The Misery of the End, pt 1

Update: Corrected factual errors per comments. I suggest you read the Comments section for opposing views to those I’ve suggested here.

Mercifully, we approach the end.

The Commission has come and gone. It’s recommendations are in legal limbo. Erskine has a new President. It’s time to end this madness.

There are two immediate problems. First, nobody trusts Synod/ARP Church or nobody trusts the Board/Erskine/Alumni depending on who you think was wronged. And make no mistake about it – we all feel very, very wronged. So wronged that the Board started a lawsuit to see things restored to the way things were, and so wronged Synod appealed to see Erskine change from the way it was. There is no trust anymore, and trust must be restored before Erskine can heal.

Secondly, Erskine has a tremendous governance problem. We’ve been content to allow Synod the prerogative of appointing almost every Trustee on the Board for decades now. Synod runs this show and they still needed to fire half the Board to get their way. In other words things worked out pretty well so far. Our problem is that Synod cannot be trusted to keep up the status quo; now, Alumni fear, Synod will single-mindedly nominate trustees who will do exactly as they are told. Shazam! Erskine changes.

Trust must be restored. With trust must come compromise. And compromise here is one tough nut!

Improbability (Impossibility?) of Compromise

I have thought long and hard about how to compromise with the “other side.” I even jokingly suggested firing the other half of the Board, since we are verbally told the only thing that matters is size and not ideological composition. I don’t think that idea took very well.

Consider the vast difference in composition between us. Supporters of Synod are roughly unified about a common objective: upholding the actions of Synod in a fight against “doctrinal drift” (sorry, weasel words there but I don’t have a list of names). There is no universal agreement that Synod was wise to fire half the Board, but it was justified. Most importantly of all, convincing others and organizing is already accomplished – they control actions now through Synod. This is excellent: if Synod brokers a compromise everybody will accept it.

Those who oppose Synod are not unified in the slightest. Opposition to Synod’s action spans the entire gauntlet from either separation or reunification, a change in Erskine’s direction or no change in direction, Dr. Norman or no Dr. Norman, the same number of Synod-appointed trustees or fewer, and etc. Several blogs have arisen, the Facebook group is very active, and members who have never met each other face-to-face debate the finer aspects of church doctrine and missional fidelity with new “friends” living hundreds of miles apart. And none of them agree on what “should” be done. The only common denominator is the belief that Synod was royally stupid to force the issue last March.

Synod may compromise, but with who? The Alumni, Administration, and Faculty have enormous vested and intellectual interests here but no power. Only the Board has the authority to bargain with Synod (the Board that exists solely due to a restraining order that is under appeal by Synod as we speak). Realistically speaking, what chance does this Board have in compromise when considered “illegitimate” and “illegal” by the group they are trying to compromise with?

Worst still, Synod has no incentive to hurry. In the vanishingly small chance Synod wins their appeal or (more likely) the Plaintiffs withdraw their suit, the interim Board takes control and compromise will no longer be necessary. Synod then has no incentive to rush things, and indeed Chuck Wilson implores them to spend $600,000/year meant for Erskine on legal bills until the other side gives up or goes broke (the first is unlikely, the second ignorable). Every minutes hurts Erskine vastly more than it hurts Synod, and Synod is apparently content with an appeal that could take years.

And the final span in the vast canyon of compromise improbability? “There are irreconcilable and competing visions about the direction of the college and seminary among the members of the Erskine Board of Trustees.” The Preliminary Commission Report made it very clear why the Interim Board was necessary and it had nothing to do with size! Synod must compromise with the full Board of Trustees that includes all the Trustees who agree with Synod – roughly half the Board. How vast this canyon of disagreement really is!

Synod
---Roughly unified until moderates take stand against Commission

vs. Board of Trustees
---Half of Board opposed to Synod’s actions
-------Competing visions on Board for Erskine’s future governance
-----------Competing visions on Board for EC/Synod affiliation
---------------- & etc.

So the Board is divided between pro-Synod and anti-Synod, and divided again in how to oppose Synod. Such division makes agreement within the Board nearly impossible – not to mention brokering a compromise with Synod as well. And actually, this huge problem is not even the half of it! (To be discussed below).

