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!”

“Institutional Failure”, says SAFE - Email Exchange, Bill Crenshaw and “Maximus”

We have been provided the following email exchange by Dr. Bill Crenshaw of Erskine College relating to the one “culture of intimidation” issue between a student and Dr. Crenshaw during the Commissioners’ Forum as described publicly on ARP Talk and Students Aligned for a Faithful Erskine (SAFE).

This email exchange is available at Erskine for Everyone.

You might want to compare paragraph 6 of the SAFE editorial (“Several weeks later…”) to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 3/15/2010 email sent by Maximus (“In light of it…”).

“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.

Hypocrisy is easy, isn’t it?

Update: Now, all comments are removed under that post. Wow. My apologies, Facebook now hides comments in a funny way. The comments are still there.

Update 2: Somebody also removed a link to letters written by alumni. Seriously, guys? http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=114898180624#!/photo.php?pid=30593924&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=114898180624&aid=-1&id=84000121

===

In a perfect world, I wouldn’t need to save every conversation on the Supporters of Synod site; well, apparently Adam and Eve ate a lot of that forbidden fruit! Here’s the “forbidden fruit” in Peter Wiggins’ post (all emphasis added).

Peter Wiggins (6/5/2010) Criticizing Dr. Hering for "took part in the civil actions leading to the ongoing civil injunction blocking the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Synod from its action (through Board restructuring) overriding Erskine College and Seminary Board of Trustees refusal to uphold the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture." Is false, Dr. Hering did not take part. Someone prove that he filed a lawsuit and took the arp church to court...Can't.

And, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." Christians must submit to the civil authorities too. Those who voted with the Moderator's Commission in the ARPC did not submit to the civil authorities and thus did not submit to God either.

and

"For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God."

the majority of the ARP synod sinned and continues to sin, what good is submitting to that sin?

This case had to be taken to the civil courts because of the obstinate Synod. Think, if a civil court ruled wrongly, what would be the logical thing? to take it to that same court because maybe that court will change its ruling? No, you take it to another court, typically a higher court. When the ARP Synod (like a court) failed, the problem had to be taken somewhere else, a place that could administer the justice that needed to be done.

Justice is not always done in this world; we see that everyday. But on the Last Day it will be done for all to see. And no one will be able to complain by saying, "This isn't fair." D.A. Carson

Tim Phillips And describing the civil court as the "higher court" over General Synod is perfectly fitting with the spirit of Erastianism. Careful putting that trust in the secular authorities; they will not always rule in your favor or to your liking. Furthermore, you are assuming what you wish to prove -- that the civil authority has authority over a church court in ecclesiastical matters. You are affirming exactly what the article wished to prove.

Tim Phillips And btw, Peter, feel free to express your opinions, but please refrain from accusations of sin and the use of invectives in your posts. Those are not helpful to the discussion.

===

Seriously, Tim? Now for some quotes from Supporters of Synod Facebook group, never deleted. Oh, right. Nobody can ask the Church to repent of sin, but Board members are fair game. Makes sense. These are just four quotes; I’m sure we can all find at least four more, not to mention Chuck Wilson (who makes it so easy I didn’t bother looking). What would be nice?

1. Don’t delete posts that disagree with your point of view.

2. Don’t publicly criticize others for what you do yourself.

 

Tim Phillips Has Mr. Mitchell publicly repented of his actions? May the Lord move his heart to do so. (3/16/2010)

Robert Glenn Rhyne III “I don't know Dr. Hering personally, but I've heard many positive things about him. It's very sad. We should all be praying that he would repent from actions.” (3/25/2010 )

Tim Phillips (immediately following Robert’s post) “I agree.”

Anthony Navarro I am wondering, do Mr Mitchell and Patrick, both ruling elders, have an opinion on the ARP elders who violated their vows before the Lord and their respective congregations as elders and in direct contrast to the teaching of 1Corinthians 6 that Mr. Turbeville points out above?

As members of the BoT they should ask *those* men to restrain themselves from fleeing to the courts of the Gentiles when they could not submit to the court of their own church they swore to defend and put an end to this foolishness. They need to be called to repentance, and be reconciled to the people they made an oath before the Lord to love, submit, and to serve. Their behavior in this matter brings no glory to Christ to whom they will ultimately answer the question “Have you fed my sheep?” (5/1/2010)

The Holy Bible The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. (Luke 18:11)

Follow-up: The Board Responds!

