Jun 17, 2013 | Comments 6
The Best of Times and the Worst of Times
Like Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, the meeting of the 2013 General Synod was A TALE OF TWO SYNODS. Indeed, it was both the best of times and the worst of times. It was a time of significant gain, it was a time of feeling good about ourselves, it was a time of ecclesiastical foolishness, it was a time of feeling bad about ourselves, it was a time of joining together to address old issues, it was a time of healing, and it was a time of wounding.
THE BEST OF SYNOD
1. The Saga of the Erskine Bylaws Ended
Once again, Erskine College & Seminary was a central focus of General Synod. This time, however, the Erskine board was of a mind to work with the ARP Church and recognized the authority of the church over its institution.
Having written the ARP Church out of the bylaws, General Synod asked the board to write the ARP Church back into the charter at the 2011 Synod. At the 2012 meeting of Synod, confusion and division ensued when Chairman David Conner and his ad hoc committee stated in their report the writing of General Synod into the charter and/or bylaws was impossible and violated the directives of SACS. In direct opposition to this opinion, a Minority Report of trustees revealed the action was possible in that a number of nearby church colleges/universities had such wording in their charters and/or bylaws. At the time, a Synod ad hoc committee was appointed to work with the Erskine board on the matter.
In the ensuing year, Erskine College & Seminary has been placed on “warning” status by SACS; however, none of the “warning” citations referenced the relationship between Erskine and the General Synod. Indeed, after consulting SACS administrators, it was discovered the request of General Synod is not only possible but desirable.
A big word of thanks needs to be given to Erskine board Vice Chairman Bill Cain and Synod’s ad hoc committee chairman Ken Wingate. A big word of thanks also needs to be given to Erskine board Chairman David Conner who sat quietly in the back of the meeting room and did not confuse the discussion.
The motion passed overwhelming by voice vote.
At this point, according to the adopted report, Erskine College & Seminary is clearly an “agency” of the ARP Church. The ARP Church is no longer the “sponsoring” denomination of Erskine College & Seminary; Erskine College & Seminary is the educational agency of the ARP Church. “Erskine College Owned and Operated by the ARP Church” reads the sign just inside Due West. Indubitably, the sign reads correctly.
2. The Separation of the College and Seminary
Doubtlessly, Erskine Seminary is a troubled institution. Its future is uncertain. Today, no one would attempt to establish a seminary in sparsely populated and out-of-the-way Due West, South Carolina. Erskine Seminary is no longer significant in the ministerial life of the ARP Church. Because of neo-orthodox professors in the past and present (Dr. Richard Burnett), Erskine Seminary has lost theological credibility with the ARP Church. If the failed model of the past is continued, do not look for a different outcome. Both Reformed Theological Seminary-Charlotte and Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary are more respected in the ARP Church than Erskine Seminary. The Columbia campus of Erskine Seminary is now larger than the Due West campus. The outreach to the Methodist Church has been lost. With the opening of a graduate school of religion at Anderson College and a proposed seminary at North Greenville University, the attraction Erskine Seminary has been to local Baptists students disappears. A new day is upon Erskine Seminary, and it is a day for which Erskine Seminary is ill-prepared.
Synod’s ad hoc committee requested the Erskine board to study both the viability of a separate governing board for Erskine Theological Seminary and its relocation. Amazingly, the Reverends Ron Beard and Chuck Wilson spoke in favor of this motion, and the voice vote in favor was overwhelming and thunderous.
Nevertheless, there is a worm in the apple regarding this motion. This is not the first time a study like this has been undertaken. In the past, the answer from the board was the separation was not possible because of the cost. The answer next year will be the SAME – Erskine cannot afford such a move. The real question is this: DOES THE ARP CHURCH WANT THIS, AND ARE WE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT? That is, do we really want a seminary which is peculiarly ARP? Presently, I am told Erskine Seminary has an endowment of about 8 million dollars. Doubtlessly, the endowment needs to be carefully husbanded for the future. Therefore, if the ARP Church desires to love her seminary so that it becomes what so many have dreamed it to be, the money for the project can be raised in the ARP Church. At the end of the day, the question rests with the ARP Church and not the Erskine board. One can only hope the Erskine board puts the question back to the ARP Church where the question belongs. Then, let us hope the vote is overwhelming once again with folks ready to give and work! In the 1830s, the little ARP Church pulled off the impossible. Can we do it again?
