Compromise Proposal

Dear Alumni, Plaintiffs, and Fired Board Members:

For too long we have fought over the most simple of issues, and to no avail. Thousands of dollars have been spent on court and legal fees, and even now the ARP Denomination and Erskine College churns with anger and discontent. All because of… us.

So let’s fix it.

We fired fourteen Trustees because the board was too big, we claim. You didn’t like that and sued us. But why fight about this? After all, we’ve argued from the start that it didn’t matter who was released – that they all served honorably. So let’s get rid of the other half of the board and settle the whole issue. Let’s remove the other sixteen.

Nobody loses here:

• The Board is smaller, which makes everybody happy.
• “Your” trustees remain, which makes you happy.
• “Our” trustees are gone, but since we have said repeatedly, consistently, and truthfully that ideology had nothing to do with the firings, this won’t matter. Trust us.

I have not made a mistake, have I? We are not claiming ideology had anything to do with the firings, so it shouldn’t matter who is fired, should it?*

Capish?

It might also be nice for Synod to promise, in writing, to never fire a trustee again without cause. You know, just in case we become even more conservative and want to fire some more liberals.

Sincerely,

Temperance Dogood
Concerned Citizen
Trusting Admirer of the Commission Report

*Yes, the Report does reference “irreconcilable” differences in the Board, but we have never claimed to fire people because they did not agree with our vision of Erskine. At least we never claimed this out loud.

Oh! You better watch out, you better not cry

They decide who's naughty or nice.

The Commission... has come... to town.

Holy Cow! $50 Grand!

Update: This is an important point in the motion to dismiss made by Synod; unfortunately, not only did I misunderstand the legal meaning when I originally wrote this, I still don't understand it now. So, maybe you should skip this post.
==============
Did I read this right?! Injunction by the judge reads in part, “Plaintiffs are directed to provide security in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars($50,000.00).” Are these the “court costs” that Synod is supposed to pay? They don’t get this back, do they?
How many Bibles would that buy?
How many souls could that save?
Shouldn’t Synod be doing the Lord’s work with that money instead of paying lawyers’ fees and now the court costs of a lawsuit in defense of an illegal act?

Tell it like it is, Danny!

Daniel over at Ask a Commissioner, talking about those who persistently asked difficult questions, quotes the Bible:

And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.

2 Timothy 2:24 – 3:5 (ESV)

Tell it like it is, friend. Those Others sure are “quarrelsome” aren’t they – and “abusive, proud, arrogant.” Man, how dare they! Mulner perhaps said it best in his self-sorrowful goodbye: “hate-speech.” Yes. It was. How dare you challenge our incomplete answers!

There’s Something Rotten in the Church

I don’t know the man, but what he says he makes me sick:

I believe three of the plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit (one who has since dropped) are ARP ruling elders. Here is their sixth vow for ordination: "Do you promise to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the session and to the higher courts of the Church?” That, of course, was not done. That they did not submit to the higher court (General Synod) is beyond dispute [because of the lawsuit].

- Rev. Tim Phillips, on Supporters of Synod group

That Rev. Phillips thinks elders (or members) in a church should be forced to do whatever their session, presbytery, Synod, &etc says on every issue is sickening. When your session, presbytery, Synod, &etc does something you find contrary to the Bible, you would pray carefully and if convinced they are wrong you would challenge them on it. This might culminate in leaving the church and/or denomination. If your session, presbytery, Synod, &etc did something illegal against the laws of the church or state, you should challenge them on it. If they refuse to consider the fact that, yes, they did something illegal, you seek recourse in the court to correct the wrong that has been done to you and your neighbor. What else is there to do?

Make no mistake about it – Synod broke the law, or at the very least came so close to breaking it that the court has put an injunction on the action until a proper trial can convene to determine whether they acted illegally. This means that, at the very least, they are walking a very fine line – and possibly crossed it into terrible behavior.

That Rev. Phillips would refuse a godly man from any way at all* of challenging the actions – Biblical or legal – of their church is outrageous and disgusting. Truly, should we all bow down to the almighty Synod? Is the Bible not the only inerrant word of God, or should professors at Erskine swear allegiance to inerrant Synod too? Is Synod incapable of making a mistake, misinterpreting scripture, acting unchristian, or breaking the law? Should we condemn the godly men of the past who challenged their churches? Martin Luther, anyone?

