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

My Submission to ARPTALK*

[The following is humor. Please keep that in mind as you read].

Dear Rev. Dr. Charles Wilson,

Hi, long time reader, thought I'd share a few words. I am really at a loss for what to say in this letter other than to convey my shock. The thing I'm the most frightened about is that Erskine College is morally debased and has no convictions of right or wrong. But there's the rub; I myself cannot compromise with Erskine College; it is without principles. I cannot reason with it; it is without reason. But I can warn it and with a warning it must unquestionably take to heart: Erskine College must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Erskine College accuses us of admitting that its opinions represent the opinions of the majority—or even a plurality. What I actually said is that the biggest difference between me and Erskine College is that Erskine College wants to destroy the natural beauty of our Christian education system.

There's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will surely persist as long as Erskine College continues to abet a resurgence of laughable exhibitionism. Erskine College's attitude is indubitably, "You don't agree with me; therefore, you must be a foul-mouthed flimflammer". Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that it's easy to tell if it's lying. If its lips are moving, it's lying. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice - especially Erskine College's macabre form of it - is. I, in turn, insist that Erskine College believes that it commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. That's just wrong.

It may not be within the scope of this letter to encourage people to restore the world back to its original balance, but I would like to mention that we are a church of prostitutes. By this I mean that as long as we are fat, warm, and dry we don't care what Erskine College does. It is precisely that lack of caring that explains why from secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, Erskine College's fans have always found a way to generate an epidemic of corruption and ecclesiastical unrest.

If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. Erskine College is out to flout all of Synod's rules. And when we play its game, we become accomplices. It's not just the lunatic fringe that's in Erskine College's corner; a number of previously respectable people have begun backing it. Erskine College's fusillades sound so noble, but in fact Erskine College's opinion is that the existence and perpetuation of hooliganism is its own moral justification. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that Erskine College wants to prevent us from calling for a return to the values that made this school great. If it manages to do that, it'll have plenty of time to focus on its core mission: gagging the innocent accused of protesting obstructionism-motivated prosecutions. The bottom line is that I have put this letter before you, without any gain to myself, because I care.

Sincerely,

Temperance Dogood

 

*** Almost good enough for ARPTalk, huh? Humor generated automatically online at http://www.pakin.org/complaint. I thought it was pretty funny. I added the first sentence (“long-time reader”), changed the subjects (Erskine College/ARP Church/”ecclesiastical unrest”) erased a sentence that didn’t make any sense, and added bolding. Everything else was original. Go auto-generate your own!

UpChuck! – ARP Talk Extra 11

[A new series, “[Look the Facts] Up,Chuck!”, posted soon after I find out about each new ARP Talk missive. Because truth is not much harder to write about than fiction.]

Today: ARPTalk Extra 11, an amalgamation of old issues already covered on this blog and a few new issues. I’ll cover the new stuff.

2. “No competent person who understand what an evangelical Christian is will call EC/ETS distinctively evangelical Christian.” I begin to question my own competency since I clearly believe Erskine is evangelically Christian. Oh dear. But let me get this straight: every administrator for 35 years ignored and subverted the mission of EC? Huh? John Carson? Don Weatherman? These are two examples from this decade that are admired to no end by Synod-supporters. Not to mention editorializing “subverted.” There are no differences of opinion in Chuck-world: you either do what he thinks is Erskine’s mission, or you are a dirty rotten subverter.

4. Tenure is a terrible system that I despise. Go figure. My problem here is not the conclusion, but Chuck’s apparent ignorance as to why Erskine has a tenure system at all (it’s certainly not to increase faculty productivity). Secondly, Chuck is so blinded by rage that he never bothers to figure out who is publishing/researching/etc and who is not. I know faculty are contributing far more than he lets on. Chuck, maybe you should compile a list for us instead of weasel words like “scant” and “some.” Let us know what you find.

5. “A faculty that very largely rejects the faith of the Church they were hired to promote.” Actually, pastors promote the ARP Church; faculty promote teaching and Erskine and the BoT. I know this is confusing. I am “very largely” hesitant to challenge Chuck’s gut feeling that Erskine professors are godless atheists (or worse, Methodists), but humor me here. Does he have a list? Or do we just know it is a lot?

Did you catch what he said, though? “In a sane world, the BoT owns and operates Erskine College and Seminary in trust for the ARP Church.” What a striking contrast to the Commission reports and Mr. Wingate’s answers at Erskine when this all started! In case you have forgotten, the Commission report said, “The ARP Church owns and operates Erskine College and Seminary through the trustees it appoints,” and in the complete report, the ARP Church “owns Erskine and appoints its board.” Enjoy the little things, my friends.

6. “The Scandal of Erskine is a president who uses bifurcated disingenuousness in dealing with a personnel issue.” Uh oh, somebody’s snitching again. Now Chuck knows the “private” communications of Dr. Ruble. Chuck’s right of course: we should immediately fire Dr. Crenshaw for unsubstantiated and unproven allegations of intimidation in the classroom. This is illegal, but that didn’t stop Synod in March!

8. How exactly is Dr. Ruble to blame for fiscal mismanagement that occurred under Dr. Carson’s presidency. I’m not even going to try to figure that out.

9. The election of Ruble by one vote is not a scandal; that’s called “majority rule.” Election by half a vote would be a scandal.

10. Wait, Chuck attacks Scott Mitchell for starting the lawsuit, and then for withdrawing the lawsuit? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

11. Matthew 18:6 - “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Such a fate is clearly deserved for Dr. Crenshaw and all the other faculty, as Chuck writes, for Crenshaw winning the Younts Excellence in Teaching Award. When, exactly, did Dr. Crenshaw cause a “little one” to sin? That’s a pretty heady accusation to make, in my opinion.