Quick! Tell the Board to Compromise Surrender, already!

Put simply, Synod wants something. In order to compromise the Board must give them a bone, a steak, or an arm.

The problem is that we don’t know what will appease the Synodites. We must begin with the Commission report (after all, it’s what started this whole mess). There were four recommendations:

1. “Restructuring [shrinking] the Board”
2. Replacement Interim Board
3. Nomination process: Board of Trustees no longer has the role of suggesting nominees for service
4. Criteria for Trustees - “competent, independent, engaged”

Point one: immediately shrink the Board of Trustees. Possible compromise: shrink the Board of Trustees over a long period of time, say, six years. Uh, wait, the old Board suggested this. The only conceivable compromise over shrinking the Board was suggested – and rejected. Synod would have nothing to do with it.

Point two: Since we’re compromising an interim Board is not necessary because presumably we’ll make Synod happy. Though as mentioned previously the Commission did not exist to deal with governance alone, and firing Fourteen members had more to do with ideology than bodies. Since the law won’t allow group firings, members would need to resign.

Point Three: Nomination process. Legitimate source of controversy; the Board believed it should have the ability to non-bindingly recommend members. Let the Board win here. After all, they are non-binding recommendations. As in, I recommend you brush your teeth every night. Are we really going to wage war over shutting up your annoying mom?

Point Four: Criteria for Trustees. Everybody agree.

Four recommendations, two disagreements: an excellent compromise for the first point and a ludicrous #3 to fight over. And it wasn’t good enough.

So what will satiate them? A strict and literal reading of their demands (“aspirations”) is roughly outlined as three points in ARPTalk 21:

1. Erskine and Seminary must be faithful to The Philosophy of Higher Christian Education and mission statement
2. Erskine must “promote the goals, the welfare, the growth, and the unity of the ARP Church”
3. Erskine should realize “that the ARP Church owns the land upon which the institution sits.” – that “in its great generosity and sense of mission, the ARP Church has allowed Erskine to use the land on which Erskine College sits.” (Their generosity astounds me.)

Wilson cannot speak for all ARPs, of course, but since no Supporters of Synod are pounding down my doorframe denouncing the guy, I’ll assume he’s close to the mark. The Preliminary Report and SAFE Petition also speak to the above, primarily #1.

Expanding on these “aspirations” then, the Commission, Chuck Wilson, Supporters of Synod FB group, SAFE, etc seem want the following: to fire or force resignation of Crenshaw, Burnett, and Hering Bush for not affirming inerrancy. Get rid of the new professors who don’t uphold inerrancy. Mandate teaching of Creationism in Biology classes, as Mr. Wingate demanded (and hire new Biology professors when the current ones leave, as they would). Integrate faith and learning into each classroom (and to be quite honest, to this day I have no idea how you would do this beyond what is already being done. The Commissioners have said explicitly you cannot quantify it). Get rid of the troublesome administration – a few names have repeatedly been mentioned. And we know a dozen or so Board members are not wanted. (I can only assume this is what they want, but really, if these men teach or administer unacceptably, is there any way they can remain at Erskine? And so forth).

I would like to compromise – I really would. But compromise is difficult. Everybody agrees with the First Aspiration and differ only on execution. Since I have no idea what Synod would change about #1 I cannot offer anything in compromise. Compromise also means firing a lot of people. A whole lot. Justified? Maybe so, maybe not. But I feel a bit odd saying, “I’ll trade you Bill Crenshaw to withdraw the appeal” or “shrink Board immediately if you won’t fire O’Cain.” Gets awkward when you put names on it, doesn’t it? Is it right to bargain over these professors, administrators, and Trustees who, quite honestly, are doing the very best they can to make Erskine excellent? Is it right considering many do not believe Synod has the authority to demand such changes anyway? Yet Synod will presumably demand nothing less because these men and women have violated various principles held by the ARP Church such as inerrancy and run Erskine slightly differently than Synod desires. Aspiration #3 – Synod owns Erskine. You don’t compromise with the jewel in your crown.

