The Commission Was Right! The Erskine Lawsuit Is Still Active!

Download This Issue of ARPTalk (#33) in PDF Format

Download This Issue of ARPTalk in PDF Format

Why has the lawsuit by Erskine Board of Trustee (BOT) members Richard Taylor, Parker Young, and David Chesnut NOT been dropped? Was not the Patrick-Wingate Compromise that was adopted by the 2010 General Synod, a guarantee that the lawsuit would be dropped if the General Synod was willing to back away from some of the demands of the March “Snow Synod”? Did the Editor not hear Bill Patrick and Bill Cain say that Taylor and Young had been contacted and they were willing to stand by the Patrick-Wingate Compromise and they would drop the lawsuit if the Patrick-Wingate Compromise was passed by General Synod? Also, though Chesnut was not contacted at that time, did the Editor not hear Patrick and others assure the General Synod that the particulars of the Patrick-Wingate Compromise were such that Chesnut would also honor the compromise and drop the lawsuit? When asked point blank by one of the delegates if the Patrick-Wingate Compromise was acceptable to the plaintiffs, were we not assured that it was? Were we not assured that all who were involved were honorable men who would keep their word? Has not the General Synod kept faith in all the particulars of the Patrick-Wingate Compromise? Has the Editor missed something? Therefore, the Editor of ARPTalk asks this question: WHY HAS THE LAWSUIT NOT BEEN DROPPED? There has been enough time. It has been a month and a half! Why has the lawsuit not been dropped?

THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATIVE COMMISSION WAS RIGHT! Many of the Erskine alums and members of the BOT who are steadfastly opposed to Christian reform at Erskine have been on a campaign to discredit the Commission and its members. The report of the Commission has been called a misrepresentation of the situation at Erskine and on the BOT. The integrity of commissioners has even been fiercely maligned. Some of the alums have referred to commissioners as liars.

Well, the Editor contends that the Commission was right. The rhetoric from the alums is nothing more than their misrepresentation and disinformation. Which of the points of the Commission’s report, if any, are incorrect? Some time has now passed and memory fades. What were the points of the Commission’s report? Do you remember the following?

