Decision not to proceed to judicial process against Dr. Jay Herring was based on the fact that the key piece of evidence, a signed document seeking to continue a previously filed lawsuit, was not accepted by the civil court.

At the regular summer meetings of both First and Second Presbytery, both of which occurred the day preceding the annual General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP) this past June, each Presbytery had charges presented against a member of the court resulting from the lawsuit filed against the Synod by Erskine-related individuals.

In First Presbytery, the charges involved Dr. Parker Young, a Ruling Elder and Erskine board member who was a signatory to the lawsuit that was in the process of adjudication when it was recently withdrawn. First Presbytery decided at their fall meeting on October 12 not to go forward with prosecution of the charges and returned the matter to Dr. Young’s Session for their action (Stories at http://bit.ly/clxzig and http://bit.ly/du6x7b)

In Second Presbytery, the charges involved Dr. Jay Hering, a faculty member at Erskine Theological Seminary. The charges involved Dr. Hering’s participation in seeking to keep alive the original lawsuit that had been filed on behalf of the Erskine administration and soon after withdrawn (http://bit.ly/cEFXab). It is what happened immediately after this Executive Board decision that brought about the charges against Dr. Hering.

In an effort to keep the original lawsuit active, four men (Michael Bush, Richard Burnett, James Hering, and J. Richard Chestnutt) filed papers referred to as a ‘Motion To Intervene and to Maintain Temporary Restraining Order” to prevent the so-called ‘New Board’ of Erskine from meeting and taking the actions approved by the Special Meeting of the ARP Synod the previous week.

Since the Executive Board of Erskine had withdrawn the original suit, these men felt it was necessary to take legal action to keep the original Temporary Restraining Order in place until a new, second lawsuit was filed.

One of the churches in Second Presbytery felt that Dr. Hering’s participation in this action amounted to a violation of 1 Corinthians 6 and presented charges to the June meeting of the Presbytery (http://bit.ly/d2lKjh and http://bit.ly/c6vdAV).

The Presbytery assigned the matter to one of their committees to investigate and bring recommendations to the fall meeting.

At the fall meeting of Second Presbytery, the report was presented. The key finding by the Committee which investigated this matter on behalf the presbytery reads as follows:

“In actuality, Mr. Hering and two other professors did not file a civil suit, but attempted to continue a civil suit previously filed. The (committee) has been given testimony from three attorneys that this attempt to continue the lawsuit originally filed by Mr. Scott Mitchell was not accepted by the court (emphasis added). Mr. Mitchell’s lawsuit had been withdrawn by the time Mr. Hering and the two other professors arrived at the courthouse to file the extension. The civil court therefore did not receive their request for an extension…….Therefore, while Mr. Hering attempted to do something, that action was not accomplished.

In deciding if the charges presented to Second Presbytery in this matter provided ‘sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges’ or ‘constitute a censurable offence’, the committee recommend and the Presbytery approved the following determinations:

Ø No civil suit was accepted by the court and therefore all references to actions involving such a filing of civil suit are unfounded.

Ø (Committee) does not believe these charges, without the existence of a civil suit, would rise to the level of a censurable offense. (emphasis added).

Clearly, the technical fact that the action of Dr. Hering and three other men did not bring about the results requested in their legal filing was the deciding factor in Second Presbytery not agreeing to process the charges brought by the filing church.

As of this date, there has been no report of anyone in Second Presbytery having sought to overturn this decision. Such action must be taken within 10 days of the meeting.

[Editor’s note: One or more original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid; those links have been removed.]