Reverse McCarthyism

What a bizarre world we live in. Whereas McCarthy vented about so-and-so many card-carrying communists in the State department, our own Commission Committee failed at telling us how many people at Erskine believe… in anything bad. Those of us attempting to make heads-or-tails of the debate over Erskine’s future should be forgiven for not having a clue how bad Erskine’s professors are because the Commission never told us.

Inerrancy of Scripture
How many professors at Erskine disbelieve an inerrant reading of the Bible? Has this been determined, or do we just know it is “a lot?” Yes, we know of Drs. Crenshaw and Burnett. Our side (Commission) has made very sure that we know very well what their beliefs are on the matter. But what about everybody else? We have no idea; the Commission did not compile a list, make any claims, or imply whatsoever on how extensive the “problem” is. In this bizarre case of anti-McCarthyism, how many card-carrying anti-Inerrancists are there at Erskine, Commission? Or is the presence of one or two or three enough to damn the Board?

Integration of Faith and Learning
No SAFE student has taken a class from every professor. No SAFE student can know everything each professor has said. Even the SAFE group as a whole has probably not listened to every professor in class. The Commission, which interviewed SAFE students plus a handful of other students for a total of one hour during January, can know still less about Erskine’s professors.

Better yet, how do we quantify “integration of faith and learning?” Ask a Commissioner says you cannot – it must be a holistic approach. How can a 15 or 30 minute interview flesh this out? Even if you could, not every professor was interviewed. How then do SAFE and the Commission know that integration of faith and learning is not occurring? Which classes do integrate faith and learning? Which do not? Why was no list made – or are we to assume that all classes are bereft of faith? How many non-integrators are there at Erskine? We have no idea - the Commission never told us.

Culture of Intimidation
How widespread is the “culture of intimidation?” One incident three years ago by an administrator that no longer works for the school? Students feeling uncomfortable when their acceptance of ARP doctrine is challenged by one professor? Two professors? Dr. Crenshaw “intimidated” me every day of class, if by intimidation you mean challenging my opinions (his right), and asking me if I could be sure of what I was saying (his professorial duty). I was never forced to speak my mind. He never pressed me unduly. But if I gave my opinion, or challenged what he said, didn’t he have a right to challenge me? Is this intimidation? Or is it rather a SAFE-student fear of being intimidated? Maybe some people easily feel intimidated?
The Committee gave no examples of intimidation. Why? How many card-carrying Intimidators are there at Erskine? The Commission never told us.

Conclusion
Of course we know that Erskine is a terrible place undergoing “doctrinal drift.” But why did the Commission not prove this to a questioning public? They had the chance – and blew it. Instead we got vague statements like “irreconcilable opinions” amongst the Board members and talk of fiscal irresponsibility that occurred before any of the present Board members were appointed. Bizarre.

Come on Commission – let’s see some McCarthyism. Burn these witches!

Dr. Evans in Bed with Chuck Wilson

No, not literally, but I wanted to make the point that the only place to find Dr. Evan’s rebuttal to Dr. Burnett’s email is on ARP Talk. Clearly Dr. Evans feels no need to censure, rebuke, or ignore this paragon of wisdom.

That Chuck Wilson has a large, and influential, audience and dedicated following is further confirmed. As I have mentioned previously on this Blog, Chuck’s views apparently holds sway over a large portion of the powerful interests in Synod. I do not mean to sound conspiratorial here. I simply mean that the views espoused on ARP Talk are not “fringe” or “kook” but instead apparently held by some of the most powerful people in the ARP Church today. That these views are driving Synod leadership is blatant.

… of course we should all listen to this modern-day Siren.

 

My personal favorites in Chuck’s newest issue:

Introduction, written by the editor: “Dr. Burnett is a humble friend of the ARP Church who attempts to help the poor, benighted ministers and lay people of the ARP Church understand the theological failure of the doctrine of inerrancy. He is concerned that we are hopeless anti-intellectuals who have lost our way in the land of theological conservatism.” (emphasis added).

We call this sarcasm. Not a big deal, because Dr. Burnett’s piece is pure satire.

Now, Rebuttal to Dr. Burnett’s piece, written by Dr. Evans: “He has written a satirical piece…  Once one sifts through the sarcasm… The subtitle of Burnett’s sarcastic essay.” Three different comments on the sarcastic/satirical nature of Burnett’s work in three different paragraphs. Indeed, one might be forgiven for assuming Evans is criticizing Burnett (“Once one shifts through the sarcasm…”). Indeed, Evans is doing just that.

Surprise conclusion: Chuck makes fun of Burnett by using sarcasm, and Evans condemns Burnett for using sarcasm. Since Burnett is Public Enemy #1, this apparent hypocrisy is warranted.

Chuck Can Count…

But he chose not to. His latest ARP Talk document criticizes Dr. Burnett’s recent document for – of all things – length. And I predicted it would be lambasted for grammar (I guess he couldn’t find any errors). This may be the first time anybody theological has been criticized for writing too much.

Odd though – there’s not much difference between Evans’ and Burnett’s documents in length! Consider:

A Layman's Historical Guide to the Inerrancy Debate,
by Dr. Evans:
5074 words (not including "further reading" section)
Rebuttal to Dr. Burnett's article: 1682 words

A Teacher’s Theological Guide to Inerrancy In The Original Manuscripts, by Dr. Burnett

10543 words

Difference between Dr. Evans and Dr. Burnett: 3787 words

So Burnett’s "interminably long" paper is 3787 words longer than Dr. Evan’s combined statements on inerrancy? I always pictured “interminably” as, like, “endless.” New definition: a couple of newspaper editorials. Or, part of an ARP Talk issue.

We Be Smart: Distracting with Inerrancy

Tagline: “The Bible, and our strategy, are inerrant.”

The Bible is inerrant. Make no mistake about it, we are absolutely correct on that point. The wonderful thing is that everybody else agrees with us – most ARP ministers and church members, most pastors in our friend denominations and their parishioners, our dedicated network of Christian friends across the nation, and probably a fair number of faculty at Erskine and in the seminary. Heck, even World Magazine praises our move against “doctrinal drift” at Erskine. Our articles on the Supporters of Synod Facebook group are preaching to the choir (even more so considering we have explicitly told the “Others” to stay away!).

We have made Inerrancy the core issue at Synod; this is a perfect bait-and-switch. We plead with the Christian world: side with Us, defenders of the scriptures, and not with Them, those who reject the inerrant word of God and seek to undermine the faith of the Elect! What a gloriously powerful statement – and how misleading! Why?

We really don’t care about inerrancy at all.
No really, we don’t. Of course we support inerrancy and believe the idea is right. And in fact inerrancy is quite important. But inerrancy is absolutely not what we are concerned with at Erskine.

I’ll prove it. Each professor at Erskine will sign a statement swearing that he/she will affirm inerrancy. Actually, such a requirement is already in place at Erskine for new professors. Some tenured professors will not sign the document due to principle, but let’s assume that most do. OK, they agree with the inerrancy of scripture.
What now?

They believe the same basic tenants that they always have.

They teach the same way they have always taught.

They question authority the same way they always have.

