The Misery of the End, pt 2

Mercifully, we approach the end.

As we approach Synod this week, a comment by Dean Turbeville on Chuck Wilson’s blog reveals what’s at stake. I encourage you to read the entire thing, but I’ll quote just a portion here:

Chuck, the issues have now become quite clear: in several weeks the Synod will simply have to decide if it wants to have a Christian liberal arts college and a reformed seminary, or not. … There is one other option: “man up,” and crush this rebellion against the Kingdom of Christ through faithful churchmanship. Only then will we have a chance of seeing the potential of these schools finally realized. We will see what the ARP Synod is made of this summer!

This comment, sincere though the author may be, demonstrates everything that is wrong between Synod and Erskine.

Everything.

What a contrast Turbeville presents! Erskine will either remain in “rebellion” against Christ’s Kingdom, or Synod will act decisively to fix it! What has happened, that good-hearted and sincere believers think Erskine is in league with the devil? Board members are “evil” “terrorists.” Christian students are intimidated, sidelined, and according to that SAFE petition, “are a minority in the classroom, on the campus, and in committee meetings.” Heck, after hearing Turbeville’s words, is it too late to sign up for SAFE? Fix Erskine! Temperance joins the Bandwagon!

I truly have no doubt that were I a Christian living far away from the Erskine World without any first-hand knowledge, I would join that Supporters of Synod site and congratulate them for waging Holy War against “doctrinal drift!” Not only that, I’m absolutely convinced that most – if not all – of the professors at Erskine would do the same. Nobody wants a college that intimidates students. Nobody wants a Christian liberal arts college that rejects Christ. Nobody wants a school in “rebellion” against God. No, I’m fairly confident that each professor at Erskine would gladly fight against such things and be outraged that anybody – anybody – would dare stand against them.

… But it just aint so.

An Excellent Idea

President Ruble welcomed the Commission with open arms and a glad spirit. Truly, there was no stronger supporter of the Commission’s creation. “Come and see Erskine,” we might paraphrase his words. “Come see what we do.”

He was so excited about a commission because he believed Erskine had been misrepresented – and misunderstood – for far too long. Good-hearted but distant people simply cannot know everything there is to know about an institution. Listen to Chuck Wilson & Company for too long to provide your only view of Erskine and you could, understandably, start to believe them. Maybe Erskine isn’t the golden child of the ARP Church like we thought. Heck – 140 current students and alumni are crying out for help, claiming they are “intimidated” because they are Christians. What the heck! What’s going on here?!

Effective and incessant marketing has told the evangelical Christian world that Erskine had failed; our job at the time of the Commission was to show them that it hasn’t. Stand strong. Show the truth. Open every door. Dr. Ruble believed that if the Commission could shine a light into every dark corner and show what Erskine professors actually do, the truth of Erskine might be known. If people knew what Erskine really is, we won’t need to listen to editorialists pushing their own agendas and prejudices. An impartial commission should solve that.

So the Commission was the single greatest thing Synod could have done to “fix” the Erskine mess. Good for them!

The Result: What Erskine Is

But we still have no idea.

We have a lot of anecdotal evidence of Erskine’s depravity: two tales of intimidation, students running around at midnight chalking the sidewalk, some classes that fail to adequately integrate faith and learning, and so forth. But even assuming this is all true, it is far from a universal picture. Call me silly, but reworking an entire college needs more justification than one exchange between a student and faculty member, as terrible and uncalled for as that “intimidation” may be (we are still assuming the student is right here). I want to know everything in summary. Is that so hard?

The great tragedy of the Commission is not their disastrous recommendations – rather, their great tragedy is opacity. This investigative committee failed to document anything. We know nothing more about Erskine today than we did when they started, despite their boast of interviewing anywhere from 80 to 150 people and spending over 900 man-hours. For example:

• How many students are intimidated by faculty or administrators in a typical week?
• How often is a student ridiculed by faculty or administrators for being a Christian?
• What percentage of the student body is evangelical Christian, and what percentage of Christians are present in leadership positions on campus?
• How many classrooms effectively integrate faith and learning?
  • Corollary: how do you effectively integrate faith and learning?
  • What are examples of classrooms that do not effectively integrate faith and learning
  • What are examples of classrooms that do?
• How many professors agree with “inerrancy” as defined by Synod? How many do not?
• How many recent faculty hires do not agree with “inerrancy?”
• How is Intelligent Design/Creationism currently handled at Erskine, and how should this change?
• How is the Big Bang Theory handled at Erskine, and how should this change?
• Chart the progression of Erskine’s conservative vs. liberal progress over the years, paying special attention to the years from 1977 until 2010. Is Erskine more conservative or more liberal, and give evidence.
• What are the visions that so divide the Board? What are the visions that so divide the administration? How many support each “side?” How might Synod compromise/reconcile these opposing views? Are these divisions present in Synod as well?
• How many interviewed faculty spoke in favor of Erskine as it is?
• How many interviewed students spoke in favor of Erskine as it is?
  • How many students did you speak with?
  • How many non-SAFE petition signers did you speak with?
  • Did you ask those you interviewed if they had voiced complaints to Synod?
  • Were the people interviewed a fair cross-section of Erskine (different depts., years, etc?)
• What opinions of Erskine did each Commissioner have before joining the Commission? Essay format preferable. Full disclosure essential. Did any change their minds?
• Compare the Board size of Erskine to similar colleges. Bigger? Smaller? Same size?
• Compare the attention given to students at Erskine to similar colleges in the region. More? Less?
• Compare the academic accomplishments of students at Erskine to similar colleges in the region. Better? Worse?
• & etc. Comment with the questions you want answered.

