Wow. Chuck Justified the Appeal!

A few posts ago I wrote predicting what our Leaders would say in defense of the appeal by Synod against Erskine. I had five choices, ranging roughly from “most acceptable” to “most egregious” defense. Chuck has given a rational for the lawsuit, and he did not disappoint!

"Is legal defense a violation of either the letter or the principle of 1 Corinthains [sic] 6? The Editor does not think so. Once again, the ARP Church is not attempting to seize something that is not a part of the ARP Church. Is not the institution of Erskine College and Seminary an agency of the ARP Church? Is there not an attempt being made to seize Erskine College and Seminary from the ARP Church? A Biblical principle that is found through out the Bible is the right to protect oneself from THIEVERY – even by the use of force. At this point, the Editor needs to encourage the readers of ARPTalk to read what is being written, in the public eamails [sic], blogs, Facebook postings and  other electronic media, by the many Erskine alums and faculty members and administrators. They have made their intentions clear. They want to seize Erskine from the ARP Church. Their battle cries are “No negotiation!” and “Old Erskine or No Erskine!” Indeed, let us protect ourselves and what is ours!

This is very nearly precisely what I predicted which was, and I quote, “Who cares? The End Justifies the Means.”

Note that Chuck says the lawsuit appeal is justified because the Plaintiffs are attempting to do an injustice (thievery of Erskine from Synod), and the Biblical restriction on Christian lawsuits takes second-fiddle to outright thievery. In other words, under severe situations Paul allows you to sue Christians.

That’s odd – I seem to recall that reason being the Plaintiff’s justification – that their lawsuit is justified to defend against Synod’s thievery of their position on the Board of Trustees! Both sides presume they are Biblical because their side is “just.” They both argue the same thing, just from opposite sides.

Secondly, there are two spelling errors in this short paragraph alone. Does this reveal the state of Chuck’s mind – that perhaps he is sweating the outcome? Out-of-balance? Disconcerted? As a die-hard supporter of Synod, I hope not!

Thirdly, Chuck criticizes “No negotiation!” from the other side. Hmmm… let me think here. When the actual parties to the lawsuit asked for “reconciliation”, Chuck responded by calling them “Erskine’s Egregiously Execrable Executives” and “terrorists” and worshippers of the “Baal cult of Erskine” and said in no uncertain terms: “Ignore them.” (emphasis original). So Chuck criticizes people not connected to the lawsuit for saying, “no negotiation,” (i.e. exactly what Chuck says), but he also will not listen to people who say “reconciliation.” I don’t get it. What does this guy actually want?

Oh right. Fire half the Board.

 

Update: I just realized – this series is entitled, "The Perversity and Inconvenience Righteousness and Necessity of Lawsuits against Christians Us Evildoers." Trying to be ridiculous, I called the other side “evildoers.” I had no idea Chuck would one-up me, calling them “terrorists.”