Following is the official response from the Session of the Pinecrest ARP (Flat Rock, NC) to the judicial reference of First Presbytery in the case of Elder Parker Young. The judicial case stems from charges concerning Dr. Young actions in bring a lawsuit against the denomination in the Erskine Board case in 1020. First Presbytery will receive and act on this response at their Spring Meeting on Tuesday, March 8. The meeting will be held at the Covenant of Grace ARP Church in Winston Salem, NC to begin at 10:00AM.

PINECREST SESSION RESPONSE TO THE MODERATOR’S COMMITTEE

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE FIRST PRESBYTERY OF THE ASSOCIATE
REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AT THEIR STATED MEETING,
MARCH 8, 2011

We, the members of the Session of the Pinecrest Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, wish to thank the members of the First Presbytery of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church for remanding to us the matter of the “Charge and Specifications” of First Presbytery against Dr. Parker Young, member and elder (presently not an active member of the session) of the Pinecrest ARP Church.

As most of the members of the Presbytery are aware, we reported to the Presbytery at its meeting on June 8, 2010, that we were aware of Dr. Young’s participation in a lawsuit challenging the action of the General Synod at its meeting on March 2-3, 2010 which removed all the members of the Board of Trustees of Erskine College and Seminary and then reappointed 15 of them along with replacements for the
other 16. In that report we quoted from the Book of Discipline, Chapter III, paragraph 1, “Original jurisdiction over church members, including non-communing members, and over elders and deacons as officers, is vested in the session of the congregation to which they belong”. We also quoted paragraph 3 as follows: “In cases where the court of original jurisdiction is unable or unwilling to exercise
jurisdiction, the next higher court may assume original jurisdiction upon demonstration of sufficient cause having been shown to the higher court.”

In our report we specifically stated that we were able and willing to act in this matter, but that the issues involved had not been clearly delineated and thus at that time no direct action on our part had been taken. It was then that the Presbytery assumed original jurisdiction, thus taking the matter out of our hands.

Insofar as our ability and willingness to handle the matter are concerned, our position remains unchanged, and we appreciate the Presbytery’s recognition of that position by remanding the case to us.

We have carefully studied the “Charge and Specifications.” We also studied the Standards of our denomination and researched what the Bible teaches concerning situations such as this. In addition, Dr. Young appeared before us on December 7, 2010 at which time we gave him the opportunity to explain his actions and defend his position in the matter.

Dr. Young explained to us the circumstances leading to his filing of the lawsuit, which we feel we need to explain to you, the members of the Presbytery. He stated that he was a member of the Board of Trustees of Erskine College and Seminary and was present when Synod’s committee to look into the affairs of the school visited Erskine.

He stated that the committee interviewed some but not all members of the college’s administrative staff, faculty, student body, and Board of Trustees. After the interviews they presented to the Board their findings, all of which the Board agreed to with one exception. The committee felt that the Board was too large and wanted to reduce its size immediately. The Board was agreeable to reducing the size, but felt that it should be done incrementally, i.e., as each year group rotated off they would be replaced with a smaller number until the desired total number would be reached.

The committee told the trustees that if they did not agree with every one of their recommended changes, they (the committee) would recommend to Synod that the entire board be removed from office. They left no room for negotiation on any point; and so, their report to the Synod at the called meeting March 2-3, 2010, called for the immediate removal of all 32 trustees and the reappointment of 16 of them, along with 16 new trustees, to an interim board. The charter of Erskine College and Seminary, and other procedural documents, all of which have been approved by the Synod, allow the Synod to remove individual trustees for cause, and spell out the procedure for filing charges, etc.

However, under South Carolina law, the charter and procedural documents do not allow the removal of the entire board at one time when there has been no statement of charges filed against any of them. Dr. Young felt that the action of Synod was illegal under South Carolina law, and as a trustee he realized that it was his fiduciary responsibility to protect Erskine from the damage that would result had the ruling of Synod been allowed to stand.

