Moderators Reflection: Look in the Mirror!

Update: Make corrections based on comments. As always, read the comments for alternative interpretations to those presented here.

 

“Mirror, Mirror on the wall, Who’s the fairest of them all?”

As mentioned before, the Board of Trustees is out of legitimate options as far as compromising goes. Synod feels no need to compromise, and as both sides dig in their heels, hate will continue to fester and the consequences of our inaction become all the more dangerous.

Although it is important to address issues like the lawsuit and the upcoming meeting of Synod (i.e. short-term issues), the long term effects of the Synod’s actions cannot be ignored or forgotten. This became perfectly obvious as I read Dr. Dick deWitt’s article in the June 2010 issue of the ARP magazine, and again in a comment to my last post. Dr. deWitt entitled his article “A Moderator’s Reflections,” and truly, he has much to consider. Who’s the fairest Moderator of them all?

In the space of one short year, Dr. deWitt has formed and headed up a Commission to investigate the integration of faith and learning at Erskine (or was it about governance?), encouraged and presided at the landmark emergency meeting of Synod (emergencies always happen four months before regular meetings), weathered a lawsuit (Christians do not sue Christians, except…), and initiated an appeal (indeed he did! We’ll hopefully cover this controversy in a few days). and will now preside over a June meeting of Synod that will include heresy trials (unusual) These actions will possibly lead to drastic changes at a meeting of Synod that may well change the governance of Erskine College and Seminary.

DeWitt notes, “To me, it seemed essential that I give whatever I had at my disposal to closing the gap and drawing our college and seminary and the church back together” (emphasis added). Mission accomplished! Let me be the first to congratulate him on a job well done! Rarely have I seen such expansive communication between the alumni, the students and faculty, and the members of Synod. DeWitt also notes that addressing the findings of the Commission was “essential to the wellbeing of Erskine College” and that the emergency Synod was justified. In addition, deWitt “know[s] not a single person who wishes to harm Erskine College and Seminary… Was the synod right in acting as it did? I certainly believe that to be the case.”

Truly, we are better off thanks to Dr. deWitt’s Commission. Thank you!

Booker T. Washington once said, “Let no man drag you so low as to make you hate him.” As the familiar song goes, how low can we go, Moderator deWitt?

What Hath deWitt Wrought?

Let us examine the blessings which the Moderator and Commission have wrought for Erskine College.

1. Student enrollment is down. Not just down as in “the economy is bad, people everywhere are struggling” down. Down as in “Erskine might lose accreditation because of a power struggle.” Final numbers are not yet available, and surely there are students still desperately trying to decide if they can pursue an academically and intellectually challenging faith-based education at Erskine. But there is simply no way that Erskine can match the previous freshman class of 180. SAFE students don’t like it here – we get that. But why did they spit in the water as they left? Either that, or Crenshaw personally welcomes each Visit Day highschooler with intimidation and lies. Just one whiff of the man is enough to shake their Christian faith to the core and sends us all running for the hills.

Let’s be perfectly frank here. I’m about to receive a bunch of comments and emails saying, “Dr. Ruble said EC would lose accreditation to spite us,” or “The Alumni did this by writing letters to SACS to spite us,” or whatever. Let’s pretend that each accusation is true. What will happen? Does SACS care whether Dr. Ruble is a spiteful old man? Uh… no. They care whether the Board is being unduly influenced. Maybe the administration should have broken their legal obligation to SACS and hidden Synod’s actions for as long as possible. But I’m thinking eventually SACS would have found out. Before you comment, is lying by hiding something and breaking the law really the line of argument you want to take? The accreditation issue is not over; do not blame others for your own mistakes.

2. Erskine is a student-based school. When enrollment is down, the budget suffers. Add to this that alumni are confused about sending money to support a school that no longer meets their ideals, and the threatened impending removal of Synod’s significant support ($600,000, soon to be used to pursue civil court action. Too bad those heathen alumni never read enough of the Bible to know that Christians don’t sue Christians! Kudos to Synod for filing the civil court appeal to teach those cretins how it’s done the Biblical way.) Despite all of Dr. Ruble’s careful work and management, the budget cannot be balanced under current circumstances. Ironic: Dr. Ruble balanced the budget for three years, something that eluded the previous administration. In fact, the only thing that could wreck Dr. Ruble was not the terrible economy, nor the “culture of intimidation,” nor the plethora of inerrancy denialists – no, the only thing that could wreck Dr. Ruble’s winning streak was Synod. Dr. Norman has little administrative experience; Synod apparently has none at all.

3. People at Erskine will lose their jobs, and many already have. No, silly! Not the “evil” Scott Mitchell and Woody O’Cain and Bill Crenshaw and Richard Burnett. The minor players in this drama. The people who have nothing to do with integration of faith and learning. The people who give Erskine its public face. People were fired at Erskine because of what the Commission and Synod wrought in March and for no other reason. Not incompetence. Not laziness. Not a rotten economy. Not fiscal mismanagement. Not a lack of integration of faith and learning. Not anything in the Commission report. People were fired because Synod was too controlling to let their own appointed Board run Erskine, too impatient to change Erskine by appointing Trustees this summer, and too intolerant to listen to other points of view.

But to subtly change a well-known song, “And the tithes kept rolling in, from every side.” Men in Synod have job security. They do not work for Erskine.

Erskine will suffer for the loss of people who have given so fully of themselves to further the mission of Erskine. Those who are left may well depart, either to pursue other options or to preserve their health. Stress is not healthy and job security is paramount; the atmosphere at Erskine must certainly be draining to faculty and staff, as well as students. Erskine’s community has been compromised, and that may well be the saddest part of all. You’ll probably never vanquish Crenshaw, friend deWitt, but you brought misery to a lot of other people through your inquisition, and this is a travesty.