3. The Nominees for the Erskine Board
The Nominations Committee is to be congratulated for its list of seven trustee nominees for the Erskine board. The election of these trustees occurred without a word of protest. As I count it, a faithful evangelical majority willing to uphold the mission will control the direction of Erskine College & Seminary as of July 1, 2013. As the Moderator’s ad hoc committee points out, the challenge is to continue a rigorous vetting process for trustees.
4. RUF Ministry Authorized at Newberry College
The ARP Church has authorized a new RUF ministry at Newberry College, Newberry, South Carolina. One of the bright spots in the ARP Church is the RUF (“The Barn”) ministry at Erskine which is led by Rev. Paul Patrick. The candidate for the Newberry ministry is the Reverend Seth Starkey. Presently, he is the Assistant Pastor at Second Presbyterian Church (PCA), Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Starkey is a singularly impressive young man.
A graduate of Newberry College, the Reverend Jody Gaston said he has been praying for fifteen years for such a ministry on the campus of Newberry College. The motion passed overwhelmingly.
5. The New Moderator
For the second year, the General Synod has chosen a Moderator from outside of the Carolinas. The new Moderator is Mr. Larry Littlejohn, an elder in our church in French Camp, Mississippi. A layman, Mr. Littlejohn is a teacher and administrator at the French Camp Academy. Mr. Littlejohn was elected by acclamation. He nominated Reverend Lee Shelnutt as his Vice Moderator. Of course, Mr. Shelnutt was elected by acclamation. Mr. Shelnut is the pastor of the Huntersville ARP Church, Huntersville, North Carolina.
6. When Is It Biblically Acceptable for Christians to Sue Each Other in the Civil Court?
The Reverend Mark Miller moved to study the knotty issue of Christians suing each other in civil court and the motion carried. Particularly, the question goes back to the 2010 “Snow” Synod when elders Richard Taylor, Parker Young, and Reverend James Hering participated in civil actions to overturn the work of the “Snow” Synod.
7. New Book of Discipline
Over the years, the quip has been the ARP Church could not deal with a disciplinary case because our Book of Discipline was so convoluted and contradictory a case could not be adjudicated. Years ago when I was fresh out of seminary, an old minister friend explained to me our Book of Discipline was designed to make sure discipline cases were not conducted. Finally, a workable Book of Discipline is before us. A word of thanks is due to the members of the revision committee.
THE WORST OF SYNOD
8. Special Committee on Strategic Planning
The Special Committee on Strategic Planning ended “not with a bang but with a whimper.” We sent these folks to the ocean to bring back water and they came back with sand saying the ocean was dry. We were asked to implement their findings. That is difficult. Last year, after three years of study, the Chairman informed Synod the committee had no strategic plan. Nothing new was presented this year. There is no plan to implement.
9. The Report of the Ecclesiastical Commission on Judiciary Affairs
In order for all of us to be protected, those charged with the prosecution and/or appeal of ecclesiastical matters must bend over backward to be seen as fair in the prosecution of an unpopular matter. This is clearly not true in the ARP Church!
The two maters before the Ecclesiastical Commission were from Second Presbytery. Both cases involved the 2010 “Snow” Synod. That is, both Reverend Jay Hering and Mr. Richard Taylor of Second Presbytery had taken legal actions against the ARP Church in Civil Court.
With the exceptions of Reverends Tim Phillips and Rick Barnes, the members of the Ecclesiastical Commission disgraced themselves. This is a harsh assessment of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and I have come to this assessment for the following reasons:
- Chairman David W. Smith’s report to Synod was only three short paragraphs. The first paragraph introduced the members of the Commission. Then, in two very short paragraphs of only 121 words, two matters which have been before General Synod were summarily dismissed with no attempt to demonstrate due process or transparency. At this point, the most humorous episode of the 2013 Synod occurred. Mr. Eric Ruschky, a former federal prosecuting attorney, went to the mic and introduced himself to Mr. Smith and asked him what his profession was. When Mr. Smith said he was a lawyer, Mr. Ruschky acknowledged he was also a lawyer. Mr. Ruschky wanted to know why Mr. Smith and his Commission (which has numerous attorneys on it) had foregone due diligence. Mr. Smith said the Commission had met two times by phone conference and had not met with any of the parties involved. Mr. Ruschky noted the only attempt at due diligence was the “Dissenting Opinion” which was authored by the Reverends Tim Phillips and Rick Barnes. Mr. Smith was so shaken by the conversation he addressed Synod’s Moderator Jeff Kingswood as “your Honor.” Mr. Kingswood said this was the first time he had been addressed as a judge. Mr. Smith must not be a trial lawyer.