12. Dr. Ruble is blamed for the current “divide” between the ARP Church and Erskine. Hm. I’m pretty sure the divide is “great” and “contentious” because of the Commission and firing the Board of Trustees – not because Ruble kept a balanced budget and increased student enrollment. Just a thought. Although blaming Ruble for all of our problems does seem like a Christian thing to do (and so convenient!).

13. Fiscal mismanagement in Admissions. Follow the budget, people. Also, I think it’s hilarious that “as far as anybody knows” means “nobody has snitched to me yet about it, so it hasn’t occurred.” Wow. Center of the universe, much?

15. The ARP Talk Editor is one of the few people who can transform a volunteer spirit, generous attitude, and commitment to one’s academic field into a criticism. Yes, Dr. Alston is on the Jump Rope committee or whatever it is. For the (third) time in your magazine, we know you’re “not making this up.” Until ARPTalk Extra 12…

16. Wow. Burnett and Hering control the Seminary. Didn’t see that one coming. And remade the Seminary in their image? Unbelievable. It’s like – it’s like nobody can stop them. You stare into their eyes and… can’t… resist… rejecting… inerrancy. (Picture of Dr. Burnett by Carvaggio)

20. Agreed! It’s important to blacklist hymns at Erskine. Next up: “A Mighty Fortress is Our God.” I hear the author challenged Church authority. Shame on him!

 

Regarding the last sentence of the issue, “simper” means “to smile coyly.” I’m not sure what this has to do with a “shallow stream” and Erskine – I think he might mean “whimper.” Actually, the entire analogy is false because the scandal of Erskine is supposed to be a roaring waterfall drowning anything in its path and not a weak coy smile flowing slowly along.

Anyway, a better sentence would be, “THE SCANDAL OF THE ARP CHURCH will continue roaring along like a deep river if Chuck Wilson continues to make personal attacks and baseless accusations.” I understand the opinion that Erskine is not correctly following its mission statement; this is something we can argue about and (hopefully) solve. What I do not understand is the illogic (example: blaming Dr. Ruble for things he had no control over), the lack of attention to detail (ex: how many professors publish?), the sensationalistic accusations (ex: Dr. Burnett and Hering control the seminary?), and the ludicrous personal attacks (ex: Dr. Alston and jump rope) that characterize Chuck Wilson’s writings.

 

Tomorrow! My own submission to ARP Talk, published on this blog, where I reveal Erskine College to be the den of asps we all know it to be.

Congrats, Dr. Norman!

[I wrote this on Saturday, but something went wrong posting it and, well, here it is. Sorry].

Dr. David A. Norman was elected by the Board of Trustees this past Friday by a unanimous vote; thanks to the lawsuit, the Board that elected him was not an interim Board but was instead the original, duly elected, legitimate Board of Erskine College and Seminary. He was selected by the presidential selection committee with the highest praise; this committee consists of individuals on either side of the proverbial fence. We must not forget that.

Had Synod never met in March, had the Commission never been formed, had a lawsuit never been filed, we all would be sitting in our own little corners of the world interested in, but detached from, the selection of our next Erskine president. We trusted the Board of Trustees before all this began; we can do nothing else but trust them now.

I have cautioned repeatedly against secrecy and speed; indeed, had a document not been leaked to the Aquila Report and reposted on this blog, nobody outside of Erskine officials and faculty would have known Dr. Norman was the elected pick. I hesitate to even include the faculty on this list – his introduction to them was bizarre and circumspect. We (the Internet) certainly would not have known about the choice until it was over, or nearly so. This goes contrary to good logic and precedent where organized student groups, faculty groups, and administrators would meet with the candidate and discuss extensively his vision for Erskine, definitions on hot topics, and so forth. Indeed, the first selection of the search committee before Dr. Ruble was picked was rejected based in no small degree on discussions with these focused groups.

I wrote that I wanted to find out everything there was to know about Dr. Norman, and many thanks to all that emailed to help me out individually, and publicly on the Facebook groups. I have heard many good things about this man, and many alumni, pastors, and students are supportive of him.

He has an exceptional academic background, experience in leadership, good contacts, a devoted Christian, a solid thinker, strong commitment to excellence in learning and Christ, and seems able to interact well with students and know what they need to excel. He is clearly ambitious and talented, and Erskine is poised where a strong president who knows how to focus the school after this recent disaster can really turn things around. We are not guaranteed success with Dr. Norman, but we are certainly not guaranteed failure.

Consider two things. First, Synod will appoint five new Board members in June; would you rather a Board plush with the possible addition of the Moderator’s own selection, pick the presidential candidate? Second, who would we wait for? Several serious candidates were considered and rejected. The Committee probably had no other immediate choices. Erskine is certainly not in a position to drift aimlessly with an interim president – or worse, without a president at all. And again, at some point the Board is going to have to vote on a candidate.* Are you willing to let some future Board of unknown composition make this decision?

*Presuming Synod does not discover “SC non-profit law” allows direct appointment of presidents. Just kidding (I hope)!

The selection of Dr. Norman was by no means ordinary, and the methodology was certainly was not desirable. But his election (which, by the way, was probably 98% sure when that document was released) starts a new page in Erskine’s future. Supporters of Synod seem glad to with join him in celebration; alumni seem just as excited. How unexpected – the first things we have all agreed upon was the selection of a president, potentially the most contentious decision since March. I believe this bodes well for the future.

I’m sure we have a lot to editorialize about in the coming weeks – I for one have many concerns and, more importantly, many question marks on what exactly Dr. Norman intends to do and what his vision for Erskine is. There is certainly a lot to write about! Fundamentally, will he side with the Synod of March 2010 or with Erskine as it had been? That is a central question we can’t answer for some time to come. But in my opinion Dr. Norman could – might – hopefully – bring about the best scenario of all: a self-described “nuanced” individual who can set firm goals for integration of faith and learning to convert enough moderates in Synod to his side (thus taking away power from the radicals). And at the same time will keep Erskine strongly liberal arts and self-governing without replaced Boards and other shenanigans, and so will win the support of the Alumni. Without a reason to fight the lawsuit will die and Erskine will slowly, gradually, return to normal. This is my hope, my prayer.