  1. The General Synod has been negligent in its oversight of Erskine College and Seminary. We have not taken seriously our responsibility for appointing independent, engaged, and competent trustees who both understand and support the unique missions of the institutions. We have not made tangible efforts to train the trustees on matters essential to the fulfillment of their responsibilities to Erskine and to the ARP Church. We have not taken responsible measures to ensure that these missions are understood and implemented properly by the Board and Administration. The ARP Church has invested millions of the Lord’s dollars and countless man-hours in its educational ministry at the college and seminary. We would be poor stewards of these funds, as well as of the legacy of our fathers and mothers in the faith, if we were to refuse to help Erskine fulfill the missions envisioned in the documents we have produced and adopted as a Synod and in the institution’s own mission statements. Before considering the failures of others, we must begin with contrition ourselves.
  2. There are irreconcilable and competing visions about the direction of the college and seminary among the members of the Erskine Board of Trustees. There is widespread disagreement in relation to the meaning of Erskine’s responsibility to integrate faith and learning and what impact, if any, this should have in the college and seminary classrooms. One need not take sides to recognize that the Board’s lack of agreement on these matters puts the institution in an untenable situation.
  3. There are irreconcilable and competing visions about Erskine’s mission as a liberal arts college on the Erskine Board and within the Administration and faculty. While the Commission met no one whose vision for Erskine was a fundamentalist Bible college, divisions came clearly to the surface regarding Erskine’s academic standards and the growing number of professional, rather than liberal arts, degrees. Despite vocal differences among the faculty and Administration, it was not evident that the trustees have given any clear direction in these matters.
  4. It became evident to us as we listened to all the parties concerned that Erskine College and Seminary stand at a crossroads as the search is conducted for a new president. The General Synod must speak clearly at this critical juncture so that the message of our interest in Erskine’s success is unambiguous. The next president must have the full support of the ARP Church and its Board of Trustees of Erskine College and Seminary. In our candid conversations with trustees, faculty, and members of the search committee, we came to the conclusion that no presidential candidate could garner the whole-hearted support of every Erskine Board member. It would be grievously unfair to the next president and potentially disastrous for these institutions if he does not have this unqualified support.
  5. Almost without exception, present and past members of the Board of Trustees believe that the size of the Board is a significant obstacle to effective governance. In addition, when the Board meets, its 34 members are joined by a number of advisory members and more than a dozen administrators from the institutions. Even during executive session, the 34-member Board is joined by other parties. The result of this practice is that the Administration, and not the Board, effectively sets policy for the institution. The Board, as a whole, does not evaluate the Administration outside of its presence, making meaningful evaluations nearly impossible.
  6. In an effort to govern the institutions effectively with such a large number of trustees, the Board is subdivided into several committees. While committees can be an effective means of utilizing the special experience and skills of trustees, the committee structure presently employed by the Erskine Board is a hindrance to proper governance and oversight because, in the nature of the case, the Board relies heavily on its Executive Committee. The result, despite the best of intentions among those serving on the Executive Committee, is that most trustees are left without knowledge about large parts of the institution entrusted to their care. The structures critiqued in points (5) and (6) of this report have the effect of hindering any kind of meaningful discussion and debate by the full Board during their meetings.
  7. The structure and composition of the Board of Trustees are problematic for the faithful oversight of the seminary. The group of trustees who make up the seminary committee are charged with the responsibility for overseeing the seminary on behalf of the Board and, thus, the ARP Church. Most trustees have no involvement in any oversight of the seminary. Though the seminary prepares and trains future ministers, including men who will serve in the ARP Church, the seminary committee includes members who do not meet the criteria for ordination as ministers or elders in our denomination.
  8. The ideological divisions on the Board have created significant challenges for the Erskine faculty. The College faculty are rightly troubled that the Board of Trustees and Administration have given them little guidance for the implementation of Erskine’s mission. The lack of clear directives has led to widespread faculty confusion about their responsibilities to the ARP Church in the classroom setting. A significant majority of the professors interviewed had no understanding of how the Christian faith could be meaningfully integrated into their discipline. The Church-appointed trustees have not instructed the Administration to explain to professors what is expected of them. To date, there has been no effective training on the integration of faith and learning. Though several professors have asked repeatedly for further clarification on the implementation of the mission, no such clarity has been offered. Though the Board has, in response to the appointment of this Commission, instructed the Administration to develop a plan for such integration, we do not believe that either the Administration or the Board is capable of achieving such a goal.
  9. The Board has been negligent in its responsibility to hold the Administration accountable for the faculty it employs. The Board has not instructed the Administration to evaluate the faculty either on the quality of their teaching or on their ability to integrate faith and learning in the classroom. Accordingly, the Administration conducts no such evaluations. Contract renewals are offered by the Administration, and tenure is granted by the Board on the basis of student and faculty member self-evaluation. Thirteen faculty members have been employed since the General Synod added inerrancy to its definition of what constitutes an evangelical profession. It is not evident that many of these new faculty members are committed to inerrancy, and there is little evidence that the Board has made certain that Synod’s directives were followed. Seminary faculty, though largely pleased with the Christian commitment and academic credentials of their colleagues, did express concerns that some seminary professors cannot affirm inerrancy as defined by the General Synod, despite assurances of the Administration to the contrary.
  10. The so-called “culture of intimidation,” found by Second Presbytery’s Committee on the Minister and His Work several years ago, is still present on the campus. There is an atmosphere in some quarters of Erskine College and Seminary that is inimical to faithful implementation of the mission.

As it stands, the Commission was right in all 10 points. Central to the problems at Erskine College and Seminary is the BOT. The Board is a BROKEN institution. Presently, the actions of Taylor, Young, and Chesnut continue to demonstrate the BROKEN and deleterious nature of the BOT. The Commission was right!

In the Patrick-Wingate Compromise the General Synod has backed away from the removal of the Board and the replacement of the Board with an interim board. We were told at the meeting of the Synod that this was the sticking point. So, with the compromise passed by Synod, why has the Taylor, Young, and Chesnut lawsuit not been dropped? Does the continuance of the lawsuit enhance the Board’s reputation and improve the Board’s ability to govern? What of the word of these honorable men?