Where’s the beef?

Obviously I don’t want names here. Strip the data of identifying information. But you have to support your recommendations and findings with some hard facts and numbers. Throughout ten points in the Preliminary Report, the Commission stressed the divisions in the Board, the need to reduce its size, and the culture of intimidation. That’s it. No examples. No hard data. Nothing.

That would be fine if the Commission reached a conclusion we all expected. But they didn’t - the Commission reached a conclusion absolutely contradictory to the results of a faculty and student survey conducted just weeks later. And the only stated evidence of wrongdoings at Erskine – fiscal mismanagement and one incident of intimidation – had been rectified before any member of the current Board had taken office.

So with conclusions contradictory to what most faculty and students said in a recent survey and a report devoid of details and criticizing events that occurred before the current Board took office, an observer might easily miss the “emergency.”

So where’s the beef?

False Dilemma

The real tragedy is that one’s preconceptions of Erskine did not change because of the Commission – there was no light shined on Erskine, only heat (to use the Commission’s analogy). They used their influence and power through Synod to enact change without showing one shred of evidence of current problems; they sincerely believed that current problems exist, but didn’t actually show any or provide evidence to support their conclusions.

So we each have our own opinions of Erskine, defined by who we talk to and what company we keep. Nothing has changed. The last glorious chance to see Erskine in its true light – dirty laundry and successes both, with evidence to back it up – was squandered.

Do you see now why Turbeville’s comment is so frustrating to many who love Erskine? He presents to us a false dilemma, the choice between a “Christian liberal arts college and a reformed seminary, or not.” There is no choice here to make. Nor would anybody at Erskine or anywhere for that matter make a choice different from Turbeville’s. A vote against the Interim Board is not a vote against Christianity, and donations to the EC Foundation does not equate to secularism. The recent quest for “independence” from the ARP Church only started after Synod acted – we were all content to let Synod appoint Trustees just three months ago.

Erskine has not, nor was it trending, towards a secular institution. Quite the opposite – as pointed out on this blog, Erskine is more conservative and “ARP Christian” than at any point in recent history. I know Turbeville & Company believe Erskine to be a cesspool of anti-Christian sentiment, but it just ain’t so. Or if it is so, the Commission never proved it.

I understand that many of you will disagree strongly, emphatically, over that last paragraph. You think Erskine is anything but a “Christian liberal arts institution” because of various bad professors, bad administrators, intimidation, whatever. There is no way I can convince you otherwise, unfortunately. I wish I could.

But I do believe that most of us strive towards roughly the same end, even if we can’t agree on where Erskine is now. Yes, there are small differences, like professors who do not uphold inerrancy, or professors who believe evolution is true, or what have you. These are important theological issues, and it irks many in the ARP Church that people disagree with their interpretation of scripture. It irks me that many people “misinterpret” scripture differently from the way that I do. But you know what? At some point, in my opinion, we’re all going to have to understand that Christians can still be Christians but disagree on finer theological issues, that not every professor at Erskine needs to be ARP to integrate faith into the classroom, and that ultimately, learning of and experiencing others’ interpretations of scripture is a good thing, not an evil.

If that final point can be agreed upon, we can all work together. I picture two teams on a tug-of-war rope, struggling with all their effort against the other, yet inexplicably each wanting to reach the same side of the field. We’re all pulling the same way – towards a Christian liberal arts institution; this infighting is what destroys us, not the so-called “culture of intimidation” against Christians that was coined a few years ago.

I simply refuse to believe that a majority of those who support Synod’s actions (if not a majority of Synod itself) are so exclusionary as to demand that each professor at Erskine must hold firmly to all ARP tenets.* Maybe I’m wrong, but I certainly hope this is not the case. I also believe, just as strongly, that professors at Erskine, administrators at Erskine, and those who oppose Synod’s actions generally all want a Christian liberal arts college and do everything they can to see that vision realized. Their effort has been marginalized. I think we’ve all been deceived.

In my heart of hearts, I think we’re all pretty much on the same side, and I weep for Erskine. A few men and students have convinced many that the Erskine we cherish is gone, forever, if we do not adhere to certain demands. I continue to hope and believe that many on both sides of the proverbial fence want to see Erskine continue the fine tradition of producing independently thinking students who are strong in their faith and committed to a lifetime of Christian service. But if I’m wrong – that truly, everybody who sides with that opaque Commission wants an exclusionary and restricted Erskine, well, then see you in court. Just as Chuck said so eloquently, we have no other choice. For as long as there is a glimmer of hope for Erskine as we knew it to exist, we must pursue every avenue to keep her safe.

We are Students and Alumni for a Faithful Erskine.

We are SAFE.

 

Tomorrow: The greatest tragedy here – worse than the Commission’s dual failures in their recommendations and their opacity – is that Erskine’s path has changed. I call this the Misery of the End. Part 3: my plea to Synod, and why ultimately, Chuck Wilson is right.

 

*Pre-emptive sardonic comment: “Yea, you’re right, it’s stupid to demand the professors at the ARP denominational school accept ARP beliefs! How dumb! They should be able to believe anything they want, no matter how heretical we ARPs think it is. And they should teach our ARP kids their heresy too!”