How were the Fourteen Chosen?, pt 2

“I’ll tell Wormwood to follow your example.” *

Continuing along the lines of my previous post, I shall try to understand how the Fired Fourteen were chosen from the thirty.

Synod presented us with a dozen reasons why members were released from the Board of Trustees: fiscal mismanagement that occurred before any of the Board members were appointed, competing visions for Erskine’s future, too many members on the Board, the “integration of faith and learning,” a “culture of intimidation,” however that fits, and lack of “independence” from the administration. I have already examined these issues, and look now upon how the specific members of the Board were chosen to be fired.

I want to give Synod the benefit of the doubt. Surely they took the time to reason, logically, through the issues. Surely Synod acted in fairness and in due process, two qualities every affirmative vote at Synod should heartily support, then they must have chosen sixteen members of the Board for replacement because of inadequacies in those members or, to put it another way, fourteen members of the board were culpable in something while the rest of the board was not. Fourteen members knew something and did not act appropriately, or did not know something they should have, or voted to hide something that the other sixteen members voted to expose. Do you get my drift? Assuming Synod acted out of due process and for just cause, something set fourteen members of the Board apart from the other sixteen.

Let’s figure out what set the Fourteen apart.

Did the Fourteen know of fiscal mismanagement and hide the problem? Did they vote against correcting the error or in favor of perpetrating the mistake? Did the Fourteen ignore pleas of help from administrators trying to end the corruption, while the Sixteen did all they could to end it? Or was the entire board ignorant, and hence all equally guilty, or equally innocent? We found out at the hearing that all members of the Board were appointed after the two issues took place. How then are the Fourteen culpable in the first place – and especially how are they more culpable than the Sixteen?

On Inerrancy, the Board requires each incoming professor to swear allegiance to the autographs. We are told that some recent hires lied about this: my first thought on hearing the news was, “Gee goly, let’s fire half the Board!” I’ll forgive you for not thinking as sanctified a thought as myself. Why should the Board suffer for the lies (deceitful miscreants that these professors are) of employees? Better yet: what makes the Fourteen more culpable than the remaining Sixteen?

Maybe the board was too large, despite the fact that a) the board agreed to reduce its size over six years, and b) the Board is equivalently sized to other Boards at other schools in the region. Regardless, I’ve already discussed the incredible chance of a specific Fourteen being fired out of thirty. While I may be satisfied with God working through chance to fire the select fourteen that disagreed with myself, you may not be as convinced.

The ever-popular catchphrase “Culture of Intimidation” is a popular reason for taking over the Board, but I’m going to admit there is precious little to link the Board to any intimidation (be it real or imagined). What does the Board have to do with this issue, anyway? Can we really say that anybody on the board is guilty? Did the Fired Fourteen vote to support Jay West while the Surviving Sixteen voted to chastise him? Did the Fourteen intimidate students as a group while the Sixteen tried to stop them? And what of members appointed after the Jay West incident? How are they culpable in an incident that occurred before they took office?

When members of the Commission went to Erskine shortly after the vote, they were pressed hard to explain how the Fourteen were chosen. They could not – or would not – do so. After much verbiage about having the right alumni/minister ratio and such (which, I would point out, the "real" board satisfied), one commissioner said in effect, I didn’t make the choice – it just happened.

Great redirect! I’ll tell Wormwood to follow your example.

I'll buy that you were just a pawn - that you didn't make the choice. But who did? Why? How? As God as your witness, do you, Commissioner, really have no idea? And if so, how can you justify your recommendations and your vote to your fellow Christians and to our God, who is a Just God?

Of course we all know the answer. Synod thought the Fourteen disagreed with them. This is no baseless claim by radicals on the Alumni Facebook group – incredibly, the Commission explicitly said so in their report!

This is quite long, so tomorrow: what they said.

 

*I’m really disappointed that I wrote this a week ago and didn’t post it until today, because Chuck Wilson made a Screwtape Letters reference on his site yesterday. Darn. I guess the difference between Chuck and I, as always, is this:

Chuck’s world – Oppose Synod – Allied with Satan (literally)

Temperance’s world – Ignore a direct question – Good example for a demon to follow.

