The Church is Never Blameless

Exchange on the Supporters of Synod site (emphasis added):

“Try this. I break into your home and steal all your belongings. I'm arrested and go to trial. The judge is my father. The jury is made of all my relatives. Do you think you would get justice. That's what's going on at Erskine. Just looking for a fair trial, and it ain't gonna happen in the Synod. And, all your talk about rattlesnakes and scorpions won'g make it so.”

- Richard Johnson

“(Previous comment deleted) As a reminder, we are going to refrain from the rhetoric. In addition, accusing a church court of injustice will not be tolerated. You do not have to agree, but that will not be posted on this site.

“If the rhetoric continues, I will remove the entire thread. The post was supposed to be positive, to encourage reconciliation, not continue to "fan the flames" as was aptly stated above.”

- Tim Phillips

Huh?

Church courts can’t make mistakes, Tim? The Church is never wrong, Tim? As I wrote previously, such an opinion is utterly dangerous.

Elders are sinners.

Pastors are sinners.

Each man in Synod is a sinner in need of repentance.

Each one of us, each pastor and elder in our churches, and each member of the Commission is liable to sin in their dealings with Erskine or anything else. Dangerous things happen when Churches become “blameless.” The Synod court is just as likely to break due process and give an unfair trial as any other court – unlikely, we hope, but possible. Yet Tim says, “accusing a church court of injustice will not be tolerated.” What! Of course we must tolerate it – we must always make sure such injustice never occurs. When we accept that men of the church are blameless, we surrender that which Christ wants made painfully obvious – the total depravity of man.

We will never agree on what a “fair” trial would be at Synod. Of course both sides would think “fair” is Synod ruling in their favor. However, doesn’t Synod show the least bit of bias here? Shouldn’t those who oppose firing the Board be the least bit concerned that Synod will uphold what Synod has already done, something that was ruled almost certainly illegal by a civil court, and something Synod persists in appealing? Synod has shown no remorse or desired reconciliation at all since this whole fiasco began – they are convinced their move was just and will fight to the death to support it.

Tim, appealing Synod’s decision to Synod does not seem the least bit odd to you? Really?

Ha!

No, Tim, I will not view you nor any other elder or pastor as holy and blameless. We are all sinners – and you are just as capable of giving an unfair trial as any other judge or jury. No judge in the land would hear a case involving his own son, or judge an appeal to a decision he had previously made. Such things make literally no sense, and to entertain them – in fact to demand them to the point of charging Christian men with heresy who oppose them – shows your opinions as quite frankly laughable.

Or have we really sunk so far, as to see Synod as blameless? Such an opinion is frightening. With each passing day I see this become all the clearer.

P.S. It’s ironic that Tim Phillips would ban the “rhetoric” from those who disagree with him, yet write earlier in the same discussion, “as one who has a knife in my back.” Huh!

End the Appeal!

“Make haste slowly, for a general who makes no mistakes is better than a brave one.”

- Augustus Caesar

 

This appeal is perhaps the single worst idea DeWitt ever had. Yes, even worse than firing the Fourteen trustees in the first place, and that’s saying a whole lot. Think about it:

 

Prior to firing the Fourteen, Synod appointed most trustees on the board. If they stayed focused the entire board could be replaced in a few years (five trustees replaced each year). A few well-worded questions to filter out the weeds those who hold a different view of Synod’s role over Erskine and we’d control the board in no time.

But NO! We needed control NOW! So we fired the Fourteen and brought on a crisis. Predictably, a lawsuit followed. Predictably (and unfortunately), we lost the lawsuit. BOOM, we are back to where we started, which is:

 

We control the appointment of all members of the Board of Trustees!

Each year we replace five members of the Board of Trustees. A few well-chosen questions will ensure our appointees are pawns of Synod. Once again, we are in control.

But no! DeWitt and Company need to sue. This has several disastrous consequences:

1. Synod will spend the money it used to give to Erskine ($600,000) on a lawsuit. This makes Synod look more vindictive than interested in Erskine’s financial security – a true statement, but not good for our public image
2. Spending $600K on a lawsuit angered many of our churches, making a split in the denomination even more likely. The more radical our actions, the more radical the response will be. We come near to awakening a sleeping giant that has not yet felt the gunshot wound in its side.
3. More litigation could lead to harsher actions being taken against Synod’s position: further cementing the injunction, declaring Erskine’s ownership of itself, and removing our ability to appoint Trustees. All of these are bad for us – each can only really happen if the lawsuit continues.
4. We whipped our side into a frenzy over Christians not suing Christians, even if their cause is just. Now we need to say, “just kidding” and justify our actions. This may confuse our acolytes – and at the very least inflame the alumni who will jump on our obvious hypocrisy as demons to a sin.

The injunction was not a defeat for Synod. It was a setback to the day before our fateful March 3 meeting, a time in history when we controlled the composition of nearly the entire board. No, the injunction was not a defeat. Further litigation is our defeat, and the other side should be rejoicing at the opportunity.

Truly I say to you, DeWitt & Company are brave beyond compare, but a general who makes no mistakes is better than a brave one!

Have you no shame?

Dr. Evans: I am ashamed – ashamed!!! – that Dr. Crenshaw won the student-nominated and faculty-elected Younts Excellence in Teaching award this year (the same award that Dr. Wingate won several years ago), and I am outraged – outraged – that you would raise your hands in polite, though quiet, applause to celebrate his achievement.