Or is the difference that Martin Luther was justified in his challenge of the church? Challenge the church when you are right to do so – is this Rev. Phillips belief? He’s right, of course – you should only challenge the court when it’s justified. Here, godly men believe it is justified. The legal system seems to agree. Or is Rev. Phillips so blind to his and his Synod’s actions that he refuses to accept that they might have wronged their neighbor and broken the law?

Truly, if men of Synod believe as Rev. Phillips does – that Synod can make no mistake and challenges of its decisions will face God’s wrath – then I perfectly understand how this sad Erskine debacle arose in the first place. If you care for nothing except what you, yourself, want to do, and if you believe that everybody else must and will submit to you, then nothing will stand in your way. And nothing did – until a few good men said “enough.”

I, for one, will challenge my church, to which I have sworn to submit for the peace and purity , when my church acts in a way that is contrary to Christ; this includes breaking the laws of the land that are not in conflict with the Christian faith. That is what Synod has done, and though Rev. Phillips speaks in the group of the necessary “repentance” of these men and “rebelling against the very authorities that God has placed over them” and “eternal consequences,” whatever that means. Are these men at risk for their very souls because they believe their church broke the law? Apparently. Sorry, Rev. Phillips. How ever could I be so silly as to challenge your God-given authority to break the law?

But all is not lost. Mary Lou Holmes wrote back:

Mr. Phillips, when a Synod acts on a report and recommendation of a commission that are done outside the authority of the Synod and the laws of the state and federal government, no one need submit.
We are a Church of God, not of men.

And that, my friends, is the truth.

 

*Yes, I know, they should have asked Synod to “redo” Synod’s own decision. And if Synod did not change its mind, as it surely would not have? What happens then? Let me guess: “Christians don’t sue the Church. Submit!”

The Lawsuit According to the Others

[Part 2 of a series entitled, "The Perversity and Inconvenience of Lawsuits against Christians Us"]


Oh my bleeding ears! Oh my aching belly! Oh my incontinence! (Literally – the house reeks). Listen to what the Other side is saying:

I get it. I understand. Christians are not supposed to sue Christians over trivial matters. Christians are not supposed to sue the church. We are supposed to go to the church to seek redress of grievances. To settle issues. Christians are supposed to act with fairness and equity while the world acts for selfishness and in sin. I understand all that, and in normal situations by all means we should avoid the civil courts whenever possible between believers in the same church.

Yes! Exactly! What is so difficult about this? Christians… do… not… sue… Christians. Why do you think de Witt and Wingate and the other Commissioners were so sure there would not be a lawsuit? Because Christians do not sue Christians! They spoke at Erskine a few weeks back and said, under no uncertain terms, that Christians do not sue Christians! Why on earth do you think we were unconcerned as we fired the board members? Because Christians do not sue Christians! What a glorious passage for Christians with ambition diligence!

The Other side continues:

Sadly, the problem here is the Church itself. We cannot recourse to the Church because it is the Church that is in error. We cannot recourse to the Church because it is the Church that has "wronged" the fired Trustees. We cannot recourse to the Church because it is the Church that broken the bylaws of Erskine, acted in haste without Christian piety and consideration, slandered people's character and reputation, promoted their own interests, and damaged the reputation of a college that had done nothing to deserve it based on half-truths and misrepresentations of Erskine and its professors.

Oh you silly goose! If you cannot trust the Church, who can you trust? Sure, Synod made this decision and started the uproar. Sure, you disagree. Well ask them to fix it. If they don’t fix it, maybe you’re wrong! Yes, you feel slighted. Yes, you feel laws have been broken. No problem – Synod will consider your opinions and make the right decision (which, naturally, will be to uphold their previous ruling!).

But it is the Church that has wronged us, and it makes no sense to appeal to your attacker. Were this a war, you would not plead with the invader. Were this a game, you would not ask the other team to kick the ball towards your net. Were this a competition you would not ask the other player to run slower or jump shorter or figure skate less brilliantly. It makes no sense to ask the Church that has wronged you for a "redo." We need a third party. We need somebody impartial. Sadly, the impartial body is supposed to be the Church – surely that is what God intends. Synod isn't.