I’ll let you decide which is the better approach.

David Norman: Our Game To Lose

UPDATE: Apparently the BoT will vote Friday, May 21 on the appointment of Dr. Norman as President.

 

It appears David Norman is the pick for next president of Erskine College (read the confidential letter discussing him here). He is relatively young and inexperienced. He is unknown to a great many of us. And he graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary, a fact which strikes fear into many of those who oppose the Commission’s actions. We all have reason to be wary.

Let me be perfectly frank: we don’t know how this will turn out. This could be an excellent candidate, or a terrible one. We just don’t know enough yet. We should have no reservations against men from RTS – or do we really believe all men are equally bad, or good, if they go to the same school? We cannot hold his age against him, for old age is not a prerequisite for intelligence and charisma. Nor is his relative lack of experience necessarily a setback – Erskine is an unusual place that attracts people who would not want to work anywhere else. Perhaps David Norman is attracted to small schools and excels there.

The point is: we just don’t know!

(I believe) Erskine’s president will be appointed in the following way: the search committee, consisting of members of the Board, Erskine faculty, and other ex officio members, chose a candidate (David Norman). His name will then be debated and ultimately voted on by the whole Board of Trustees, at which point he will be made president.

Wait… Hold on a second… There’s something about the “Board of Trustees” that sounds familiar.

Oh yea. Synod reconstituted it!

Had the injunction been overturned the new, Synod-approved Board would be in power now. Presumably, the new picks would support whatever candidate Synod wanted (or equivalently, they would propose a candidate exactly in line with what Synod desires). The vote would be taken sometime this summer and Shazam! New President of EC. Commissioner Mulner wrote: “If the [Presidential Search Committee] is able to select a candidate before the new Board is installed in June, the interim Board could receive their recommendation on a candidate and vote to extend an offer to that candidate.” This has indeed occurred.

We have no idea whether Norman was Synod’s “first pick” or not. It might very well be that he was a back-up plan when Synod realized their first few picks would never get through the full Board. But what we do know beyond a shadow of a doubt is this: had the lawsuit not been brought forward, had the injunction not been extended, and had the alumni, faculty, and administration of Erskine College not stood up to defend their college against an action of sufficiently nebulous legality to warrant a full trial, well, then we’d have whoever Synod wants as President.

Whether Norman is good or bad is irrelevant right now. The Alumni have won the first battle.

 

What we need is visibility – we need all the faculty to see him, talk to him. We need the alumni to talk with him. We need him on Facebook and sending emails. We need to find out about him, what he believes, and his vision of Erskine College and Seminary. If his vetting and appointment are done behind closed doors with a few carefully-chosen witnesses, his presidency will be compromised from the very start.

Watch out though: this guy’s a regular Bill Crenshaw! Here is what he wrote back in 2006. I thought we didn’t agree with Devil’s Advocates… (emphasis added)

Our first day of class [at Trinity Forum Academy], red-eyed and grumpy from the previous evening’s fundraising trip that kept me out past 3 A.M., I conducted a little experiment. I tried to stump each Fellow in turn by asking questions related to their stated career ambitions. I specifically asked questions that I knew were controversial and had no easy answers. The results of this little experiment restored my hope not only for this year at the Academy, but for the hearts and minds of this generation. Without exception, each Fellow met my openly cynical challenges with a calm, confident, honesty that made me want to listen as they explained both why the questions were difficult and the difference their faith makes in the search for answers.

This is part of what makes Erskine excellent, and I am encouraged by these words at least.

No satire is needed here. David Norman, congratulations on your nomination to be president of my favorite college in America, and we all look forward to meeting you! Let’s make it happen.

How were the Fourteen Chosen? pt. 1

“The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness."  - Proverbs 15:14

As you know, I stands 100% behind my Synod and against the lecherous spit of land called Erskine College. However, Synod failed miserably in taking over the school from “doctrinal drift,” as I explain below.

