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.

UpChuck (preliminary)

Update: Creepy! Just 15 minutes after I wrote this Tara Mauney wrote a similar piece on the Alumni Facebook group. Anyway, you should read hers too.

Full UpChuck later, but for now, a prediction:

Chuck wrote in Extra 12, “Finally, let us make sure that we have righteous nominees for the Board.”
I predict the slate of nominees proposed by Moderator deWitt will be approved by the Nominating Committee. I might be wrong, but that’s why it’s called a “prediction.” And if that happens – if five people appointed to the interim Board, including some Commissioners, are nominated to join the Board of Trustees (and if they are subsequently elected), Synod will have finally and truly finished everything.

I can think of no better way for Synod to destroy any hope of reconciliation than by nominating these five individuals. I can think of no better way to start reconciliation than by rejecting them. deWitt has made his move – Nominating Committee, you are about to make yours.

The Misery of the End, pt 1

Update: Corrected factual errors per comments. I suggest you read the Comments section for opposing views to those I’ve suggested here.

Mercifully, we approach the end.

The Commission has come and gone. It’s recommendations are in legal limbo. Erskine has a new President. It’s time to end this madness.

There are two immediate problems. First, nobody trusts Synod/ARP Church or nobody trusts the Board/Erskine/Alumni depending on who you think was wronged. And make no mistake about it – we all feel very, very wronged. So wronged that the Board started a lawsuit to see things restored to the way things were, and so wronged Synod appealed to see Erskine change from the way it was. There is no trust anymore, and trust must be restored before Erskine can heal.

Secondly, Erskine has a tremendous governance problem. We’ve been content to allow Synod the prerogative of appointing almost every Trustee on the Board for decades now. Synod runs this show and they still needed to fire half the Board to get their way. In other words things worked out pretty well so far. Our problem is that Synod cannot be trusted to keep up the status quo; now, Alumni fear, Synod will single-mindedly nominate trustees who will do exactly as they are told. Shazam! Erskine changes.

Trust must be restored. With trust must come compromise. And compromise here is one tough nut!

Improbability (Impossibility?) of Compromise

I have thought long and hard about how to compromise with the “other side.” I even jokingly suggested firing the other half of the Board, since we are verbally told the only thing that matters is size and not ideological composition. I don’t think that idea took very well.

Consider the vast difference in composition between us. Supporters of Synod are roughly unified about a common objective: upholding the actions of Synod in a fight against “doctrinal drift” (sorry, weasel words there but I don’t have a list of names). There is no universal agreement that Synod was wise to fire half the Board, but it was justified. Most importantly of all, convincing others and organizing is already accomplished – they control actions now through Synod. This is excellent: if Synod brokers a compromise everybody will accept it.

Those who oppose Synod are not unified in the slightest. Opposition to Synod’s action spans the entire gauntlet from either separation or reunification, a change in Erskine’s direction or no change in direction, Dr. Norman or no Dr. Norman, the same number of Synod-appointed trustees or fewer, and etc. Several blogs have arisen, the Facebook group is very active, and members who have never met each other face-to-face debate the finer aspects of church doctrine and missional fidelity with new “friends” living hundreds of miles apart. And none of them agree on what “should” be done. The only common denominator is the belief that Synod was royally stupid to force the issue last March.

Synod may compromise, but with who? The Alumni, Administration, and Faculty have enormous vested and intellectual interests here but no power. Only the Board has the authority to bargain with Synod (the Board that exists solely due to a restraining order that is under appeal by Synod as we speak). Realistically speaking, what chance does this Board have in compromise when considered “illegitimate” and “illegal” by the group they are trying to compromise with?

Worst still, Synod has no incentive to hurry. In the vanishingly small chance Synod wins their appeal or (more likely) the Plaintiffs withdraw their suit, the interim Board takes control and compromise will no longer be necessary. Synod then has no incentive to rush things, and indeed Chuck Wilson implores them to spend $600,000/year meant for Erskine on legal bills until the other side gives up or goes broke (the first is unlikely, the second ignorable). Every minutes hurts Erskine vastly more than it hurts Synod, and Synod is apparently content with an appeal that could take years.

And the final span in the vast canyon of compromise improbability? “There are irreconcilable and competing visions about the direction of the college and seminary among the members of the Erskine Board of Trustees.” The Preliminary Commission Report made it very clear why the Interim Board was necessary and it had nothing to do with size! Synod must compromise with the full Board of Trustees that includes all the Trustees who agree with Synod – roughly half the Board. How vast this canyon of disagreement really is!

Synod
---Roughly unified until moderates take stand against Commission

vs. Board of Trustees
---Half of Board opposed to Synod’s actions
-------Competing visions on Board for Erskine’s future governance
-----------Competing visions on Board for EC/Synod affiliation
---------------- & etc.