Thus he, with Dr. Richard Taylor, also a trustee, and Mr. David Chestnut, President of the Erskine Alumni Association, filed a lawsuit against the Synod asking for an injunction to prevent the Synod from implementing their decision to remove all members of the board. The court agreed with the position of the plaintiffs and issued the injunction.

Dr. Young also pointed out that the officers of SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, which is Erskine’s accrediting agency) placed the college on “warning status” immediately upon learning of Synod’s action, and later stated that had Dr. Young and his fellow plaintiffs not filed their lawsuit the college would have been subjected to much more serious action. Dr. Young was and is very familiar with the way SACS operates and was unwilling to wait for SACS to take action against Erskine, knowing that such action was inevitable unless something was done immediately to prevent it.

He then, as stated above, with his fellow plaintiffs, filed the lawsuit to prevent further harm to the school, its standing and its reputation. (As evidence of Dr. Young’s relationship with SACS, he has been a speaker at their annual meeting every year for the past 31 years, most recently at their meeting December 6, 2010; this is because he is regarded as one of the nation’s leading experts in college and university law.)

The synod appealed the decision of the lower court which issued the injunction, and after the stated meeting of Synod in June 20L0, Dr. Young, Dr. Taylor and Mr. Chestnut agreed to drop their lawsuit if the Synod would drop its appeal. Following this agreement, each side withdrew and now there are no further legal proceedings pending. As far as the plaintiffs and the Synod are concerned the matter is completely settled.

Following Dr. Young’s explanation, we entered into a discussion of the items in Presbytery’s “Charge and Specifications” and submit the following as our findings:

With regard to the summary explanations of the “Charge and Specifications,” we submit the following as our findings:

Finding Number 1: Charge #1 states, “As a member He violated his vow to question 3 of Chapter V, C, FOG ‘Do you believe the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments to be the written Word of God, the only perfect rule of faith and practice?”’

Charge #2 states, “As an elder he violated his vow to question 2 of Chapter IX, D, FOG ‘Do you reaffirm your belief in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of the living God, the only perfect rule of faith and practice, to which nothing is to be added or from which nothing is to be taken at any time or upon any pretext?”’

Dr. Young has reaffirmed his belief that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are indeed the “written Word of God, the only perfect rule of faith and practice, to which nothing is to be added or from which nothing is to be taken at any time or upon any pretext.” Further, Dr. Young has affirmed that at no time since he first accepted Christ as his Savior has he ever doubted, denied or acted contrary to this belief with regard to the Scriptures.

Charge #2 also states, “l Corinthians 6:1-8 does not list any exceptions for filing a lawsuit against fellow Christians, much less the Bride of Christ, but Dr. Young has not only denied the truth of the Scripture, he has transgressed it.”

We believe this passage to be applicable in most situations, but we also believe that all Scripture is to be interpreted in the light of other Scripture.

We find it difficult to distinguish between Dr. Young’s actions in following what he felt to be God’s guidance after much prayer on his part and that of his fellow plaintiffs, and the actions of the Apostles Peter and John who were brought before the Jewish “rulers, elders and scribes as well as Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the family of the high priest” (Acts 4:5-6) When asked by what authority they preached that there is “in Jesus the resurrection from the dead,” (Acts 4:2), and by what authority they had healed a man lame from birth (Acts 3:1-10), they replied that it was in the name of Jesus. The council then ordered them not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus,” (Acts 4:18), to which they replied, “Whether it is right the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.” (Acts 4:19)

Later, after the apostles had disregarded the command of the council, they were arrested again and thrown into prison. God sent an angel to open the doors of the prison so that they were set free. Again they began preaching and teaching in the name of Jesus and again they were called before the council; and the high priest said, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name?” (Acts 5:28) to which “Peter and the other apostles answered and said, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.”’ (Acts 5:29) NOTE: Even one of their chief leaders, Gamaliel, said to the council, “In the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them. You will only find yourselves fighting
against God. (Acts 5:38-39)

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 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 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 turn me over to them. I appeal to Caesar’

After he 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 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 63-55. If Paul, after writing I 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.