Reasons to selectively fire fourteen board members are so bizarre I am having a difficult time sorting everything out. There is the issue of fiscal mismanagement that keeps being brought up, and sometimes people mention a “culture of intimidation.” Inerrancy of scripture is a huge issue, according to some, while to others the biggest problem is “integrating faith and learning,” whatever that means. Maybe the board was too large (though equivalent in size to the boards of other schools in the region). The Board actually agreed to reduce in size over six years; not fast enough, said Synod, and acted immediately.

Maybe the Board was incompetent, though Synod bent over backwards to congratulate the dismissed Trustees for their good service. Maybe it was too liberal. Maybe the board was patently divided on the issues – the Commission report said as much: “There are irreconcilable and competing visions about the direction of the college and seminary among the members of the Erskine Board of Trustees.” I have no doubt this last point is true. But isn’t that rather to be expected? Or should we expect each member of the Board of Trustees to think – and vote – exactly as Synod demands?

Well, yes, we apparently demand that.

If the size of the board was truly a problem, the members would have been fired at random. If members were incompetent individually, they would have been individually dismissed after due process for just cause. But neither of these legal recourses were taken; instead, Synod fired the fourteen people who disagreed with them. Goaded on by the Commission and Mr. Wingate’s testimony that should Synod fail to act, “the proper ‘due influence of Synod’ will appear to be diminished and the status quo of many years will continue,” Synod acted out of passion and without due consideration. A lawsuit is the fruit of our labors.

What I am trying to say is this: imagine the most boneheaded and misguided way to take over Erskine from “doctrinal drift.” Now, imagine all the different subtleties Synod could use, all the forward-thinking and slow transformations they could enact that would result in complete takeover of Erskine without anyone realizing it had ever happened. Selectively firing half the Board of Trustees is surely not one of these “subtleties.”

It would be difficult to enact a more blatant, aggressive, and angering trajectory. There is almost literally nothing Synod could have done that would be more sure to enrage and mobilize the opposition, divide the ARP Church, guarantee a lawsuit, and damage Erskine’s financial security for the next few years (at least).

Selectively firing fourteen Trustees out of thirty does not sound fair, and nothing we can say will ever make it seem fair.

We were foolish, and we may lose a great deal because of it.

Erskine College Presidential Search Committee Has Found Their Man

I present the original post on the Aquila Report, as well as the deleted exchange from the Supporters of Synod site. Why is the answer always “delete, delete, delete?” Amen to Al Brady Law!

Note just one thing: the Aquila Report is affiliated* generally supportive of Synod. In other words, the board member (?) who leaked this document gave it to a Synod-supportive website. This implies that the leak came from a Synod-affiliated board member. Interesting. We must all ask ourselves two questions: why did a board member leak the document at all (what does this say about their trustworthiness?), and more importantly, what benefit to Synod/Commission will there be in leaking this man’s name? To energize the base of supporters? To show what is possible if Synod wins? To draw the other side into making brash comments? Who knows. I find the whole episode suspicious.

*Janis Cunningham makes a good point on the Alumni for Erskine page, namely, that the Aquila Report is not “affiliated” with Synod as I wrote above. This is absolutely correct – the site reports on church news in general. However, the site does post commentary germane to Erskine, and in my experience there I have only found one editorial in opposition to Synod’s actions (Dr. Burnett’s), but several in support. For example, Defending Dr. deWitt from Attack Blogs, written by the same author as the article below, or What is at Risk in the Erskine Lawsuit? There may be additional editorials that I have not read supporting either side, of course.

Regardless, I believe that opponents of Synod’s actions (generally) believe that the Aquila Report is conservative and editorially supportive of Synod, and it was this sentiment I based my comments on.

 

UPDATE: This now posted on the Aquila Report

Editor's Note on Erskine College Presidential Search story     
Churches in the News
Written by [left blank]
Tuesday, 11 May 2010 18:39 
The Breaking News story concerning the announcement of the candidate for President at Erskine College first posted on May 11 has been temporarily removed.  We received notice that the Board of Directors did not want this news made public at this time.  As a courtesy to them, we have temporarily removed the story until we receive the information from additional sources.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 18:44 

[I could have told them they “did not want this news made public” by quoting from the letter they posted: “I ask that we all refrain from public discussion and comment about the nominee prior to the May 21 Board meeting.” Right?]