**Sidebar – continued prayers must be lifted up for Dr. David Norman as he pilots this modern-day Titanic. The band’s still playing bravely. We must continue to pray for his wisdom and strength, now more than ever.**

Who’s to blame?

Scott Mitchell of course!

Well, actually we shouldn’t jump to conclusions. Just because he’s the fall-guy for all those who support Synod doesn’t make it so. Let’s consider:

1. Synod fires half of Board. News articles ensue. Bad press.

2. SACS investigates accreditation issues. News articles ensue. Bad press.

3. Scott Mitchell files appeal and costs Erskine/EC Foundation $50,000. News articles ensue. Bad press.

4. Scott Mitchell withdraws appeal. Good press (?).

5. Lawsuit picked up by other Board members who use the lawyers and preliminary drafts from the original lawsuit. Bad press.

6. Lawsuit successful; injunction upheld and Synod told their actions were probably illegal. News articles. Good press.

7. SACS finishes investigation. Not good.

8. Synod reverses illegal decision on interim Board, restores original Board, and Erskine begins process of healing. News articles follow. Excellent press.

8. Synod files appeal, a process that will take years to sort out. News articles follow. Terrible press.

Sorry, got a bit carried away with myself on #8 there. I mean, with Synod appointing nearly all the Trustees on the Board and their obvious concern over the negative publicity and uncertainty incoming students face over this illegal action, you’d think they would obviously reverse what they did.

But no. They say, “my way or the highway” and dedicate their entire annual Erskine budget to fighting for the interim Board, a board that would exist in six years anyway under the compromise proposal.

How low can you go?

There is no “good” press anywhere, actually. Synod is supposed to be the “good” guys here, but no incoming students wants to hear, “Erskine is not living up to its mission statement and is rife with a culture of intimidation, so we fired half the Board and will restructure school governance, classes, and hire a new president through the interim Board.” Huh? How is this going to increase attendance? Even if everything the Commission said was true,** their drastic and unnecessary action gave the school an enormous amount of bad press.

**Sidebar - Curious minds can decide whether the Commission told the whole story by reading a survey of faculty and students at Erskine. But in conclusion, please ignore these students and faculty, because the Commission knows the true nature of Erskine far better than faculty that teach there and students to live there!**

Synod started this mess; that much is indisputable. The Board made things “worse” by trying to enforce the law of South Carolina, but can you argue that seeing the law upheld is a bad thing? Synod made things worse again by filing the appeal (justified if they believe what they did was legal, unjustified since what they did was unnecessary). In my opinion, blaming the party that sought to keep the law intact is bizarre; blaming the Board of Trustees for Erskine’s deficit is like blaming a murder victim for her own murder. “You shouldn’t have been keeping such bad company!”

Has Erskine turned her back on staff and students? I ruefully expect that within days Erskine will be blamed for leaving students out in the cold and making life miserable for them. Someone who can blast Dr. Ruble for not taking a salary can justify just about anything. Students will notice the cuts that have been made when they return to school in the fall. Those who have not already been inundated with the Synod debacle will scratch their heads, wondering where the Erskine they once knew had gone.

Erskine is in the hole financially. I understand that people at Erskine call this the “deWitt Deficit.” What a glorious reflection to see in the mirror, Moderator! “Synod Shortage” and the “Commission Curtailment” are suitable as well. Call it what you will. Who’s the fairest Moderator of them all?

Despite all their efforts to support the “well being” of Erskine, to reunite the church and school, and to change the board without touching the daily lives of students (except to eliminate the culture of intimidation, get rid of professors who do not uphold inerrancy, teach Creationism, further integrate the mission statement into each classroom somehow, and utilize the interim Board to install their hand-picked Presidential candidate), the Moderator’s Commission has left Erskine far worse than they found her during all their numerous visits to Campus (hate I missed them. For a group of 9 men and women they were sure hard to track down).

The end simply cannot justify the means here because no one has any clear concept of what the end of Erskine will be. Even worse, the means were either illegal or so close to being illegal that a lawsuit is necessary to sort it all out. Worse still, the justifications for the quasi-legal means to bring about the unknown end are varied, contested, and different depending on who you ask and when you ask them and where they happen to be standing (Erskine vs. Synod vs. privately with the Board).

More directly, then, the means have altered the end that used to be called “graduation,” with students emerging from Erskine with an incredible education from a Christian liberal arts institution.

At the conclusion of his article for the ARP Magazine, deWitt notes, “I crave nothing more for us than that the blessing of God may rest on a renewed, reinvigorated denomination and its institutions.” I’m glad to hear it, because from where I’m sitting, deWitt and company are tearing it all apart. Blame the Board and Scott Mitchell for being “evil,” in Chuck Wilson’s words, but eventually Synod needs to wake up and realize that whether Erskine was good or evil, a Christian liberal arts institution or depraved, what Synod did last March set in motion events that would tear it apart.

Yours was not the fairest moderatorship of them all, friend deWitt. You did not unite the Church – you are tearing it apart. You did not unite Erskine and Synod – you are tearing them apart. You did not “fix” Erskine – you are tearing it apart. Ironically, the only thing you united was opposition against you and your Commission, a feat so incredible nobody has been able to accomplish it before. Alumni have not been this involved, this dedicated, and this passionate about Erskine and its future in recent history.

Can Erskine be reinvigorated? I certainly hope so, because I cannot imagine a world with out the distinctive offerings of Erskine. Only time (and Synod) will tell. Logic, persistence, and temperance will help us pursue that end once more.

“Mirror, Mirror on the wall, Who’s the fairest of them all?”

Tomorrow or Wednesday: back to regularly scheduled programming with an expose into the unbelievable coercion of the Commission.