- Commission members Doug Jones and Terry Wallace did not recuse themselves from these cases. They did not inform the Commission members of their prejudice with regard to these cases. Both men were involved in the Parker Young Case in First Presbytery. Mr. Young also took legal action against the ARP Church in matters regarding the “Snow” Synod. Unlike Second Presbytery, First Presbytery ruled such an action constituted a violation of ordination vows. At the time, Mr. Young was an elder in the Pinecrest ARP Church. Mr. Wallace is an elder in the Pincecrest Church. At the time, Reverend Jones was serving the Pinecrest congregation as Interim Pastor. Reverend Jones wrote the defense of Mr. Young which failed before the presbytery. Furthermore, there is considerable tension between Rev. Jones and one of the signers of the two cases before the Commission. The Book of Discipline states the principle in this manner: “In its investigation, the committee (or the court) is to exercise great caution when charges rest chiefly on the testimony of persons who are or have been at enmity with the accused” (BOD. V.5.(a)). In a phone conversation with Reverend Jones, he threatened to sue Reverend Chuck Wilson if he made it public he was the author of the Pinecrest Sesson’s defense of Mr. Young. This is a shameful chapter in the ecclesiastical affairs of the ARP Church. Once must go elsewhere to find transparency and a fair hearing in the courts of the church.
- One wonders if the members of the Ecclesiastical Commission even read the defense of Mr. Richard Taylor by the Session of the Greenville ARP Church. Central to the Session’s defense of Mr. Taylor is the argument of sincerity. The Session wrote: “That Dr. Taylor, as a trustee, truly believed that the action taken by the General Synod with respect to the attempted removal of certain trustees would be detrimental to the welfare of Erskine College and Seminary, and also believed that no other options were available to him and the other plaintiffs.” This defense is relativistic nonsense. This is an insult to us for we call ourselves conservative and confessional Presbyterian. We undo ourselves in this. The Minority Report or “Dissenting Opinion” (see below for a copy) was defeated and the report was adopted by a very narrow vote. Well, I suppose we are willing to live with this. If so, you who voted for sustaining the report of the Ecclesiastical Commission do not complain and wonder why the hard and truthful words of ARPTalk are not challenged and Chuck Wilson is not flogged in front of the Bonclarken sign for not being nice. I assure you Chuck Wilson truly believes the actions he takes and the words he writes in revealing truth, identifying falsehood, error, ineptness, and exposing the perpetrators of such, and his calling for reformation and repentance are done in love of God and Christ’s church as expressed in the ARP Church, and he also believes there is no other viable option left to him at this time but the prophetic voice. In conclusion, it is the nature of man to forget, but it is the nature of God to remember. It is the nature of man to cover a matter, but it is the nature of God to uncover. It the nature of man to go on to a new thing, but it is the nature of God to go back and judge a thing. God helps us if this is true! Presently, we are in a divided mess. The action First Presbytery forbids is sanctioned in Second Presbytery. If a psychiatrist were evaluating us, she would prescribe meds for us and forbid us to use forks lest we put out our other eye. Many are saying peace has been brought; I say fear has been wrought. We are now living in ecclesiastical anarchy. We are now living in the land of the Judges where every man does right in his own eyes.
General Synod’s Ecclesiastical Commission on Judiciary Affairs (ECJA) met twice by conference call to consider two complaints against Second Presbytery. The first of these conference calls was held on January 31, 2013 and considered a complaint against Second Presbytery with regard to the session of the Greenville ARP Church and their handling of a matter involving ruling elder Dr. Richard Taylor. This complaint came to the ECJA by virtue of an adopted recommendation of a Moderator’s Committee on Complaints during the 2012 meeting of General Synod (see 2012 Minutes of Synod, p. 505: “That Complaint 1 (Complaint against Second Presbytery) be referred to the standing Ecclesiastical Commission on Judiciary Affairs”). The second conference call was held on February 14, 2013 and dealt with the actions of Second Presbytery on October 12, 2010 concerning Dr. James Hering, a member of Second Presbytery. This case was referred to the ECJA at the 2011 meeting of General Synod (see 2011 Minutes of Synod, p. 150: “A Complaint from Second Presbytery was referred to the Ecclesiastical Commission on Judiciary Affairs for study and adjudication.”) The end result of both of these meetings was that the actions of Second Presbytery were deemed not to be irregular or unjust; therefore, both cases were dismissed by the ECJA.