Original Posting:

BREAKING NEWS: Erskine College Presidential Search Committee Has Found Their Man!

Ministries in the News
Written by Don K. Clements
Tuesday, 11 May 2010 00:00

The following letter was sent by the President of the Search Committee to all members of the Board of Trustees of Erskine College on Tuesday, May 11 to introduce Dr. David Norman
Dear Fellow Trustees,

The entire Erskine Presidential Search Committee made up of 11 members (two of whom are advisory) met in Charlotte on Wednesday, May 5, to personally interview the top Presidential Candidates found during a nine-month nation-wide search.
In the Lord’s providence, the Committee rapidly came together with a vote favoring Dr. David Norman as the Presidential Nominee. This process included all nine members voting individually by voice signifying complete support for the choice of David Norman as the Committee’s Nominee to be President of Erskine.
To say that the Search Committee is enthusiastic about David and his qualifications for the presidency would be a vast understatement.

David has connections since childhood to Erskine, from attending soccer camps on campus as a boy, and to the ARP, including his family’s current church membership within the ARP. David and his wife K.D. are excited at the prospect of moving into the President’s house on campus and to building a new life for their three sons in the Due West, SC community.

I will say much more about David’s background and about the search process at our May 21 Board meeting. However as David and K.D. are being introduced on campus today to the Faculty of both the Seminary and the College, Administrators, and student leaders, I wanted you to be aware of David’s name and also have the opportunity to read his CV.

Dr. Norman’s academic profile speaks for itself. I so much look forward to personally introducing each of you to Dr. Norman prior to our Board meeting.

It is extremely important that there be no communication with David Norman prior to our voting for him as President on May 21. Any presidential search and hiring is of course a sensitive matter. Therefore except for discussions among ourselves as trustees, I ask that we all refrain from public discussion and comment about the nominee prior to the May 21 Board meeting.

Please join me in praising our God for providing an exciting new President for Erskine at this crucial time.

Sincerely,

Gordon Query, Chairman
Erskine Presidential Search Committee
*************************************************
Brief Bio for David Norman

Dr. David Norman is the President and Co-Founder of the Graduate Theological Network.  (web site at: www.graduatetheologicalnetwork.org)
He is a Summa Cum Laude graduate of Auburn University and has received a Masters in Christian Thought from Reformed Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. in Philosophical Theology from the University of Edinburgh.

He has experience as a youth pastor, college minister and adult Sunday school teacher.  He served as Executive Director of the Trinity Forum Academy (a small residential graduate program on the Chesapeake Bay) from 2006-2009 and taught Philosophy and Religious Studies for the University of South Carolina from 2004-2006.  While at the University of South Carolina, he also coordinated off-campus programs for the Lancaster campus.

Adding to his list of published journal articles and papers presented at academic conferences, he recently released a scholarly book with the Edwin Mellen Press on mind and body in the philosophical theology of Donald MacKay.

David is married, and he and his wife, K.D., have two young sons (with a third on the way!).

*****************************

Tim Phillips Congratulations and thanks to the Erskine Search Committee!BREAKING NEWS: Erskine College Presidential Search Committee Has Found Their Man! theaquilareport.com

Benjamin P. Glaser Well I guess I can take my name out the running for that job...

Janis Cunningham What I don't understand is that letter appears to be written to the board and asks them not to discuss the candidate publically before the vote. I wonder if the search committee gave permission for that letter to be posted on The Aquila Report? I think it is regrettable since there will be a LOT of discussion about it now that it has been posted.

Seth Stark I had the same thoughts, Janis.

Tim Phillips Interesting thoughts, Seth and Janis. Do you think I should remove the post?  Let me add that I do not know who Dr. Norman is. I am simply posting this because I am glad the search committee has been successful in its endeavor. My congratulations was to them for finding a candidate.

Seth Stark Tim: I think the cat was out of the bag once the info was posted on The Aquila Report. I don't think you need to remove your post.

Tim Phillips I don't want to contribute to any problems, nor do I want this to become a political football.

Al Brady Law @Janis and Tim: Heaven knows we don't need any discussion about this. Why can't you see that this kind of attitude just magnifies the problem. Why would this be secret? By the way, it's not.

