“The purpose of discipline is to bring about the reconciliation of man to God and man to man and to engage the people of God in the ministry of reconciliation”

On May 6th The Aquila Report ran a story about a Session in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) Church starting a process known as Church Discipline by presenting allegations against a Minister to a Presbytery. For ease of reference, we will refer to this as the Jay Hering Case. (Review the story here: http://bit.ly/d2lKjh)

We have determined that the first date that any formal action is expected to be taken in this case is June 8th when Second Presbytery (the regional body which holds Professor Hering’s credentials as a minister) meets in Bonclarken just prior to the annual meeting of the Synod. However, between now and that date, all we have are allegations and the situation could change based on any individual actions by the Unity ARP Session or by Dr. Hering.

In these two brief paragraphs, we have used several, somewhat esoteric, Presbyterian government words that are worth understanding as we begin.

To begin with, we have identified the three levels of government in the ARP denomination – Session, Presbytery, and Synod. Not only are these ruling (governing) bodies, they are also known as ‘Courts’, since each handles judicial cases in various ways.

The Session – the Presbyterian word describing the Board of Elders who have the responsibility for oversight (rule) of a congregation – is the court where the process of Church Discipline starts for members of the church, but not for Ministers.

Ministers are officially members of the next level of government, the Presbytery, which is made up of ministers (including those pastoring churches and all others in some other form of ministry, such as teaching) who live in a clearly defined area. Additionally, churches located within that area are members of the Presbytery, and are represented by Elders who are currently in active status on the Session of a local church in the area.

For instance, the defined area of Second Presbytery of the ARP Church is as follows:
“Second Presbytery – Constituted in October 1800, it was formed by the division of the Associate Reformed Presbytery of the Carolinas and Georgia. It now includes the state of Georgia and the Western South Carolina counties of Abbeville, Aiken, Allendale, Anderson, Barnwell, Edgefield, Greenville, Greenwood, Laurens, McCormick, Newberry, Oconee, Pickens, Saluda, Spartanburg, and Union.” (from ARP Web site)

The Session which drafted and presented the allegations against Professor Hering is the ‘court’ which has oversight of the Unity ARP Church in Piedmont, SC, which is located in Anderson County, and thus is a member church of Second Presbytery. Since the Presbytery serves as the court of original jurisdiction for ministers, it was appropriate for the Session to file those allegations with the Presbytery.

The next terms which are worth examining for a better understanding are ‘Church Discipline’ and ‘charges’. Since Church Discipline is the broader term, we will start there.

The Book of Discipline of the ARP denomination is helpful in pointing out that the
purpose of discipline is to bring about the reconciliation of man to God and man to man and to engage the people of God in the ministry of reconciliation, and to promote the peace, purity, and edification of the Church. Christian discipline is discipleship; it is the response of loving commitment to God in Christ as Lord that learns from Him as it obediently seeks to carry on His mission in the world. Under the rule of Christ expressed through the Church, discipline is that submission that frees the Christian for more effective service (from Chapter 1, Section 1 of the Book of Discipline)

In other words, Christians are to be disciplined people and through the discipleship work of the church, are in a positive form of discipline all the time.

However, there is a negative form of discipline, and it is that which most people think of as ‘Church Discipline’. The description of his category begins in Chapter 2 of the ARP Book of Discipline, especially in the definition of offenses. In basic language, an offence is:
anything in the principles or practice of a church member or court which is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, the Constitution of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, and the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.

Thus, the allegations offered by the Unity ARP Session allege that Professor Hering has put into practice his beliefs concerning going to civil court against other Christians which, according to the allegations, is contrary to the Scriptures and Constitution of the ARP Church.

Next, the Book of Discipline more carefully defines the ‘kinds’ of offences that could exist. These definitions are also important to understand in the Hering case.

Section 2 of Chapter 2 reads as follows:
Offenses are personal or general, private or public but all offenses, being sins against God, are grounds for discipline. A personal offense is a violation of the law of God in the way of wrong done to some particular person or persons, including one’s own self. A general offense is a violation of the law of God not directed against any particular person. Private offenses are those known only to an individual or, at most, to a few persons. Public offenses are those which are generally known.

It is apparent that the allegations filed against Professor Hering are deemed by the Unity Session to be both general and public. General, because the offence was not against an individual (or small group of individuals) but rather against the larger church. Public, because it involved matters which had been publically taught and published and actions stemming from the teaching which had actually taken place and were known publically.

These facts are of extreme importance because, had the offences been personal and private actions, an additional step would have been required. It is explained in Chapter 4 of the Rules of Discipline, entitled ‘Private Procedure.’ In brief, this would have required that the individual(s) presenting allegations would first have been required to follow the teachings of Matthew 18 to go to the offending individual to seek one-to-one reconciliation. If that were to fail, the individual(s) would, again following Matthew 18, have to take one of more other church members to repeat the effort at reconciliation. Only then would the individual(s) be correct in ‘telling it to the church’ (Matthew 18:17).

However, when dealing with public and general offenses, this process is not required; thus the Unity Session presented the allegations directly to the Presbytery.

The allegations against Professor Hering have been sent to Second Presbytery as a communication, who now must begin the process by following the injunctions of Section V of the Book of Discipline on Court Procedure.

The next time the Presbytery meets will be on June 8th. At that meeting the Presbytery will have to make one of several possible decisions on how to handle this communication.

First, they will have to determine if there are two or more members of the Presbytery who might have ‘any doubt’ whether the alleged offense are of the nature that, were they true, would require a censure, and/or whether there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge.

It would be highly unlikely that the Presbytery would quickly determine that both of these very narrow benchmarks would be met, and thus one would normally expect the Presbytery to elect a committee (under the directives of Section 5 of Chapter V)
to ascertain whether all required preliminary steps have been taken, whether there are probable grounds for an accusation, and whether, if charges are proved, they will constitute a censurable offense.

If and when this committee completes its assignment (details are spelled out in the Book of Discipline) they will come to one of two conclusions.

1. They could determine that the case does not require judicial process or that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the charges. If that is the case, the committee would recommend that the case be dropped. It would take a vote of the Presbytery to approve that action.

2. If the committee investigation determines that the allegations made should rise to the level of formal charges, the committee itself is instructed to prepare the charges for presentation to the court. Again, it would take a vote of the Presbytery to approve the charges.

If formal charges are approved by the Presbytery, then and only then an entirely different set of instructions from the Book of Discipline come into play. (The Aquila Report will provide a summary of those instructions should the need arise.)

In Part 2 of this series, we will look at the key element at issue in these allegations, the teachings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 concerning taking brothers to court, and the application of that teaching by Professor Hering in filing a lawsuit against the ARP Synod.

(To review the Book of Discipline for yourself, you may use this link: http://www.arpsynod.org/pdf/Standards/Book%20of%20Discipline.pdf)