They are just as intimidating to our rock-solid Christians as always.

Am I missing something here? As Dr. Evans himself points out in his essay on inerrancy, people have different opinions of scripture no matter how perfectly they regard transmission of words through the ages:

The doctrine of inerrancy does not close off interpretive discussion.  Some people reject the doctrine of inerrancy because they think it restricts us to particular disputed interpretations of Scripture, such as a literal interpretation of the days of creation in Genesis 1 or a particular view of God's sovereignty.  But it is quite possible for people with equally high views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible to disagree on the interpretation of individual texts.  … We must make a practical distinction between the authority of the Bible and the interpretation of the Bible.  The fact that the Bible itself is without error does not mean that our interpretations are inerrant.

Well? Dr. Evans himself (and correct me if I am wrong) does not believe in a literal 6-day Creation event as outlined in Genesis 1, a belief that is foreign to me but one in which I can accept (however wrong he might be). I understand that Dr. Crenshaw believes Genesis 1 is figurative language too. If Crenshaw converts to inerrancy, what have we gained? Dr. Evans accepts inerrancy – what good does that do us?

Let’s be intellectually honest. What does Synod want? Synod wants professors who agree with Synod on doctrinal issues, and doctrine is only tangentially related to inerrancy. Yes, your belief in an infallible and inerrant Word of God will shape your interpretation, but it will not force your interpretation. In other words, good Christians who agree with inerrancy will disagree about many other things.
So forcing “inerrancy” on professors is less than half the battle. Inerrancy requires some doctrinal changes, but not all of them. No two inerrancists will hold to all the same doctrinal issues – and this divergence will be even more pronounced at a school where Christians of many different denominations teach.

So you see, forcing inerrancy is a moot point because we will have all the same problems of before: differing opinions on doctrine. Dr. Crenshaw does not agree with everything Synod agrees with. Neither does Dr. Burnett. Neither does Dr. Agnew. Neither does Dr. Cheney. Neither does the Biology department. & Etc. Whether they agree on inerrancy is beside the point: Synod is actually concerned with their interpretation of scripture and their application of this interpretation in class.

Inerrancy is thus two degrees removed from the real issue:

1. Inerrancy of scripture
2. Interpretation that Creation is true, Big Bang false, Predestination, & etc
3. Application to teaching (Creationism taught, & etc)

This is why Synod is so disingenuous to focus on inerrancy. One may agree with Point 1 and still disagree with Synod's interpretation of Point 2 and 3. The “doctrinal drift” at Erskine is not over inerrancy – it is over many Christians with differing views on doctrine. Ascribing to inerrancy will not solve that. Dr. Evans will still disagree with literal 6-day Creation. Dr. Crenshaw will still believe evolution is true, as will the biology department. No view of inerrancy will change any of their minds.

But by all means, keep up the fight for “inerrancy!” We have no better rallying cry, no matter how disingenuous the cry may be.

What a wonderful distraction inerrancy be.

And They Were Missing

Dr. Evans and Rev. Paul Patrick were missing from Dr. Ruble’s Appreciation Dinner as he retires from college president.

Surely they were in the bathroom as I searched for them?

Surely they would not miss a dinner in honor of their college president?

Surely they would not have missed a dinner for, say, John Carson?

… Or do they appreciate the good work – and balanced budget – of their president so little? Is it money? If I had known these men were short on money I would have personally bought each a ticket. Or was it something else?

Thank goodness these supporters of Synod are supporters of Erskine!

I will be sure to attend each of their retirement dinners.

Quick! Defend Synod against “Attack Blogs!”

The lawsuit against Synod was wholly without merit and “unbiblical,” as we have claimed for weeks. Paul clearly banned lawsuits of Christian against Christian and we were all a bit shaken when Christian men broke their pledges to uphold Synod’s mandates and broke God’s law. There are eternal consequences at stake here. In the words of one ARP minister during this fiasco, “Secular courts should not be relied on to handle church matters.” Thankfully, Erskine dropped its lawsuit to strengthen the peace and purity of the church.

Now as it happened, other parties undertook their own suit against Synod and, as of this point, a temporary injunction is still in effect. The judge ruled Synod's actions were of sufficiently nebulous legality as to warrant a full trial. The judge’s decision may be wise or foolish; this remains to be determined.

Clearly our side (Commission) disagrees with this decision because we now find out that Synod leadership is appealing the lawsuit and motioning to suspend or modify the injunction, or to dismiss it. This might appear to the uneducated to be a tremendous about-face, and young Christians might need help understanding the difference between Synod’s actions and the Plaintiffs’ actions. I hope opponents of the original lawsuit will explain here or on Facebook why they support the new lawsuit against Christians.

It would be silly to throw out Paul's vigorously defended restriction on Christian lawsuits over definitions. We all know Synod’s justification does not rest on the legal definition of "appeal," "lawsuit," and "motion," a distinction Paul never discussed. I would point out that only one of the legal actions taken by Synod is an appeal as such, while the other two legal actions are motions and constitute, in effect, separately heard lawsuits. I would further remind the reader that the original legal action undertaken by the Plaintiff and so strenuously opposed by many supporters of Synod's actions was, and I quote, a "Motion for Temporary Restraining Order." If motions were unbiblical before, why are they not so now? We should clear up this paradox quickly!

Of course our argument is also not "they started it," for obvious reasons. Naturally the Plaintiffs’ might have remarked that “[Synod] started it” as they walked to court with Pink Slips in their hands signed by our Emergency Session of Synod. I’m sure our argument is much more nuanced – and less vindictive – than “they started it.” I hope one more powerful in language than myself can explain why this motion is legitimate whereas the previous motion was not.

These are my thoughts,

Temperance

Dr. Burnett Converts to Inerrancy (I think), Makes Jokes About Barth

A Critical Review of: “A Teacher’s Theological Guide to Inerrancy In The Original Manuscripts: A Non-Barthian Approach,” by Dr. Richard Burnett.

 

We Convinced Dr. Burnett to change his mind!!!!

YAY!!!!!

(please keep reading to find out all about it)

As you all know, Dr. Burnett is a professor at Erskine Seminary who as far as I know does a great job teaching his students. He does have one dark mark against him, though, and that is his refusal to sign acceptance to the Synod’s 2008 document on the inerrancy of scripture.

I have never talked to the man myself nor met him, unfortunately. In fact, everything I know about him is from ARP Talk, perhaps the most reputable source of knowledge around save for the original autographa. I hear that Dr. Burnett posted something or other on his Seminary site about how others have mischaracterized and misquoted him, but of course I haven’t read it.* Why should I? He’s obviously biased.

Dr. Burnett wrote a document entitled, “A Teacher’s Theological Guide to Inerrancy In The Original Manuscripts: A Non-Barthian Approach.” If you enjoy this blog you are sure to enjoy Dr. Burnett’s musings on inerrancy (I certainly do). What a bunch of silly things he says! How funny he is! We must be sure to keep such silliness amongst ourselves; thankfully as The Others are busy reading Barth (who does that?), there is little danger of them reading it. Actually, we should probably keep it on the Down Low among our own friends too. Why on earth did he write this monster?

