“The third hallmark of an effective board is that it ensures that the mission of the institution, as set forth in its mission statements and other governing instruments, is accomplished.” – The Commission Report
(Continuing from Introduction – Won’t Fool All of Us (First Hallmark) and The Second Hallmark)
And now the most obvious Hallmark of them all!
The immediate impetus for the Commission was the presentation of students at Synod with a petition and video asking for Synod to investigate Erskine (Students Aligned for a Faithful Erskine and the video), though Commissioners will remind you the desire had been growing for some time. Some students claimed Erskine was intimidating, but nearly all said Erskine was not living up to its mission statement. Their secret petition said, “As evangelicals we are a minority* in the classroom, on the campus,** and in committee meetings,*** and so our appeals at Erskine for greater faithfulness to its mission have not been answered. … We appeal to you, as the leaders of the Church, for your help.” (emphasis added)
*Untrue
**Untrue
***Untrue.
No, the Commissioners at Erskine shunned this point entirely! In fact, they explicitly said this Hallmark had nothing to do with the Commission at all. A man asked during the Q-and-A session, “Why do we need all this change? What's changed since you all were here? … [Later, clarifying question] If you're not here on an everyday basis, how are they going to know if things are going the way they want them to go?”
Moderator DeWitt responded, “Our commission was not charged with that kind of thing. Our commission had to do with governance, board composition, relation to the general Synod, and accountability in that regard. The kinds of issues you suggest are best put to the new president. We did nothing to interfere with campus life or anything of that kind.”
Wingate quickly added: “Let me just add in follow-up, as Dr. DeWitt has said, the purpose and reach of the Commission is not to change day-to-day life at the ground level. It is to make sure the Board of Trustees and the business management of the life of the institution are accountable to the ARP Church. ... Your president is the shepherd.” (emphasis added)
A follow-up answer here is quite odd; in fact, this is the only follow-up answer given during the entire two hours of Q-and-A. Wingate seemed to step over himself to quickly follow-up on DeWitt’s answer. Why? I frankly don’t know precisely, but I have a pretty good guess. Notice how Wingate’s answer is far clearer as to Synod’s control over the Board and its impact on campus life. DeWitt’s answer shut the door entirely on interference with campus life “or anything of that kind.” saying the Commission was concerned only with Board governance from the beginning. Wingate left the door open to acknowledge the Commission's interest in campus life and recommended changes.
In other words, DeWitt blatantly contradicted his Commission’s report. This is significant.
DeWitt primarily (and Wingate to a lesser degree) make two devastating errors here: they suggest the Commission was formed to look at how the Board works rather than what it does, and that members were not interested one iota in campus life. Both are falsehoods.
Synod cannot directly control Erskine and campus life, but they can appoint Trustees to do it for them. The impetus for creating the Commission and its formal assignment were both centered on campus life. The Commission's charge was “to investigate whether the oversight exercised by the Board of Trustees and the Administration of Erskine College and Seminary are in faithful accordance with the Standards of the ARP Church and the synod's previously issued directives.” You cannot argue that altering campus life (including classroom lectures, administrators and faculty positions, convocation, etc) are not part of this charge. Students surely didn’t form SAFE just to see the Board resized. In fact, nobody would care whether the Board was too large if Synod was happy; Synod is unhappy and so the Board is examined. In a very real sense then, “too large” is just an explanation for a Board that doesn’t do precisely what Synod wants.
Perhaps more damning for the Commissioners’ statements above is their own report. The Third Hallmark mentions nothing about governance – rather, it speaks of upholding the Mission statement of Erskine. If the Commission acted solely on board composition and governance, as DeWitt said, most of the two Commission reports would never have been included. Statements on the Culture of Intimidation? Irrelevant. Competing visions for Erskine among the Board members and the administration? Irrelevant. Why interview so many on campus about integration of faith and learning? Irrelevant. The entire Third Hallmark? Irrelevant!
Why add paragraph after paragraph of irrelevant material? No, Mr. DeWitt and Mr. Wingate, based on your own report and the students you paraded in front of Synod last year, I believe the Commission had far greater ambitions than you verbally admit to.
This issue – the Third Hallmark – is why Chuck Wilson writes, why SAFE organized, why Bill Evans and Paul Patrick agitated, why Supporters of Synod Facebook group exists, why the Synod itself churned for these last, infamous 30 years of “inaction.” Why the Commission interviewed 80 people about life at Erskine (or 150 people – they claimed both). Not size. Not finances. Not efficiency. Mission statement. Integration of Faith and Learning. Third Hallmark.