Are we now dealing with personal pique? At the civil hearing in Newberry on the restraining order, from the testimony of Taylor and Young, it was not difficult to see that Taylor and Young were personally offended and angry that the Synod had voted to remove them from the BOT. It seemed to the Editor (who was present in the room) that they had a sense of entitlement to be on the Board rather than the heart of a servant. Is personal hauteur the reason that the lawsuit has not been dropped?

A very vocal segment of the alums has been and continues to demand complete separation from the ARP Church. Have they not made it clear that they feel that the ARP Church has no right of ownership or voice in the affairs of Erskine College and Seminary? Have they not also made it very clear that they fear and loath the evangelical Christian faith of the ARP Church at Erskine College and Seminary? Is it because of pressure exerted by this vocal segment of alums on Taylor, Young, and Chesnut that the lawsuit has not been dropped?

The word on the street is that the plaintiffs now want to renegotiate the Patrick-Wingate Compromise that was passed by the 2010 General Synod. It seems the attorneys for Taylor, Young, and Chesnut want (1) the “rabid dog” of the Commission “put down,” (2) the actions of the Commission (and that means the March “Snow Synod”) repudiated (3) the General Synod to renounce all governance of Erskine College and Seminary, and (4) the General Synod to guarantee that no disciplinary actions will be taken by the Presbyteries now and forever against ARP ministers and elders who have raised their hands in civil court in traitorous rebellion against the Scriptures in general and the ARP Church in particular.

Were not those the terms of the deal stuck at the 2010 meeting of General Synod? Did not honorable men agree? Why has the Taylor, Young, and Chesnut lawsuit not been dropped? Why these new and unrealistic demands? Has General Synod or the plaintiff’s broken faith?

Why the pejorative language of a “rabid dog” Commission that needs to be “put down”? Is this the language of “honorable” men? Has not the work of the Commission been done? Even if the investigatory work of the Commission were to be renewed, would that not take an action of General Synod? Besides, at the meeting of the next Synod, if the delegates so chose, they could empower a new Commission. So, why the “rabid dog” reaction to the Commission?

How can the actions of the Commission be repudiated? The Commission only reported. The so-called actions are the actions of a General Synod? Was this issue not debated in the deliberations regarding the Patrick-Wingate Compromise? Why the new demands? Does this not sound a bit like extortion?

Why the demand that Synod renounce claims to governance of Erskine College and Seminary? Was this a part of the Patrick-Wingate Compromise?

Why the demand that Synod guarantees that no disciplinary action be undertaken by Presbyteries against ministers and elders who have participated in lawsuits against the ARP Church? Was that a part of the Patrick-Wingate Compromise? Besides, everyone who is an ARP minister or elder knows that Synod cannot accede to such a demand. Synod has no authority to bind the actions of an ARP Presbytery. The authority structure of the ARP Church is ascending and not descending. Do the plaintiffs and their attorneys not understand that?

Why has the lawsuit not been dropped by now? Yes, the Commission was right!

What, ultimately, is the problem in this hullabaloo involving Erskine? As the PC(USA) has been and continues to be in a struggle of contending religions, could it be that we in the ARP Church are involved in a struggle of contending religions – one Christian and the other a form of Presbyterian paganism?

The following quote, written by an alum and taken off Facebook, illustrates the Editor’s point:

“I agree with Aldon. There were some statements made again over the 4th of July weekend about the Patrick/Wingate compromise taking care of the governance issue. No, it has not been settled or taken care of. The appointment of Trustees has to change as Aldon says above. THERE WAS NO LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE COMPROMISE in place at Synod. As others have said, the plaintiffs were not represented at Synod. We must do the Lord’s work to remove the undue influence of Synod and the abusive influence of the moderator’s commission from Erskine’s Board of Trustees. When false information and misleading information are allowed to rule Synod, it is clear that Synod may no longer rule over Erskine.”

