“I find it a little difficult to know how to respond to your question.”

EMAIL EXCHANGE between BILL STUART, MEMBER OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF SYNOD and DICK DEWITT, MODERATOR OF SYNOD

These (update: legitimate) unedited emails chronicle a series of exchanges between a member of the executive committee of Synod and Moderator deWitt. My analysis follows.

Many thanks are necessary to whoever in ARP-Land sent this to me. Your email address made me laugh.

==BEGIN EMAIL EXCHANGE [all emphases added]==
TO: Moderator and Members of the Executive Committee
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2010

        Below are a series of emails that the Moderator and I have exchanged over the past week and a half expressing my concern about some of the actions that have been taken and who has authorized those actions.  By providing you with each of the emails I feel sure that you will able to follow my train of thought.

    Bill Stuart

TO: MODERATOR DEWITT
FROM: BILL STEWART

    Mr. Moderator,

        I received copies of the appeal today and I was wondering who authorized the Synod to appeal the ruling?  I had not been contacted, as a member of the Executive Committee, so I assume that the authorization came from some other source, and I was wondering what that was?  Please bring me up to speed, as I am preparing my report to Presbytery and will need to know the answer to that question.  Thanks and have a great day!

    Bill

TO: BILL STEWART
FROM: MODERATOR DEWITT
April 21, 2010

    Dear Mr. Stuart,

   I find it a little difficult to know how to respond to your question.

    The Executive Board of the General Synod authorized me to appoint a Liaison Committee to work with the attorneys secured by Mr. Paul Bell.

As you will recall, Mr. Keith Munson and Ms. Sandra Wilson were introduced to us when we met on March 18.  My understanding of the Board's decision was that these attorneys were to defend the General Synod against the action brought by three members of the Erskine Board of Trustees.  I have no recollection that the Board restricted the mandate of these attorneys to the initial hearing in Newberry.

    Every Associate Reformed Presbyterian who is aware of the struggle in which we find ourselves engaged must lament the decision of the plaintiffs to bring suit against the Synod.  It is painful to think that the tithes and offerings of God's people have to be employed to defend the Church against such an extraordinary assault.  How can we consider Erskine College and Seminary as anything other than agencies of our denomination?  Yet it is precisely this issue which lies at the heart of the present dispute.

    I am praying, many of us are praying, that the Lord God will bring the whole matter to a peaceful conclusion very soon.  The plaintiffs must surely know that they may very well be inflicting inestimable damage on the institutions which they have served and in relation to which they have exercised oversight.

    In the hope that I have answered your question satisfactorily, I am,

    Very truly yours,

    Dick de Witt

 

TO: MODERATOR DEWITT
FROM: BILL STEWART

Mr. Moderator,

        I understand your response, but at every turn I hear lets get this matter settled here and now and I thought perhaps that more time might have been allowed for that to take place.  I would also assume from what you are saying that should the Synod not prevail with the appeal that then an appeal could be fashioned for a higher court, and on and on.

        Thanks and have a great day!

    Sincerely,

    Bill

 

TO: MODERATOR DEWITT & MEMBERS OF SYNOD’S EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
FROM: BILL STEWART
April 26, 2010

Dear Mr. Moderator,

              I just wanted to follow-up on our email correspondence last week with a few additional thoughts.  Our establishment of the Liaison Committee was an important and necessary action, reflecting the Board’s recognition that these legal issues fall under the authority of the Executive Board of Synod.

    When this committee was formed, the intent was clear that it would manage the day-to-day relationship with the attorneys rather than the enlarged scope of authority you have adopted as referenced in your email.  By your account the Liaison Committee has the power to do whatever is necessary—regardless of costs—in the name of our defense.

    Throughout any legal saga there are a few seminal moments when the client needs to make a decision that will have far-reaching implications legally as well as financially.  On these occasions prudence argues that the larger authorizing body, the Executive Board of Synod, should be active participants in the decision making.

Certainly, the filing of an appeal of the preliminary injunction would be one of these moments.

    In your email response you implied that the Liaison Committee made the decision to appeal.  However, according to one of your own Liaison Committee members this committee has not met, nor was the decision to appeal discussed or made by the Liaison Committee.

    This raises concerns for me on several fronts.  First, not only do we have the appearance of unilateral decision making, but in fact that is what has occurred.

    Secondly, the Synod is a party to legal recourse (the filing of the appeal) with its associated costs, which has not been authorized. This puts the Synod in an untenable position – morally, ethically, etc.  One or two men cannot be and have not been charged with making decisions of this magnitude.

    Thirdly, it seems to me that we are dangerously close to or are now actually guilty of violating the standards of “competence, engagement, and independence” that have been so highly touted.

    And finally, the matters that are before us legally, institutionally, and denominationally are serious and demand thoughtful responses.  We, the decision-making body, need to be treated as such.  In light of this the Executive Board of Synod should not hesitate to meet via conference call to discuss these weighty matters.