Silly Board! Compromise Surrender already! Why do you refuse to work with Synod? Why can you not compromise? Stubborn Oxen!

Stubborn Oxen! The Board That Just Won’t Stop Compromising

I am reminded of the years just before World War II when Hitler demanded – and was freely given – many territories in Europe. The Rhineland. Austria. Czechoslovakia. None were sufficient – in fact, together whole countries and regions were not sufficient to satisfy him. Hitler wanted more. He carved up Poland because of this insatiable thirst for land. World War II was the result.

Germany pushing over Europe

Synod is no little Hitler (let me say that again – Synod is no little Hitler!), but the analogy roughly stands. I feel a bit like Poland. Synod has been demanding change at Erskine for decades. And always the Board listens and always the Board is right to do so. No, Chuck Wilson-ites have not received everything they asked for, but they’re pretty darn close. Erskine is, at least, as conservative as it used to be, and at most, much more conservative than it used to be. Bill Crenshaw himself admits he would never be hired today. The idea that Erskine is slowly drifting leftward doctrinally is sensationalism. The Erskine of today is more conservative than the Erskine of yesteryear.

(You quoted me here, right? Synod is no Hitler!)

The Synod passed a few statements on Christian Higher Education and so forth in the late 1970s. As late as 2007-2008 the Board rewrote the mission statement to make it even clearer what Erskine’s mission is – a move strongly supported by those opposed to the Board today. Charlatans, says Synodites, but you cannot argue that the Board didn’t pay attention to Synod’s demand of missional fidelity (they differed in application only). Repeatedly over thirty years the Board has tried to keep Erskine a liberal arts Christian college.

And succeeded! Erskine is a strong liberal arts college! The Mission statement is upheld! I have yet to see the mission statement not be upheld! In my opinion, Erskine realizes its mission statement and integrates faith and learning excellently. I’ve blogged about this before and will gladly blog about it again if asked. Synod told the Board to enforce the mission statement. In the opinion of this anonymous blogger who either has no “balls” or is a faithful SAFE disciple, Erskine has done so. Somebody, please, give me an example of a lack of integration of faith and learning. Despite a Commission dedicated to this very principle I have yet to see it.

Appeasement recently culminated in a requirement that each professor sign a statement swearing to believe in the inerrancy of scripture. This seems an odd requirement in that many confessing Christians do not hold this belief and that understanding many disciplines does not require inerrancy of scripture. Notice that I do not say I disagree with inerrancy; I simply say that whether Dr. Crenshaw agrees doesn’t matter a great deal when teaching English.

But regardless, never forget two things: the Board followed Synod’s directive to the letter, Dr. Ruble enforced the requirement to the best of his ability (CURSE the man for not being a mind-reader!), and today every recent hire at Erskine has sworn to believe inerrancy. Synod had no real authority to force this mandate; they relied on the Board to listen and do as they were told. This is about as close to “Czechoslovakia” as it comes.

The Board obeyed Synod despite the legitimate arguments to not do so, namely: that while inerrancy might be popular among reformed theologians, the number of excellent professors teaching Biology, Chemistry, Physics, History, Art, Sociology, and every other discipline imaginable is far less. If a criteria of “accept inerrancy or else” is given the topmost priority, many fully qualified, fully competent, and excellent teachers that would gladly teach at Erskine will be turned away. We might get lucky a few times, but statistically, the quality of professors at Erskine will decrease. This is inarguable; the Board knew of this argument and apparently believed obeying Synod was more important. Czechoslovakia.

Again, my point here is not that inerrancy is wrong, nor that professors are any better who deny the tenant. No, my argument is that in this the Board yet again upheld Synod’s demands.

Then the Commission was formed and eventually demanded the Board to shrink itself immediately, and a couple other requests, or else you’re fired!** The Board counter-offered (i.e. compromised) to shrink over six years. This is remarkable; the Board believed itself to own Erskine and Synod technically had no authority to demand anything or any change in the Bylaws of the Board. It would be as if the Board of Erskine told Synod to fire Moderator DeWitt and shrink the denomination by 50 churches; the Board has no authority and Synod is not forced to obey. Synod rejected the six-year counteroffer (“my way or the highway”) and fired half the Board to get their way (Poland!)