So the Board is divided between pro-Synod and anti-Synod, and divided again in how to oppose Synod. Such division makes agreement within the Board nearly impossible – not to mention brokering a compromise with Synod as well. And actually, this huge problem is not even the half of it! (To be discussed below).

Quick! Tell the Board to Compromise Surrender, already!

Put simply, Synod wants something. In order to compromise the Board must give them a bone, a steak, or an arm.

The problem is that we don’t know what will appease the Synodites. We must begin with the Commission report (after all, it’s what started this whole mess). There were four recommendations:

1. “Restructuring [shrinking] the Board”
2. Replacement Interim Board
3. Nomination process: Board of Trustees no longer has the role of suggesting nominees for service
4. Criteria for Trustees - “competent, independent, engaged”

Point one: immediately shrink the Board of Trustees. Possible compromise: shrink the Board of Trustees over a long period of time, say, six years. Uh, wait, the old Board suggested this. The only conceivable compromise over shrinking the Board was suggested – and rejected. Synod would have nothing to do with it.

Point two: Since we’re compromising an interim Board is not necessary because presumably we’ll make Synod happy. Though as mentioned previously the Commission did not exist to deal with governance alone, and firing Fourteen members had more to do with ideology than bodies. Since the law won’t allow group firings, members would need to resign.

Point Three: Nomination process. Legitimate source of controversy; the Board believed it should have the ability to non-bindingly recommend members. Let the Board win here. After all, they are non-binding recommendations. As in, I recommend you brush your teeth every night. Are we really going to wage war over shutting up your annoying mom?

Point Four: Criteria for Trustees. Everybody agree.

Four recommendations, two disagreements: an excellent compromise for the first point and a ludicrous #3 to fight over. And it wasn’t good enough.

So what will satiate them? A strict and literal reading of their demands (“aspirations”) is roughly outlined as three points in ARPTalk 21:

1. Erskine and Seminary must be faithful to The Philosophy of Higher Christian Education and mission statement
2. Erskine must “promote the goals, the welfare, the growth, and the unity of the ARP Church”
3. Erskine should realize “that the ARP Church owns the land upon which the institution sits.” – that “in its great generosity and sense of mission, the ARP Church has allowed Erskine to use the land on which Erskine College sits.” (Their generosity astounds me.)

Wilson cannot speak for all ARPs, of course, but since no Supporters of Synod are pounding down my doorframe denouncing the guy, I’ll assume he’s close to the mark. The Preliminary Report and SAFE Petition also speak to the above, primarily #1.

Expanding on these “aspirations” then, the Commission, Chuck Wilson, Supporters of Synod FB group, SAFE, etc seem want the following: to fire or force resignation of Crenshaw, Burnett, and Hering Bush for not affirming inerrancy. Get rid of the new professors who don’t uphold inerrancy. Mandate teaching of Creationism in Biology classes, as Mr. Wingate demanded (and hire new Biology professors when the current ones leave, as they would). Integrate faith and learning into each classroom (and to be quite honest, to this day I have no idea how you would do this beyond what is already being done. The Commissioners have said explicitly you cannot quantify it). Get rid of the troublesome administration – a few names have repeatedly been mentioned. And we know a dozen or so Board members are not wanted. (I can only assume this is what they want, but really, if these men teach or administer unacceptably, is there any way they can remain at Erskine? And so forth).

I would like to compromise – I really would. But compromise is difficult. Everybody agrees with the First Aspiration and differ only on execution. Since I have no idea what Synod would change about #1 I cannot offer anything in compromise. Compromise also means firing a lot of people. A whole lot. Justified? Maybe so, maybe not. But I feel a bit odd saying, “I’ll trade you Bill Crenshaw to withdraw the appeal” or “shrink Board immediately if you won’t fire O’Cain.” Gets awkward when you put names on it, doesn’t it? Is it right to bargain over these professors, administrators, and Trustees who, quite honestly, are doing the very best they can to make Erskine excellent? Is it right considering many do not believe Synod has the authority to demand such changes anyway? Yet Synod will presumably demand nothing less because these men and women have violated various principles held by the ARP Church such as inerrancy and run Erskine slightly differently than Synod desires. Aspiration #3 – Synod owns Erskine. You don’t compromise with the jewel in your crown.

Silly Board! Compromise Surrender already! Why do you refuse to work with Synod? Why can you not compromise? Stubborn Oxen!

Stubborn Oxen! The Board That Just Won’t Stop Compromising

I am reminded of the years just before World War II when Hitler demanded – and was freely given – many territories in Europe. The Rhineland. Austria. Czechoslovakia. None were sufficient – in fact, together whole countries and regions were not sufficient to satisfy him. Hitler wanted more. He carved up Poland because of this insatiable thirst for land. World War II was the result.

