Meeting Report
The Presbytery of the Southeast of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church held a meeting on February 28, 2025, to deal with matters concerning allegations against Rev. Boyd Miller.
Advocate Noelle Wells attended the meeting with three of Miller’s victims and their relatives and friends. This is her summary of events.
The meeting began with a presbyter making a motion to adopt a structure for the meeting. This presbyter suggested that the meeting begin with the Shepherding Committee giving a report, followed by a period of questions for the Shepherding Committee and Boyd. Afterwards the victims would be given up to 20 minutes each to give statements. Another presbyter made a motion to permit the husband of an anonymous victim permission to speak in the meeting on account of his ordination in the SBC. Both these things were approved without much controversy. The end goal of the meeting was to vote for the moderator to establish a committee of five presbyters to contemplate charges against Mr. Miller. This committee would complete their report for the stated meeting this coming April. Jim Channell made a motion to allow the five elder-elects from covenant to participate in the meeting. This motion was not successful on the premise that they were not yet officers. Jim Channell then asked if they could make statements.The ruling was made that Boyd could give them some of his time if they wanted to speak on his behalf.
The Shepherding Committee gave a brief update, mainly sharing the interactions that had happened since the abbreviated report was given to the presbytery. It was emphasized that the initial purpose of the committee was to pastor the session through this issue, not to be an investigative body. However, the members of the Shepherding Committee frequently used the language of investigation. Questions were asked regarding which report was given to which body. It was established that the congregation at Covenant and the presbytery were given identical reports that differed from the original. It seemed that the report in question was deemed to have too much info. Names were removed, and it was simplified. To what extent? I do not know. The rationale for this was that the report belonged to the session of Covenant.
The committee was then asked whether there was mention of witnesses and if so did the committee follow up with the witnesses? Nathan Trice answered ambiguously, saying they had no need to further corroborate what they already knew. It was then noted by one presbyter that it was shocking that a preliminary investigation was done and that their conclusion was that this was not serious enough to immediately include the presbytery at large. Hank Belfield defended this by saying that they did nothing because of the two year statute of limitations, and they did not deem any of the accusations serious enough for a judiciary. Both the question of “serious enough to warrant a trial” and the question of the two year statute of limitations are judicial decisions normally made by presbytery, not a committee. It was noted by a presbyter that the presbytery failed to make a motion when the report was presented to it. Another presbyter asked Nathan Trice to read the email in response to Caroline McKuen where Nathan wrote about the matter being concluded. Hank Belfield apologized on behalf of the committee for not calling for an order of the day at the presbytery meeting which would have moved their report from the bottom of the docket to an earlier point.
Questions were asked regarding whether the committee had all the documents that Sons of Patriarchy had posted as evidence when they did their initial investigation. The committee said they had most of those documents but that some had been added, specifically the transcripts of the meetings with the Shepherding Committee.
It was then asked for Boyd to describe his relationship with Dr. Garcia. Boyd shared that he had been very close with the family and had aspirations to be a part of the family. Boyd was asked about his thoughts on the report. Boyd said he was surprised at how well they did writing it. He felt it was thorough. He mentioned that it stung somewhat. He said he agreed with the report largely but disagreed with parts. When asked which parts he said he did not like the use of the word ‘indiscretion’ as some use that as a synonym for adultery. He mentioned that it helped him see “that there should be a higher ethical wall between him and the congregation”. He shared that the Garcia family had been a family he felt ‘he could let his hair down around’. Boyd was then asked if he believed he had sinned at all. Boyd responded saying that he did think he had sinned by bringing offense to something other than the gospel. His sin was in not observing the general propriety of the day and not approaching Dr. Garcia before expressing his feelings to Caroline. He gave the example of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards. Jonathan Edwards had married Sarah when she was a teenager and it was not against the general propriety of that day. Today it is looked down upon and he should have been more aware of that.
Editorial note: It should be understood that in this example given by Boyd, Jonathan Edwards was 24, and Sarah Edwards, 17 when they were married. Boyd’s usage for his situation in the age difference is three times that of Edwards.
