“Gospel Parallels” of the Commission Report

We all know the story of the three Synoptic gospels: how each tells roughly the same story of Jesus Christ, possibly borrowing material from each other and from original source material that no longer exists. Many passages are repeated among the Synoptics but contain subtle differences from each other. The accounts also present aspects unique to each one.

I had no idea this “Gospel Parallels” paradigm would apply to the Commission Reports as well!

I received an anonymous comment on this blog a few weeks ago, which I quote below:

Having been present at the original presentation by Ken Wingate at the board Meeting, there also seems to be a metamorphosis of the presentation from the Board meeting to the report offered by the Aquila Report as the information offered to the Board (unreconstituted and/original) to a presentation and "representation" on a radio show in Greenville after the Synod meeting. I believe that Ken Wingate read his original presentation to the board. I wonder if the three presentations can be compared by and analyzed by tdogood or by another "fair" group.

But who cares, right? This comment is obviously from some loser with an ax to grind that doesn’t care if his/her lies hurt the reputation of a man of the Church! Right? According to the Aquila Report, Mr. Wingate testified to Synod in no uncertain terms that the two reports “were the same in substance but in a different format.” But still… with such a nice compliment at the end, how could I resist?

Last week I asked on this blog for the original document presented to the Board of Trustees – a document that was never posted online. An anonymous contributor has graciously provided this document via email.

Read the Original Commission Recommendations to the Board of Trustees (300 words). My interpretation of events are below.

What Stayed the Same

A few points are identical between the original presentation to the Board of Trustees in February and the presentation made to Synod at the emergency meeting in March. The Board is identified as too large and the Commission tasks Synod to shrink it. The Bylaws will be revised to encode this change. The Nomination process will be different – the Board will no longer have any official say in the process; all nominees will originate and be voted on by Synod.

Three points are identical. So far, Mr. Wingate’s testimony is absolutely correct.

What Changed

The tone. The original report is shockingly direct: “you WILL do as we command.” Read it. Nowhere does the Commission say, “We would like you to do this.” It is do this, do that, and Synod will hopefully enact this other thing. This should come as no surprise – Ask a Commissioner was very clear on this point, saying: “Our purpose in meeting with the Erskine Board was to try to gain their concurrence with the recommendations, thus making the process easier for the Synod.” Since the Commission was told to report to Synod and not the Board, this attitude makes a little bit of sense.

Be it right or wrong, at least we know the attitude Commissioners had approaching the Board and later presenting to Synod. There was no effort at mediation or reconciliation. It was an attitude devoid of hesitation and absolutely confident to be without error or miscalculation. To quote one Commissioner, “I don't see what the Synod needs to do to compromise.” In other words, the Commission did roughly as they were told; but what they were told to do is contrary to common sense. We see that from the get-go, the Commission was less about resolving Erskine peacefully than for resolving Erskine completely. Thus continues a common refrain: a Board that does what it can to appease the Commission/Synod, and a Commission/Synod that refuses to listen.

For example, note how the report explicitly places three members of the Commission on the bylaw drafting committee, but just two members from the current Board. Now, I do not know if this sentence is a summary of individuals already chosen or a template used to select names afterwards, but either way, such clear presentation of the Commission’s perceived superiority to the Board is obvious (whereby the Commission has more say in Board bylaw changes than the current Board).

What Was Added!

Two points are present in this report that were missing in the final report.

The first is Point 2 regarding board policies, whereby the “Board of Trustees will be expected to adopt more effective policies to prevent further failures regarding financial integrity, conflicts of interest, integration of faith and learning, board training, etc., …”

This is significant.

Let me very carefully reiterate that the report presented to the Board in February was not identical to the report given to Synod a week and a half later. We see that changes were made and these could be for many different reasons, including the possibility of a change in heart of the Commissioners themselves. Keep this in mind.

Recall that a week or so after the Emergency meeting of Synod, Commissioners visited Erskine to answer questions from concerned faculty, students, and administrators. I will quote just one example. A man asked, “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” (emphasis added).

And now I quote again the entire Point 2 from the Commission’s Report to the Board:

The Board of Trustees will be expected to adopt more effective policies to prevent further failures regarding financial integrity, conflicts of interest, integration of faith and learning, board training, etc., which are aligned with and advance the objectives set forth by Erskine’s current mission statements and the Synod’s Philosophy of Christian Higher Education.

Explain to me how “nothing to interfere with campus life” equates to “integration of faith and learning.” The Commission here explicitly commanded the Board to enact changes in campus life and to enforce the Philosophy of Christian Higher Education. Point 2 is about as close to “interfer[ing] with campus life” as you can get.