Thanks to an anonymous contributor, I present to you the resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees the day following the Commission’s presentation of recommendations (as seen on this blog earlier). This resolution was offered as a compromise proposal to accept the Commission’s Recommendations.

===========

February 19, 2010

In a spirit of humility and acknowledgment of our failings, and a desire to give the glory to God, and to move Erskine forward; we concur in principle with the recommendations of the Moderator's Commission and submit this response to be presented to Synod by March 2, 2010.

[Point 1] The Board recommends that the size of the Erskine Board be reduced over the next six years by Synod appointing three (rather than five) trustees per year beginning with the class that takes office July 1, 2010.

[Changes: Proposes a gradual six-year change rather than the unspecified time period (presumably immediately) in the original report. Final board size: 18, or 3 more than Commission recommended, plus several ex officio members.]

[Point 2] The Board agrees to move forward expeditiously to adopt effective policies 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 Synod’s Philosophy of Christian Education.

[Changes: None. Direct quote of Commission report.]

[Point 3 & 4] The Board has requested that the Chairman of the Board appoint a committee composed of three Board members and two members from the Moderator’s Commission to review and make recommendations to the Board for revisions to the Bylaws in alignment with and to advance the objectives set forth in Erskine’s current mission statements and Synod’s Philosophy of Christian Higher Education.

The Board fully recognizes Synod’s final authority to appoint trustees to the Erskine Board.

[Changes: Revision of bylaws ultimately up to the Board, not Synod. Chairman of Board, not Commission, will create committee with three Board members and two Commissioners (not the other way around) to recommend changes in bylaws. In effect, decision on point #3 postponed but Point #1 upheld and Point #4 slightly modified.]

[Point 5] The Board, through its Search Committee, is actively seeking a new President. The Board and the current President have agreed that prior to the appointment of a new President, they will not appoint any executive vice presidents nor grant tenure to faculty.

[Changes: None.]

The Board offers these recommendations in furtherance of its desire to move Erskine College and Seminary forward in a spirit of unity, seeking the peace, purity, and prosperity of the church and of Erskine College and Seminary, to the glory of God.

Adopted by the Board on February 19, 2010 after meeting with the Moderator’s Commission on February 18, 2010.

==============================

Let me get this straight. The Board of Trustees agreed without exception to two points of the Moderator’s Commission, subtly modified two points, and agreed to consider but not absolutely pass one final point that was the least important of them all (#3, which is about recommendations that are not binding).

The Board concurred with nearly all the recommendations of the Commission, despite the Commission’s haughty attitude, lack of authority, and forceful presentation. The Board presented their compromise “in a spirit of humility and in acknowledgement of our failings” and “offers these recommendations in furtherance of its desire to move Erskine College and Seminary forward in a spirit of unity, seeking the peace, purity, and prosperity of the church and of EC&S, to the glory of God.” Sounds pretty good to me.

It wasn’t enough; it wasn’t unconditional surrender. The Emergency Meeting of Synod met just a week and a half later, rejected this olive branch, and the rest is history.

Two last bits of irony.

First, deWitt assured us in his “Moderator’s Reflections” article that he did “whatever I had at my disposal to closing the gap and drawing our college and seminary and the church back together.” Yet he rejected a compromise made “in a spirit of humility and in acknowledgement of our failings” because of a few minor, inconsequential differences (18 Trustees vs. 15; nomination recommendations; Bylaw revision composition). In other words, he rocked the very foundation of the church damaged and/or destroyed EC-Synod ties by demanding unconditional surrender over trifles. Compare the tone of the Commission recommendations to this document; they are amazingly different. How distasteful.

[Update: This paragraph is contested in the comments section below; let me emphasize that the Resolution was read by a member of the Board, as we know from the Aquila Report article linked to last time]. Second, a delegate at Synod asked that the Board’s recommendations be read aloud to all of Synod. Moderator deWitt rejected that request, saying delegates could read it for themselves. Seriously? Yea, we know they could read it themselves. But seriously? He cared so little for this compromise proposal that he rejected – rejected – their entrance into the Synod minutes? The Commission’s recommendations were read twice per Synod regulations – yet they couldn’t take 5 minutes to read a few hundred words offered “in a spirit of humility?” deWitt did not care what the Board had to say “in a spirit of humility.” How distasteful.