First, the level of ignorance displayed in that statement is astonishing. What lack of legal representation? Is not Bill Patrick legal counsel for Erskine College and Seminary? Next, is not the power play for governance abundantly evident? Finally, note the religious aspect: “We must do the Lord’s work to remove the undue influence of Synod and the abusive influence of the moderator’s commission from Erskine’s Board of Trustees.”

“We must do the Lord’s work!” The question that must be asked is this: WHICH LORD? In our world, there are many lords. In our world, there are many lords who have gone out in Jesus’ name who are not of Jesus. In our world, there are many spirits that lead and only one is from the God of the Bible.

The ARP Church is not an apostate church like the PC(USA). The ARP Church is historically evangelical, Reformed, and orthodox. The ARP Church has never defamed the imperial claims of Jesus as the only Lord and Savior. The ARP Church has a high view of Scripture as inerrant. The desire of the ARP Church for Erskine College and Seminary to represent and reflect the theology of the ARP Church is not something new or unique and should surprise no one.

The sentiment of the alums that “We must do the Lord’s work to remove the undue influence of Synod and the abusive influence of the moderator’s commission from Erskine’s Board of Trustees” is blasphemous. The General Synod sought the direction of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, different lords ARE being served by some! Different spirits ARE being called on for guidance by some! Different gods ARE being petitioned for answers to prayer by some!

Why has the lawsuit not been dropped?

I Kings 18:21 reads in this manner: “How long will you waver between two opinions? If Jehovah is God, follow him; but if [the Baal of Erskine] is God, follow him.” Is this the heart of the problem? As the PC(USA) has been infected and taken over by Presbyterian paganism, are we also dealing with a form of Presbyterian paganism?

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

Share This:
Facebook Twitter Email Plusone Linkedin Pintrest

Filed Under: Newsletter


RSSComments (21)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Matt Diaz says:

    A. Do you really believe that it is only “them” who feel a sense of entitlement? You don’t think that you, or anybody else in Synod, feels a sense of entitlement? Do you believe that you have a heart of a servant, i.e. a heart like Jesus’, in writing this?

    B. Why do you believe the reform you want is the exclusive “Christian reform” and anybody who opposes what you want is opposing “Christian reform” and also Christianity?

    C. We’re not dealing with a “Presbyterian paganism.” Do you think someone is a pagan because they don’t accept inerrancy or because they don’t believe the earth is flat and that the sun rotates around the earth?

    D. Enough with the “Baal” stuff. NOBODY at Erskine worships Baal. All of the faculty that I know are Christians. Nobody at Erskine may be perfect, but surely you don’t think ARP ministers are perfect in their actions and beliefs? You should be careful of calling what might be the work of the Holy Spirit, which is the third Person of the Trinity, the work of a “different spirit” or “the Baal of Erskine.”

    Watch how you judge others and make sure you’re not doing what the Pharisees did.

    And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

    “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

  2. David R. Johnston says:

    Thank you for ARPTalk 33.

    I’m sure someone will accuse you of keeping things stirred up. I thank you for keeping us alert and informed.

    After the conciliatory actions of Synod, most of us assume that “honorable” men will act in honorable ways. We are surprised when they don’t.

    I think that you are correct: The passage of more time makes it clearer that the Commission was precisely correct. I already thought that the rage of people associated with Erskine was an indication that the Commission was correct. The continuing rage, added to the maintenance of the lawsuit, adds even more support for my opinion about the Commission Report.

    Now we are alerted that there is a bigger struggle. These men seem to have a larger agenda. Allegiance to their agenda prevails over faithfulness to their vows taken as elders, If we are correctly perceiving their agenda, it seems clear that they are seeking to achieve in civil court what they cannot achieve in the courts of the church, and that is to evict the ARP Church as overseer of Erskine. They are in agreement with the pagans of the accreditation agency, who are hostile to any religious influence in an educational institution.

    Maintaining the lawsuit makes it clearer each day that church discipline is much-needed in their lives. My expectation is that discipline will not be forthcoming because they are supported and honored in rebellion by their associates and congregations. That is sad, and points in the direction that you suggested, i.e., tolerance of varied beliefs and hostility to Biblical Christianity, moving toward Presbyterian paganism. This is far sadder than most ARPs will think it is.

    Thank you for maintaining the flow of information.