Congratulations, Dr. Norman! Good luck and godspeed! Heaven knows we need you.

The Third Hallmark

“The third hallmark of an effective board is that it ensures that the mission of the institution, as set forth in its mission statements and other governing instruments, is accomplished.” – The Commission Report

(Continuing from Introduction – Won’t Fool All of Us (First Hallmark) and The Second Hallmark)

And now the most obvious Hallmark of them all!

The immediate impetus for the Commission was the presentation of students at Synod with a petition and video asking for Synod to investigate Erskine (Students Aligned for a Faithful Erskine and the video), though Commissioners will remind you the desire had been growing for some time. Some students claimed Erskine was intimidating, but nearly all said Erskine was not living up to its mission statement. Their secret petition said, “As evangelicals we are a minority* in the classroom, on the campus,** and in committee meetings,*** and so our appeals at Erskine for greater faithfulness to its mission have not been answered. … We appeal to you, as the leaders of the Church, for your help.” (emphasis added)

*Untrue
**Untrue
***Untrue.

Anybody who knows a whit about Erskine College and this controversy will undoubtedly say this hallmark is the reason why we fight. All the justifications I listed earlier – and a dozen more, probably – have to do with this. Integration of faith and learning that SAFE wants so badly. Ending the alleged “culture of intimidation” as Daniel Wells insists. Stopping “doctrinal drift” of faculty and administrators. Making everybody swear to affirm inerrancy. Teaching Creationism as Mr. Wingate told the Greenville News he demands. &etc &etc. All these justifications are about the day-to-day operation of Erskine and the Mission statement. It is no secret that members of Synod – and vocal sidekicks like Chuck Wilson – think Erskine has wandered far afield. Didn’t the Commission take up that charge?

No, the Commissioners at Erskine shunned this point entirely! In fact, they explicitly said this Hallmark had nothing to do with the Commission at all. A man asked during the Q-and-A session, “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.”

Wingate quickly added: “Let me just add in follow-up, as Dr. DeWitt has said, the purpose and reach of the Commission is not to change day-to-day life at the ground level. It is to make sure the Board of Trustees and the business management of the life of the institution are accountable to the ARP Church. ... Your president is the shepherd.” (emphasis added)

A follow-up answer here is quite odd; in fact, this is the only follow-up answer given during the entire two hours of Q-and-A. Wingate seemed to step over himself to quickly follow-up on DeWitt’s answer. Why? I frankly don’t know precisely, but I have a pretty good guess. Notice how Wingate’s answer is far clearer as to Synod’s control over the Board and its impact on campus life. DeWitt’s answer shut the door entirely on interference with campus life “or anything of that kind.” saying the Commission was concerned only with Board governance from the beginning. Wingate left the door open to acknowledge the Commission's interest in campus life and recommended changes.

In other words, DeWitt blatantly contradicted his Commission’s report. This is significant.

DeWitt primarily (and Wingate to a lesser degree) make two devastating errors here: they suggest the Commission was formed to look at how the Board works rather than what it does, and that members were not interested one iota in campus life. Both are falsehoods.

Synod cannot directly control Erskine and campus life, but they can appoint Trustees to do it for them. The impetus for creating the Commission and its formal assignment were both centered on campus life. The Commission's charge was “to investigate whether the oversight exercised by the Board of Trustees and the Administration of Erskine College and Seminary are in faithful accordance with the Standards of the ARP Church and the synod's previously issued directives.” You cannot argue that altering campus life (including classroom lectures, administrators and faculty positions, convocation, etc) are not part of this charge. Students surely didn’t form SAFE just to see the Board resized. In fact, nobody would care whether the Board was too large if Synod was happy; Synod is unhappy and so the Board is examined. In a very real sense then, “too large” is just an explanation for a Board that doesn’t do precisely what Synod wants.

Perhaps more damning for the Commissioners’ statements above is their own report. The Third Hallmark mentions nothing about governance – rather, it speaks of upholding the Mission statement of Erskine. If the Commission acted solely on board composition and governance, as DeWitt said, most of the two Commission reports would never have been included. Statements on the Culture of Intimidation? Irrelevant. Competing visions for Erskine among the Board members and the administration? Irrelevant. Why interview so many on campus about integration of faith and learning? Irrelevant. The entire Third Hallmark? Irrelevant!

Why add paragraph after paragraph of irrelevant material? No, Mr. DeWitt and Mr. Wingate, based on your own report and the students you paraded in front of Synod last year, I believe the Commission had far greater ambitions than you verbally admit to.

This issue – the Third Hallmark – is why Chuck Wilson writes, why SAFE organized, why Bill Evans and Paul Patrick agitated, why Supporters of Synod Facebook group exists, why the Synod itself churned for these last, infamous 30 years of “inaction.” Why the Commission interviewed 80 people about life at Erskine (or 150 people – they claimed both). Not size. Not finances. Not efficiency. Mission statement. Integration of Faith and Learning. Third Hallmark.

To suggest that the Commission never once considered the drastic change to campus life upon restructuring the Board plays us all for fools. As I said before, their chutzpah is getting us into trouble. We’ll lose Erskine before they’ve finished with it.

The suspension of belief does not end there.

“The Commission finds that the ARP’s directives have not been satisfied, even though this discussion has taken place regularly over the course of the last thirty years.” – the Commission Report

The Third Hallmark is a matter of opinion. Perhaps Erskine really was unfaithful to Synod’s directives, perhaps Erskine is the cesspool of liberalism and “Baal cult” worship as Chuck says, and perhaps those who started the lawsuit are “terrorists” who “bombed” the ARP Church and are deserving of heresy charges, along with a boatload of other people. Perhaps SAFE students felt intimidated by a professor or two and feel that Erskine is not safe enough for them. Perhaps Erskine is tracking to the left and these administrators are to blame and making their lives miserable is their just deserts and they need to just do their job like they’re paid to do and shut up and work…

Is Erskine faithful to its mission, or not? We must each decide. But here the question is irrelevant: Commissioners felt Erskine was unfaithful and restructured Erskine because of it. Agree or not with the conclusion, we must all understand exactly what happened. Nothing to do with campus life? Sheesh!