It is the view of this Dissenting Opinion that the actions of the ECJA are troubling in a number of areas:
- The Report of the ECJA as submitted to General Synod is far too brief in what it reports. There was much discussion and debate during the two conference calls, which is not reflected in the report. Furthermore, these are not simple matters, as they touch on the correct interpretation of Holy Scripture (in particular, 1 Corinthians 6:1-8); the ordination vows of elders and ministers, and the area of church discipline (the latter which was widely considered to be a mark of the true church in several Reformation-era confessional documents). In addition, it should be noted that the lawsuit filed against General Synod in 2010 – the underlying event that precipitated the complaints – ended up costing Synod roughly $100,000 in legal fees.
- There seemed to be some confusion on the part of some of members of the commission about exactly what the ECJA was being asked to do in each case and how to do this in an ecclesiastical fashion. For instance, sections of the Book of Discipline with regard to complaints were referenced (specifically, BoD X.E. “Complaints”). However, on multiple occasions during the meetings, language of the secular courts was used by members of the commission, in that the complaints against Second Presbytery were deemed to be a “collateral attack” by those making the complaint. Also, in the first meeting, the lack of a legal “precedent” in the ARP Church was stressed by one member of the commission. Because of this, this member of the commission had researched cases in the Presbyterian Church (USA) for guidance. Two cases were mentioned during this meeting, but without much specific detail. When the minutes of this meeting were emailed to members of the commission, there were also two attachments included – documents of the two PC(USA) cases that were referenced (because of the length of these documents, they have not been included as attachments to this report, but they may be accessed electronically at the following links: http://tinyurl.com/bl5hzye and http://tinyurl.com/cz47734) Both of these “precedents” were rather notorious cases in the PC(USA): the first dealt with a feminist theology conference where paganism was openly promoted; the second dealt with the ordination of a homosexual minister. Both of the cases were dismissed by the PC(USA) equivalent of the ECJA on irrelevant technicalities and therefore should not be considered as possibilities for “precedents.”
- There may, in fact, have been a similar case in the ARP Church that was not considered for purposes of precedent or direction. In the lawsuit filed by Dr. Taylor, which was one of the underlying reasons for the complaint involving the session of the Greenville ARP Church, one of the co-filers of the lawsuit was Dr. Parker Young, a member of First Presbytery and a ruling elder at the Pinecrest ARP Church. First Presbytery did eventually assume original jurisdiction in the case of Dr. Young and was pursuing a course of church discipline against him (these events are chronicled in the Spring, Summer, and Fall 2011 minutes of First Presbytery). The similarity in these cases was never mentioned during the meetings of the ECJA, even though at least two member of the commission were closely involved in this case in First Presbytery (see below).
- At the end of the second conference call, when it was announced that a minority report (i.e., dissenting opinion) of the ECJA would be presented to Synod, one of the members of the ECJA responded by attempting to defend the action of presbyters taking ecclesiastical matters to secular courts. In particular the following argument was made:
It is generally agreed among Biblical scholars that the First Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as AD 52 or probably no later than AD 58 while Paul was in Ephesus. This means that Paul wrote this letter several years before he attempted to persuade the Jews in Jerusalem that he was a Jew following the revealed will of God in preaching to the Gentiles. We read in Acts 23:9ff and in Acts 25:2-3 that the religious leaders of the Jews banded together with an oath to kill Paul. Specifically, Acts 25:2-3 says, “Then the high priest and the chief men of the Jews informed him [Festus] against Paul; and they petitioned him, asking a favor against him, that he would summon him to Jerusalem – while they lay in ambush along the road to kill him.” See also Acts 25:9-12, “Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, said to Paul, “Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before me there on these charges?” Paul answered: “I am now standing before Caesar’s court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well. If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!” After Festus had conferred with his council, he declared: “You have appealed to Caesar; to Caesar you shall go.” When Paul realized that Festus would take him back to Jerusalem, try him, and possibly turn him over to the Jews [sic] he was not willing to risk being tried by them (an ecclesiastical court), so he appealed to Caesar (a civil court). This occurred around AD 62-64, for we know that several of his epistles from Rome were written around AD 63-65. If Paul, after writing 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, felt that he must appeal to a civil court, then obviously he felt that there had to be exceptions to the rule about never going to civil court with matters that normally would have been tried by an ecclesiastical court.