I applaud Dr. Burnett for carefully reconsidering his position on inerrancy. I wonder, what convinced him? Whatever it was, it proves the power of positive thinking. Focus on what we say long enough and eventually you’ll not be able to consider anything else. It’s that 2+2 thing again, O’Brien.

Next time though, try not to take down the house of cards when you defect.

[This post was inspired by a contributor].

 

*Actually I have read his statement; it was powerfully written and convincing. I still have not yet read Barth, however, preferring instead to read him quoted elsewhere under the “masterful” use of the ellipsis (point 53 in Teacher’s Guide)

Integration of Faith and Learning

Daniel Wells asked over at the Talk about Erskine Facebook group what we thought about evolution and how philosophy should be taught at Erskine:

First, in my time at Erskine and since graduating I have not heard anyone (pastor, elder, administrator, faculty, Synod executive) ever promote young earth creationism or the "six-day" view of Genesis 1 as the sole view needing to be taught at Erskine in either Bible or science classes. The same can go for Intelligent Design, Old Earth Creationism, the Framework Hypothesis, Gap Theory, Progressive Creation, Theistic Evolution (and its various models), etc. I find this to be a positive notion.

Second, the main issue with the teaching the sciences (and every discipline, for that matter), the Synod and other voices calling for missional fidelity seem most concerned with "methodological naturalism" since such a hermeneutic is at odds with the ARP Church's "Philosophy of Christian Higher Education."

Third, if professors at a Christian liberal arts college which is the ministry arm of an orthodox, evangelical church must adhere to a faith statement and commitment to the Christian liberal arts tradition, this does not necessarily produce indoctrination. Rather, the Christian liberal arts truly "liberates" the professor to be an instructor on both Books from God (Nature and Scripture).

Fourth, many students in both science departments and other departments did not receive much teaching regarding issues in the Philosophy of Science. A couple of J-term courses have been taught (Wingard, Schelp, and Schmelzenbach I think) over the last ten years, but not much else. As a Philosophy and Religion double major, I observed many discussion between various science majors with other disciplines. Rarely did issues of presuppositions, structural paradigms, plausibility structures, sociology of knowledge, or philosophy of science get raised. Even science majors among themselves debated the evolution question from a purely evidential/verification/positivistic point of view without dealing with the underlying questions of hermeneutic and method. This is probably where the debate is lost with students, administrators, and faculty on campus due to a lack of nuance and sufficient knowledge of these issues.

Note two things: first, his use of language. Rhetoric is supposed to persuade and convince the audience. Wells’ audience is hardly uneducated, but he uses terms here that require precise definition and careful attention to detail when reading. Moreover, these terms are probably not used often by those uninterested in philosophy. More to the point: his post is long on verbiage and is difficult to parse; this is not a good persuasive technique.

Regardless, I quote the following reply (since deleted):

As a science major who sat through a majority of the science classes offered at Erskine, I feel like I should be able to contribute a lot to this conversation... but I cannot! I am at a complete loss for words.

Should I give examples? The biology department taught evolution as fact. Yet they were also “liberated” as you say to discuss other concerns too – how they reconciled evolution with their Christian faith, how they felt Intelligent Design fit into science, and questioned students as to our beliefs on the issue. We did not all agree with the professor – nor were we condemned for it. We were asked to keep an open mind and learn – indeed, can we ask more of them? The same occurred in the Physics department, as indeed the same occurred in each department I sat under at Erskine.

Yet Ask a Commissioner and the Commission report say that integration of faith and learning is not ONE or TWO things you do in class but a holistic approach, in which case my few examples above and LITERALLY every other example I can think of from four years of education are STILL not enough prove that the science department (or any other) integrates faith and learning. I am powerless in that I literally have no idea what is expected (since examples of integration of faith and learning are NOT what is expected), or how to prove (or disprove) each professors’ diligence to it.

Scarier still - should I even name names? Call me paranoid, but I would never have presumed that Synod would fire fourteen Trustees. What will Synod do to THESE men and women? If I tell the world what they said in class, will Synod take offense and - dare I say it - seek to fire them? I certainly could not bear to be the catalyst for that. I feel intimidated into silence out of fear, and it is a terrible feeling.

Perhaps the science professors are not interested in philosophy? Not everybody is. Maybe they should be fired for this – or maybe not. Maybe they are trying their best to teach science and don't have time – or maybe they should make time. Maybe they just simply don't know anything about the philosophy of science. I have no idea what "methodological naturalism" is; I certainly won't speak for my professors, but maybe they don't know either, or maybe they don't care.

So I cannot help this discussion: firstly because I am afraid to give examples because of the "culture of intimidation" of potential firings in the future, secondly because examples of the integration of faith and learning have been explicitly condemned by the Commission report, and thirdly because I am not sure that science professors are interested in, knowledgeable of, and competent to teach philosophy of science and "structural paradigms, plausibility structures, sociology of knowledge." These are philosophical concepts that should certainly be discussed in philosophy class, preferentially with a Christian world view alongside. But in Biology 102?

I do know one thing: they did a pretty good job teaching science and integrating their faith both in, and out of, the classroom. This seems pretty good to me.

Haha! What a fool! He doesn’t even know what “structural paradigms” are!

Woe to the Un-Christlike Attitude of the Others!

Our view of events is colored significantly by whether we agree with, or denigrate, the opinion. Even if some radical quote is uttered I might look past its stupidity because I agree with what he is saying.

Consider what our own Reiggin Hilderbrand wrote:

In reading over the opposition's Facebook group, it seems that there are plenty of problems (hard to pinpoint the greatest... but I'm leaning towards a purely un-Christ-like attitude) but one that jumps out at me over and over again are the fallacies.

Appeals to emotion, ad hominem attacks, misleading vividness, guilt by association (the latest attack perpetuated against Mr. Wingate), bare assertions, false dichotomies, and of course a ton of red herrings.

While I fully support those who have spoken up in support of the Commission on the "Alumni for Erskine" group, it seems that the radical contingency has taken control of the group and made it impossible to speak without being attacked. There's a lot of malicious intent and it's frightening.

What he sees is truly is frightening! I am not actually sure what Mr. Hilderbrand is referring to (there was a lot of discussion about “war,” but also a lot about praying for reconciliation and for God’s will to be done). Other views are encouraged, though challenged, and they do not erase contrary wall posts like we do. Silly them!

Now consider this quote taken from a random ARP Talk document (from #24) in reference to Dean Alston’s memo on integrating faith and learning:

Is Coach Alston serious? Is this a joke? Is this memo his idea of the integration of faith and science!? It is ludicrous. This is embarrassing. The Editor does not know whether to laugh or cry. Unfortunately, to the extent that this sort of banal thinking represents the majority of the Erskine College faculty on the integration of faith and science, to that extent they do not have the slightest idea of what integration of faith and science is. Buzz Aldrin’s “moon communion” is a reflection of his piety; this is not a statement regarding the integration of faith and science. Indeed, Coach Alston’s memo is prima facie evidence why a new Academic Dean needs to be secured ASAP!