Integration of faith and learning is one of the most important things we can do at Erskine. Following the mission statement is crucial. Hiring excellent professors and keeping accurate finances are as well. Each of us should always work to see God honored in everything we do – even in class.

But the simple truth is this: Christians are not an undesirable caste at Erskine, professors do not browbeat students’ faith until it pours out of them, and every year many – perhaps a majority – of Biology majors find problems with pure evolution. Professors teach their subject, their faith, and how the two reconcile. You receive an excellent “secular” education to compete in this world and an excellent integration of that amoral knowledge into our Christianity. I have absolutely no doubt that administrators, professors, and students at Erskine are more dedicated to helping each other, more kind during times of difficulty, and more connected than at perhaps any other college or university in America. “Forever Connected in Christ, Learning, Life.” Sounds pretty good to me. But never forget that slogan is one of the reasons SAFE organized and Synod churned. It ignores the mission statement, you see.

We are left wondering, as always, what is expected and what will satisfy. To this day I have no idea, and I certainly have a better chance than most.

Conclusion

For the first time in my memory, Erskine made the front page of the Greenville News this year. It wasn’t about Erskine’s excellent academics or student success, either. Whether legal or illegal, this one action had far-reaching and unintended repercussions a blind man could have seen.

Admissions is down. A budget surplus will quickly turn into a budget deficit. Lawsuits and appeals work their way through the system, threatening to damage Synod’s already stretched resources and diverting already scarce resources away from Erskine. Charges of heresy will come before Synod this summer against those who stood up against what happened. And much more. Politics is never pretty; politics in the Church is disastrous.

Commissioners didn’t see the same Erskine the rest of us see. They interviewed 80 people (or 150) who all said roughly the same thing: Erskine is excellent, integration of faith and learning happens, we are intimidated by the ARP Church. Read the faculty and student interviews to see for yourself. And the Commission concluded  that “ARP’s directives have not been satisfied.” Hence the ax.

The great irony is, Synod appoints five new trustees each year. In just three short years they could have completely reworked the Board and done essentially whatever they wanted to. They had this power; Erskine gave it to them. Yet in one deft stroke of impatience they demanded their way and their theology and their Board members and dare not stand in their way!

Think of all the students who will never experience the excellent college called Erskine because they were scared away by all this. Where will they go? What an opportunity to minister and teach that is lost! Think of all the excellent faculty who will leave, or never apply at all, because of this. Think of the presidential candidates scared off by this disaster. Think of the money that was lost, the strife among friends, and the never-ending litigation that with the appeal will continue for years (?) to come.

All of this caused by a well-intentioned but misguided Synod who believed “SC non-profit law” allowed them to fire half the Board of Trustees in order to see their vision of Erskine realized instantly.

Whether Synod broke the law will take years to decide. Whether they broke morality was decided some time ago.

Three Hallmarks. Three reasons. We know clearly why the Fourteen were fired. This was all started one way; it must be stopped another way entirely. Without spite, without fear-mongering, without illegality, without personal attacks, without invective, without lies, but with calm and unyielding assurance in what is right. Things must change.

These are my thoughts.

 

On the Road to Synod,

Temperance Dogood

The Second Hallmark

“The second hallmark of a strong and effective board is that it is independent from the administration. The Board is to establish policy and set guidelines for the mission of the institution, and then exercise the proper amount of oversight by asking the hard questions.” – The Commission Report

(Continuing from Introduction – Won’t Fool All of Us)

There is no doubt here: an independent Board is essential for proper oversight of Erskine College and Seminary. Commissioners want an “independent, competent, and engaged” board. So do I.

Ah! But independence is not the whole story. The Board must also be subservient to Synod. They demanded a change to the bylaws, removed trustees who opposed them, and ordered the remaining trustees to obey them. Is this independence? This sets a dangerous precedent; what will Synod demand next? Independence from the Administration is absolutely important, but independence (of a kind) from Synod is just as important. Trustees must balance the good of the College with the will of Synod – this disagreement was ignored and roadblocks thrown to the side. Is this independence? Or is Synod a demi-god with absolute power?

Synod has a role over the Board – they appoint Trustees! But in my opinion Synod does not have the authority to demand outright obedience. Please never forget that Trustees never once disobeyed Synod even before the reconstitution – whatever Synod demanded the Board accepted, albeit with modifications. Shrink us? OK – over six years. Statement of inerrancy from new professors? Fine by us. Emphasize integration of faith and learning? Sure thing, boss. Intimidate students? Oh right, the Board had nothing to do with that. In all these things the Board has followed Synod’s commands. Not perfectly, not quickly, and not to the extent that Chuck wants. But never disobedience. Whether I agree with Synod’s power is irrelevant – the Board agreed with Synod’s power and worked with them almost perfectly. The Board was not taking Erskine to a place it’s never been. No, we’ll leave that to Synod.

Of course how do we know the new Board will even listen to Synod? After all, Synod lacks the authority to force the Board to vote a certain way. A Female questioner asked at the Q-and-A session: "How do ya'll come about having assurance that this new interim board will pass the changes [to Board structure].” Wingate replied, “Because they are charged by the Synod; their direction when they were elected was to go do this. So, they were told: 'do this.'" And if they don’t? They’ll be dismissed and not reappointed again. I call this “blackmail” and consider it worthy and noble for a, well, nobody.

