What does [sic] mean?

The Latin word "sic" means "thus" or "so." I have no idea how Roman centurions or senators might have used the word, but in the modern usage the word is used almost exclusively to mark an error in a quote. Ideally, you would quote a source perfectly accurately, word for word. This established a problem when quoting from a published book or magazine - how might you quote the sentence, "The quck brown fox jumped over the lazy dog?" You might correct the obvious mistake - but is this the most accurate way to quote the author? You might copy the quote directly as written - but then it will look as if you made the mistake, not the original author. No, the best way to quote somebody is to mark the error as an original error. Our quote would then be, "The quck [sic] brown fox...". This way the reader knows the error was in the original document.

What then do we make of comments such as this by Roddy Gray on the Alumni forum, quoted in ARP Talk:

If we separate from the new arp[sic] Taliban [sic], Erskine lives---if we don't Erskine dies. I feel sorry for those ARP's [sic] who were courageous enough to disagree with this cult. Most of the conspirators have moved from denomination to denomination and decided that the Arp [sic] church was ripe for take-over and hey - they had a college.

I am not so much interested in the content of this quote as the manner in which it was quoted. I ask you in all seriousness: do the "sic" comments add anything to this quote? Surely not - readers know the quote was Copy-and-Pasted directly on the computer, so no errors could have been introduced by the quoter. The quote is obviously from a blog, where standards of spelling and grammar are often lower than in a book. Finally, many of these "sic" remarks are to stylistic or obscure items, like the capitalization of "ARP" or "those ARP's", where the meaning is perfectly clear though the grammar is incorrect.

I question whether such markings are necessary. Or, perhaps they are used to cast doubt on the intelligence of the writer? That would certainly be a subtle but effective way to attack the author - mark carefully each and every grammatical error and distract from the content of what is being said. I know this tactic well; surely Chuck is no less observant. The quoter is either overzealous for grammatical purity (noble perhaps) or shrewdly debasing an opposing view (ignoble). Which is it?

Of course we'll never know the truth: ARP Talk never quotes forum comments from those who agree with the author, so grammatical errors are less likely to appear. Just the same, I wonder...

In case Im quotted, i beter geve Revvy wilson sum errors to "sic"-ify. Better yet, maybe we all have more important things to do in our lives than proofread and triple-check every single posting we push online. You know, unlike Mr. Wilson, who apparently lives for nothing else.

A Timeline of Events

[Part 3 of a series entitled, "The Perversity and Inconvenience of Lawsuits against Christians Us"]

In case you missed it, here is the Commission's plan to regain Erskine from "doctrinal drift," by which I mean Erskine not keeping up with the conservative drift of the ARP Synod.

Step 1: "Clear the deadwood." The Board of Trustees was an irksome thorn in our side that needed to be dealt with. So we did. That'll teach the Board to disagree with us!

Step 2: "Rewrite the bylaws." We need to exert more control over the Board. You know, more control than appointing every board member. The bylaws need to be rewritten to make sure this sort of thing never needs to happen again. Of course if it does need to happen again, we'll know what to do. We'll shrink the board this summer, and since everybody on the board agrees with us now (after the Purge, that is), it won't matter who we get rid of! Our control over the board will be absolute (you know, as in more absolute than when we appointed all the board members in the first place).

Step 3: "Clear the deadwood." I realize this has already happened, but we need to clear out the administration and dissonent faculty. I guess we have a pretty good idea of the Ousted-To-Be. Care to guess who didn't make the cut?

Step 4: "Pack the Court." Reinvent the wheel? Of course not! People have been packing the court for ages. The Southern Baptists packed their college board and administration to see their will accomplished. We will do the same thing! The new Board reworks the administration and faculty. Bad faculty leave. And finally, we get a new president! Hurrah!

Hence the pesky problem of lawsuits! Here we are, stuck between step 1 and step 2. The only thing worse than people saying you have no authority to fire whoever we like from the Board is to have the courts say we have authority to fire whoever we want from the Board! I admire Synod for their chutzpah. Forget argument. Forget compromise. Fourteen members of the board disagree with us? Sack them!