Chuck – you took the words right out of my mouth. Bravo! But regardless, consider the language he used. "Banal thinking." "New academic Dean needs to be secured ASAP." "Embarrassing." Pretty heavy language. Will Mr. Hilderbrand denounce this as un-Christ-like? Or does he agree with it and therefore sees it as a just thrashing of an ignorant, “banal” man?

My point is not that Wilson is wrong; my point is that we agree with what he says and therefore accept the manner in which he says it. Imagine Mr. Hildebrand’s fright if an alumni wrote that quote above in reference to Paul Patrick! Great balls of fire how the Supporters of Synod group would light up! Fortunately, the heavy hitter is on our side. Go on Chuck – knock those administrators over the head! I mean good grief – Alston is only a Coach!*

So go on, Oberle. Continue unabated, Wells. Say what you will – our friends love what we say and so won’t care how we say it!

Or prove me wrong, friends. Publicly condemn a direct statement made by Oberle, Wells, Chuck Wilson, etc. Give a direct quote and condemn it. Of course such a thing will never happen. I’ll correct this post when I see it.

Update: I wish to publicly state that two commenters on this blog have publicly stated their disagreement with Chuck Wilson’s rhetoric, and good for them! I thank them for it.

*Oh dear. An ad hominem attack. Whatever shall I do? It’s OK – Chuck made fun of him a couple times about that.

Justifications for the Appeal

[Part 4 of a series entitled, "The Perversity and Inconvenience Righteousness and Necessity of Lawsuits against Christians Us Evildoers."]

I’m not privy to super-secret Synod communiqués, so I’m not sure what the “official” word is on our justification for appealing the injunction. I’m pretty sure I have a few ideas though. Pick any one (or multiple ones) of the following:

1. Paul never mentioned appeals in his prohibition against lawsuits against Christians
2. Erskine is not composed of Christians, so the prohibition does not count
3. The initial lawsuit was against God’s law, so we are just righting the wrong
4. What we do in sin now, we do for the greater good and God’s glory
5. Who cares? The End Justifies the Means.

Personally, I think DeWitt & Company will rely most heavily on #3 – that once a lawsuit is in the courts the prohibition stops working. Because, you know, that makes perfect sense. The court has ruled that Synod broke the law, and in this they have wronged us.* We need to continue suing our Christian brothers in civil courts for as long as it takes to get the court to agree with us, even though it means spending the money we would have sent to fund Erskine and tarnishing Erskine’s reputation further in the eyes of the world. But we’ll get the Courts to agree with us yet (or bankrupt Synod trying)!

The implications in this appeal are numerous; I’ll be covering some in the coming days.

 

*This sounds eerily similar to the argument used by the Plaintiffs, namely, “Synod broke the law and wronged us, so we will sue to right the wrong.” We roundly lambasted this foolish argument. Synod was not wrong here! It’s the Courts that are wrong – and that’s why we need to sue! Isn’t it obvious? Lawsuits are fine as long as you are right…

Paul Never Mentioned Appeals

Tagline: “Christians do not sue Christians. Unless…”

As I said, Christians do not sue Christians!*

*Unless, of course, it’s an appeal, because Paul never said anything about an appeal. This is war! This is Holy War to reclaim Erskine; thank goodness our interpretation of the Bible will never hinder us!

(please see my previous post about Christians not suing Christians here.")

Navigating the Supporters of Synod site is like…

… Navigating a minefield after an army has passed through. There are HUGE GAPS in the conversation everywhere. Like on April 6, when Tim Phillips held AN ENTIRE CONVERSATION with himself.

What does [sic] mean?

The Latin word "sic" means "thus" or "so." I have no idea how Roman centurions or senators might have used the word, but in the modern usage the word is used almost exclusively to mark an error in a quote. Ideally, you would quote a source perfectly accurately, word for word. This established a problem when quoting from a published book or magazine - how might you quote the sentence, "The quck brown fox jumped over the lazy dog?" You might correct the obvious mistake - but is this the most accurate way to quote the author? You might copy the quote directly as written - but then it will look as if you made the mistake, not the original author. No, the best way to quote somebody is to mark the error as an original error. Our quote would then be, "The quck [sic] brown fox...". This way the reader knows the error was in the original document.

What then do we make of comments such as this by Roddy Gray on the Alumni forum, quoted in ARP Talk:

If we separate from the new arp[sic] Taliban [sic], Erskine lives---if we don't Erskine dies. I feel sorry for those ARP's [sic] who were courageous enough to disagree with this cult. Most of the conspirators have moved from denomination to denomination and decided that the Arp [sic] church was ripe for take-over and hey - they had a college.

I am not so much interested in the content of this quote as the manner in which it was quoted. I ask you in all seriousness: do the "sic" comments add anything to this quote? Surely not - readers know the quote was Copy-and-Pasted directly on the computer, so no errors could have been introduced by the quoter. The quote is obviously from a blog, where standards of spelling and grammar are often lower than in a book. Finally, many of these "sic" remarks are to stylistic or obscure items, like the capitalization of "ARP" or "those ARP's", where the meaning is perfectly clear though the grammar is incorrect.

I question whether such markings are necessary. Or, perhaps they are used to cast doubt on the intelligence of the writer? That would certainly be a subtle but effective way to attack the author - mark carefully each and every grammatical error and distract from the content of what is being said. I know this tactic well; surely Chuck is no less observant. The quoter is either overzealous for grammatical purity (noble perhaps) or shrewdly debasing an opposing view (ignoble). Which is it?

Of course we'll never know the truth: ARP Talk never quotes forum comments from those who agree with the author, so grammatical errors are less likely to appear. Just the same, I wonder...

In case Im quotted, i beter geve Revvy wilson sum errors to "sic"-ify. Better yet, maybe we all have more important things to do in our lives than proofread and triple-check every single posting we push online. You know, unlike Mr. Wilson, who apparently lives for nothing else.

A Timeline of Events

[Part 3 of a series entitled, "The Perversity and Inconvenience of Lawsuits against Christians Us"]

In case you missed it, here is the Commission's plan to regain Erskine from "doctrinal drift," by which I mean Erskine not keeping up with the conservative drift of the ARP Synod.

Step 1: "Clear the deadwood." The Board of Trustees was an irksome thorn in our side that needed to be dealt with. So we did. That'll teach the Board to disagree with us!

Step 2: "Rewrite the bylaws." We need to exert more control over the Board. You know, more control than appointing every board member. The bylaws need to be rewritten to make sure this sort of thing never needs to happen again. Of course if it does need to happen again, we'll know what to do. We'll shrink the board this summer, and since everybody on the board agrees with us now (after the Purge, that is), it won't matter who we get rid of! Our control over the board will be absolute (you know, as in more absolute than when we appointed all the board members in the first place).

Step 3: "Clear the deadwood." I realize this has already happened, but we need to clear out the administration and dissonent faculty. I guess we have a pretty good idea of the Ousted-To-Be. Care to guess who didn't make the cut?

Step 4: "Pack the Court." Reinvent the wheel? Of course not! People have been packing the court for ages. The Southern Baptists packed their college board and administration to see their will accomplished. We will do the same thing! The new Board reworks the administration and faculty. Bad faculty leave. And finally, we get a new president! Hurrah!