Leaving aside the fact that the “ecclesiastical court” mentioned in the example cited above was Jewish and therefore not a Christian one (and therefore not technically “ecclesiastical”, i.e. pertaining to the church of the Lord Jesus Christ), it should be noted that this statement was given by ECJA member Rev. Doug Jones, and appears to be identical to a paragraph contained in a response submitted by the Pinecrest ARP Church session in defense of Dr. Parker Young (see Minutes of First Presbytery, March 8, 2011, Appendix B, pp. 33-34). According to the minutes of First Presbytery, Mr. Jones was serving as the supply pastor of the Pinecrest ARP Church. It would seem reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Mr. Jones would have knowledge of the case involving Dr. Young. In addition, Mr. Terry Wallace, another member of ECJA, was serving as a member of the Pinecrest session at the time; his name appears as one of the signers of the response of the Pinecrest session (see the March 8, 2011 Minutes, p. 40). It should also be noted that this response by the Pinecrest session was found by the presbytery to be “inadequate and insufficient,” leading the presbytery to assume original jurisdiction and appoint an ecclesiastical commission to adjudicate the case against Dr. Young. None of these events were mentioned during either meeting of the ECJA, and neither Mr. Jones nor Mr. Wallace recused himself. The matter only came to the attention of the minority because of Mr. Jones’ statements quoted above.
- If the majority report of the ECJA is adopted, it has the potential to create, at the very least, a measure of disunity with the Synod as to how matters of church discipline are handled by the church courts. In both First Presbytery and Second Presbytery, almost identical cases were considered, but with completely different results. If one presbytery considers the actions of a session to be inadequate and assumes original jurisdiction while another does not, this creates confusion in handling such cases in the future. Furthermore, the majority report of the ECJA has the potential to establish some sort of precedent within the Synod – in essence, the decision of one presbytery is supported, over and against the actions of another presbytery. Would adopting the majority report effectively “undo” in some way the actions of First Presbytery? In the view of the minority, such a scenario has not been carefully considered by the ECJA, and therefore extreme wisdom should be exercised by the Synod in these matters. In part, this is not the fault of the majority of the ECJA, but rests with two members who did not adequately report these matters to the rest of the commission.
- It is uncertain as to whether the ECJA actually followed the directives of General Synod in the case involving Dr. Hering. The complaint was referred to the ECJA “for study and adjudication.” Since the case was dismissed without any contact or consultation with any of the parties in the case, it is very difficult to see how “adjudication” took place.
- In the opinion of the minority, the merits of each of the two cases were not properly considered. When the issue of lawsuits within the church was mentioned during discussions, it was repeatedly stated that the ECJA was not to discuss the charges against Dr. Taylor and Dr. Hering, but only whether Second Presbytery had acted in an unjust or irregular manner. It is very difficult to ascertain whether an action was irregular or unjust if the underlying cases could not be discussed. It was suggested at various times that the different parties in the cases could be met with and interviewed, but these suggestions were not acted upon by the commission. According to BoD X.D.9 (cf. X.E.5), “when a higher court has decided that an appeal is in order and that it should be considered by the court,” one of the procedures to be followed is the “hearing of the parties.” This did not take place in either of the complaints given to the ECJA for its consideration.
- The minority disputes the conclusions of the majority that the actions of Second Presbytery were not irregular or unjust. In the case of Dr. Taylor, none of the documents given to the ECJA indicate that church discipline in any form was ever considered, either by the Greenville ARP Church session or by Second Presbytery. For example, the language of “admonition” or “exhortation” does not occur in the documents given to the ECJA. In the opinion of the minority, it is not clear as to how two issues concerning Dr. Taylor were dealt with by either the session or the presbytery. In particular, the following ordination vow would seem to be an important consideration: “(6) Do you promise to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the session and to the higher courts of the Church?” If this was not addressed in a disciplinary manner by either the session or presbytery, it is very difficult to see how the presbytery did not act in an irregular manner.