How now shall we do that?

We Lost. We must move on from here.

Tagline: “Christians do not sue Christians. Ever.”

“You may not agree with the actions of General Synod, but they were not un-Presbyterian. Christians taking Christians to court ... well, that drum has been beat enough. Scripture is clear. … Scripture is not considered to apply when it is personally inconvenient to do so. I believe you have already answered your own question. Secular courts should not be relied on to handle church matters.”

Rev. Tim Phillips, Supporters of Synod FB group, emphasis added

Oh the frailty of man! Were that I was but a wee bit stronger and could fight the good fight until Good prevailed. We were assailed at every turn, muscled by moneyed interests and worldly passions, and hounded by internet blogs and nameless foes calling us all sorts of names.

Erskine has drifted doctrinally; Bartians and Neo-Bartians run rampant, as do evolutionists and non-inerrantists. Next year we’ll see a Neo-Neo-Bartian for sure!

We tried to reclaim the school from doctrinal drift – so sue us! (oww, actually, that’s a sore subject). It was the right thing to do. The Board wouldn’t go along with our recommendations immediately, so we fired the difficult members. So sue us! (oops, I’ve got to stop saying that). It was the right thing to do.

God calls us to never surrender His principles or allow the cancer of error to spread, even when it means firing people without just cause and breaking civil laws. What are these petty concerns when the teaching of Creationism is at stake?

We tried to bring people together for the peace and purity of the church. We tried to set up a school where Christians are not challenged by other Christians over the tenants of their faith. Now look what has happened. Christians have sued Christians in civil court. We are the Righteous Persecuted. How did it come to this?

God says there will be difficulties for those who fight for him; He apparently wasn’t kidding. Clearly it is His will that Erskine fall off the cliff of liberalism and that two or three demagogies intimidate Bible majors at will. These men will have to answer to God for their duplicity in twisting our children’s minds! We will win in the end!

How sad it is, that a formerly faithful school to God’s word went so far off the deep end. The courts have taken away from Synod what is rightfully ours; Heaven help the school now! We surely won’t.

Though there is nothing now that we can do. The courts have ruled. We lost. We must surrender the cause here and take over Erskine through Synod. Why? Because we have said quite explicitly:

CHRISTIANS DO NOT SUE CHRISTIANS, EVER!

… no matter what. That’s what we said, right?

…

…

Are there Christians at Erskine?

Ask Temperance: Conflict of Interest?

Question: Was it not a conflict of interest for the Moderator to appoint himself to the Commission rather than acting as an adviser?"

Bill Marsh answers:

Neither of us would presume to speak for Dr. de Witt.  However, we would question the premise of the question.  A conflict of interest exists when a person has more than one claim on his/her loyalty.  In this case, Dr. de Witt would only have a conflict of interest if Erskine's interests were different from those of the ARP Church.  Since Erskine is an agency of the Church, it does not seem to us that a conflict ever existed.

Additionally, having worked closely with Dr. de Witt over the past seven months, we were repeatedly reminded of the breadth of his scholarship and years in both Christian ministry and theological education.  He offered the Commission a unique perspective that was not otherwise available within the church.

Temperance says:
I am frankly at a loss for words. Bill Marsh did not even feel the need to hide his subterfuge – he proudly “questioned the premise of the question.” Well, you may question the premise all you like but at some point you need to answer it, Mr. Marsh. Was there a conflict of interest?

We are not concerned so much with Dr. de Witt but with the members of the new board. Todd Shealy on the Alumni facebook group compiled a list – the * mark indicates members of both the commission and the interim board.