We believe Dr. Young and his fellow plaintiffs acted in good faith and with clear consciences, feeling that the action of the Synod at its meeting on March 2-3, 2010 was improper. They felt that they had no recourse except to appeal to civil authorities since the ARP Church has no ecclesiastical body higher that the Synod to whom they could have appealed. It would have been unreasonable to appeal to us (the session of his church), or to you (the members of First Presbytery), since neither of these courts has jurisdiction over the Synod.

The Scriptures reveal very clearly many instances wherein servants of God were at odds with the religious leaders. It was the religious leaders who plotted Jesus’ death simply because He was a threat to their power and did not buckle under to their authority. It even reached the point that they said,

“If we let Him go on like this, everyone will believe in Him and then the Romans will come and take away our place and our nation.” (John 11:48) and the high priest, Caiaphas, said, “You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” (John 11:49) Their concern was not for what is right or what God desired, but rather for their positions as religious leaders.

Stephen was brought before the council (Acts 5:12) and after testifying only the truth as he was led by the Holy Spirit, was stoned to death by the members of the council. (Acts 7:1-50) Later, Stephen was described as God’s martyr. (Acts 22:20)

Peter went to the home of Cornelius, a Gentile, and proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ to him, his relatives and close friends. (Acts 10) When the Jews in Jerusalem heard of it they were incensed and when Peter returned to Jerusalem they confronted him, saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” (Acts 11:3) But Peter’s response included the statement that “The Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing.” (Acts 11:12) and that “as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them as upon us at the beginning.” (Acts 11:15) And he concluded, “If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” (Acts 11:17)

We read in Esther 1:12 that when King Xerxes commanded his wife, Vashti, to parade her beauty before a drunken group of nobles and officials, she refused. As a result she was deposed as queen and a Jewess, Esther, was chosen in her place. When it was learned that there was a plot to destroy all Jews, Esther broke with the customs, traditions and rules of the day, went to Xerxes at the risk of her life, and ultimately saved the Jews from destruction. (Esther 4:11 & 5:1-2)

The point in citing this incident is that Esther knew what she must do to save God’s people, and even at the risk of losing her life, she went against the “powers that be” and she did what she was convinced was right.

Finding Number 2: Charge #3 of the “Complaint and Specifications” states, “Dr. Young violated his vow as a member of the A.R.P. Church to question 5, Chapter V, C, FOG “Do you accept the doctrines and principles of the A.R.P. Church, so far as you understand them, as agreeable to and founded on the Word of God?”

Charge #4 of the “Complaint and Specifications” states, “He violated his ordination vow as an elder to question 3, Chapter IX, D, FOG “Do you accept the doctrines of this Church, contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, as founded on the Word of God and as the expression of your own faith and do you resolve to adhere thereto?”

We feel that Dr. Young has not violated either of these vows. The Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV, ‘,OF THE CHURCH,” Paragraph 5, states, “The purest of churches under heaven are subject to both mixture and error…..”

Also, in Chapter XXXI, ‘Of SYNODS AND COUNCILS,’ Paragraph 1, we read, “For the better government and further edification of the Church there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called Synods or Councils.” Paragraph 4 states, “All synods or councils since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.” We believe that Dr. Young and his fellow plaintiffs acted in good faith, sincerely and honestly believing that the Synod had acted improperly.

It should be noted here that the Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIII, “OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE,” recognizes the legitimacy of civil courts.

Paragraph 1 states, “God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under Him over the people for His Own glory, and the public good; and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, (emphasis ours) and for the punishment of evildoers.” And Paragraph 4 states, “It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority for conscience’ sake……..”

Since Dr. Young and his fellow plaintiffs were acting in good faith and sincerity, several references should be quoted:

The Confession of Faith, Chapter XVI, “OF GOOD WORKS,” states: Paragraph 3: “Their (believers’) ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.”