Hence the pesky problem of lawsuits! Here we are, stuck between step 1 and step 2. The only thing worse than people saying you have no authority to fire whoever we like from the Board is to have the courts say we have authority to fire whoever we want from the Board! I admire Synod for their chutzpah. Forget argument. Forget compromise. Fourteen members of the board disagree with us? Sack them!

How now shall we do that?

We Lost. We must move on from here.

Tagline: “Christians do not sue Christians. Ever.”

“You may not agree with the actions of General Synod, but they were not un-Presbyterian. Christians taking Christians to court ... well, that drum has been beat enough. Scripture is clear. … Scripture is not considered to apply when it is personally inconvenient to do so. I believe you have already answered your own question. Secular courts should not be relied on to handle church matters.”

Rev. Tim Phillips, Supporters of Synod FB group, emphasis added

Oh the frailty of man! Were that I was but a wee bit stronger and could fight the good fight until Good prevailed. We were assailed at every turn, muscled by moneyed interests and worldly passions, and hounded by internet blogs and nameless foes calling us all sorts of names.

Erskine has drifted doctrinally; Bartians and Neo-Bartians run rampant, as do evolutionists and non-inerrantists. Next year we’ll see a Neo-Neo-Bartian for sure!

We tried to reclaim the school from doctrinal drift – so sue us! (oww, actually, that’s a sore subject). It was the right thing to do. The Board wouldn’t go along with our recommendations immediately, so we fired the difficult members. So sue us! (oops, I’ve got to stop saying that). It was the right thing to do.

God calls us to never surrender His principles or allow the cancer of error to spread, even when it means firing people without just cause and breaking civil laws. What are these petty concerns when the teaching of Creationism is at stake?

We tried to bring people together for the peace and purity of the church. We tried to set up a school where Christians are not challenged by other Christians over the tenants of their faith. Now look what has happened. Christians have sued Christians in civil court. We are the Righteous Persecuted. How did it come to this?

God says there will be difficulties for those who fight for him; He apparently wasn’t kidding. Clearly it is His will that Erskine fall off the cliff of liberalism and that two or three demagogies intimidate Bible majors at will. These men will have to answer to God for their duplicity in twisting our children’s minds! We will win in the end!

How sad it is, that a formerly faithful school to God’s word went so far off the deep end. The courts have taken away from Synod what is rightfully ours; Heaven help the school now! We surely won’t.

Though there is nothing now that we can do. The courts have ruled. We lost. We must surrender the cause here and take over Erskine through Synod. Why? Because we have said quite explicitly:

CHRISTIANS DO NOT SUE CHRISTIANS, EVER!

… no matter what. That’s what we said, right?

…

…

Are there Christians at Erskine?

Ask Temperance: Conflict of Interest?

Question: Was it not a conflict of interest for the Moderator to appoint himself to the Commission rather than acting as an adviser?"

Bill Marsh answers:

Neither of us would presume to speak for Dr. de Witt.  However, we would question the premise of the question.  A conflict of interest exists when a person has more than one claim on his/her loyalty.  In this case, Dr. de Witt would only have a conflict of interest if Erskine's interests were different from those of the ARP Church.  Since Erskine is an agency of the Church, it does not seem to us that a conflict ever existed.

Additionally, having worked closely with Dr. de Witt over the past seven months, we were repeatedly reminded of the breadth of his scholarship and years in both Christian ministry and theological education.  He offered the Commission a unique perspective that was not otherwise available within the church.

Temperance says:
I am frankly at a loss for words. Bill Marsh did not even feel the need to hide his subterfuge – he proudly “questioned the premise of the question.” Well, you may question the premise all you like but at some point you need to answer it, Mr. Marsh. Was there a conflict of interest?

We are not concerned so much with Dr. de Witt but with the members of the new board. Todd Shealy on the Alumni facebook group compiled a list – the * mark indicates members of both the commission and the interim board.

Commission Members:
William C. Marsh *
Steven J. Maye (Moderator-Elect) *
Paul D. Mulner *
Gordon S. Query*
George S. Robinson (Chair) *
Roger N. Wiles *
John DeWitt (Moderator) *
Ken Wingate
Gordon Query

Interim Board Members
William Anderson
William L. Barron
John Basie
Adam Bloom
Julia T. Boyd
William S. Cain
Raymond Cameron
Fredrick Carr
James T. Corbitt
Dixon Cunningham
Joseph W. Donahue
Charles B. Evans
William B. Everett
William R. Folks
David R. Johnston
Morrison V. Lawing
Marlo L. McDonald
William C. Marsh*
Steven J. Maye (Moderator-Elect) *
James F. Mitchell
Scott Mitchell
Paul D. Mulner*
Deborah Neil
Joseph H. Patrick
Gordon S. Query*
Glen Robinson
George S. Robinson*
Steven Suits
Roger N. Wiles*
R. Boyce Wilson
John DeWitt (Moderator)*

In other words, seven members of the Commission are members of the new Board of trustees. Seven out of nine Commission members are on the new board. The men of the commission had a powerful incentive to restructure the board because they would get a spot on the board because of it. This is a classic conflict of interest because these men made a recommendation based on something they would benefit from. Such self-rewarding casts serious doubts on their commitment to be unbiased and quite frankly on their conclusions as well.

If I wanted a spot on the Board of Trustees I could think of no better way than to be a member of the Commission.

… dang it. I knew I should have asked for a spot.

What’s it all about, Chuck?

Tagline: “Any more wily and I’d be a serpent.”

Chuck Wilson writes,

Because Erskine once was so good, we have allowed Erskine to be made into an idol. At this point in time, God has called us to deal with the Baal cult of Erskine. A good institution that was organized to advance the cause of the gospel of the church of Jesus Christ has
gone from being an agency of the church that advanced the mission of the church to being an object of worship and adoration that promotes unbelief.

I took Crenshaw’s English classes along with the rest of my liberal arts curriculum, but I doubt even Crenshaw could figure out the logic or verbiage here. Because Erskine was excellent, we have NOW allowed it to be an idol? Huh? “Baal cult” at Erskine? What? Erskine has turned into an institution that “promotes unbelief?” I don’t get it. Rev. Patrick and two interns are still on the staff at Erskine, right? Professors are still required to swear to affirm inerrancy of scripture, right? Most students are Christians, right? Bible classes are still required for graduation, right?

Ah, I understand! Because Dr. Burnett rejects inerrancy of scripture and Dr. Crenshaw challenges ARP doctrine, Erskine has turned into the “cult of Baal” and forces “unbelief” on students! You’re right Chuck – why didn’t I think of that?

 

Obligatory “Quote Me, Chuck” Corner: I feel the need to include at least one grammatical error in every post just in case I am ever quoted by Chuck, for as we all know, Chuck loves nothing better than marking each and every mistake with "[sic].” I try to oblige him. Gee wiz ersKing we need to kick out these arp’s fast!

Giving to Erskine?

Those interested in admiring the exceptional giving of the Synod-Supporting Alumni may do so in the Inside Erskine alumni magazine, where the giving levels of all past alumni are tabulated. Erskine has an online link to the past four years.