Boyd was then asked if he believed he had committed the sin of personal selfishness. Boyd said that yes, he believed that he had an idolatrous desire for marriage that needed to be mortified. He then shared that he felt that everyone was in a reconciled state since 2018. He thought all was well and that everyone was friends again.
Boyd expressed, when asked about his resignation, that he did so for the good of the congregation as two of the three elders wanted him to leave. The Shepherding Committee also affirmed that their reasoning for asking Boyd to resign was because they felt it would be for the peace of the church. They did not want to be scandalous to the community and they believed this would give Boyd an opportunity to consider past error and sin. Boyd later shared that he withdrew his resignation when 70% of the congregation voted for him to stay. He felt this was affirmation of his external call to remain in the ministry.
Boyd was asked why he still went to Mrs. Osborne’s wedding. He alleged that the Garcia parents had insisted upon him coming despite Mrs. Osborne’s sisters asking him not to. When asked if he drove alone in cars with girls, Boyd responded that maybe he did but couldn’t remember; if he did, the parents were close behind. Boyd was asked if he saw any issue in the amount of attention he paid to young girls. Boyd was ambiguous, saying his sin with Mrs. Osborne was coming to her without her father’s permission.
Boyd was then asked whether he had any recollection of inappropriate touching between him and the anonymous victim. He claimed his recollections were different from hers. He claimed that maybe he patted her leg as a form of emphasis during a conversation at a hymn sing. Boyd claimed that he had a sensitive conscience and that it would have registered with him if he had done something like that. He claimed he was not trying to suppress anything. Boyd recalled that he may have popped someone–not necessarily the anonymous victim–on the rear end. Boyd recalled a spanking game that the kids played at church that involved putting an object in someone’s pants and spanking them. He said he potentially participated once.
When asked why none of this had ever been confessed to the presbytery, Boyd claimed that he felt it had been resolved. Boyd was pressed on why he never brought this to the court of original jurisdiction. Boyd continued to emphasize that his error was in not talking to Mrs. Osborne’s father. Boyd was pressed on how her age didn’t matter to him.
Boyd was asked a series of questions on how this has affected his reputation in the community. Boyd emphasized that he felt there ‘was a storm out there, but inside the church everything was good and peaceful”. Boyd was pressed on this, being told it was not just a storm but a fire and an earthquake, shaking beneath his feet. It was mentioned that Boyd was removed from several reformed singles groups on Facebook and that his RBF ministry at LaGrange College had been suspended, the latter of which he said was “prudent” on their behalf pending this investigation and process by the presbytery.
Boyd was asked whether he understood how some might perceive his behavior as grooming even if he didn’t intend it that way. Boyd said that he felt that could be right, but it could also be wrong. Boyd then shared that in his opinion he and Mrs. Osborne had been friends. Boyd shared that he feels the conclusions made about his actions all depends on how charitably he is looked at. He affirmed that he has stuff to work on. He shared that he felt the congregation stood by him because they knew him. Boyd then shared that love covers a multitude of sins. He shared that he believed a lack of love to be the reason why some people here are “strangling a brother publicly”. Boyd looked at the victims as he said this.
Boyd admitted upon questioning that during his brief leave of absence he spoke with almost every person in the church. Boyd was asked whether he saw his relationship with Mrs. Osborne as an abuse of pastoral authority. Boyd felt that the messages between him and Mrs. Osborne would range from edifying to silly. He again emphasized that his error was in not talking to her father. Boyd was pressed on why he did nothing to stop the spanking game and why he did nothing about the rumors concerning him and Mrs. Osborne. Boyd again emphasized that he should have had a higher ethical wall between him and the congregation. He said, “I’ve been too much of the Funcle, the fun uncle.”. Boyd also emphasized that he felt Mrs. Garcia Robertson and the other victim were of lesser consequence than Mrs. Osborne.