Germany pushing over Europe

Synod is no little Hitler (let me say that again – Synod is no little Hitler!), but the analogy roughly stands. I feel a bit like Poland. Synod has been demanding change at Erskine for decades. And always the Board listens and always the Board is right to do so. No, Chuck Wilson-ites have not received everything they asked for, but they’re pretty darn close. Erskine is, at least, as conservative as it used to be, and at most, much more conservative than it used to be. Bill Crenshaw himself admits he would never be hired today. The idea that Erskine is slowly drifting leftward doctrinally is sensationalism. The Erskine of today is more conservative than the Erskine of yesteryear.

(You quoted me here, right? Synod is no Hitler!)

The Synod passed a few statements on Christian Higher Education and so forth in the late 1970s. As late as 2007-2008 the Board rewrote the mission statement to make it even clearer what Erskine’s mission is – a move strongly supported by those opposed to the Board today. Charlatans, says Synodites, but you cannot argue that the Board didn’t pay attention to Synod’s demand of missional fidelity (they differed in application only). Repeatedly over thirty years the Board has tried to keep Erskine a liberal arts Christian college.

And succeeded! Erskine is a strong liberal arts college! The Mission statement is upheld! I have yet to see the mission statement not be upheld! In my opinion, Erskine realizes its mission statement and integrates faith and learning excellently. I’ve blogged about this before and will gladly blog about it again if asked. Synod told the Board to enforce the mission statement. In the opinion of this anonymous blogger who either has no “balls” or is a faithful SAFE disciple, Erskine has done so. Somebody, please, give me an example of a lack of integration of faith and learning. Despite a Commission dedicated to this very principle I have yet to see it.

Appeasement recently culminated in a requirement that each professor sign a statement swearing to believe in the inerrancy of scripture. This seems an odd requirement in that many confessing Christians do not hold this belief and that understanding many disciplines does not require inerrancy of scripture. Notice that I do not say I disagree with inerrancy; I simply say that whether Dr. Crenshaw agrees doesn’t matter a great deal when teaching English.

But regardless, never forget two things: the Board followed Synod’s directive to the letter, Dr. Ruble enforced the requirement to the best of his ability (CURSE the man for not being a mind-reader!), and today every recent hire at Erskine has sworn to believe inerrancy. Synod had no real authority to force this mandate; they relied on the Board to listen and do as they were told. This is about as close to “Czechoslovakia” as it comes.

The Board obeyed Synod despite the legitimate arguments to not do so, namely: that while inerrancy might be popular among reformed theologians, the number of excellent professors teaching Biology, Chemistry, Physics, History, Art, Sociology, and every other discipline imaginable is far less. If a criteria of “accept inerrancy or else” is given the topmost priority, many fully qualified, fully competent, and excellent teachers that would gladly teach at Erskine will be turned away. We might get lucky a few times, but statistically, the quality of professors at Erskine will decrease. This is inarguable; the Board knew of this argument and apparently believed obeying Synod was more important. Czechoslovakia.

Again, my point here is not that inerrancy is wrong, nor that professors are any better who deny the tenant. No, my argument is that in this the Board yet again upheld Synod’s demands.

Then the Commission was formed and eventually demanded the Board to shrink itself immediately, and a couple other requests, or else you’re fired!** The Board counter-offered (i.e. compromised) to shrink over six years. This is remarkable; the Board believed itself to own Erskine and Synod technically had no authority to demand anything or any change in the Bylaws of the Board. It would be as if the Board of Erskine told Synod to fire Moderator DeWitt and shrink the denomination by 50 churches; the Board has no authority and Synod is not forced to obey. Synod rejected the six-year counteroffer (“my way or the highway”) and fired half the Board to get their way (Poland!)

** SIDEBAR **
“Do what we say or we’ll fire you!” This fact was pointed out to me in a comment a few posts ago, and indeed, the Aquila Report is perfectly clear on this point. You realize what I said, right? The Commission told the Board to make their changes or they would be fired. I called this “blackmail” before. Another term is “coercion.” I hope somebody will email the original document if it still exists.
** END SIDEBAR **

We have here a Board that might have dropped the ball spectacularly in their achievements, depending on your point of view, but that inarguably tried to acquiesce to Synod’s will over and over again (and were right to do so!). Compromise! More incredibly, compromise with a body that firstly, does not own the institution, secondly, appoints Trustees at the free will of the Board, and thirdly, has no legal authority over Erskine except for historical precedent and the good-will of the Board. I may tell my coworkers to cook me dinner each night, but they would do so under their own volition. So too with the Board.