To suggest that the Commission never once considered the drastic change to campus life upon restructuring the Board plays us all for fools. As I said before, their chutzpah is getting us into trouble. We’ll lose Erskine before they’ve finished with it.
The suspension of belief does not end there.
“The Commission finds that the ARP’s directives have not been satisfied, even though this discussion has taken place regularly over the course of the last thirty years.” – the Commission Report
The Third Hallmark is a matter of opinion. Perhaps Erskine really was unfaithful to Synod’s directives, perhaps Erskine is the cesspool of liberalism and “Baal cult” worship as Chuck says, and perhaps those who started the lawsuit are “terrorists” who “bombed” the ARP Church and are deserving of heresy charges, along with a boatload of other people. Perhaps SAFE students felt intimidated by a professor or two and feel that Erskine is not safe enough for them. Perhaps Erskine is tracking to the left and these administrators are to blame and making their lives miserable is their just deserts and they need to just do their job like they’re paid to do and shut up and work…
Is Erskine faithful to its mission, or not? We must each decide. But here the question is irrelevant: Commissioners felt Erskine was unfaithful and restructured Erskine because of it. Agree or not with the conclusion, we must all understand exactly what happened. Nothing to do with campus life? Sheesh!
Integration of faith and learning is one of the most important things we can do at Erskine. Following the mission statement is crucial. Hiring excellent professors and keeping accurate finances are as well. Each of us should always work to see God honored in everything we do – even in class.
But the simple truth is this: Christians are not an undesirable caste at Erskine, professors do not browbeat students’ faith until it pours out of them, and every year many – perhaps a majority – of Biology majors find problems with pure evolution. Professors teach their subject, their faith, and how the two reconcile. You receive an excellent “secular” education to compete in this world and an excellent integration of that amoral knowledge into our Christianity. I have absolutely no doubt that administrators, professors, and students at Erskine are more dedicated to helping each other, more kind during times of difficulty, and more connected than at perhaps any other college or university in America. “Forever Connected in Christ, Learning, Life.” Sounds pretty good to me. But never forget that slogan is one of the reasons SAFE organized and Synod churned. It ignores the mission statement, you see.
We are left wondering, as always, what is expected and what will satisfy. To this day I have no idea, and I certainly have a better chance than most.
Conclusion
For the first time in my memory, Erskine made the front page of the Greenville News this year. It wasn’t about Erskine’s excellent academics or student success, either. Whether legal or illegal, this one action had far-reaching and unintended repercussions a blind man could have seen.
Admissions is down. A budget surplus will quickly turn into a budget deficit. Lawsuits and appeals work their way through the system, threatening to damage Synod’s already stretched resources and diverting already scarce resources away from Erskine. Charges of heresy will come before Synod this summer against those who stood up against what happened. And much more. Politics is never pretty; politics in the Church is disastrous.
Commissioners didn’t see the same Erskine the rest of us see. They interviewed 80 people (or 150) who all said roughly the same thing: Erskine is excellent, integration of faith and learning happens, we are intimidated by the ARP Church. Read the faculty and student interviews to see for yourself. And the Commission concluded that “ARP’s directives have not been satisfied.” Hence the ax.
The great irony is, Synod appoints five new trustees each year. In just three short years they could have completely reworked the Board and done essentially whatever they wanted to. They had this power; Erskine gave it to them. Yet in one deft stroke of impatience they demanded their way and their theology and their Board members and dare not stand in their way!
Think of all the students who will never experience the excellent college called Erskine because they were scared away by all this. Where will they go? What an opportunity to minister and teach that is lost! Think of all the excellent faculty who will leave, or never apply at all, because of this. Think of the presidential candidates scared off by this disaster. Think of the money that was lost, the strife among friends, and the never-ending litigation that with the appeal will continue for years (?) to come.
All of this caused by a well-intentioned but misguided Synod who believed “SC non-profit law” allowed them to fire half the Board of Trustees in order to see their vision of Erskine realized instantly.
Whether Synod broke the law will take years to decide. Whether they broke morality was decided some time ago.
Three Hallmarks. Three reasons. We know clearly why the Fourteen were fired. This was all started one way; it must be stopped another way entirely. Without spite, without fear-mongering, without illegality, without personal attacks, without invective, without lies, but with calm and unyielding assurance in what is right. Things must change.
These are my thoughts.
On the Road to Synod,
Temperance Dogood
Excellent!
ReplyDelete