Erskine must have messed up though, because surely the list is not complete… Try looking up a few of our prominent people and you’ll see what I mean!

UPDATE:

Wow – I beat Chuck Wilson to this issue! I’m almost as sanctified as Chuck! In his latest issue of ARP talk, which I had not read at the time of writing this post, he said, “One wonders, until this present conflict, how much Mr. [David] Dangerfield contributed to Erskine College.” The context, of course, is how David worships the “cult of Baal at Erskine” by giving to the defense fund, to which Wilson wonders if David gave as readily to Erskine beforehand. Well… actually he did. Go look at the documents yourself (link above).

Well, Chuck? I publicly ask for a retraction. We know how much David gave to Erskine. You were wrong.

Why Can't the Board of Trustees Just Do What They Are Told?

Good question, Mary Lou.*

Why won’t they just do what we tell them?!

 

*From the Let’s Talk about Erskine and the Synod FB group

Compromise Proposal

Dear Alumni, Plaintiffs, and Fired Board Members:

For too long we have fought over the most simple of issues, and to no avail. Thousands of dollars have been spent on court and legal fees, and even now the ARP Denomination and Erskine College churns with anger and discontent. All because of… us.

So let’s fix it.

We fired fourteen Trustees because the board was too big, we claim. You didn’t like that and sued us. But why fight about this? After all, we’ve argued from the start that it didn’t matter who was released – that they all served honorably. So let’s get rid of the other half of the board and settle the whole issue. Let’s remove the other sixteen.

Nobody loses here:

• The Board is smaller, which makes everybody happy.
• “Your” trustees remain, which makes you happy.
• “Our” trustees are gone, but since we have said repeatedly, consistently, and truthfully that ideology had nothing to do with the firings, this won’t matter. Trust us.

I have not made a mistake, have I? We are not claiming ideology had anything to do with the firings, so it shouldn’t matter who is fired, should it?*

Capish?

It might also be nice for Synod to promise, in writing, to never fire a trustee again without cause. You know, just in case we become even more conservative and want to fire some more liberals.

Sincerely,

Temperance Dogood
Concerned Citizen
Trusting Admirer of the Commission Report

*Yes, the Report does reference “irreconcilable” differences in the Board, but we have never claimed to fire people because they did not agree with our vision of Erskine. At least we never claimed this out loud.

Oh! You better watch out, you better not cry

They decide who's naughty or nice.

The Commission... has come... to town.

Holy Cow! $50 Grand!

Update: This is an important point in the motion to dismiss made by Synod; unfortunately, not only did I misunderstand the legal meaning when I originally wrote this, I still don't understand it now. So, maybe you should skip this post.
==============
Did I read this right?! Injunction by the judge reads in part, “Plaintiffs are directed to provide security in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars($50,000.00).” Are these the “court costs” that Synod is supposed to pay? They don’t get this back, do they?
How many Bibles would that buy?
How many souls could that save?
Shouldn’t Synod be doing the Lord’s work with that money instead of paying lawyers’ fees and now the court costs of a lawsuit in defense of an illegal act?

Tell it like it is, Danny!

Daniel over at Ask a Commissioner, talking about those who persistently asked difficult questions, quotes the Bible:

And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.

2 Timothy 2:24 – 3:5 (ESV)

Tell it like it is, friend. Those Others sure are “quarrelsome” aren’t they – and “abusive, proud, arrogant.” Man, how dare they! Mulner perhaps said it best in his self-sorrowful goodbye: “hate-speech.” Yes. It was. How dare you challenge our incomplete answers!

There’s Something Rotten in the Church

I don’t know the man, but what he says he makes me sick:

I believe three of the plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit (one who has since dropped) are ARP ruling elders. Here is their sixth vow for ordination: "Do you promise to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the session and to the higher courts of the Church?” That, of course, was not done. That they did not submit to the higher court (General Synod) is beyond dispute [because of the lawsuit].

- Rev. Tim Phillips, on Supporters of Synod group

That Rev. Phillips thinks elders (or members) in a church should be forced to do whatever their session, presbytery, Synod, &etc says on every issue is sickening. When your session, presbytery, Synod, &etc does something you find contrary to the Bible, you would pray carefully and if convinced they are wrong you would challenge them on it. This might culminate in leaving the church and/or denomination. If your session, presbytery, Synod, &etc did something illegal against the laws of the church or state, you should challenge them on it. If they refuse to consider the fact that, yes, they did something illegal, you seek recourse in the court to correct the wrong that has been done to you and your neighbor. What else is there to do?

Make no mistake about it – Synod broke the law, or at the very least came so close to breaking it that the court has put an injunction on the action until a proper trial can convene to determine whether they acted illegally. This means that, at the very least, they are walking a very fine line – and possibly crossed it into terrible behavior.

That Rev. Phillips would refuse a godly man from any way at all* of challenging the actions – Biblical or legal – of their church is outrageous and disgusting. Truly, should we all bow down to the almighty Synod? Is the Bible not the only inerrant word of God, or should professors at Erskine swear allegiance to inerrant Synod too? Is Synod incapable of making a mistake, misinterpreting scripture, acting unchristian, or breaking the law? Should we condemn the godly men of the past who challenged their churches? Martin Luther, anyone?

Or is the difference that Martin Luther was justified in his challenge of the church? Challenge the church when you are right to do so – is this Rev. Phillips belief? He’s right, of course – you should only challenge the court when it’s justified. Here, godly men believe it is justified. The legal system seems to agree. Or is Rev. Phillips so blind to his and his Synod’s actions that he refuses to accept that they might have wronged their neighbor and broken the law?

Truly, if men of Synod believe as Rev. Phillips does – that Synod can make no mistake and challenges of its decisions will face God’s wrath – then I perfectly understand how this sad Erskine debacle arose in the first place. If you care for nothing except what you, yourself, want to do, and if you believe that everybody else must and will submit to you, then nothing will stand in your way. And nothing did – until a few good men said “enough.”

I, for one, will challenge my church, to which I have sworn to submit for the peace and purity , when my church acts in a way that is contrary to Christ; this includes breaking the laws of the land that are not in conflict with the Christian faith. That is what Synod has done, and though Rev. Phillips speaks in the group of the necessary “repentance” of these men and “rebelling against the very authorities that God has placed over them” and “eternal consequences,” whatever that means. Are these men at risk for their very souls because they believe their church broke the law? Apparently. Sorry, Rev. Phillips. How ever could I be so silly as to challenge your God-given authority to break the law?

But all is not lost. Mary Lou Holmes wrote back:

Mr. Phillips, when a Synod acts on a report and recommendation of a commission that are done outside the authority of the Synod and the laws of the state and federal government, no one need submit.
We are a Church of God, not of men.

And that, my friends, is the truth.

 

*Yes, I know, they should have asked Synod to “redo” Synod’s own decision. And if Synod did not change its mind, as it surely would not have? What happens then? Let me guess: “Christians don’t sue the Church. Submit!”