    In closing, I know these are difficult times and I can appreciate how time consuming all of this must be.  I do not know anyone who does not lament the situation that has developed.  We, the Executive Board of Synod, should be working hard not only to respond appropriately to the legal matters, but to move toward solutions that will take this issue out of the civil courts, while simultaneously restoring relationships institutionally and personally.

    I look forward to hearing from you and would ask that you hit the “reply all” button when you reply, because this really should be a discussion that the entire Executive Board is able to participate in.

    Thanks for your kind attention,

    Bill

==END EMAIL EXCHANGE==

 

Hard to answer indeed!

Shouldn’t the Executive Committee know what goes on with the ARP Church? I’m trying to imagine a world where an Executive Committee discovering an appeal after it was filed makes sense… and my imagination isn’t good enough. I mean, if anybody should know, shouldn’t the Executive Committee? How on earth did this happen?

Let’s read the history. I quote deWitt’s own words, published on April 13, just four days after the injunction was upheld and before the appeal  was filed:

On March 18 the Executive Board of the General Synod authorized me to appointed a Liaison Committee to work with the attorneys who represent us [the committee that ran the initial defense, and then filed the appeal we are discussing now]. The members of the committee, in addition to the Moderator [deWitt], are Steven J. Maye, Robert E. Patrick, and Peter A. Waid. Steve is the Vice Moderator and Moderator Elect; he is also serving as Chairman of the Liaison Committee. Rob is the minister of the Bartow Church and Vice Moderator Elect. Peter is minister of the Spartanburg Church.

A Liaison Committee was absolutely necessary to coordinate with the attorneys over Church defense. Running the initial lawsuit is one thing; but making an appeal is far more serious. How was such a decision made? By deWitt’s own reckoning, the Liaison Committee was tasked with everything relating to the lawsuit – no permission or advice was needed from anybody else, saying “I have no recollection that the Board restricted the mandate of these attorneys to the initial hearing in Newberry.” What? You didn’t think it was necessary – not in the least bit important, prudent, or wise – to ask the Executive Committee whether they wanted to continue the lawsuit? Fund the lawsuit? Discuss strategy of the lawsuit? Prayerfully consider the lawsuit?

No, apparently such thoughts never entered his head.

… How odd.

It’s entirely likely that the Executive Committee did not explicitly restrict the Liaison Committee’s mandate; but really, should they have needed to? DeWitt’s defense is that he wasn’t told “no”; let’s ask the nearest parent whether this is a legitimate excuse. DeWitt is not some child running down the church aisles because his parents never forbid it. “But mommy, you didn’t tell me not to!” Give us a break, Moderator! We trusted you to run this church faithfully, and your reply is “they didn’t tell me not to?” What else have you done that we didn’t specifically deny? And should our Moderator take whatever is not forbidden?

But wait. There’s more.

Let’s give deWitt the benefit of the doubt. The Liaison Committee, tasked with running the lawsuit (and apparently free from accountability to, or conference with, the Executive Committee and Synod as a whole), meets with the attorneys and decides to appeal like deWitt said.

Uh, well actually, that’s not what happened either. Stuart wrote:

In your email response you implied that the Liaison Committee made the decision to appeal.  However, according to one of your own Liaison Committee members this committee has not met, nor was the decision to appeal discussed or made by the Liaison Committee.

What the deWitt is happening here?

We are not so stupid as to believe two attorneys decided for themselves to file an appeal and hoped they would be paid. Somebody gave them permission. Let’s ask deWitt himself what happened, shall we? In the same letter quoted above, deWitt predicted:

Decisions will have to be made as to our future course of action. Moderator Elect Steve Maye and I believe it would be irresponsible to turn aside from the task in hand. You should be aware, however, that our defense of the integrity of the Church and her institutions will be both time-consuming and expensive. [emphasis added]

DeWitt and Maye decided it would be “irresponsible” to give up the lawsuit, and instead of consulting with the Executive Committee or the Liaison Committee, decided to file three motions in appeal, a decision that would extend the financial obligations and time horizon of Synod’s involvement enormously, not to mention damaging reconciliation efforts that were then underway.

Do not miss the point of this story. DeWitt and Maye together, solely and alone, without the authority of the Executive Committee, the Liaison Committee, or the full Synod, filed an appeal against the Plaintiffs. Whether the appeal is for better or worse, this decision was not theirs to make. Bill Stuart’s response is priceless. “One or two men cannot be and have not been charged with making decisions of this magnitude.” [emphasis added] DeWitt’s original response was just as priceless:

 “I find it a little difficult to know how to respond to your question.”  Yea, you’re not joking.

Try answering this one, Moderator: why did you fire Fourteen trustees without cause, divide the Church, claim the Commission had nothing to do with governance, and now direct the course of Synod by sidelining the Executive Committee and your very own Liaison Committee, sir? What has this man done to us?

More directly, this is the second time on this blog I have pointed out a direct contradiction between what Moderator deWitt said and what Moderator deWitt did. The ARP Church must decide how to deal with these… inconsistencies.

As for me? “Total depravity,” baby. DeWitt no more, no less, than all the rest of us.