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.

Jay Brantner’s Vision is the Vision of Many

Update: Please refer to series, The Misery of the End

 

Jay Brantner (Erskine ’09), Facebook group:

I'd like to see a student body in which Christians from various denominations are in a significant majority, so as to be a good influence on the non-Christians.

I'd like to see a faculty that is both academically excellent, eager to engage with students, and committed to orthodox Christianity. All three factors should shine through their lives. The Synod's list of qualifications for orthodoxy seems fairly standard. That affirmation can be made by Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, etc. Because the school is tied to the ARP church, perhaps the choice of professors in the Bible department could be restricted to those more specifically in line with the ARP, but this is not strictly necessary. When I was at Erskine, the Bible department included one ARP, one in the PCA, and one Baptist, which seemed to work out well enough. I will say that the President should come from a tradition closer to the ARP than is necessary for the general faculty.

I don't want to see any restrictions on faculty beyond the commitment to general orthodoxy, but I do want the faculty to avoid compartmentalizing the truth they discover. Evolution seems to be the hot-button debate, so I'll use that as an example. Those who teach evolution should be able to explain its compatibility with the Bible (because, for instance, it fits in with a literary framework interpretation of Genesis, or a day-age theory, or what have you). Not having all the answers is okay (and expected), but at the very least, they should be able to see apparent contradictions between beliefs in different areas and seek to reconcile them. Someone who teaches evolution and believes six-day creation has to recognize the contradiction and admit that either their science or their biblical interpretation is wrong (even if they cannot yet determine which).

I want professors who challenge the basic beliefs of their students but also help the students meet the challenge. Either side by itself is lacking something. When a student's faith is the belief in question, the former without the latter amounts to leading them astray, while the latter without the former amounts to naive indoctrination.

I feel like the seminary folk interact pretty well with the college, so that's not a particular issue of concern for me. I would like to see the chaplaincy be more invested in the student body as a whole. I get the impression that it does great with one ministry but lacks other ministries.

I can't think of anything more to say off the top of my head, but I will leave off with a non-exhaustive list of current Erskine faculty who I think exemplify the things we should strive for: Drs. Elsner, Sniteman, Woodiwiss, Schelp, Kuykendall, and Parker.

I, Temperance, legitimately think this is a good vision for Erskine. If these words were the words of Synod we all, both those on the Alumni site and the Supporters of Synod site, would stand up and cheer.

[Weasel Words corner: I do not agree with everything Brantner wrote.]

He did a fair job of laying out a good vision for Erskine: a Christian college with professors from multiple denominations connected by general Orthodoxy and integrating their faith into their actions both within and out of the classroom. Jay has a wonderful vision of a Christian liberal-arts educational institution – one that already exists.

I think Erskine is like this today. Science professors tell students how the reconcile their views of science with the Bible. Bible professors tell how they interpret the Bible and navigate tricky spots, and how their faith is not challenged. Professors care for their students, challenge their beliefs, share their own beliefs, and foster learning. Each professor is different – some are more argumentative than others, some are more reserved and less open about their faith. This makes Erskine diverse. I like it.

The Commission paints a terrible picture of Erskine. I think they were wrong.

Give Synod the Benefit of the Doubt

Never lose sight of what started this fiasco: Synod selectively fired fourteen Trustees from the Board. But please, give Synod the benefit of the doubt. There is a 0.00000069% chance they sacked the Fourteen trustees randomly to shrink the Board. Maybe God stacked the dice to remove the "Culture of Intimidation?" Why else were these 14 chosen?

Starting tomorrow soon: we'll figure out why the 14 were chosen.

Update: Things are happening now at a rapid pace. Old news will have to wait.