One adventurous female student asked, “We now have a new board that, for lack of a better term, is almost a puppet board. How can you assure us that the new president [the interim board will pick] will be picked for the greater good of the student body and not [just] for the good of the Church?” Her point is simple: if the Board is forced to obey Synod, can they act with any autonomy at all?

Wingate responded, “I would defy anyone to look at that list of individuals [on the new board] and say 'Here's a bunch of puppets.’ If you know those individuals they are anything but 'puppets.' They are strong-minded, experienced, committed individuals.”

Female: “But if you're telling them what to do...”

Wingate: “In one regard [only]. The only thing at all that was directed is that there would be a vote to downsize the board from 34 to 16 members.”

This is true – we only know of one public command to the Interim Board. But what of the commands we don’t know about? What of commands that might be sent tomorrow, a week from now, or next month? Once one command is sent – do this or you will be dismissed – future blackmail is all but certain.

They were puppets. Pawns. Do none of them have a problem with that?

And now we come to it – the prime example of Board malfeasance, the smoking gun that shows the Board in bed with the administration!

“The Commission finds that there have been a number of financial
irregularities and administrative failures which underscore the lack of oversight by the Board.”

Huh?

That’s it? That’s the only example you have of the Board sleeping with the administration? We found out in court that not a single current Trustee served when these alleged “irregularities” occurred! By this logic, we should fire Chancellor Merkel for the crimes of Hitler, Putin for the crimes of Stalin, or Dr. Ruble for fiscal mismanagement that occurred under Dr. Carson’s presidency at Erskine. Each case makes just as much sense as removing trustees that had nothing to do with what happened (or did not happen) in the past. Blaming the current Board – and removing a select few members for it – is crock.

That’s all, folks. This is their only example of Board subservience to the administration. They give no more examples – there are no more to give. Always the Board has stood over the administration to set rules and regulations. I’ll discuss later Synod’s disagreement with Board decisions, but the Board did act independently from Administration demands. And so this Second Hallmark is absolutely important – and absolutely already followed.

I have no fears about Board independence from the administration – but we should all fear the “blackmail” of Synod! What will they think of next?

 

Tomorrow: The Third and Final Hallmark (the most amazing one of all)

Won’t Fool All of Us - Not This Time (First Hallmark)

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” - Abraham Lincoln

How many justifications have we seen for firing select Board members? I have discussed many already on this blog (in Part 1 and Part 2), and in summary,  none really sets the Fourteen apart from the remaining Sixteen. I’ve also mentioned the unbelievably small chance of firing a specific fourteen men and women out of thirty. Some criterion must have been used to pick one group out of the whole, though so far, that criterion eludes us.

I will rely on the Commission to tell us what happened.

I have quite a bit of help, actually. Commissioners wrote two reports discussing their findings, published quite a few words on the Ask a Commissioner blog, and most helpful of all, came to Erskine to answer questions the week following the Emergency Meeting of Synod. An anonymous contributor has provided me with a tape recording of this event; therefore, quotes provided in this document are verbatim transcripts of that meeting.

The Commissioners were shockingly candid in some respects, but perhaps more telling is what they did not elaborate on. I shall discuss both.

First, a Brief History

Recall that the idea to remove trustees is certainly not recent – the idea has been around since before a “shrink the board” mantra started. I quoted Rev. Tim Phillips a few weeks ago, who wrote on a forum last year:

Of course, most of the folks in the ARP are pretty much fed up by this time. Someone has suggested that the entire Board needs to be disbanded, a new composition devised, and new Board members appointed. I don't see that happening, but it is an interesting suggestion. Part of the problem is that there are folks on the Erskine Board who do not need to be on the Board, imho.

Please note: I do not say the Commissioners were prejudiced initially or even finally (this will be covered on this blog soon), but the idea that nobody thought about restructuring the Board is silly.

More to the point, Commissioners and their supporters cite the 1977 Synod statement on higher learning and its subsequent revisions as proof positive that Synod did not act hastily in March. This is true, though one might question whether, after waiting thirty years to get super-serious, they were right to speedily meet four months before the General Synod met. Of course, after waiting 392 months to fix Erskine, those four extra months were clearly too much to bear.

Moreover, the Commission report was not released weeks or months before the emergency meeting as is customary; ostensibly this was to protect people’s reputation (a refreshing attitude), but since we were going to find out everything at Synod anyway, why the wait? It is my opinion that offering enough time for lengthy consideration and deep prayer was the higher priority. As it was, the Emergency Synod voted just 24 hours after receiving the complete Report; after 11956 days of waiting to "fix” Erskine, one more day truly was like a thousand years.

What did the Commission actually do?

I am a creature of habit; when Christian men I respect speak I try to accept it. But we have been given a bitter pill in to swallow. Commissioners spoke extensively that Synod did not fire any trustees, or even dismiss them. Rather, disbanded the Board and appointed a totally new board. Moderator DeWitt said:

“[Synod] removed the thirty appointed members of the board and replaced them with thirty new names. Now this is a point of confusion and disagreement on the part of so many. Understand what had to be done was the thirty appointed trustees had to be removed and then thirty new names put in place, but obviously we want, need, and desire institutional stability, so sixteen of the ones removed were immediately put back on the interim board. … [reiterating the point,] Sixteen total of the thirty removed were immediately put back on the interim board.”

In other words, these men were not fired. They were all removed and a select group of sixteen were reappointed, along with fourteen new names.

Huh?

This is like firing an employee by “removing all employees and hiring all of them back except for you.”Queue the laughter. Such an action makes no sense in business, in politics, in legitimate dealings with anybody. Of course I understand the distinction Commissioners are trying to make: removing individual members for cause is far different than removing everybody and reappointing some. Far different – yes; morally more acceptable – no! Such careful language should be a clue – the first of many – that all is not right here. We are expected to distinguish between firing fourteen men and firing everybody but reappointing sixteen. Wow. Nuance and quibbling over definitions of “to fire” are but the first clues that something has gone terribly wrong.

