Comité de Salut Public

Is anybody else weirded out by all the power and influence of the Committee over Synod and, allegedly, Erskine? One the words of a few men, Synod signed their fate to a rash act and the consequences thereof.

Stand fast, Alumni, our brave Thermidorians!

The Times They Are A-Changin’

Tagline: “If at first you don’t Secede…”

Courtesy of Gairney Bridge (emphasis added):

“The restraining order remains in place, the interim board cannot meet, and the actions of General Synod at the called meeting are null and void. … Big changes are a-comin’, I suspect, just not in the form they appeared to be coming a month ago.

The Civil Court may have determined that Synod acted illegally and their ‘emergency meeting’ might have been ruled null and void, but never let it be said that the lawsuit was justifiable. Christians must not ever, ever, in a million years, sue Christians! Even when, you know, the law says we did something wrong.

Fool you once, shame on… you

Tagline: “Fool you once, shame on you. Fool you twice, shame on me. Why give you a second chance?”

The Commission members were infinitely interested in student opinions. So, they came to Erskine to talk to students. Imagine that – busy Christian men taking time out of their busy day to talk to students. Anybody at Erskine could talk to them. Anybody at all.

All you needed to do was email them. They came on a Friday. During J-Term, a time when many upperclassmen were not even on campus. They set up the interview during class, so people truly interested in learning couldn’t be there. They set out the confirmation email the day before, leaving little time for students to arrange time out of class or prepare statements.

Best yet – don’t spend much time on the Students! Eight students were scheduled for the same block of time – 30 minutes. That’s 3.75 minutes per student. The ARP Church has been trying to explain what “integration of faith and learning” means for over 30 years – did we really expect students to navigate the issue with real-life experience in just under 4 minutes? Of course not! How could they? All the students needed to say is We agree with you, sir, and leave it at that. Which, coincidentally, many of them did.

And at the end of the day? Nearly half of the interviewees were SAFE members. Perfect! Why interview people who do not agree with us? SAFE brought the complaint to us in the first place – it would only make sense to interview them again. Were I cynical, I would think the Commission didn't really want to talk to students. But I'm not cynical. The Commission did everything they could to talk to as many different students as possible!

The Commission never came back to interview students. Missed it? Shame on you.

‘ASK A COMMISSIONER’ REMOVES QUESTION

Update: Question and answer restored to Ask a Commissioner. Now, there are just two documents I would really like to get my hands on. The first is in the mail as we speak, and will be posted in May. The second: what Laura Griffin wrote about Robyn Agnew on SAFE! Wouldn't you like to see the only document SAFE removed from its site? I sure would.

Update 2: Holy cow! I got it! Laura Griffin’s letter originally posted on SAFE website but removed soon thereafter.

Tagline: “If you delete the problem, the problem will go away…”

The ever-humorous ‘Ask a Commissioner’ website has removed one of their answered questions with no comment as to the reason why. A link to the question now gives the following page:

T. Dogood is proud to present the complete question asked by David Danehower and the Commission member’s response.

What about the 1977-78 Commission on Judiciary Affairs?

 

March 23, 2010 :: Paul Mulner

David D. asks: I have read with interest that in 1977-78, the ARP Synod's Ecclesiastical Commission on Judiciary Affairs reviewed and upheld the autonomy of the Erskine Board of Trustees. Further, the Judiciary Commission also found that "the only legal right Synod has in the governing of Erskine is the right to appoint (not dismiss!) members to the Board of Trustees."
The Judiciary Commission went on to warn that the Board could take away Synod's right to appoint trustees by amending the bylaws. So, Synod asked the Board to amend the charter to guarantee that this would not happen. As a gesture of goodwill, the Board agreed to make a change that requires the vote of both the Board and the Synod to change the method of appointing new Board members. I find it troubling that the Moderator's Commission would recommend to Synod something that would abrogate this gentlemanly and (in the Court of the Synod) binding agreement made some 32 years prior, by asserting that it can unilaterally dissolve the Board.
Did the Commission not know this and was the Commission not advised by its Counsel that such an act might precipitate actions within both the Synod as well as the SC court system?