The Shepherding Committee shared that they were at an impasse with legal terms such as ‘grooming’ and ‘sexual battery’. They mentioned that they were not of the view that Boyd was a groomer but understood that reasonable people could come to that conclusion. They emphasized that they felt this was a matter of motive. Nathan Trice was insistent that Boyd was looking for a wife, and not sexual gratification. Nathan Trice felt there were two poles of opinion. He said that among listeners to Sons of Patriarchy, Boyd would seem a monster. In the other pole he is a martyr, falling to the smear campaign of the “MeToo” movement. He then said that as a committee they were in the middle, emphasizing that motive matters. He emphasized that Boyd was not seeking illicit sexual gratification in indulging feelings towards a minor. Sinful? Maybe. Grooming? Trice shared that he felt there is a world of difference between a man seeking gratification and a man seeking a wife.
A brief discussion took place whether the policy and procedure of the Shepherding Committee would need to be adjusted. The Shepherding Committee responded that they feel that the issue is that there should be a different committee than this one to handle such matters.
A brief recess occurred. Due to the late hour it was moved that Mrs. Garcia Robertson, and the husband of the anonymous victim would give statements that evening. Boyd and Mrs. Osborne would give their statements the following day.
The following morning began with a brief discussion over whether questions would be asked of the victims by the presbytery. A brief time of questioning was approved. Mrs. Osborne gave her statement. Followed by Boyd.
Boyd apologized for causing harm in expressing interest in Mrs. Osborne, and in not showing deference to elders and presbytery. Boyd shared that he wanted to glorify God and receive the counsel of the presbytery. He mentioned that he did want reconciliation but that he understands that he may have to wait until the new heavens and new earth when love is perfected. He stated that he loved them all and now must wait for the new age where he will experience deep fellowship with them again.
The victims were briefly questioned. Mr. Trice mainly questioned the husband of the anonymous victim about the Sons of Patriarchy podcast. Mr. Trice emphasized that he did not hold them accountable for the agenda or broader mission of the podcast, but he did want to know if the husband of the anonymous victim felt the podcast was misleading in calling this a “cover up”. Mr. Trice also felt that the podcast was wrong in stating that the presbytery meeting was meant to exonerate Boyd.
It was then moved to consider the motion to form a Committee of Five to Contemplate Charges. It was debated whether the substitute moderator, Jay Bennet, would select committee members or whether the regular moderator would. It was also debated whether the moderator should select the committee or the presbytery. Ultimately it was ruled that the regular moderator would select a committee of five. The committee would present their considerations at the April meeting. It was also approved that the presbytery would recommend that the session of Covenant would have Boyd go on leave for the time being. It was clarified that Boyd’s privileges could not be considered for suspension until formal charges had been filed.
Thoughts and Takeaways:
Broadly speaking progress was made in this case. In terms of the effectiveness of advocacy and sharing stories publicly, the positive results of these things were certainly apparent. The errors of the Presbytery of the Southeast’s Shepherding Committee (PSE-SC) and the behavior of Rev. Boyd Miller, pastor of Covenant OPC in LaGrange, GA, was on full display to the presbytery. Many presbyters seemed quite moved and apologetic over the previous inaction. However, it seemed in poor taste for the Presbytery to elect Rev. Jay Bennet as moderator pro tem due to the present abuse allegation against him regarding his actions while pastor at Neon OPC, Kentucky (See Sons of Patriarchy: “The Lion of Judah Louder Roars: Abuse in the OPC part 1”).[1]
This brings me to Conflict of Interest--a broader concern I have in terms of the entire structure of this judicial system that extends beyond this particular case. According to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, Conflict of Interest,
“[R]efers to the ethical problems that may arise between parties with a preexisting relationship. In law, a conflict of interest arises between an attorney and a client if the interests of the attorney, a different client, or a third-party conflict with the interests of the present client.”[2]
In the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, an ordained minister is not a member of his congregation but a member of the presbytery, understandably. The personal and professional relationships Boyd Miller shares with the members of his presbytery (including those of the PSE-SC) severely limits the ability of the presbytery to impartially assess his behavior (as of one of their own) without collusion, or personal bias clouding the efforts. More than that, presbytery works and moves as a body. That DNA of such a design lends itself to self-protectiveness. This design serves well in certain instances but represents a massive stumbling block if the accused is a clergy member himself—especially if well-liked by, or useful to his colleagues. The relationships shared on a presbytery level are deep and personal, as they should be. I am married to an OPC pastor. Pastors need community, and the Presbyterian minister's presbytery (his “church”) is designed to provide that. In the secular court system, any relationship or background context that may affect the ability of those involved in a case to dispassionately exercise justice is taken very seriously. The OPC and many other denominations need to take conflict of interest seriously when considering the procedures in place to evaluate the behavior and actions of clergymen.