The Plaintiffs argued that if Synod had the authority to reconstitute the Board, why bother describing due process removal at all? Are we to believe that Synod can, at a whim, remove anybody from the Board they choose through legal wrangling and appeals to “SC Non-profit law” but can only remove members for cause with difficulty? You might argue that Synod will only exercise their “get rid of everybody and reappoint whoever we want”  power when absolutely necessary, but of course a great many people think it wasn’t necessary now. Synod disagrees and thence a lawsuit. How much better it would be of Synod had not invented/discovered this ability and simply appointed new trustees each year as they always have!

I shall cover the other grisly repercussions of reconstitution without due process later.

How to Avoid Being Dismissed and Not Reappointed: The Three Hallmarks

The Commission Report defines a “good” board by three “hallmarks” and a couple of “essential qualifications.” I can only presume that if you possess these “hallmarks” and “essential qualifications” you stood a better chance of not being fired being dismissed and reappointed.

Today: The First Hallmark.

Thursday: The Second Hallmark.

Friday: The Third Hallmark, and amazing Conclusion.

Saturday: Will we have a new President?

The First Hallmark

“Size and make up [of the Board should be] appropriate to effectively safeguard the assets and accomplish the mission with which it has been entrusted.” – Commission Report to Synod

Ah! The “Size Issue.” In a nutshell, the Board was too large – 34 voting members and some 27 advisory members for a total of over 50 people. The Commission demanded the Board reduce their number immediately to 15 plus the moderator of the Synod (16 members total); the Board of Trustees balked at this and counter-offered to reduce their number over the next six years. Not fast enough, said the Commission, and removed half of them immediately.

Commissioner Wingate spoke at Erskine:

The point is that, the ARP Church owns and operates Erskine College and Seminary, and it said, the board needs to be downsized. The prior board agreed with that, except the prior board thought it should take six years, and the church thought it should happen sooner. So the church said, here are thirty people, you thirty go and change the bylaws.

Reducing the size of the Board is why the Board was restructured, claimed the Commission over and over again. This is why I call the previous issues “justifications” – they had nothing to do with the stated reason for firing the Board and were just “filler” to make Synod look good better.

Their plan? According to the Commissioners, the new members were charged with altering the bylaws immediately to shrink the Board. Essentially, they appointed members who would do what they demanded. One female student remarked in agreement, “When you remove dissenters from a Board, it is easier to move quicker, faster.” DeWitt replied immediately, “Yes, that’s right.” I kid you not. And he is right.

In this sense, then, the Fourteen were chosen for removal because they opposed the Commission’s will. The new Thirty presumably supported the small-Board-immediately idea. The Commissioners all were very clear in their question and answer time that the new Board was told to resize the board, and members were removed when the Board stood against them.

Paradoxically, Ken Wingate insists members were chosen by drawing names out of a hat: “I’d like to explain [how the Fourteen were chosen], but there was no cherry-picking.” And later, "I can appreciate, sir, how you deeply want to know how the 14 of the 30 were selected. … Why would we select you and not you. Or why would we select you and not you. It just had to be thirty, and those were the thirty names that the Synod elected. You're asking me to answer something that can't be answered because there's not a different answer than I've already given you.” (emphasis original)

And in a sense he is right – the only stated requirement during the Q-and-A was the new appointee must want to shrink the Board. He or she must be willing to obey Synod or, well, or they would be dismissed I suppose. But as we shall see, shrinking the Board was just the tip of the iceberg.

I believe Mr. Wingate was not completely truthful in his answer – there is no way he was. Randomly picking people to get rid of or reappoint as he suggests would not accomplish even this first goal, not to mention all the other goals we’ll cover in the next few days. The Board was restructured with precision accuracy and Mr. Wingate avoided the question. Put charitably, I suggest the Commission assembled a new board from their friends. “It just had to be thirty” – and with the right nominations and Synod’s seal of approval, thirty “good ol’ boys” were chosen. Each member alone was dispensable just as Wingate said, but in total, Commissioners picked those who would accomplish their goals. End result? Those in bed with the Commission kept their position.

But seriously, Size Size Size! Make no mistake about it: size is absolutely where the Commission wants us to focus our attention because it is the easiest action to justify. It’s clear, it’s obvious, and the current Board agreed with them. But removing anybody from the Board would shrink it – why not remove Synod supporting Trustees in compromise? This would never happen – Synod wants their supporters on the Board. Size is not the only concern here!

In fact, a small Board is not even the entire First Hallmark! Remember the “first hallmark” cites “size and make up” as being important. I hope nobody has forgotten this secondary cause, for I believe the Commission will never remind us.

Never once during the Erskine Q-and-A session did Commissioners mention disagreements among the Board members as a cause for restructuring. This is odd considering the preliminary Commission report which speaks at length of “irreconcilable and competing visions about the direction of the college and seminary among the members of the Erskine Board of Trustees.” The Board was too darn argumentative! Removing dissenters from a Board makes everything easier! “Yes, that’s right.”

Trustees were given a job – to effectively manage Erskine College. They have opinions on how to accomplish this goal. Maybe some disagree with Chuck Wilson, who recently cautioned to “Demand accountability [of Trustees] to the General Synod!” Accountable – yes. Subservient – well, maybe not. Trustees all have different opinions on how to manage Erskine. They were interviewed when appointed to the Board – why reject them now? Do some not align with Commissioners’ specific vision for Erskine?

For Synod to say “just kidding” and remove these Trustees because they did not agree, or more accurately, were perceived to not agree with Erskine’s Mission, is distasteful.

We have a lawsuit because of it.

We all disagree on whether each Trustee was smart or stupid; but we all know this: pretending the Board was restructured just to shrink is misleading, and pretending ideology was irrelevant is “silly.”

 

Tomorrow: The Second Hallmark!

