeting because as the moderator of Second Presbytery during that period he was an ex-officio member of all of presbytery’s committees. Subsequently, the investigative subcommittee never communicated again with these men. At the Fall 2023 Executive Board meeting, an incomplete report was submitted (Special Committee Report 10.16.23) and the following 3 motions were approved related to the Special Committee:

1. That the committee be extended more time to complete its investigation and that it report back with findings and recommendations to the Executive Board at its 2024 Spring Meeting.
2. That the committee be authorized to relay pertinent discovered information to courts of original jurisdiction.
3. That the paragraph of the report which reads “Given the magnitude of materials associated with this investigation and the appearance of evil, the committee makes the following recommendations:” be stricken from the report (Exec Bd Minutes Oct 26 2023 p. 2).

Based on public knowledge, in relation to motion #2, no “pertinent discovered information” was relayed to Second Presbytery regarding any of its members. However, as evident in Index 11, several unsubstantiated allegations were purported throughout the report. None of these concerns were ever addressed by this subcommittee with the members of Second Presbytery, including the Minister and His Work Committee and the moderator, Mr. Yi who participated in the M&HW Committee’s meetings, before the Special Committee submitted its final report to the Executive Board on May 23,2024 (Called Meeting ExBd 5.28.24 Notice).

March 21, 2024: At the Spring meeting of the Executive Board of General Synod no report was submitted by the Special Committee. All that was recorded in the minutes was: “Kyle Sims reported that the committee continues to work and will have a report for Synod 2024” (Ex Bd Minutes 3.21.24 p. 2).

April 22, 2024: Mr. Yi wrote the following email to the members of the Executive Board:

Due to a prior engagement, I was not able to attend the last EB Meeting on March 21, 2024. After reviewing the minutes, I have a couple of questions (below) regarding the work and report of the Special Committee to Investigate Second Presbytery’s Handling of Allegations Against Chuck Wilson.

According to the minutes of Synod, the motion that was approved regarding this special committee was: “That a special committee be formed to investigate Second Presbytery’s handling of the allegations against Chuck Wilson and that this special committee report back any irregularities and/or deviations from our Standards to the Executive Board at its Fall 2023 meeting along with any recommendations for further action. This special committee shall be composed of members from Executive Board’s judicial commission on Matthew Miller and the Executive Board’s Investigative Committee on Chuck Wilson.”

Furthermore, at the EB’s Oct 26, 2023, meeting the following motion was approved: “That the committee be extended more time to complete its investigation and that it report back with findings and recommendations to the Executive Board at its 2024 Spring Meeting.”

According to the EB’s March meeting minutes, “Kyle Sims reported that the committee continues to work and will have a report for Synod 2024.”

Questions: Will the Special Committee report to the Executive Board any findings and recommendations before presenting their report to the Synod? Will the EB be convened at a called meeting to review the Special Committee’s Report before the Synod Packet is distributed?

Based on the wording of the original motion approved by Synod, and the previous actions of the EB, it seems that this Special Committee is required to submit its report to the EB before anything is submitted to Synod. As was the case at the Fall 2023 EB Meeting, 2 of the Special Committee’s recommendations were approved by the EB, as well as an additional recommendation by the EB to remove a paragraph from the Special Committee’s report.

Thank you for your clarification.

April 22, 2024: Mr. Sims sent this email to the Executive Board (Email):

I am hesitant to “reply all” to this email given the fact that the court is not in session and mass emails are often not decent or in order. Even so, at the Moderator’s request, I am writing to remind you that the special committee has not finished its work. When completed, the committee will report back to the executive board with Its findings and recommendations.

May 28, 2024: The Executive Board approved to forward to the 2024 General Synod the Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Second Presbytery’s Handling of Allegations Against Chuck Wilson (Index 11). Jack van Dyk, one of the members of the Special Committee who also served on Executive Board’s judicial commission on Matthew Miller voted in opposition to forwarding the report along with 2 other voting members. There were multiple attempts to amend or postpone the Report, but they were ruled out of order. It was argued by Mr. Sims and Mr. Malphrus that the report could only be forwarded or rejected as a whole.

May 29, 2024 (13 days prior to the start of Synod): An email was sent to all the online registered delegates of Synod informing them that the Special Committee’s Report (Index 11) had been upload to the online packet, and it was available to download.