It is my opinion that failing to address this more structural issue is like living in a house with a broken door. You may remove an intruder upon recognizing he is there, but if you fail to fix the door you have done nothing to safeguard against this happening over and over again. Additionally, many clergy members are ill-equipped to recognize these behaviors. Some seminary programs may include instruction on matters of abuse and grooming, some don’t. Ultimately, ecclesiastically, it isn’t specified as a requirement for ordination to demonstrate a level of competence in these areas.[3]
Finally, while this meeting was largely positive in terms of moving the meter toward a just conclusion for those abused by Boyd Miller, I am left wondering what this will mean for the other active allegations against the Presbytery of the Southeast and the OPC at large. I was encouraged that the PSE made a movement to recommend that Covenant put Boyd on leave. I was also encouraged that several presbyters seemed amenable to moving to suspend his privileges once the charges were filed. But Boyd is not the only guilty party in this matter. His behavior was made possible by other ordained men & officers of the church. Jim Chanell, the only current elder of Covenant OPC, comes to mind in particular. It should be noted that Rev Miller, and elder Chanell brought with them 5 elders-elect to this meeting.
There are also many well-documented issues in the Presbytery of the Southeast and the OPC at large that contribute to the nurture of these problems. Moisture helps mold grow. If you don’t address the moisture problem, you won’t fix the mold problem. Belief does not equal action in the way 2+2 equals four. We are not computers, and thus act in multifaceted and complex, at times even contradictory, ways. Nevertheless, bad theology can play a large role in the level of moisture in the air that helps the bad behavior grow. Bad theology coupled with a certain agenda in the telling and interpreting of current events may contribute to a social imagination that rearranges the events presented to a person (or a judicial body) to match the narrative they have been indoctrinated to believe. For example, if you have been reared to believe that the greatest problem we face as a people is the feminists (yes, I am being hyperbolic here), or that a proper reading of the third chapter of Genesis should warn us to regard women as wily and manipulative and unreliable, then one might be conditioned not to hear the cry of a sister when it reaches their ears. Certainly, there are other concurrent teachings that may prevent many from hearing the cries of a brother when it reaches their ears. I am thinking here of the spiritual abuse and manipulation of many of the men at Covenant LaGrange.
It is my hope and sincere prayer that the case of Boyd Miller will not be dealt with narrowly. I pray that this case may open the hearts and ears of many in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church to consider more deeply and critically why and how certain things have been done by its members and ministers and have been allowed to be done by its governing bodies. This is a time for introspection, and self-reflection. We all play a role in these stories, and we all play a role in making sure they don’t happen again. It is always easier to see the fault in another than to recognize how we contribute. The Gospel is big enough for this kind of work. It always has been and always will be. We can always, through Christ, do better than we did the day before.
[1] The Lion of Judah Louder Roars - Sons of Patriarchy - Apple Podcasts. 12/19/2024. Accessed. 3/3/2025.
[2] conflict of interest | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. February, 2023. Accessed. 3/3/2025.
[3] see OPC Form of Government XXI.4 for what the language of what is required in the examination of Licentiates, and XXIII. 6, 8 for the Ordination of Ministers