But seriously, at some point you’ve got to say “enough is enough.” Poland! After all this acquiescing Synod calls the Board stiff-necked? Seriously? See – no matter how correct the Board was to listen to Synod, appeasement never gets you anywhere. There is always more. Eventually you go too far, demand too much.

None of this changes the enormous problems with compromise today originating within the Board, and of course all of this occurred before Synod fired half of them. Presumably the Board would be more divided now and less likely to bend to Synod’s demands. But never let it be said the Board is deaf. They listened to Synod imperfectly, but plenty. Plenty.

Stubborn Mule! The Synod That Just Won’t Compromise!

Excellent! The Board is clearly willing to compromise. Heck, they even wrote a document begging for reconciliation a few weeks ago. Any takers?

“Sadly, the board of the Alumni Association has made clear their contempt for the ARP Church, the deliberative processes of its courts, and its vision for Erskine.  While I hope that some repair of that breach is possible, as one member of the General Synod [and a Commissioner], I don't see what the Synod needs to do to compromise.” – Paul Mulner, Commissioner (emphasis added)

This quote from Ask a Commissioner was written before the “reconciliation” letter I mentioned above, but as far as I know nothing has changed. The opinion of Commissioners and the ruling body of Synod believed two things very clearly: they should (or ought to) be in control of Erskine through the Board of Trustees, and secondly, they own Erskine. I’ve already quoted the Commission reports that state unequivocally that Synod owns Erskine. Then we have ARP Talk which states no fewer than four times that Synod owns Erskine (ARPTalk 4, 21, 25, and Extra 6).

Please understand: this is why Synod refuses to compromise. In their opinion, compromise is ludicrous. We own Erskine or We ought to be able to control Erskine through the Board they say. Why compromise with your employer? Do what we tell you or we’ll find somebody who will. When slowed down in transforming Erskine quickly, Synod (rightly) balked. As with my own possessions, Synod believes it may do whatever it wants to its college. Stupid, wise, or indifferent, Synod owns the thing and Synod will do what it wants!

As documented previously on this blog, Chuck Wilson no longer believes that Synod owns Erskine directly; we might infer this belief is now rampant among Synodites. This is a substantial victory for the anti-Synod crowd. But regardless, Synod still believes it has the legal and historical authority to control Erskine (hence the legal appeal).

Until this belief changes – until Synod accepts that Erskine owns itself, governs itself, and obeys Synod as a courtesy and not by coercion – then Synodites will see every compromise as unnecessary, every concession a knife in their side, and every employee rejecting strict inerrancy as a painful and unnecessary surrender of Biblical principles. No, Synod will never willingly give up Erskine to doctrinal drift when they believe they own it and control it.

If Synod did own Erskine, I couldn’t blame them.

But do they?

 

Weekend: The distraction called a “compromise proposal” and why it was released, why Chuck Wilson is absolutely right, insight into what Chuck knows that he shouldn’t but that would be unbelievable if true, and how I believe trust can be restored.

 

*Since I recognize that some will misinterpret my historical example above, let me spell it out clearly: Synod is not like Hitler! But appeasement/surrender has been exercise here just like Europe from 1935-1939. It is appeasement, not Nazi Germany, to which I make reference.

About those Emergency Synod Minutes…

Many people out there in ARPLand/Erskineland would dearly love to get their hands on the Minutes to the Emergency meeting of Synod.

Well, so would I!

Thanks to a contributor, we know how to do so. Because the Emergency Synod was not an executive session, the minutes are not “secret” and will be freely available in September in printed form co-joined with the Summer Synod, and in digital form available via email.

Physical copies cost a few dollars each and will presumably be mailed or available for pickup at the ARP Office.

Digital copies are available online free of charge from Paul Bell, the Executive Director of Synod, at pbell@arpsynod.org.

My question then is this: the minutes are already written. Why prevent their release on the internet now?

The meeting of Synod was only two days, and minutes are effectively written when the meeting is over, anyway. We are in our third month since the meeting – it is high time to let us see the minutes. Attendance at the Emergency Synod was lower than normal meetings; shouldn’t church representatives get a chance to read the official recording of what happened? Shouldn’t members who were there get a refresher in the motions made, speeches given, and votes taken? Shouldn’t their congregations get a chance to see what happened and send their pastors off with full knowledge?

Think of all the incredible events occurring this Summer at Synod: a heresy trial, the lawsuit, and possibly restructuring the entire governance of Erskine. It seems a little bit important to know what happened to bring all this about!

In the entire history of the ARP Church has a Synod EVER met without having the minutes from the previous Synod? I sincerely doubt it.

Internet distribution costs nothing. I believe the minutes should be released online now, before the Summer meeting of Synod to allow proper discussion among the delegates.

What do you think?

 

Tomorrow: How To Compromise