Compare the Board of Trustees’ petition to Chuck Wilson’s rhetoric. You be the judge:

“The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” is a den of scoundrels and liars who have been caught in a public lie. These are the mutinous leaders who at the February Board meeting and at the March meeting of General Synod duplicitously whined: [here quoted parts of above recommendations].

WHAT DISSIMULATORS!

The above statement sent out by Chairman Mitchell is an outright attempt by “The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” to stopping [sic] General Synod from electing this year’s slate of trustees [as we know, this is incorrect – in fact, the Board’s resolution stated the exact opposite]. The rebellious leadership of the Board recognizes that the election of the new slate of Trustees will dramatically change the balance of the Board [??? How? Synod has appointed the Trustees for years]. May God grant the failure of the machinations of mutinous and evil people! May God grant that the General Synod elects righteous men and women to the Board who hold mutiny and dissimulation in disdain! [Emphasis added]

Compare the tone. Compare the rhetoric. Compare the effort at compromise with the name-calling. I have no idea where the lies are. I have no idea where the machinations are. I have no idea where the dissimulation is. Call me ignorant. Call me naive. Call me a pawn of Satan. Call me “evil.” But from where I’m sitting, the Board did the right thing here; it was Synod and their supporters that were wrong.

Thank you, contributor; and thank you Board, you “evil people,” for humility and a desire for peace.

“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.

Moderators Reflection: Look in the Mirror!

Update: Make corrections based on comments. As always, read the comments for alternative interpretations to those presented here.

 

“Mirror, Mirror on the wall, Who’s the fairest of them all?”

As mentioned before, the Board of Trustees is out of legitimate options as far as compromising goes. Synod feels no need to compromise, and as both sides dig in their heels, hate will continue to fester and the consequences of our inaction become all the more dangerous.

Although it is important to address issues like the lawsuit and the upcoming meeting of Synod (i.e. short-term issues), the long term effects of the Synod’s actions cannot be ignored or forgotten. This became perfectly obvious as I read Dr. Dick deWitt’s article in the June 2010 issue of the ARP magazine, and again in a comment to my last post. Dr. deWitt entitled his article “A Moderator’s Reflections,” and truly, he has much to consider. Who’s the fairest Moderator of them all?

In the space of one short year, Dr. deWitt has formed and headed up a Commission to investigate the integration of faith and learning at Erskine (or was it about governance?), encouraged and presided at the landmark emergency meeting of Synod (emergencies always happen four months before regular meetings), weathered a lawsuit (Christians do not sue Christians, except…), and initiated an appeal (indeed he did! We’ll hopefully cover this controversy in a few days). and will now preside over a June meeting of Synod that will include heresy trials (unusual) These actions will possibly lead to drastic changes at a meeting of Synod that may well change the governance of Erskine College and Seminary.

DeWitt notes, “To me, it seemed essential that I give whatever I had at my disposal to closing the gap and drawing our college and seminary and the church back together” (emphasis added). Mission accomplished! Let me be the first to congratulate him on a job well done! Rarely have I seen such expansive communication between the alumni, the students and faculty, and the members of Synod. DeWitt also notes that addressing the findings of the Commission was “essential to the wellbeing of Erskine College” and that the emergency Synod was justified. In addition, deWitt “know[s] not a single person who wishes to harm Erskine College and Seminary… Was the synod right in acting as it did? I certainly believe that to be the case.”

Truly, we are better off thanks to Dr. deWitt’s Commission. Thank you!

Booker T. Washington once said, “Let no man drag you so low as to make you hate him.” As the familiar song goes, how low can we go, Moderator deWitt?

What Hath deWitt Wrought?

Let us examine the blessings which the Moderator and Commission have wrought for Erskine College.

1. Student enrollment is down. Not just down as in “the economy is bad, people everywhere are struggling” down. Down as in “Erskine might lose accreditation because of a power struggle.” Final numbers are not yet available, and surely there are students still desperately trying to decide if they can pursue an academically and intellectually challenging faith-based education at Erskine. But there is simply no way that Erskine can match the previous freshman class of 180. SAFE students don’t like it here – we get that. But why did they spit in the water as they left? Either that, or Crenshaw personally welcomes each Visit Day highschooler with intimidation and lies. Just one whiff of the man is enough to shake their Christian faith to the core and sends us all running for the hills.