Janis Cunningham Al, the letter was written to the board and it asked them not to discuss it publically yet. I just wondered who made the decision to release it, that's all.

And no, Tim, I don't think you need to remove it since the Aquila Report is the one who posted it originally.

[I missed a post or two here, sorry]

Tim Phillips The story from the Aquila Report about the Erskine presidency has apparently been removed, so I have deleted [this entire] post. My apologies to all who commented. It was very unwise of me to post in the first place.

I Feel Closer to God – Thanks Chuck

After reading Chuck’s latest missive calling Christian men “execrable” and “terrorists,” I feel closer to God.

I’m sure we all do.

Is this really the best way to reconcile our differences? Why will nobody speak out against such “rhetoric?”

Favorite line: “Frankly, these Erskine rebels will never find the will of God apart from remorse and repentance and asking the forgiveness of the ARP Church.” [emphasis added]

Exactly! Always ask for forgiveness of the Church! (Chuck didn’t mention asking God, but I’m sure that was an oversight).

What Free Speech giveth…

… somebody taketh away. I happily present the removed posts from the Supporters of Synod site, unedited and in the original form (one might call these the autographs, but let’s not go there).

Update: An anonymous commenter below has kindly pointed out that Tim Phillips posted an apology on the Supporters of Synod site. His words are appreciated:

I posted this story a couple of weeks ago and then wound up deleting the thread yesterday after some less than kind words were posted. I should have deleted those comments from the outset, and my apologies to any who were offended. I am reposting this after conferring with David D. and at his suggestion. Any posts that are contrary to the spirit of the request of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the BoT will be removed. This is a time for all of us, on all sides, to be in prayer for the Board of Trustees, as well as the College and Seminary.

 

Original Comments:

Tim Phillips "Hopefully this process can begin quickly and be completed in such a manner that Erskine can move forward. We pray that all involved in the situation will open their hearts to the possibility of resolution and reconciliation. We also pray that all who are involved will refrain from actions that would make resolution and reconciliation more difficult. In particular, we hope that all would refrain from attacks on individuals or a group who may indeed be trying their best to do what they think is right.

We solicit your prayers and your support for this important process to glorify God." April 29 at 7:39pm

Janis Cunningham That sounds encouraging. Thanks for posting, Tim.
April 29 at 7:55pm

David A. Danehower I agree that this is encouraging. Can we all draw close to the fence that divides us and extend a hand across it? I hope and pray that we can! April 29 at 9:39pm

[Temperance: Notice 24 hours goes by between these two posts]

David A. Danehower Boy, I sure am getting tired of holding out my hand! Anybody want to extend theirs? April 30 at 10:14pm

Janis Cunningham David, you know, the people involved in the negotiations really aren't on this site. So don't take it personally! I do appreciate your positive attitude especially in comparison to some others. But I think the best thing we can do at this point is pray and wait. It would certainly be good for all this to be resolved privately rather than in court. April 30 at 10:43pm

David A. Danehower Janis, I'm well aware that the folks involved in the discussions (I'd hesitate to call them negotiations) are not on this site. But I do not think that discussion and attempts to reach across the table, or fence (to use my metaphor) elsewhere are something to be avoided elsewhere! Why do you think that I continue to try and engage folks here. I really have appreciated those who have reached out a hand, perhaps most notably yourself. I understand (!) that there are differences between us. But does not our shared love of God and his message of redemption through his Son, Jesus, transcend whatever doctrinal differences we have? We can begin our own little "peace party" here if we want. But we have to want to do so. Personally, I want to do so! May 1 at 8:12am

Janis Cunningham David, I want you to understand that many of my relatives and friends probably come from a viewpoint closer to yours than mine. So yes, I enjoy friendships with people who do not have the same exact beliefs I do! So from that aspect, yes, we certainly can be friends with people who have some differing views as long as their is mutual respect. I think our exchanges have been cordial the entire time (yours and mine). May 1 at 8:44am

Janis Cunningham I have to add, though, that your attitude is not typical of the most active posters on the alumni site. May 1 at 8:45am

David A. Danehower Janis, Thanks for your kind words and the the offer of your "hand across the fence!" It is appreciated! You are right -there are a lot of different kinds of people in this world and we can and should love them despite their differences with us! Is this not amongst the greatest of Jesus' teachings?

