On Saturday, Grace Presbytery (ARPC) decided to take up charges against me based on the investigator’s report. I do not intend to participate in any ecclesiastical trial since the presbytery has demonstrated that they are exercising illegitimate authority, which I will address below. So here I will defend my name by going through the report in detail. In October 2024, the Minister and His Works Committee was tasked with examining my beliefs to see if they were in accord with ARPC orthodoxy. No charges were recommended based on that investigation. Then an investigator was appointed to investigate further, resulting in this report. But this report also does not find that I hold unorthodox views. Indeed, the report says the MHWC “questioned Mr. Hunter on elements of his views related to this investigation, the answers to which revealed no change in his views regarding the Standards of the ARP and clarification of his views regarding concerns raised by the issues at Covenant of Grace. The conclusion of this investigation is that while Mr. Hunter’s views, writings, conduct of pastoral ministry and associations did contribute in part to the collapse of good order and discipline, whether they are within the bounds of orthodoxy in the ARP is beyond the remit of this investigation.” So, based on my answers to the MHWC and this investigation, there were no charges against me for unorthodox beliefs, or beliefs that violate our Standards. Indeed, the opposite is the case.

To this point, I have not addressed events at CoG in detail because I was trying to exercise discretion. I have publicly addressed the doctrinal issues involved because doctrinal issues are necessarily a public matter. But recently ministers in my own denomination and elsewhere have publicly misrepresented events at Covenant and have slandered me and honorable friends of mine. Since I have a duty before God to defend my own and my neighbor’s good name, I am obligated to discuss the details of events at CoG. I will try to do so as comprehensively, objectively, and dispassionately as I can. The following is a timeline of the events with specific names removed (except for Spanglers). The bracketed numbers correspond to evidence supporting the claims. I submitted a similar timeline and the corresponding evidence to the presbytery in October. September 26, 2023: I shared a White Boy Summer video on X [1]. Deacon A found portions of the video to be offensive, and he wanted the session to bring charges against me.

For anyone interested, here are the questions that the Minister and His Works Committee of Grace Presbytery (ARPC) asked me and my fellow minister during their investigation, along with my responses. No charges have been recommended based on these responses. This should be instructional for a variety of reasons, some of which I may highlight in the future. 1) Have your views regarding the Westminster Standards and the Constitution of the ARP changed in any way since your ordination?

No.

More on Machen. If you were surprised by his similarities to Dabney, consider his relationship with Basil Gildersleeve, whom D.G. Hart refers to as Machen's "mentor." Gildersleeve was born and raised in Charleston, South Carolina. His father was a Presbyterian evangelist who also edited several Presbyterian theological journals. While growing up in Charleston, Gildersleeve ran in the circles of Southern (and later Confederate) poets and men of letters, including Henry Timrod, Paul Hamilton Hayne, and William Gilmore Simms (an ardent proponent of slavery). He became a Greek and Latin scholar and, eventually, the greatest American classicist (or, as Machen writes, "the most notable classical scholar that America has yet produced" and a "literary genius"). He fought for the Confederacy and was shot in the leg.

In response to a recent post, some seemed unaware of how closely Machen's racial views were to Dabney's. Of course, Machen and Dabney did not express themselves in the same way, nor were their circumstances (and so the application of their beliefs) the same. But they agreed on the following: They both supported segregation. Machen, for example, writes, "I most emphatically object" to Princeton Seminary allowing a black man to live in the dorm with whites. He says, "Any time a room is vacant [a colored man] may move over here. If I am to make any objection, now is the time to make it. Of course if he came over here I could simply move out. It would be a big sacrifice to me." Machen registered his objections with Warfield, saying, "I had a two-hour argument with Warfield on Friday - about as poorly conducted an argument on his side as I ever listened to." Warfield, he says, "is bitterly lacking in appreciation of the facts of human nature" (i.e. racial differences). Indeed, Machen suggested that it would be preferable for blacks to attend a black seminary: "The case is not as though this were the only place which they (blacks) could come if they are to be educated for the ministry."