Dr. David Norman: Faster than a speeding bullet…

Like the superheroes of old, the Board of Trustees and Dr. Norman are moving faster than a speeding bullet!

The Board of Trustees will vote Friday, May 21st on the election of Dr. David A. Norman to the Presidency of Erskine College and Seminary.

We knew the Board planned to meet with Dr. Norman from the leaked email sent to Board members introducing him, but I had no idea they planned to vote and settle the issue here-and-now. Assuming my sources are correct, the Board is going to make a final vote this Friday.

(My apologies if I have misinterpreted the information I received. I am still rather incredulous and will happily amend this statement if proven to be incorrect. However, the absence of clear communication and the very possibility of the charge is almost as significant as the information itself. Send me an email or comment with any details).

My sources indicate Dr. Norman toured campus last week and met with faculty, briefly. I do not know the extent of this interaction but I believe it is safe to say that they have not interacted with Dr. Norman extensively. The extent of interaction with Alumni is far less. I have no idea how much communication candidates typically have with members of the College, but the situation with Erskine in 2010 is far from typical. I wrote before that we need an open and explicit vetting of Dr. Norman from every stakeholder involved – faculty, administration, Board, Synod, and Alumni. I stand opposed to any final vote on Dr. Norman before such openness has been achieved.

If this information is not accurate – and I do not rule that out – then we need clear communication from the Board or the Presidential Search Committee as to what they are doing. What are you going to vote on this Friday? When will Dr. Norman come to campus again? How can we interact with him?

The more I hear about Dr. Norman, the more I support his candidacy. In many respects he is a very encouraging candidate. But hearing about somebody through a third party and speaking to the man face-to-face are two very different things. What papers has he written? What are his goals for Erskine? What is “integration of faith and learning,” and how should it be applied? Does he think the Interim Board should be in power, or does he agree with the injunction order? &etc &etc.

I know almost nothing about the man and his ideas for my College, and this scares me.

My point is: whether the vote is this Friday or a month from now, we need clear and open communication from Dr. Norman. I don’t believe I ask for too much. We must always keep an open mind – especially for a candidate that shows as much promise as Dr. Norman. An open mind is crucial – but don’t let your brain fall out!

Give them enough rope and they’ll…

Commissioner Ken Wingate spoke at Erskine several weeks ago, and I found this gem of knowledge while researching this fiasco. This is a verbatim quote from our friend Wingate:

The point is that, the ARP Church owns and operates Erskine College and Seminary, and it said, the board needs to be downsized. The prior board agreed with that, except the prior board thought it should take six years, and the church thought it should happen sooner. So the church said, here are thirty people, you thirty go and change the bylaws.

This quote is enormously important for many reasons that I will discuss in the next few days (I have a TON of primary research material to digest before I can even start writing), but here’s a bonus: he said specifically that Synod owns Erskine!

This makes the third public example I have of a Commissioner explicitly stating Synod’s ownership of Erskine (the other two being the two Commission reports). How odd, then, that during the injunction hearing Mr. Wingate specifically said on the witness stand that Synod does not own Erskine, that in fact it is a “mother-child relationship.” I wrote about this issue at the time, bemoaning Wingate “selling us down the river.”

These are his thoughts…

With Malice Toward None

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's  [or Church’s] wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

- Abraham Lincoln

Congratulations to the Class of 2010!

These are my thoughts.

FLASH: Board of Trustees Nominations

Update: As corrected on Facebook by David Dangerfield and discussed in a comment left on this blog, these five men were “a new slate of five trustees was offered by the Moderator [DeWitt] and a panel of the most recent moderators.” The full nominating committee has not voted formally on these names. I will report back on their final decision when it becomes available. Thank you for the correction.

5 out of 5 men nominated suggested for the Board of Trustees by Synod the Moderator (DeWitt) and previous moderators were appointed to the Interim Board. That’s 36% of the new interim board appointees.

Thanks to Tara Mauney from Facebook for the info!

1. Rev. Paul Mulner - member of the Commission
2. Rev. Bill Marsh - member of the Commission
3. Rev. William Anderson
4. Marlo McDonald
5. Dr. Steve Suits

Dr. Jay West Threatens to Sue Erskine Student

Below is presented the original example of the “culture of intimidation” at Erskine, published in the student newspaper “The Mirror.” I’m glad now I saved a copy all these years!

Note how bizarre this news piece is. Daniel Wells was interviewed for this article, but the accused – Dr. Jay West – and the only other witness, Anne Hawthorne, were never interviewed or quoted, except as heresy evidence recited by Wells himself. I know we don’t take Christians to court ever, I mean often unless it is justified to defend Synod, but shouldn’t the author have talked to everybody involved? The case against West became a strange case of “his word against nothing” – hardly strong legal material. Nor was Ms. Hawthorne ever consulted, apparently, even after Dr. West was brought before the Second Presbytery of the ARP Church for intimidating a student (actually, “brought before” is a misnomer – he was apparently not allowed to speak in his own defense).

And so the myth of the Culture of Intimidation was born – a myth so pervasive it survived four years of retelling on student blogs, Mirror articles, the SAFE website, Facebook, and eventually found a home in the Commission report itself. Mr. Carlisle practically invented the Fountain of Youth in this brief front-page article in, for what his words wrought shall live forever.

Lastly, note the conclusion to the article. What could be done to make Daniel Wells happy? A letter of apology? A spoken apology? A meeting with the college president to mediate reconciliation? Dr. West no longer working for Erskine? An official complaint in his file? All of these were done! I know of nothing more that could happen, and indeed I wish Daniel had made clear what would satisfy him. Heaven knows it isn’t over now, four years later, despite all that has happened. Will it ever end?

Ah yes! I know what will fix this culture of intimidation! Fire half the Board!

An follow-up letter by Drew Carlisle and a PDF scan of the original document are available here. Check it out!