Commission Members:
William C. Marsh *
Steven J. Maye (Moderator-Elect) *
Paul D. Mulner *
Gordon S. Query*
George S. Robinson (Chair) *
Roger N. Wiles *
John DeWitt (Moderator) *
Ken Wingate
Gordon Query

Interim Board Members
William Anderson
William L. Barron
John Basie
Adam Bloom
Julia T. Boyd
William S. Cain
Raymond Cameron
Fredrick Carr
James T. Corbitt
Dixon Cunningham
Joseph W. Donahue
Charles B. Evans
William B. Everett
William R. Folks
David R. Johnston
Morrison V. Lawing
Marlo L. McDonald
William C. Marsh*
Steven J. Maye (Moderator-Elect) *
James F. Mitchell
Scott Mitchell
Paul D. Mulner*
Deborah Neil
Joseph H. Patrick
Gordon S. Query*
Glen Robinson
George S. Robinson*
Steven Suits
Roger N. Wiles*
R. Boyce Wilson
John DeWitt (Moderator)*

In other words, seven members of the Commission are members of the new Board of trustees. Seven out of nine Commission members are on the new board. The men of the commission had a powerful incentive to restructure the board because they would get a spot on the board because of it. This is a classic conflict of interest because these men made a recommendation based on something they would benefit from. Such self-rewarding casts serious doubts on their commitment to be unbiased and quite frankly on their conclusions as well.

If I wanted a spot on the Board of Trustees I could think of no better way than to be a member of the Commission.

… dang it. I knew I should have asked for a spot.

What’s it all about, Chuck?

Tagline: “Any more wily and I’d be a serpent.”

Chuck Wilson writes,

Because Erskine once was so good, we have allowed Erskine to be made into an idol. At this point in time, God has called us to deal with the Baal cult of Erskine. A good institution that was organized to advance the cause of the gospel of the church of Jesus Christ has
gone from being an agency of the church that advanced the mission of the church to being an object of worship and adoration that promotes unbelief.

I took Crenshaw’s English classes along with the rest of my liberal arts curriculum, but I doubt even Crenshaw could figure out the logic or verbiage here. Because Erskine was excellent, we have NOW allowed it to be an idol? Huh? “Baal cult” at Erskine? What? Erskine has turned into an institution that “promotes unbelief?” I don’t get it. Rev. Patrick and two interns are still on the staff at Erskine, right? Professors are still required to swear to affirm inerrancy of scripture, right? Most students are Christians, right? Bible classes are still required for graduation, right?

Ah, I understand! Because Dr. Burnett rejects inerrancy of scripture and Dr. Crenshaw challenges ARP doctrine, Erskine has turned into the “cult of Baal” and forces “unbelief” on students! You’re right Chuck – why didn’t I think of that?

 

Obligatory “Quote Me, Chuck” Corner: I feel the need to include at least one grammatical error in every post just in case I am ever quoted by Chuck, for as we all know, Chuck loves nothing better than marking each and every mistake with "[sic].” I try to oblige him. Gee wiz ersKing we need to kick out these arp’s fast!

Giving to Erskine?

Those interested in admiring the exceptional giving of the Synod-Supporting Alumni may do so in the Inside Erskine alumni magazine, where the giving levels of all past alumni are tabulated. Erskine has an online link to the past four years.

Erskine must have messed up though, because surely the list is not complete… Try looking up a few of our prominent people and you’ll see what I mean!

UPDATE:

Wow – I beat Chuck Wilson to this issue! I’m almost as sanctified as Chuck! In his latest issue of ARP talk, which I had not read at the time of writing this post, he said, “One wonders, until this present conflict, how much Mr. [David] Dangerfield contributed to Erskine College.” The context, of course, is how David worships the “cult of Baal at Erskine” by giving to the defense fund, to which Wilson wonders if David gave as readily to Erskine beforehand. Well… actually he did. Go look at the documents yourself (link above).

Well, Chuck? I publicly ask for a retraction. We know how much David gave to Erskine. You were wrong.

Why Can't the Board of Trustees Just Do What They Are Told?

Good question, Mary Lou.*

Why won’t they just do what we tell them?!

 

*From the Let’s Talk about Erskine and the Synod FB group