- In the case of Dr. Hering, there does seem to be the indication that some procedures of church discipline were undertaken by the presbytery, specifically the Minister and His Work Committee (MHWC). In a report from MHWC, it is acknowledged that Dr. Hering was admonished by the committee (see Minutes of Second Presbytery, March 8, 2011, pp. 28-29). This was an encouraging action by the committee of the presbytery, and it does seem to indicate that there was an acknowledgment of wrongdoing on the part of Dr. Herring, since the language of church discipline (“admonished”) is used. Specifically, this report states:
“Further, some brothers have asked what counsel MHWC gave to Mr. Hering that was mentioned in but not spelled out in the Fall  report. Along with other counsel, MHWC admonished Mr. Hering that we believe he should not have attempted to take the matter to civil court; we counseled him that he should have let the providence of God play out through the decision of the body (Synod) and that if he wished to appeal it should have done so through the courts of the church; and we asked him to reconsider his actions in light of our counsel.”
What is missing, however, is any indication of how Dr. Hering responded to the admonishment, whether further steps of church discipline (e.g., exhortation) were undertaken, whether Dr. Hering had complied with the committee’s request to reconsider his actions, etc. If there was no follow through on the part of the committee or the presbytery, this would seem to be irregular. A motion was made and seconded during the February 14th meeting of the ECJA: “That the Ecclesiastical Commission on Judiciary Affairs recommend to Second Presbytery to revisit the admonishment of Mr. Herring, if necessary, and to determine if Mr. Hering has reconsidered his paper on 1 Corinthians 6.” This motion was defeated by the ECJA.
- Finally, the opening paragraph of the Book of Discipline includes this statement: “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.” Because church discipline was not adequately pursued in these cases, the opportunity for repentance and reconciliation for Dr. Taylor and Dr. Hering is lacking. If they have indeed sinned and have not been confronted in their sin, then there is a negligence of oversight. To deprive a presbyter the opportunity for repentance and reconciliation through the actions of a church court would therefore seem, at the very least, to be an unjust action.
Therefore, this Dissenting Report of the Ecclesiastical Commission of Judiciary Affairs makes the following recommendations:
- Whereas BoD X.D.9 was not followed and members of the ECJA did not recuse themselves, that the Moderator of General Synod appoint an ecclesiastical commission to adjudicate the complaint against Second Presbytery involving the Greenville ARP Church session and report back to the 2014 meeting of General Synod, and that this commission be composed of nine (9) members, five (5) of whom shall be teaching elders, four (4) of whom shall be ruling elders, with none of its membership consisting of members of either First or Second Presbytery.
- That the complaint against Second Presbytery involving Dr. James Hering be sustained and that Second Presbytery be instructed to continue the process of discipline begun by the MHWC in Fall 2010 and mentioned its Spring 2011 report to Second Presbytery.
- That General Synod refer to the Committee on Theological and Social Concerns the question as to whether it is justifiable for Christians to take other Christians to the secular courts.
Rev. Tim Phillips, Pastor
Midlane Park Presbyterian Church
Rev. Rick Barnes
Pastor, Grace Fellowship Church
10. The Report of the Board of Stewardship
We were informed 95 congregations last year did not contribute to the Denominational Ministry Fund. For the second year, the members of the Board of Stewardship recommended an exclusionary policy regarding these congregations, that is, “Members from those churches choosing not to make any contribution to the DMF will not be eligible to serve on Synod’s Boards and Committees, or hold any other leadership position.” One wonders what Chairman David Sides and his committee members were thinking. Thankfully, the recommendation was overwhelmingly defeated. Such a motion is not a balm of healing. Many congregations do not give out of protest. As a denomination we are divided and failing. The members of the Board of Stewardship should be asking why a third of our congregations are not giving and attempting to address those issues. Indeed, why would anyone want to give to the ministry of the ARP Church? In many ways, to give is to enable our continuing failures. I am waiting for someone to challenge us with a God-sized vision. Do the members of the Board of Stewardship not realize people no longer give out of a sense of loyalty or because of a threat? The Bible says where there is no vision, the people perish (Prov. 29.18). Where there is no vision, the people do not give is another way of saying the truth of Proverbs 29.18.
As was said in the beginning, the 2013 General Synod was a tale of two Synods – one good and the other not so good. Many said they felt good about Synod; others walked away disappointed. I walked away with mixed feelings. I was happy we were able to finish the work this year; however, I think we did it in a superficial manner. We really did not debate or discuss or address important issues which are before us. As a friend said to me after Synod: “I love the ARP Church, but I love the ARP Church as a father loves an emotionally difficult child. What am I going to with her? I do not have the option of walking away from her.”
These are my thoughts,
Charles W. Wilson
Filed Under: Newsletter