The Lawsuit According to the Others

[Part 2 of a series entitled, "The Perversity and Inconvenience of Lawsuits against Christians Us"]


Oh my bleeding ears! Oh my aching belly! Oh my incontinence! (Literally – the house reeks). Listen to what the Other side is saying:

I get it. I understand. Christians are not supposed to sue Christians over trivial matters. Christians are not supposed to sue the church. We are supposed to go to the church to seek redress of grievances. To settle issues. Christians are supposed to act with fairness and equity while the world acts for selfishness and in sin. I understand all that, and in normal situations by all means we should avoid the civil courts whenever possible between believers in the same church.

Yes! Exactly! What is so difficult about this? Christians… do… not… sue… Christians. Why do you think de Witt and Wingate and the other Commissioners were so sure there would not be a lawsuit? Because Christians do not sue Christians! They spoke at Erskine a few weeks back and said, under no uncertain terms, that Christians do not sue Christians! Why on earth do you think we were unconcerned as we fired the board members? Because Christians do not sue Christians! What a glorious passage for Christians with ambition diligence!

The Other side continues:

Sadly, the problem here is the Church itself. We cannot recourse to the Church because it is the Church that is in error. We cannot recourse to the Church because it is the Church that has "wronged" the fired Trustees. We cannot recourse to the Church because it is the Church that broken the bylaws of Erskine, acted in haste without Christian piety and consideration, slandered people's character and reputation, promoted their own interests, and damaged the reputation of a college that had done nothing to deserve it based on half-truths and misrepresentations of Erskine and its professors.

Oh you silly goose! If you cannot trust the Church, who can you trust? Sure, Synod made this decision and started the uproar. Sure, you disagree. Well ask them to fix it. If they don’t fix it, maybe you’re wrong! Yes, you feel slighted. Yes, you feel laws have been broken. No problem – Synod will consider your opinions and make the right decision (which, naturally, will be to uphold their previous ruling!).

But it is the Church that has wronged us, and it makes no sense to appeal to your attacker. Were this a war, you would not plead with the invader. Were this a game, you would not ask the other team to kick the ball towards your net. Were this a competition you would not ask the other player to run slower or jump shorter or figure skate less brilliantly. It makes no sense to ask the Church that has wronged you for a "redo." We need a third party. We need somebody impartial. Sadly, the impartial body is supposed to be the Church – surely that is what God intends. Synod isn't.

Oh the travesty of your opinions! Of course Synod is impartial! The Commission proved their impartiality! Think of all the people they interviewed – all the professors who spoke up for Erskine, all the administrators who said things were “A-OK.” And the Commission remained impartial to them all. Think of the students who said Erskine was a wonderful school with a great Christian liberal arts education. We remained impartial! They tried to bias us and twist our thoughts, but we stood strong in the knowledge that Erskine needs us. Sixty current students signed a petition pleading for our help – and we will listen!

When is it legitimate to sue the Church? When is their misdeed great enough to warrant civil action? What is the dividing line between “sue” and “bite your tongue?” Our lawsuit sounds preposterous to the other side because in their minds they have done the right thing. Their actions were extreme and possibly illegal, but they believe it was right. So why sue the Church when the Church is right? Yet were it the Commission members who were wronged, were it the students of SAFE who felt the pain of a law broken against them, I have little doubt they would do all they could to right the wrong. If the courts are all that stood open to them – as indeed they are the only impartial recourse for us today – then I have no doubt they would appeal to the courts.

No. Never. Never sue the Church. The only reason to sue the church is if they have turned away from God. You know, as in if the Church was supporting the wayward professors at Erskine. Then we’d sue to fix the problem.

Think we want to sue? Of course not. Lawsuits cost money. They cost us time. They cost denominational unity. And clearly they cost us the respect of some of you. But maybe you squandered unity when the Fourteen were fired without just cause, and maybe we had lost your respect already for supporting a college that really has been very good to us. If a lawsuit is the only way to keep your grubby hands from firing Board members who don't agree with you - including our Alumni representation, no less - then I say sue on.

I don’t have anything further to say. What is it you want? Christians are supposed to appeal to the church. If you had appealed to the church, nothing would have changed but you would have felt better about yourself.

End this lawsuit, we all beg you. Repeal the act. Reappoint the Fired Fourteen. But until you do so, we will ask the courts to do it for us. Curse us all you like and write of God's wrath being turned on us until you're blue in the face and broke from legal fees. I really couldn't care less. But obey the laws of our Erskine, the laws of the land, and the laws of Christian morality in the future, or we’ll sue again.

Thank goodness we still control excommunication...

Separation of Church and State!

Tagline: “Have I missed something here?”

Out of the mouths of babes come great truth. “Tominaz” writes over at Gairney Bridge:

The state needs to keep its hands off church matters.

Meanwhile, “pastorvon” laments:

If this ruling is allowed to stand — I must be careful here because I have not read the ruling — no church court will be able to function according to its Form of Government or Book of Discipline. … If the State can say that an action of a Church court is void, then no person will be able to be disciplined for sins that they have done.

I don’t get it. Forgive this recent convert to the Cause of the Commission, but have I missed something? Do we want a separation of church and state, or do we not? All these years we’ve been hoping for prayer in schools and Christ-centered education and on and on, but now tominaz and pastorvon need the state to go, get out of here, we don’t want you in our business! You’ll understand my confusion.

Ironically, the decision to uphold the injunction is the exact opposite of what pastorvon fears. The argument of the Plaintiff was that Synod broke the bylaws of the college and the denomination – that trustees cannot be removed without cause. The argument of the Defense, as argued by Wingate, was that trustees can be removed according to SC law.

In other words, the Defense argued that the State justified the actions of the Church (i.e. they are not separate). Yet the judge rejected this argument and said that there was a partial separation of church and state; the judge believed that Church law stood over State law and that trustees could not be removed without cause.

So men who probably disagree with the separation of church and state in the public schools, and who argued in court that the State and Church were not separate because State law stood over Church law, now argue that the church and state need to be completely separate.

In other words, not only are these comments contradictory to what I presume the authors believe about the rest of society, but they are contradictory to their own Defense in court.

Am I the only one confused here?

New Motto: “Oppose Separation of Church and State in favor of prayer in public schools, Ten Commandment displays, & etc. Except in cases of Church exercising authority over a “mother/child” relation (Erskine College), where separation of church and state does not apply because State law is over Church law, unless State law conflicts with what Church members want to do, in which case separation of church and state is absolute.”

Which out of the mouths of babes becomes: “Give me what I want, or I’ll take it by force.”

Comité de Salut Public

Is anybody else weirded out by all the power and influence of the Committee over Synod and, allegedly, Erskine? One the words of a few men, Synod signed their fate to a rash act and the consequences thereof.

Stand fast, Alumni, our brave Thermidorians!

The Times They Are A-Changin’

Tagline: “If at first you don’t Secede…”

Courtesy of Gairney Bridge (emphasis added):

“The restraining order remains in place, the interim board cannot meet, and the actions of General Synod at the called meeting are null and void. … Big changes are a-comin’, I suspect, just not in the form they appeared to be coming a month ago.

The Civil Court may have determined that Synod acted illegally and their ‘emergency meeting’ might have been ruled null and void, but never let it be said that the lawsuit was justifiable. Christians must not ever, ever, in a million years, sue Christians! Even when, you know, the law says we did something wrong.