June 12, 2023: Synod took up the discussion of Index 11:

Mr. Sims, the Chairman of the Special Committee, made the suggestion that Jeff Kingswood of Canadian Presbytery be appointed as acting Parliamentarian (time marker 53m 5s Day 2 Part 1).

Before the debate ensued on Index 11, Tanner Cline made the following speech (time marker 54m 20s Day 2 Part 1): “Mr. Moderator, I rise to a point of order. I ask you, sir, to rule this report out of order because it violates the Form of Government, it violates the Book of Discipline, and it violates Robert’s Rules of Order. First, this report is out of order because it fails to comply with FoG 13.12.D, which states that all committee reports shall be signed by the chairman and the secretary. The report does not even indicate if there is a chairman for the committee, let alone contain his signature. Therefore, this report is out of order.

“Secondly, this report is out of order because the committee expanded its mandate without General Synod’s authorization. FoG 13.12.A. states that a committee must perform its work ‘according to the specific instructions’ of the General Synod. Moreover, Robert’s Rules of Order 50:10 specifies that select or ad hoc committees are appointed ‘to carry out a specified task.’ The Special Committee was tasked with investigating Second Presbytery’s handling of the Chuck Wilson matter. However, the Committee’s report far exceeds this mandate. The report addresses other judicial cases besides the Wilson case. It comments on the ‘culture’ of Second Presbytery and raises issues totally unrelated to the Wilson matter. Therefore, Mr. Moderator, this report is out of order because the report and its recommendations far exceed the scope of business assigned to it by the General Synod.

“Finally, this report is out of order because it violates Book of Discipline 4.2. The report states that Second Presbytery violated the Book of Discipline by failing to appoint investigators when receiving allegations and instead allowed a committee to conduct a preliminary investigation. This is ironic. The great irony is that the special committee has violated the Book of Discipline in the same manner. Last year, the maker of the motion, who happened to be an advocate for one of Chuck Wilson’s daughters, moved that the special committee be formed by purporting allegations of sin and wrongdoing on the part of Second Presbytery, even comparing the current situation to the Roman Catholic pedophilia scandal. And instead of appointing investigators per Book of Discipline 4.2, this special committee conducted an investigation. That’s even the wording of the motion that created the committee. Their report is full of allegations of sin that are not substantiated. It is clear that this committee has acted as investigators without being so appointed per the Book of Discipline 4.2. Therefore, this report violates Book of Discipline 4.2. So Mr. Moderator, for these reasons, I humbly ask you, sir, humbly move that this point of order, request that the report and the recommendations be ruled out of order.”

The Moderator, Alan Broyles, chose (time marker 58m 31s Day 2 Part 1) not to make a ruling but turned the microphone over to the acting Parliamentarian, Mr. Kingswood, who said:

“The moderator [sic] of the committee has not signed it. That’s true. I think I would appeal to the moderator to decide whether that makes something ineligible for entry. I don’t think it rises to the level of dismissing a report. It’s a technical thing.” The Moderator responded by saying, “With respect to the allegation about the signatures, I don’t believe that affects the intent of this commission, of this committee.”

The “technical thing” that was disregarded by the acting Parliamentarian and the Moderator was a clear violation of the ARP constitution. If a court does not conform to a “technical thing” of its constitution, what is the purpose of the constitution? All of these delegates took ordination vows agreeing to “accept the government, discipline, and worship of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church as agreeable to and founded on the Word of God.” The “government” and “discipline” correspond to the Form of Government and the Book of Discipline respectively.

Mr. Yi then rose to make another point of order (time marker 1h 3m 15s Day 2 Part 1):

“I would continue to argue that this document, this report is out of order based upon FoG Chapter 13, which deals with boards, commissions, and committees. Subsection 13, composition and organization of committees. Subsection B, classification of committees. Subsection 2, special committees. A special committee shall, 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 full wording of the original motion regarding this special committee, which was made, again, by the Advocate of one of Mr. Wilson’s daughters, included this final sentence, which is left out in the Special Committee’s report. That is, ‘This special committee shall be composed of members from Executive Board’s judicial commission on Matthew Miller and the Executive Board’s Investigative Committee on Chuck Wilson.’ The genesis of this special committee is unconstitutional. It is a fruit of a poisonous tree. It clearly disregards FoG 13.13.B. (2).

“Furthermore, two members of this Special Committee, Mr. Sims and Mr. Malphrus were not duly appointed members to either of the Judicial Commission or the Investigative Committee. They were merely advisory members of the Judicial Commission by virtue of their office on the Executive Board of Synod. So to have them serve on this special committee is highly irregular. And to make the matter worse, did we ever find out who the chairman of this committee was?…To have one of them, who is unnamed,…[Mr. Sims answered that he was],…an advisory member serve as the chair of this SC is entirely irregular.