How dare you!

Knowing full well how strongly this man disagrees with you and the coup you’ve helped orchestrate at Erskine, you did politely and sincerely congratulate this man for his accomplishment, however misplaced his opinions might be?!

You should have sat down in your chair, folded your arms across your chest, and refrained from clapping one iota.

You too, Rev. Paul Patrick. I’m ashamed for you! Why politely congratulate this man, somebody you’ve been called to minister to and support? Why politely clap your hands on his behalf? Think how sophisticated you would have appeared if you had simply sat down and done nothing – everybody would have noticed you just like the Pharisee saying his prayers on the street corner.

I only wish the rumor I heard was true – that Evans and Patrick did sit down and kept their hands silent in protest. Oh were the rumor true and Evans and Patrick publicly thumbed their noses against this man!

Such an act seems atrocious coming from the Bible department and the Campus minister, but it is not. “Look! A Comet!”

Due West Society for the Suppression of Vice

What was good enough for New York in the early 1900s is good enough for Due West in 2010. … No really, they had the right idea.

Left panel: expelling the unbelievers from Erskine. Yes, that is a furnace; heap figurative burning coals on their heads! No, silly, not by turning the other cheek – by vituperative language!

Right panel: burning Dr. Burnett’s neo-neo-Barthian drivel, the recently released Teacher’s Theological Guide to Inerrancy.

Supporters of Synod prove their hatred of Christian lawsuits!

Our supporters denounced those who sued the ARP Church, and are now filing charges of heresy against an ARP member who participated in or condoned this action.

The ARP Church has charged men with heresy for their participation in, or acceptance of, a lawsuit against fellow Christians. We all remember how many articles and discussions occurred on the web condemning the “terrorists” for suing the ARP Church. Lots, right? I now present all discussion on the Supporters of Synod Facebook group and any other pro-Synod website dealing with lawsuits against Christians, written after Synod filed their appeal:

• “…”
• “…”
• “…”

Odd. You’d think with men being brought up for heresy we’d have some discussion on how immoral it is for Christians to sue Christians. In fact, the only reason I can think to not discuss the issue is that Synod is inconveniently appealing. Thank goodness Chuck says The End Justifies The Means! This leads to the awkward situation where men are being tried for heresy for committing the very act their accusers, judge, and jury are all committing. Poor Stephen! And poor Church!

'Heaven is my throne,
      and the earth is my footstool.
   What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord.
      Or where will my resting place be?
Has not my hand made all these things?'

Further details, provided by Dr. Michael Bush (seminary professor), emphasis added:

J [Hering], Richard, and I did not file a suit. We *wanted* to file a "motion to intervene" in the suit that Scott Mitchell had filed. We heard he had been threatened, and he was being hung out to dry. In our opinion that was not right, and we wanted to support him.

We did not succeed in doing so. The suit had already been withdrawn. So in fact J did not do anything at all. He only wanted to do something.

Thus, J is being prosecuted, not for something he did, but only for something he wanted to do. I leave it to you to imagine what the implications of such a principle might be.

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.”

Breaking Fellowship with “Terrorists”

Had Synod not (probably) broken the law and (foolishly and needlessly) angered a bunch of people by firing/dismissing/releasing half the Board of Trustees, things might have turned out differently between Christians at Erskine.

As it is, our denomination is splitting wide open and Christians are now mortal enemies of each other.

Chuck calls fellow Christians “terrorists” and the Supporters of Synod Facebook group yawns. Dr. Evans posts an essay to Chuck’s e-magazine, and Chuck’s magazine alone. Supporters of Synod group posts link after link about Christians not suing Christians – then becomes strangely silent on the issue after Synod files their appeal. Daniel Wells lectures Erskine administrators on their behavior during Alumni Day (ironic, if you saw Wells cutting up during the meeting). Mr. David Danehower goes over to the Supporters of Synod site and asks – begs – for people to take his hand in friendship and reconciliation and work together to fix this schism among believers. Only one person will.

There are over 300 members of that site. One person responded.

They do not want reconciliation.

Of course we don’t.

A man I greatly respect has a favorite phrase he uses whenever he argues with another Christian over most doctrinal, political, social, or any other issues: “This is not a cause to break fellowship.” And it never is. It is inconceivable that anybody connected to Erskine could find any doctrinal disagreement that would cause them to break Christian fellowship – we worship the same God, thank the same Son for his sacrifice, are imbued with the same Holy Spirit, and each try, sinful though we may be, to act more like Christ. Whether the Bible is inerrant or not is hugely important theological – but we can both still be Christians and not agree. Adam and Eve’s existence sets the stage for all of history – yet I may still put my faith in Jesus Christ and be saved even if I reject their existence (thank goodness – or else Dr. Evans would be hell-bound). & Etc. Or maybe you hate that Christians sued Christians, though let it be said that Synod probably broke the law (or possibly did – shouldn’t we find out? The Courts will tell us). Let it also be said that Synod now is suing the Trustees via an appeal and two other motions.

We do disagree on many things. Disagreement is human and reconcilable, but breaking Christian fellowship over control of Erskine is horrifying.

Breaking fellowship is happening.

God will be lost in the splinters.