Now it is possible that the Commissioners changed their minds after that Board meeting – that after demanding the Trustees change campus life, they decided it just wasn’t that important. Maybe they picked an Interim Board with emphasis on every item in point #2 EXCEPT for “integration of faith and learning.” Yet if this is the case they certainly did not let anybody know, nor did they alter their reports to remove the emphasis on “integration of faith and learning.” As we saw on the Third Hallmark, the Commission demanded a Board that upheld these changes – nothing seems to have changed.

You may argue, the Commission did not alter anything on campus – they merely replaced the Board, who would then alter life on campus. This is true, but it is such a partial truth and so disingenuous, in my opinion, as to render it a useless distinction. Clearly the Commissioners made changing campus life a priority (as seen in this report to the Board and their final report to Synod), and to suggest the Commission was just about governance is incorrect by their own admission.

Please notice I do not say deWitt and company was wrong to want to change campus life – whether right or wrong, it must be presented truthfully. In fact, much discord would have been spared if the Commission had been more forthright. Rather, they acted like politicians by telling different groups exactly what they wanted to hear. Christ is not honored here no matter how justified Commissioners’ accusations may be. The Commission dealt with campus life. Period.

Now to Point 5 – “Interim Board Action.” This is not the creation of an “interim Board” as we understand it today; rather, the Commission commands the Board to not appoint VPs and grant tenure until Synod meets in June.

Wait, huh?

Who gave this Commission the authority to command the Board to do anything? I’ve seen no evidence the Commission has power over the Board – actually, the Commission said point-blank they lacked this authority, which was the reason for creating an interim Board in the first place to do their will. Imagine the hubris to command others to do your will, without asking “please,” without reporting to the full Synod, and without the authority with which to do so.

In a broad sense, then, these two points were probably lacking in the final report because they would have been superfluous. It seems to me that there was no need to command the Interim Board regarding tenure or integrating faith and learning because the men and women appointed to that Board were trusted by Synod to do what Synod wanted. But that’s just my guess. I could be wrong.

And Best of All: There Is No Interim Board

None. Nada. The lawsuit between Synod and the Board members? Would have never happened. Everything we fight over now was not present in this original document presented to the Board.

How? The Commission made it perfectly clear that if these recommendations were not followed a last and final point would be added to the five already given: the Board would be disbanded and an Interim Board installed!

“Coercion: forcing of somebody to do something: the use of force or threats to make somebody do something against his or her will.”

The Current Board agreed with almost all of these recommendations. Let me say that again: The current Board agreed with almost all of these recommendations. Shrink the Board? Check! Enact policies to fix Board problems and strengthen integration of faith and learning? Check! Revise the bylaws? Check! No new VPs or tenure until Synod meets? Check!

But it wasn’t good enough. Their sole disagreement of any significance – shrinking the Board slowly rather than immediately – was enough to bring about the Interim Board.

Why Does This Matter?

We are told the Commission worked for the good of Erskine, that the Board refused to make changes and was corrupt, and that they were evil for starting a lawsuit  (no really, I’m not editorializing. “Evil” says Chuck).

Yet the Commission did not go to the Board with a humble and conciliatory spirit. They came as a haughty General negotiating with the enemy, assured of victory and unconcerned whether the other side agreed to their demands or not. Why parley? Why negotiate? Do as we say or we’ll find someone who will. And they did exactly that.

Can you say with truth that the Commission handled themselves in a Christ-centered way? Can you argue that the Commission approached the Board in a manner that would bring about a peaceful settlement?

Or were the battle lines already set in stone long before the Board met that fateful day in February, ready for a compromise but ignorant of the storm of demands that would rain down upon them, and the unyielding and unforgiving Commission that demanded nothing less than absolute subservience, and nothing more than complete obedience?

The Commission did exactly as Synod commanded; Synod commanded unconditional surrender.

The Board of Trustees surrendered to almost every point offered, and disagreed on just a few minor details. And Synod ignored them. Board VP Joseph Patrick was quoted by the Aquila Report, “It is short sighted to brush off these concerns” the Board has. Short-sighted? Not to the Commission and Synod, who believed they owned Erskine and exercised complete control over her and all her Trustees. And they were sincere in this belief. Maybe they’re right. Maybe wrong.

Who is to blame for the Erskine disaster? Maybe nobody is perfect. But which group tried for compromise – and which group refused the request?

But never forget that this report presented to the Board of Trustees contained not one iota of compromise, not one inch of toleration for other opinions, and a full measure of coercion.

Thank you, Commission. You did well.

 

 

I would like to publish the Board of Trustees’ response to the Commission, though a brief summary may be read on the Aquila Report.