“For these reasons, Mr. Moderator, I believe that this report is clearly out of order and unconstitutional according to our standards and form of government.”

The Moderator then looked over to the acting Parliamentarian and turned over the microphone to him. He proceeded to say, “I’m disturbed by a pattern I’m seeing here of parliamentary stonewalling by appealing to this or that minutia or irregularity. Something being irregular does not make it out of order. Someone who holds an office ex officio is entitled to participate in the work of that committee….Okay, advisory. It does not preclude his service. You may not like it, but it doesn’t preclude it. And I keep hearing that the motion was made by…that is absolutely out of bounds. It matters not who the motion was made by or who he is related to and that is underhanded, and it demonstrates in my opinion the exact spirit that this committee is dealing with in this presbytery and it stinks to high heaven. Excuse me for overstepping my bounds.” This loaded outburst by the acting Parliamentarian set a tone for the rest of the debate.

According to Manual of Authorities and Duties for Officers and Agencies and Rules of Order (MAD p. 83, file p. 84):

“The Parliamentarian should be a person with expert knowledge of the rules and use of adopted parliamentary procedures. He should be a person who is impartial, systematic, knowledgeable, and reliable. He should see to it that the business procedures are carried out according to these Rules of Order. He should call attention to an improper procedure and on request advise the Moderator on procedural matters.” Furthermore, his duties include, “At the meeting of the General Synod, the Parliamentarian shall call attention to procedures which are not in accord with the Rules of Order of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. On request, he shall advise the Moderator on procedural matters. However, all questions of order shall be decided by the Moderator, subject only to the appeal of two or more members of the Court” (MAD p. 9, file p. 10).

Rob Patrick, the former Moderator, then made the inquiry noted above about the appointment of this Special Committee last year. When it was determined that it was the court, the Synod, that made the appointment, the acting parliamentarian advised to “seek the will of the court to determine whether or not we would like to proceed.” The Moderator called for a vote on whether to proceed with Index 11, and the court voted to proceed. The majority of the court knowingly ignored the Form of Government in moving forward with Index 11.

Mr. Yi then rose to make the following motion (time marker 1h 12m Day 2 Part 1):

“I move that deliberation on the Special Committee’s report and its recommendations be postponed until the 2025 General Synod so that members of Second Presbytery, including members of the 2022 Minister and His Work Committee can respond to the findings in this report….I speak in favor of this motion to postpone for several reasons. We should postpone deliberation because of the enormity of the decision and the potential ramification of these recommendations. Many of us still remember what happened during the ‘Snow Synod’ and following when actions were taken hastily on information resulting in lawsuits, years of rupture, and broken relationships within our denomination. Could the same thing happen if these recommendations are dealt with by the Synod in such a hasty manner?

“Secondly, because of the limited time that the Synod has had to consider this report. Proverbs 21.5 reads, ‘The plans of the diligent lead surely to abundance, but everyone who is hasty comes only to poverty.’ Most of us have had less than two weeks to consider prayerfully this report and its unprecedented recommendations. Some here have had less than a couple days if they registered while at Synod.

“Third, we ought to postpone deliberation so that we can understand the legal ramifications of these actions. Can Synod legally dissolve Second Presbytery, which is an independently incorporated entity in South Carolina? Does the Form of Government give Synod the authority to claim the assets of a presbytery? What kind of legal defense does the Synod have if it is sued?

“Fourthly, we should postpone so that we can weigh the precedent we are setting. Second Presbytery is not the only court that has had difficult judicial matters presented to Synod in the past several years. Recall that the only time that the Synod has dissolved a presbytery was with the Pacific Presbytery for many legitimate reasons, primarily due to language, which they could not speak clearly, in English, their culture, and noncompliance to our Standards on multiple levels. Furthermore, before such an extreme action was taken, diligent and pastoral intervention was provided by Synod with members of Pacific Presbytery.

“Fifth, we should postpone so that Catawba and Tennessee-Alabama Presbyteries can give their input. Is it proper and considerate to force Catawba and Tennessee-Alabama Presbyteries to receive these supposedly highly dysfunctional churches and ministers without any input or preparation in less than three months? How would that actually remedy the alleged problems within these churches? Shouldn’t Catawba and Tennessee-Alabama have the right to approve formally this plan without Synod giving a top-down directive?