I'll give this a go, but I am not a lawyer!

Yes, the Moderator's Commission was familiar with the report.  The 1978 Ecclesiastical Commission did report that Synod has the legal authority to appoint members of the Board.  According to SC non-profit law, the body that can appoint can also remove.
It's important to remember that there has never been an adversarial relationship between the Church and the school because there have generally never been competing interests between the two.  It's not really correct to desribe the actions of 1978 as if there were two opposing parties who came to an agreement to settle their differences.  The Synod and its Trustees for Erskine (together) tightened the legal language that would protect the ARP's involvement with Erskine into the future.  At the time, there were great inconsistancies between the language in the Manual of Authorities and Duties, the Erskine bylaws, and the Erskine charter.  The actions of those years brought all of those documents into line with one another.

Faith

“The Synod presents a very good argument in their brief. I have yet to read the Plaintiff's brief, but I can't imagine the issue being clearer.” (emphasis added)

-Andrew DeShazo, Facebook Supporters of Synod group, 4/1/10

And this, my dear friends, is what we call “faith,” and is a desirable only when dealing with God and the Chicago Cubs.

JUST IN: SYNOD FIRES RUBLE, APPOINTS XXX PRESIDENT

4/1/2010 :: Due West, SC

Citing Ecclesiastical law as well as Christian necessity, Synod voted via email to remove Dr. Randy Ruble as president of Erskine College and Seminary, and appointed Mr. XXX XXX (redacted) as the interim president. This action comes as the fate of the interim board hangs on the word of a South Carolina judge. While his decision is expected early next week, Synod believed action was needed quickly to rectify the “culture of intimidation” that oppressed students so heavily at the college.

“The Jews were lost in the desert for forty years,” explained Mr. YYY(redacted), moderator of the ARP Synod. “God did not abandon them. Would it be Christian for Synod to abandon our sons and daughters to the religious desert called ‘Erskine?’”

The move did not go unnoticed. A Facebook group dedicated to Alumni in support of Erskine lit up at the move, with comments ranging from “We’ll see you in court” to “This is war.”

XXX XXX (redacted) defended Synod’s actions. “I did not want to be president, but Synod forced it upon me. I will relinquish this position as soon as someone more favorable is found.” When asked about accusations that XXX promoted himself for the position, he dismissed such statements as unchristian distortions of the truth. “I mentioned to a few people that I might be good for the position, but it was nothing serious. Who else could they pick besides me?” He went on to describe his actions as “not in the least bit a conflict of interest” because “Erskine’s interests are not in conflict with my interests.”

An online newsletter by a former ARP minister lauded the action with the headline, “It’s About Time You Listened to Me!” The minister went on to describe the college as “fundamentally broken” and “hopelessly antithetical to anything Christ would admire. … Synod owns Erskine like a mother owns her unborn child, so obviously we had the power to do this.” One party to the lawsuit was quick to quip, “Abort it!”

With two new lawsuits pending and one already argued before a judge, only time will tell if Synod succeeds in their replacement. For now, students found their way to class as usual and life in this quiet Southern town continued just as it always has.

[More on the Index-Journal Website tonight]

Of course there is a "Culture of Intimidation"

"No really, we promise," says the Commission. "There are examples of the Culture of Intimidation. We just won't make that information public. Except for that one example, the XXX XXXX incident. That one was very public. But no more! We've destroyed his reputation among our friends - how could we do that to anybody else? No, we'll keep our myriad examples of intimidation secret."

"In fact, we won't even tell the accused! Isn't that a lark. You, Dr. Roe, and you, administrator Doe - you have no idea whether you've been accused or not! Better yet, you can't give a defense for your actions (be the intimidation real or imagined), because you are ignorant of the accusation made against you. We ought to have thought of this tactic before," says the Commission, "and Erskine would have been brought under submission long ago."