The key is, as you suggest, mutual respect. I am really sorry for what has come between the ARP Church and members of the Alumni (many of whom are ARPs!). This is a particularly difficult time for the latter.

Yes, there are some posts on the Alumni site whose attitudes differ from your and from my own opinions and demeanor in this matter. but it is not just some alumni who feel deeply and have spoken unkind words. If you have been reading Mr. Charles Wilson's blog, you know that there are harsh words coming from the the other side of the fence as well! This evening, I have been shocked at Mr. Wilson's latest words:

http://www.arptalk.org/2010/05/01/email-5-erskines-egregiously-execrable-executives/

While Mr. wilson has an amusing penchant for assonance, I find his comments to be absolutely out of line for an ARP minister, or a minister of ANY faith! I cannot find any hint of the Golden Rule in Mr. Wilson's comments. What Mr. Wilson has been saying and continues to say is singularly unhelpful!

This is especially so in light of the fact that the Erskine BoT and members of the Synod are seeking to hold quiet and prayerful discussions and seek a just resolution to the current situation. How can these inflammatory remarks by Mr. Wilson be helpful? Even the untempered posts that you point to on the Alumni site do not rise to this level of vitriol!

I hope that you and I can agree that these discussions are worthwhile. While we may differ in the outcome we each desire, I think you and I would be willing to join together in praying for a just outcome in this matter. May 1 at 9:59pm

Janis Cunningham Let's just say that I am not fond of inflammatory language from either side. And I certainly do pray for God's will to be done in this situation. God may want the ARP to focus more diligently on making Erskine a fine Christian institution of higher education or He may have other ministries to which ARP efforts and finances can be directed toward building the Kingdom. May 1 at 10:26pm

Tim Vaughan The best thing the ARP can do is to excommunicate the godless liberal swine who think they can act autonomously from the vows they took. Theological liberal hate Christ, so how on earth do you think they will take anyone's hand? They hate Christ. That's why they took their own church to court. It would be easier to make friends with a rattlesnake or a scorpion than those godless fools.
Yesterday at 6:23pm

John Randolph Harrison Just an example of more inflammatory rhetoric. It comes from both sides. Many on the Alumni site fanning the flames aren't currently ARP's and this kind of talk doensn't come from the family of ARP's that I grew up in or knew while a member of Centennial in the 50's through 70 or when I attended Erskine. I had a lot of relatives in the ARP church one was the director of BC in the 60's and I never heard anyone talk or act like this. 4 hours ago

Tim Vaughan Act like what? Running to a secular court when there is a church court available? Talking nice and stabbing in the back is what, civilized in your view? Please justify the secular court action in the most positive light you can. 3 hours ago

Tim Phillips As one of the ones with a knife in his back, I would like to ask that all of us refrain from inflammatory rhetoric on this site. I have read the alumni site from time to time, and while the discussion here is nowhere close in tone, we do not want to begin sinking to that level. I have been quite guilty of sarcasm myself, but please, in all sincerity, let's calm down a bit. 3 hours ago

Richard Johnson @Tim Vaughn. 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. about an hour ago

Tim Phillips [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.

[Temperance: Note that Tim Phillips deleted the comment by Richard Johnson and not the comments by Tim Vaughan. I’ll let you decide which comment is more inflammatory, but nobody can argue that Vaughan’s comment is not “rhetoric.” Why Tim Phillips removed the comment he disagreed with and not both comments we will never know.]

Richard Johnson Hey Tim, No one can question the church court, but Tim Vaughn can compare good Christians to snakes and scorpions, etc. That is exactly the point of this protest against the actons of the Synod. Bury your head in the sand if you wish. It doesn't change the facts of what is really happening here. I'm pretty sure you'll delete this as well. ".......where never is heard a discouraging word". It seems the discussion is fine as long as it conforms to your view.

[At this point the entire thread was removed – David Danehower offer of friendship and all.]

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!