** SIDEBAR **
“Do what we say or we’ll fire you!” This fact was pointed out to me in a comment a few posts ago, and indeed, the Aquila Report is perfectly clear on this point. You realize what I said, right? The Commission told the Board to make their changes or they would be fired. I called this “blackmail” before. Another term is “coercion.” I hope somebody will email the original document if it still exists.
** END SIDEBAR **

We have here a Board that might have dropped the ball spectacularly in their achievements, depending on your point of view, but that inarguably tried to acquiesce to Synod’s will over and over again (and were right to do so!). Compromise! More incredibly, compromise with a body that firstly, does not own the institution, secondly, appoints Trustees at the free will of the Board, and thirdly, has no legal authority over Erskine except for historical precedent and the good-will of the Board. I may tell my coworkers to cook me dinner each night, but they would do so under their own volition. So too with the Board.

But seriously, at some point you’ve got to say “enough is enough.” Poland! After all this acquiescing Synod calls the Board stiff-necked? Seriously? See – no matter how correct the Board was to listen to Synod, appeasement never gets you anywhere. There is always more. Eventually you go too far, demand too much.

None of this changes the enormous problems with compromise today originating within the Board, and of course all of this occurred before Synod fired half of them. Presumably the Board would be more divided now and less likely to bend to Synod’s demands. But never let it be said the Board is deaf. They listened to Synod imperfectly, but plenty. Plenty.

Stubborn Mule! The Synod That Just Won’t Compromise!

Excellent! The Board is clearly willing to compromise. Heck, they even wrote a document begging for reconciliation a few weeks ago. Any takers?

“Sadly, the board of the Alumni Association has made clear their contempt for the ARP Church, the deliberative processes of its courts, and its vision for Erskine.  While I hope that some repair of that breach is possible, as one member of the General Synod [and a Commissioner], I don't see what the Synod needs to do to compromise.” – Paul Mulner, Commissioner (emphasis added)

This quote from Ask a Commissioner was written before the “reconciliation” letter I mentioned above, but as far as I know nothing has changed. The opinion of Commissioners and the ruling body of Synod believed two things very clearly: they should (or ought to) be in control of Erskine through the Board of Trustees, and secondly, they own Erskine. I’ve already quoted the Commission reports that state unequivocally that Synod owns Erskine. Then we have ARP Talk which states no fewer than four times that Synod owns Erskine (ARPTalk 4, 21, 25, and Extra 6).

Please understand: this is why Synod refuses to compromise. In their opinion, compromise is ludicrous. We own Erskine or We ought to be able to control Erskine through the Board they say. Why compromise with your employer? Do what we tell you or we’ll find somebody who will. When slowed down in transforming Erskine quickly, Synod (rightly) balked. As with my own possessions, Synod believes it may do whatever it wants to its college. Stupid, wise, or indifferent, Synod owns the thing and Synod will do what it wants!

As documented previously on this blog, Chuck Wilson no longer believes that Synod owns Erskine directly; we might infer this belief is now rampant among Synodites. This is a substantial victory for the anti-Synod crowd. But regardless, Synod still believes it has the legal and historical authority to control Erskine (hence the legal appeal).

Until this belief changes – until Synod accepts that Erskine owns itself, governs itself, and obeys Synod as a courtesy and not by coercion – then Synodites will see every compromise as unnecessary, every concession a knife in their side, and every employee rejecting strict inerrancy as a painful and unnecessary surrender of Biblical principles. No, Synod will never willingly give up Erskine to doctrinal drift when they believe they own it and control it.

If Synod did own Erskine, I couldn’t blame them.

But do they?

 

Weekend: The distraction called a “compromise proposal” and why it was released, why Chuck Wilson is absolutely right, insight into what Chuck knows that he shouldn’t but that would be unbelievable if true, and how I believe trust can be restored.

 

*Since I recognize that some will misinterpret my historical example above, let me spell it out clearly: Synod is not like Hitler! But appeasement/surrender has been exercise here just like Europe from 1935-1939. It is appeasement, not Nazi Germany, to which I make reference.