“And then lastly, we should postpone deliberation because it is in keeping with the Scriptures. Proverbs 18.17 reads, ‘The one who states his case first seems right until the other comes and examines him.’ 1 Timothy 5.19, ‘Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.’ Synod should allow Second Presbytery and the men mentioned in this report to make their case before it takes the harsh, punitive action of dissolving the whole Presbytery. The vast majority of Second Presbytery has not had the opportunity to engage the Special Committee. Second Presbytery was not even given an advanced copy of this report, and a response was not solicited. In fact, the Special Committee only met with the Minister and His Work Committee and myself once in a Zoom meeting for maybe an hour and 15 minutes on October 6, 2023, and did not raise most of the concerns asserted in this report. What kind of loving father, that is in this case the Synod, disciplines his child publicly, in this case via dissolution of a whole presbytery before carefully examining the situation? Superiors according to the fifth commandment should not treat inferiors in such an unloving manner.

“Furthermore, yesterday Second Presbytery approved the following motion to be shared with General Synod. ‘We, the members of Second Presbytery, on this day, June 11, 2024, hereby express our sadness, shock, and surprise at the recommendations from Synod’s Special Committee. We believe that acting on these recommendations would be unfair and unjust. The report and its recommendations violate our Presbytery’s rights to due process. No allegations have been filed against the Presbytery as an entity, no trial has been held, and the Presbytery has had no opportunity to defend itself. Moreover, the recommendations give the strongest censure possible to the Presbytery; it’s dissolution for the alleged actions on the part of at least a handful of members who are named in this report. Furthermore, the report does not mention the involvement of members of other presbyteries and congregations outside of Second Presbytery who have been involved in the recent strife. We hereby object to this report and request the General Synod take no hasty action regarding the future of our presbytery without first giving us a fair and impartial hearing.

“For these reasons, I speak in favor of the motion to postpone.”

Mr. Yi’s motion to postpone was defeated by voice vote. At this point it seemed that the tide to move forward with Index 11 was insurmountable. Mr. Malphrus, one of the members of the Special Committee, proceeded to make a presentation on behalf of the Committee for over 37 minutes. Afterwards, the assembly began debating Recommendation #1: “That Second Presbytery be dissolved as of September 1, 2024.”

At this point, the Moderator began limiting floor speeches to five minutes, even though Mr. Malphrus was given far more time to make the case for the Special Committee. As the debate continued, it was evident that the Moderator (a ruling elder from Catawba Presbytery) struggled to moderate the debate in an orderly and impartial manner. The debate lasted over one hour and 50 minutes, but after several highly emotional speeches, the recommendation was approved. The 2024 General Synod voted to dissolve the second oldest presbytery of the ARP Church effective September 1, 2024.

However, at no point during the debate did the acting Parliamentarian, Mr. Kingswood, nor Synod’s Parliamentarian, Mr. Malphrus, nor the former Parliamentarian, Andy Putnam, inform the Moderator or the court of Form of Government 12.22 (FoG p. 95, related to General Synod’s AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES) which 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 and B. Review the Presbytery records, provide counsel and advice when requested.”

Was this recommendation even constitutional? Did Synod actually have the authority to initiate the dissolution of a presbytery? Would Synod have acted accordingly if this point of order was brought to the attention of the assembly? How did Synod’s Parliamentarian, Mr. Malphrus, who served on the Special Committee that wrote Index 11, not know about FoG 12.22? The dissolution of Second Presbytery was not only unprecedented but unconstitutional. Several of the technicalities of the ARPC’s Constitution were egregiously violated.

On July 5 and 8, two separate complaints were filed with the Principal Clerk of the General Synod, Mr. Sims (see https://theaquilareport.com/complaints-filed-against-an-action-of-the-2024-arp-general-synod/), the first complaint by seven members of Second Presbytery, and the second complaint by Jack Van Dyk, a minister in Northeast Presbytery and a member of the Special Committee.

As of July 19, the Moderator, Mr. Broyles, has declared the complaints out of order and declined to call a meeting of the Executive Board of Synod to discuss the complaints. Tony Locke, who emailed the complaint on behalf of the members of Second Presbytery, and Mr. Van Dyk received the same reply from Mr. Broyles (Email Response to the Complaints).

Seth Yi is a Minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and is the Pastor of Newberry ARP in Newberry, SC.