Let’s be perfectly frank here. I’m about to receive a bunch of comments and emails saying, “Dr. Ruble said EC would lose accreditation to spite us,” or “The Alumni did this by writing letters to SACS to spite us,” or whatever. Let’s pretend that each accusation is true. What will happen? Does SACS care whether Dr. Ruble is a spiteful old man? Uh… no. They care whether the Board is being unduly influenced. Maybe the administration should have broken their legal obligation to SACS and hidden Synod’s actions for as long as possible. But I’m thinking eventually SACS would have found out. Before you comment, is lying by hiding something and breaking the law really the line of argument you want to take? The accreditation issue is not over; do not blame others for your own mistakes.

2. Erskine is a student-based school. When enrollment is down, the budget suffers. Add to this that alumni are confused about sending money to support a school that no longer meets their ideals, and the threatened impending removal of Synod’s significant support ($600,000, soon to be used to pursue civil court action. Too bad those heathen alumni never read enough of the Bible to know that Christians don’t sue Christians! Kudos to Synod for filing the civil court appeal to teach those cretins how it’s done the Biblical way.) Despite all of Dr. Ruble’s careful work and management, the budget cannot be balanced under current circumstances. Ironic: Dr. Ruble balanced the budget for three years, something that eluded the previous administration. In fact, the only thing that could wreck Dr. Ruble was not the terrible economy, nor the “culture of intimidation,” nor the plethora of inerrancy denialists – no, the only thing that could wreck Dr. Ruble’s winning streak was Synod. Dr. Norman has little administrative experience; Synod apparently has none at all.

3. People at Erskine will lose their jobs, and many already have. No, silly! Not the “evil” Scott Mitchell and Woody O’Cain and Bill Crenshaw and Richard Burnett. The minor players in this drama. The people who have nothing to do with integration of faith and learning. The people who give Erskine its public face. People were fired at Erskine because of what the Commission and Synod wrought in March and for no other reason. Not incompetence. Not laziness. Not a rotten economy. Not fiscal mismanagement. Not a lack of integration of faith and learning. Not anything in the Commission report. People were fired because Synod was too controlling to let their own appointed Board run Erskine, too impatient to change Erskine by appointing Trustees this summer, and too intolerant to listen to other points of view.

But to subtly change a well-known song, “And the tithes kept rolling in, from every side.” Men in Synod have job security. They do not work for Erskine.

Erskine will suffer for the loss of people who have given so fully of themselves to further the mission of Erskine. Those who are left may well depart, either to pursue other options or to preserve their health. Stress is not healthy and job security is paramount; the atmosphere at Erskine must certainly be draining to faculty and staff, as well as students. Erskine’s community has been compromised, and that may well be the saddest part of all. You’ll probably never vanquish Crenshaw, friend deWitt, but you brought misery to a lot of other people through your inquisition, and this is a travesty.

**Sidebar – continued prayers must be lifted up for Dr. David Norman as he pilots this modern-day Titanic. The band’s still playing bravely. We must continue to pray for his wisdom and strength, now more than ever.**

Who’s to blame?

Scott Mitchell of course!

Well, actually we shouldn’t jump to conclusions. Just because he’s the fall-guy for all those who support Synod doesn’t make it so. Let’s consider:

1. Synod fires half of Board. News articles ensue. Bad press.

2. SACS investigates accreditation issues. News articles ensue. Bad press.

3. Scott Mitchell files appeal and costs Erskine/EC Foundation $50,000. News articles ensue. Bad press.

4. Scott Mitchell withdraws appeal. Good press (?).

5. Lawsuit picked up by other Board members who use the lawyers and preliminary drafts from the original lawsuit. Bad press.

6. Lawsuit successful; injunction upheld and Synod told their actions were probably illegal. News articles. Good press.

7. SACS finishes investigation. Not good.

8. Synod reverses illegal decision on interim Board, restores original Board, and Erskine begins process of healing. News articles follow. Excellent press.

8. Synod files appeal, a process that will take years to sort out. News articles follow. Terrible press.

Sorry, got a bit carried away with myself on #8 there. I mean, with Synod appointing nearly all the Trustees on the Board and their obvious concern over the negative publicity and uncertainty incoming students face over this illegal action, you’d think they would obviously reverse what they did.