See also Paragraph 6, which states that “….. the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him ….. He (God the Father), looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere. (emphasis ours) although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.”

Also see Chapter XXX of the Confession of Faith, “OF CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, AND LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE:”

In Paragraph 1, there is a description of the various freedoms accorded to Old Testament believers who were under the law, and it is stated that New Testament believers have additional freedoms, being part of “The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel…..”

Those additional freedoms are described as “greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.” Thus, according to our Confession of Faith, Dr. Young and his fellow plaintiffs had free access to God without going through a priest, and the Holy Spirit, as revealed to us through the Scriptures, is directly available to believers. Dr. Young has stated to us that he and his fellow plaintiffs, as believers who prayed about their entering into the lawsuit against the Synod, believed that it was the Holy Spirit Who was guiding them in this matter.

Paragraph 2 states that “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to His Word, or beside it, in matters of faith and worship.” The next sentence states that if one obeys that which he feels to be contrary to the will of God in “an absolute and blind obedience,” then such blind obedience “is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.”

Dr. Young testified before us that he acted in good conscience as described in this chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith. When reading this statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith we were reminded of the words of James 4:17, “Therefore, to him that knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” And of course we remember the words of Christ Himself in His parable of the unfaithful servant, “And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” (Luke 12:47)

Finding Number 3: Charges #5-7 have been answered in the foregoing comments.

However, as a matter of clarification; Charge #5 states: “Larger Catechism question 132 asks: What are the sins of equals? Answer: The sins of equals are besides the neglect of the duties required, the undervaluing of the worth, envying the gifts, grieving at the advancement or prosperity one of another, and usurping pre-eminence over one another.”

Since the charge does not specify exactly what sin Dr. Young is accused of, we looked up the Biblical references cited after this question. We found nothing to indicate that Dr. Young is in any way guilty of either of the sins listed.

Charge #6 states: “Larger Catechism question 142 asks: ‘What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment? Answer: ….. unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust ….. vexatious lawsuits.’ The civil lawsuit brought before an ungodly civil court by Dr. Parker Young because of his disagreement with the actions of our General Synod was vexatious and is condemned in those answers.”

The verb, to vex, according to Webster’s New World Dictionary means “to disturb; annoy, especially in little things; to trouble seriously; to torment; to shake; to agitate.” We have found no evidence to substantiate the claim that Dr. Young’s lawsuit was in any way vexatious.

NOTE: After listing numerous sins forbidden by the eighth commandment, including those quoted in Charge #6, the summation is given: “and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor what belongs to him, or enriching ourselves.” There is nothing in the Charge nor in the evidence presented to us to indicate that Dr. Young took or withheld, or intended to take or withhold anything from anyone else.

Charge #7 states: “He violated his vow as a member of the A.R.P. Church to question 7, Chapter V, C, FOG, ‘Do you submit in the spirit of love to the government and discipline of this Church and seek the peace, purity, and prosperity of this congregation as long as you are a member of it?”’

Specification 8 is similar, but pertains to his ordination as an elder: “He violated his ordination vow to questions 4, 6, and 7, Chapter IX, D, FOG respectively, ‘Do you accept the government, discipline and the worship of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church? And do you promise to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the session and to the higher courts of the Church? Do you promise in all things to promote the unity, peace, purity, and prosperity of the Church?”’

Then follows the accusation that Dr. Young has not accepted said government and that he chose to ignore the procedure for handling complaints and disagreements as specified in our FOG. We have found no evidence to support the claim that Dr. Young was not seeking the peace, purity and prosperity of the church when he filed a lawsuit against the Synod. Rather, we find that he was seeking to prevent the harm to Erskine College and Seminary that would have resulted had he not filed the lawsuit.

After the called meeting of Synod on March 2-3, 2010, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), the regional accrediting agency for institutions of higher learning in the southeast, placed Erskine on warning status, and at a recent meeting with the Vice President of SACS it was made very clear that had Dr. Young and his fellow plaintiffs not filed the lawsuit resisting the actions of the Synod, Erskine would have faced at a minimum the more severe sanction of probation.