Dr. Jay West Threatens to Sue Erskine Student

by Drew Carlisle [Class of 2007], Editor-In-Chief
Friday, October 6, 2006

In Summary:

Dr. Jay West, Vice President of Institutional Relations and founder of the Drummond Center threatened a lawsuit against Erskine Mirror staffman and Erskine student, Daniel Wells [Class of 2008]. Daniel asserted that West intimidated him in a private setting by using coercive language and a tape recorder to force a confession. West wished Daniel to affirm that Daniel authored an anonymous internet blog that made reference to Dr. West.

From the Editor:

Any good student newspaper reports on relevant student news. The aim of this article is not to smear any individuals; rather it is to be faithful to the purpose of the Mirror. My sole motivation in writing is so that students and others can be aware and make informed decisions about our school and world. Due to the serious nature of this accusation, I believe that visibility is essential for accountability in the Erskine Community.

During Freshman Orientation, I approached Erskine College junior Daniel Wells regarding writing an article for the Erskine Mirror on the Drummond Center. Last semester I read a blog Daniel wrote criticizing the Drummond Center as out of synch with the mission and purpose of Erskine College. Finding his blog intriguing and well articulated, I asked Daniel to write an editorial for the September issue.

The day the September Erskine Mirror was published, Daniel contacted me and expressed his severe anxiety over an email he received. Dr. Jay West contacted Daniel requesting a meeting Friday September, 8th. Daniel and I assumed the meeting was going to involve a response to his editorial on the Drummond Center entitled, “Is it possible to loathe something that doesn’t exist.”

Narrative:

As his editor I requested that Daniel report to me the details of his conversation with Dr. West. That Friday afternoon West and Daniel met on the third floor of Belk Hall in the Chestnut Conference Room for a private meeting. Before conversation began, Dr. West ushered Belk employee Anne Hawthorne, into the room as a third-party witness. Ms. Hawthorne is an administrative assistant in the EC development office and was not vocal during the meeting. Dr. West set a tape recorder on the table and stated that his lawyers instructed him to document the exchange. West stated that he felt Daniel had created a serious situation where West felt his name and reputation were slandered. He mentioned that he could not afford to allow Daniel to damage his future political aspirations and declared that a lawsuit against Daniel was a possible reality.

Meanwhile, Daniel was thoroughly confused. He did not know what he could have possibly written that would be considered slanderous to Dr. West. West then asked if he could turn on the tape recorder but Daniel told him no. Daniel claims to have felt very scared, intimidated and bullied by Vice President of Institutional Relations. Daniel requested to know what was to be discussed before he would consent to his voice being recorded.

Accusation:

Dr. West gave in and did not turn on the tape recorder. He then asked if Daniel had written an anonymous blog posted on blogger.com entitled, Moving Erskine Forward Together [If anybody has a link to where this blog used to be, please email me. It was an amazing piece of literature, to put it mildly]. This surprised Daniel because he assumed the conversation was about his article published on the Drummond Center. Daniel replied that he had, “never seen it before.” Daniel still claims that he did not write it, and does not know who wrote it.

Wells claims that Dr. West appeared desperate to bully a confession out of him again mentioning his future political ambitions. West claimed that his people had run a “linguistic analysis” on the Moving Erskine Forward blog and that his supporters believed Daniel wrote it because it was similar in phraseology and word choice to Daniel’s personal blog, Cosmic Christianity [now blocked from public access, but he started a new blog on Wordpress with the same name].

After Daniel protested his innocence again, Dr. West turned the tape recorder on. West again asked questions such as, “did you write the Moving Erskine Forward blog?” By not responding, Dr. West to realized his attempts to force a confession were futile. The tape recorder was turned off. Daniel asked if there were any other issues Dr. West had with him. There appeared no reason for the meeting once Daniel denied having written Moving Erskine Forward.

Dr. West said he did have problems with Daniel’s Cosmic Christianity blog and Daniel’s critique of the Drummond Center posted April 22nd, 2006. Visit http://cosmicchrist.blogspot.com to read the full text [no longer active]. The student and administrator then discussed the Erskine Mirror article. Dr. West had not read the clip at that point. He then read it out loud to Daniel and Ms. Hawthorne. West shook his head and rejected Daniel’s claim that the Drummond Center does not mesh with the mission statement of Erskine College.

Eventually, the conversation ceased. Daniel would like the readers of the Erskine Mirror to know that he cannot reveal all of the things that were said to him in the Chestnut Conference room because he does not want to provoke further bullying from Dr. West. In his interview with me for this article, Daniel said Dr. Went came across as a domineering and accusatory bully. Daniel reported the incident to his faculty advisors and to The Vice President and Academic Dean, Dr. Weatherman, because he felt Dr. West abused his power as an administrator.

Formal Complaint:

Dr. Weatherman filed a formal complaint to the new interim President, Dr. Randall Ruble, accusing Dr. West of having acted unethically. On September 13th, Daniel met with Dr. Ruble. Vice President of Erskine Seminary, Rev. Gaston, and Dr. Weatherman and talked to them the events of his encounter with Dr. West.

Dr. Ruble’s decision the following day was to have Dr. West and Daniel meet for a private time of reconciliation. Daniel refused to attend the meeting because he did not feel that it was a just solution to the situation. Daniel did not want to be placed in a position where he could be intimidated again. Daniel feels, “Dr. Ruble meant well by his decision but the Dr. West case is not merely an issue of two Christian brothers who needed reconciliation. The issue is one of professionalism and unethical conduct by an administrator to a student.”

Dr. Ruble’s final decision was to have Dr. West write a letter of apology to Daniel. About the apology Daniel said, “Even though I received a letter, that is not managing the matter. Under normal circumstances I would accept a personal reconciliation. I have already forgiven Jay. However, this is an institutional issue. What is to prevent this from happening in the future? What is a just solution?”

The Erskine Mirror openly invites letters to the editor on the current controversy. An explanation or apology from Dr. West is especially welcome.