But no. They say, “my way or the highway” and dedicate their entire annual Erskine budget to fighting for the interim Board, a board that would exist in six years anyway under the compromise proposal.

How low can you go?

There is no “good” press anywhere, actually. Synod is supposed to be the “good” guys here, but no incoming students wants to hear, “Erskine is not living up to its mission statement and is rife with a culture of intimidation, so we fired half the Board and will restructure school governance, classes, and hire a new president through the interim Board.” Huh? How is this going to increase attendance? Even if everything the Commission said was true,** their drastic and unnecessary action gave the school an enormous amount of bad press.

**Sidebar - Curious minds can decide whether the Commission told the whole story by reading a survey of faculty and students at Erskine. But in conclusion, please ignore these students and faculty, because the Commission knows the true nature of Erskine far better than faculty that teach there and students to live there!**

Synod started this mess; that much is indisputable. The Board made things “worse” by trying to enforce the law of South Carolina, but can you argue that seeing the law upheld is a bad thing? Synod made things worse again by filing the appeal (justified if they believe what they did was legal, unjustified since what they did was unnecessary). In my opinion, blaming the party that sought to keep the law intact is bizarre; blaming the Board of Trustees for Erskine’s deficit is like blaming a murder victim for her own murder. “You shouldn’t have been keeping such bad company!”

Has Erskine turned her back on staff and students? I ruefully expect that within days Erskine will be blamed for leaving students out in the cold and making life miserable for them. Someone who can blast Dr. Ruble for not taking a salary can justify just about anything. Students will notice the cuts that have been made when they return to school in the fall. Those who have not already been inundated with the Synod debacle will scratch their heads, wondering where the Erskine they once knew had gone.

Erskine is in the hole financially. I understand that people at Erskine call this the “deWitt Deficit.” What a glorious reflection to see in the mirror, Moderator! “Synod Shortage” and the “Commission Curtailment” are suitable as well. Call it what you will. Who’s the fairest Moderator of them all?

Despite all their efforts to support the “well being” of Erskine, to reunite the church and school, and to change the board without touching the daily lives of students (except to eliminate the culture of intimidation, get rid of professors who do not uphold inerrancy, teach Creationism, further integrate the mission statement into each classroom somehow, and utilize the interim Board to install their hand-picked Presidential candidate), the Moderator’s Commission has left Erskine far worse than they found her during all their numerous visits to Campus (hate I missed them. For a group of 9 men and women they were sure hard to track down).

The end simply cannot justify the means here because no one has any clear concept of what the end of Erskine will be. Even worse, the means were either illegal or so close to being illegal that a lawsuit is necessary to sort it all out. Worse still, the justifications for the quasi-legal means to bring about the unknown end are varied, contested, and different depending on who you ask and when you ask them and where they happen to be standing (Erskine vs. Synod vs. privately with the Board).

More directly, then, the means have altered the end that used to be called “graduation,” with students emerging from Erskine with an incredible education from a Christian liberal arts institution.

At the conclusion of his article for the ARP Magazine, deWitt notes, “I crave nothing more for us than that the blessing of God may rest on a renewed, reinvigorated denomination and its institutions.” I’m glad to hear it, because from where I’m sitting, deWitt and company are tearing it all apart. Blame the Board and Scott Mitchell for being “evil,” in Chuck Wilson’s words, but eventually Synod needs to wake up and realize that whether Erskine was good or evil, a Christian liberal arts institution or depraved, what Synod did last March set in motion events that would tear it apart.

Yours was not the fairest moderatorship of them all, friend deWitt. You did not unite the Church – you are tearing it apart. You did not unite Erskine and Synod – you are tearing them apart. You did not “fix” Erskine – you are tearing it apart. Ironically, the only thing you united was opposition against you and your Commission, a feat so incredible nobody has been able to accomplish it before. Alumni have not been this involved, this dedicated, and this passionate about Erskine and its future in recent history.

Can Erskine be reinvigorated? I certainly hope so, because I cannot imagine a world with out the distinctive offerings of Erskine. Only time (and Synod) will tell. Logic, persistence, and temperance will help us pursue that end once more.

“Mirror, Mirror on the wall, Who’s the fairest of them all?”

Tomorrow or Wednesday: back to regularly scheduled programming with an expose into the unbelievable coercion of the Commission.