Fool you once, shame on… you

Tagline: “Fool you once, shame on you. Fool you twice, shame on me. Why give you a second chance?”

The Commission members were infinitely interested in student opinions. So, they came to Erskine to talk to students. Imagine that – busy Christian men taking time out of their busy day to talk to students. Anybody at Erskine could talk to them. Anybody at all.

All you needed to do was email them. They came on a Friday. During J-Term, a time when many upperclassmen were not even on campus. They set up the interview during class, so people truly interested in learning couldn’t be there. They set out the confirmation email the day before, leaving little time for students to arrange time out of class or prepare statements.

Best yet – don’t spend much time on the Students! Eight students were scheduled for the same block of time – 30 minutes. That’s 3.75 minutes per student. The ARP Church has been trying to explain what “integration of faith and learning” means for over 30 years – did we really expect students to navigate the issue with real-life experience in just under 4 minutes? Of course not! How could they? All the students needed to say is We agree with you, sir, and leave it at that. Which, coincidentally, many of them did.

And at the end of the day? Nearly half of the interviewees were SAFE members. Perfect! Why interview people who do not agree with us? SAFE brought the complaint to us in the first place – it would only make sense to interview them again. Were I cynical, I would think the Commission didn't really want to talk to students. But I'm not cynical. The Commission did everything they could to talk to as many different students as possible!

The Commission never came back to interview students. Missed it? Shame on you.

‘ASK A COMMISSIONER’ REMOVES QUESTION

Update: Question and answer restored to Ask a Commissioner. Now, there are just two documents I would really like to get my hands on. The first is in the mail as we speak, and will be posted in May. The second: what Laura Griffin wrote about Robyn Agnew on SAFE! Wouldn't you like to see the only document SAFE removed from its site? I sure would.

Update 2: Holy cow! I got it! Laura Griffin’s letter originally posted on SAFE website but removed soon thereafter.

Tagline: “If you delete the problem, the problem will go away…”

The ever-humorous ‘Ask a Commissioner’ website has removed one of their answered questions with no comment as to the reason why. A link to the question now gives the following page:

T. Dogood is proud to present the complete question asked by David Danehower and the Commission member’s response.

What about the 1977-78 Commission on Judiciary Affairs?

 

March 23, 2010 :: Paul Mulner

David D. asks: I have read with interest that in 1977-78, the ARP Synod's Ecclesiastical Commission on Judiciary Affairs reviewed and upheld the autonomy of the Erskine Board of Trustees. Further, the Judiciary Commission also found that "the only legal right Synod has in the governing of Erskine is the right to appoint (not dismiss!) members to the Board of Trustees."
The Judiciary Commission went on to warn that the Board could take away Synod's right to appoint trustees by amending the bylaws. So, Synod asked the Board to amend the charter to guarantee that this would not happen. As a gesture of goodwill, the Board agreed to make a change that requires the vote of both the Board and the Synod to change the method of appointing new Board members. I find it troubling that the Moderator's Commission would recommend to Synod something that would abrogate this gentlemanly and (in the Court of the Synod) binding agreement made some 32 years prior, by asserting that it can unilaterally dissolve the Board.
Did the Commission not know this and was the Commission not advised by its Counsel that such an act might precipitate actions within both the Synod as well as the SC court system?

I'll give this a go, but I am not a lawyer!

Yes, the Moderator's Commission was familiar with the report.  The 1978 Ecclesiastical Commission did report that Synod has the legal authority to appoint members of the Board.  According to SC non-profit law, the body that can appoint can also remove.
It's important to remember that there has never been an adversarial relationship between the Church and the school because there have generally never been competing interests between the two.  It's not really correct to desribe the actions of 1978 as if there were two opposing parties who came to an agreement to settle their differences.  The Synod and its Trustees for Erskine (together) tightened the legal language that would protect the ARP's involvement with Erskine into the future.  At the time, there were great inconsistancies between the language in the Manual of Authorities and Duties, the Erskine bylaws, and the Erskine charter.  The actions of those years brought all of those documents into line with one another.

Faith

“The Synod presents a very good argument in their brief. I have yet to read the Plaintiff's brief, but I can't imagine the issue being clearer.” (emphasis added)

-Andrew DeShazo, Facebook Supporters of Synod group, 4/1/10

And this, my dear friends, is what we call “faith,” and is a desirable only when dealing with God and the Chicago Cubs.

JUST IN: SYNOD FIRES RUBLE, APPOINTS XXX PRESIDENT

4/1/2010 :: Due West, SC

Citing Ecclesiastical law as well as Christian necessity, Synod voted via email to remove Dr. Randy Ruble as president of Erskine College and Seminary, and appointed Mr. XXX XXX (redacted) as the interim president. This action comes as the fate of the interim board hangs on the word of a South Carolina judge. While his decision is expected early next week, Synod believed action was needed quickly to rectify the “culture of intimidation” that oppressed students so heavily at the college.

“The Jews were lost in the desert for forty years,” explained Mr. YYY(redacted), moderator of the ARP Synod. “God did not abandon them. Would it be Christian for Synod to abandon our sons and daughters to the religious desert called ‘Erskine?’”

The move did not go unnoticed. A Facebook group dedicated to Alumni in support of Erskine lit up at the move, with comments ranging from “We’ll see you in court” to “This is war.”

XXX XXX (redacted) defended Synod’s actions. “I did not want to be president, but Synod forced it upon me. I will relinquish this position as soon as someone more favorable is found.” When asked about accusations that XXX promoted himself for the position, he dismissed such statements as unchristian distortions of the truth. “I mentioned to a few people that I might be good for the position, but it was nothing serious. Who else could they pick besides me?” He went on to describe his actions as “not in the least bit a conflict of interest” because “Erskine’s interests are not in conflict with my interests.”

An online newsletter by a former ARP minister lauded the action with the headline, “It’s About Time You Listened to Me!” The minister went on to describe the college as “fundamentally broken” and “hopelessly antithetical to anything Christ would admire. … Synod owns Erskine like a mother owns her unborn child, so obviously we had the power to do this.” One party to the lawsuit was quick to quip, “Abort it!”

With two new lawsuits pending and one already argued before a judge, only time will tell if Synod succeeds in their replacement. For now, students found their way to class as usual and life in this quiet Southern town continued just as it always has.

[More on the Index-Journal Website tonight]

Of course there is a "Culture of Intimidation"

"No really, we promise," says the Commission. "There are examples of the Culture of Intimidation. We just won't make that information public. Except for that one example, the XXX XXXX incident. That one was very public. But no more! We've destroyed his reputation among our friends - how could we do that to anybody else? No, we'll keep our myriad examples of intimidation secret."

"In fact, we won't even tell the accused! Isn't that a lark. You, Dr. Roe, and you, administrator Doe - you have no idea whether you've been accused or not! Better yet, you can't give a defense for your actions (be the intimidation real or imagined), because you are ignorant of the accusation made against you. We ought to have thought of this tactic before," says the Commission, "and Erskine would have been brought under submission long ago."