As a reminder to the Presbytery, Barber-Scotia College lost its SACS accreditation in 2004. Prior to such loss, that college was similar in size to the combined enrollment of Erskine College and Erskine Theological Seminary – in the fall of 2004 Barber-Scotia College had an enrollment of 742 students. The total enrollment in September, 2009, was twelve (12) students.

Finding Number 4. Charge #8 states that “our FOG ….. contains written procedure for addressing complaints and disagreements among brothers…..” Book of Discipline, chapter X, paragraph E states, “A complaint is a representation made to a higher court in respect to a decision of the lower court regarded as being irregular or unjust.”

As stated in the 4th paragraph of section 1 above, Dr. Young had no higher ecclesiastical court to which he could appeal since his complaint was against the Synod.

Charge #8 also states: All actions by a Synod can be changed at the next Synod Meeting if it is the will of that Synod. It was proved this past June 2010, when the Synod voted to recognize the present Board and agreed to mutually take certain measures if the Plaintiffs would drop their lawsuit.”

Plaintiffs did drop their lawsuit and so far as the Synod is concerned the matter is concluded. While we understand that the First Presbytery Committee charged with looking into this matter felt that regardless of the action of the June 2010 Synod, Dr. Young and the other plaintiffs were not justified in bringing the lawsuit, the majority of those who attended the June 2010 meeting of the Synod recognized that God’s will could be best followed by reversing the action of the Called Meeting of Synod in March 2010 if the plaintiffs would drop their lawsuit. We are not saying that the action of the March 2010 Synod was wrong. We are saying that the actions of the plaintiffs were justified and that when the filing of the lawsuit accomplished the purpose of restoring the original Board of Trustees of Erskine College, they removed the matter from the civil court.

Charge #8 states, “Most importantly it is the Word of God that gives us adequate direction.” We fully agree with this statement, but feel that Dr. Young has followed Biblical guidance as he, with a clear conscience, followed the examples of Peter and John who said, “we ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

Finding Number 5. The allegations of Charge #9 have been covered to our complete satisfaction in our answers to the allegations in Charges #1-7. We do not agree that Dr. Young is guilty of any of the sins listed in this Charge, but we call the attention of the Presbytery to another listed sin that was omitted by the committee: “holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others.” From his testimony in court we read that Dr. Young felt that the action of the March 2010 Synod was unlawful, unethical and not Christian. It follows then, that as a matter of conscience, and convinced that he was following the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Dr. Young committed no sin by bring the lawsuit against the Synod.

It should be noted that the General Synod itself on two occasions did exactly the same thing that Dr. Young is being charged with, namely, bringing a lawsuit before a civil court. The first occasion was in 1953 when the Synod filed a lawsuit against the Sardis ARP Church, a congregation of First Presbytery. The second occasion occurred some time after Dr. Young and his fellow plaintiffs had prevailed in their lawsuit against the Synod. Rather than accept the judgment of the court, the Synod filed an appeal with a higher court. As noted above, (see section 4, paragraph 2) Dr. Young and his fellow plaintiffs withdrew their lawsuit prior to the hearing of the
appeal, at which time the Synod dropped its appeal.

Having considered all the facts available to us, having thoroughly studied the Standards of The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, having spent much time searching the Scriptures to determine their teaching regarding matters such as this, and having spent much time in prayer concerning this matter, it is our judgment that Dr. Parker Young is not guilty of the charges that he disregarded God’s Word and that he broke his ordination vows. We find that he has committed no offense that would call for discipline.

Sincerely in Christ,

The Session of the Pinecrest Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church:

The Reverend Anthony Ward, Moderator (Refused to sign)
Elders: Jim Brice, Blake Moore, Carl Mills, George Lamb, Andy Scott, Terry Wallace, Bill Stanley, Ken DeZwann, Steve Simpson, Ron McKnight, Ron Everhart