Oh the travesty of your opinions! Of course Synod is impartial! The Commission proved their impartiality! Think of all the people they interviewed – all the professors who spoke up for Erskine, all the administrators who said things were “A-OK.” And the Commission remained impartial to them all. Think of the students who said Erskine was a wonderful school with a great Christian liberal arts education. We remained impartial! They tried to bias us and twist our thoughts, but we stood strong in the knowledge that Erskine needs us. Sixty current students signed a petition pleading for our help – and we will listen!

When is it legitimate to sue the Church? When is their misdeed great enough to warrant civil action? What is the dividing line between “sue” and “bite your tongue?” Our lawsuit sounds preposterous to the other side because in their minds they have done the right thing. Their actions were extreme and possibly illegal, but they believe it was right. So why sue the Church when the Church is right? Yet were it the Commission members who were wronged, were it the students of SAFE who felt the pain of a law broken against them, I have little doubt they would do all they could to right the wrong. If the courts are all that stood open to them – as indeed they are the only impartial recourse for us today – then I have no doubt they would appeal to the courts.

No. Never. Never sue the Church. The only reason to sue the church is if they have turned away from God. You know, as in if the Church was supporting the wayward professors at Erskine. Then we’d sue to fix the problem.

Think we want to sue? Of course not. Lawsuits cost money. They cost us time. They cost denominational unity. And clearly they cost us the respect of some of you. But maybe you squandered unity when the Fourteen were fired without just cause, and maybe we had lost your respect already for supporting a college that really has been very good to us. If a lawsuit is the only way to keep your grubby hands from firing Board members who don't agree with you - including our Alumni representation, no less - then I say sue on.

I don’t have anything further to say. What is it you want? Christians are supposed to appeal to the church. If you had appealed to the church, nothing would have changed but you would have felt better about yourself.

End this lawsuit, we all beg you. Repeal the act. Reappoint the Fired Fourteen. But until you do so, we will ask the courts to do it for us. Curse us all you like and write of God's wrath being turned on us until you're blue in the face and broke from legal fees. I really couldn't care less. But obey the laws of our Erskine, the laws of the land, and the laws of Christian morality in the future, or we’ll sue again.

Thank goodness we still control excommunication...

Separation of Church and State!

Tagline: “Have I missed something here?”

Out of the mouths of babes come great truth. “Tominaz” writes over at Gairney Bridge:

The state needs to keep its hands off church matters.

Meanwhile, “pastorvon” laments:

If this ruling is allowed to stand — I must be careful here because I have not read the ruling — no church court will be able to function according to its Form of Government or Book of Discipline. … If the State can say that an action of a Church court is void, then no person will be able to be disciplined for sins that they have done.

I don’t get it. Forgive this recent convert to the Cause of the Commission, but have I missed something? Do we want a separation of church and state, or do we not? All these years we’ve been hoping for prayer in schools and Christ-centered education and on and on, but now tominaz and pastorvon need the state to go, get out of here, we don’t want you in our business! You’ll understand my confusion.

Ironically, the decision to uphold the injunction is the exact opposite of what pastorvon fears. The argument of the Plaintiff was that Synod broke the bylaws of the college and the denomination – that trustees cannot be removed without cause. The argument of the Defense, as argued by Wingate, was that trustees can be removed according to SC law.

In other words, the Defense argued that the State justified the actions of the Church (i.e. they are not separate). Yet the judge rejected this argument and said that there was a partial separation of church and state; the judge believed that Church law stood over State law and that trustees could not be removed without cause.

So men who probably disagree with the separation of church and state in the public schools, and who argued in court that the State and Church were not separate because State law stood over Church law, now argue that the church and state need to be completely separate.

In other words, not only are these comments contradictory to what I presume the authors believe about the rest of society, but they are contradictory to their own Defense in court.

Am I the only one confused here?

New Motto: “Oppose Separation of Church and State in favor of prayer in public schools, Ten Commandment displays, & etc. Except in cases of Church exercising authority over a “mother/child” relation (Erskine College), where separation of church and state does not apply because State law is over Church law, unless State law conflicts with what Church members want to do, in which case separation of church and state is absolute.”

Which out of the mouths of babes becomes: “Give me what I want, or I’ll take it by force.”