    David Johnston

    • Scott Robar says:

      David, wonderful letter – right on!

      There are some who have been, for a long time, valiant in the good fight; yet they are, now, very depressed. However, as you have said, there is a very encouraging way to look at our present circumstances – the delay and the continued lawsuit – the enemies of the Church have made themselves and their goals more obvious. From my perspective, I see continual movement in the right direction. If this movement is from the Lord (and I think it is) then we should work along those lines, in the most godly ways we know how, and look forward to the excellent end of this matter – a healthy, Christian liberal arts college and seminary.

      To the first writer I say, “…a tree is recognized by its fruit.” The ARP Synod recognized that fruit clearly at the called meeting in March. Godly pastors and elders voted by overwhelming majorities – they agreed that the fruit was very bad. But many of these godly men buckled at the knees on account of the lawsuit. There is more to it than that; yet all of the other things came as a result of the lawsuit. We have no experience with that sort of thing; so it’s understandable. But we still see the tree and its fruit – and the fruit has grown larger and much more foul.

  3. Al Law says:

    Chuck is the shining example of why the fight must continue. He has hate in his heart. He twists the facts to suit his purpose.

    People like Chuck, deWitt, Turbeville, and their henchmen think they have the inside track to God. As long as they have a forum, Ersine is not safe. And, I don’t mean S.A.F.E.

  4. Dean Turbeville says:

    Dear Matt,

    Surely you are familiar with a literary device like the one Chuck used. OF COURSE he is not saying that the faculty at Erskine actually worships Baal, a Canaanite deity from the Bronze Age. Surely you are aware he was speaking of the deep devotion of the Erskine faculty to the spiritual status quo at the institution they serve, a status quo that is happy to advertise itself to trusting Christian parents as being a truly Christian school, while actually undermining orthodox Christian faith in many classes with the minimal deism of mainline liberalism. Such double-mindedness is why the former chairman of the Erskine Philosophy Department, Dr. John Wingard, said as he left Erskine for conscience reasons, “I cannot work at a school to which I would never send my own children…Erskine typically produces very wobbly Christians because of the mixed messages we constantly send.”

    Matt, you must understand that is what Chuck meant about Baalism. And surely you do not think any of us hold (nor does a high view of scripture require us to hold) a belief in a “flat earth.”

    Who has been teaching you such things?

    Sincerely, and with good hope for you,

    Dean Turbeville

    • Matt Diaz says:

      Oh, I’m aware that he might be just using it as a literary device, but that doesn’t answer my questions.

      The point is Christians should not talk about other Christian’s faith as if it were something that isn’t inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is no more edifying (edification is characteristic of a Christian servant’s heart cf. Romans 14:19 & 1 Corinthians 14 where things like speaking in tongues is only good if it can be used to edify) than another Christian calling people like you and Chuck Nazi fascists, Al Qaeda, or Christian Reconstructionists . Neither of you are probably literally Nazis (or those other things) since both of you call yourselves “Christian,” but there are similarities, which might call for such literary devices to be employed. However, I don’t think Jesus wanted His followers to talk about each other in such a way.

      What’s this “minimal deism of mainline liberalism”? Do you mean the acceptance of a possibility of the earth being created by God, over a different timeline than Chuck (and maybe you?) accept? Is that really “mainline liberalism”? Is it opposing a conservative statist government for a liberal statist government? Is a Christian who questions and tests everything a “mainline liberal” or is he following God’s Word when he is told to test everything? Is someone qualified as “mainline liberal” if they are at the extreme right of the left?

      Now to the rest of my questions.

      If someone disagrees with your views on something, does that make him or her a pagan, “Baalist”, a “mainline liberal”, or at least someone “opposing Christian reform”? Are they those things if they accept EVERYTHING you accept except ‘inerrancy’?

      “For I tell you that unless [you accept inerrancy] and your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” ????

      Who gave you, Chuck, or people like DeWitt, the Authority of God to determine what is the absolute correct, right, and Christian stance and position?

  5. Al Law says:

    Mr. Turbevill. Looks like Wingard has the courage of his convictions. Why, then did you send your daughter to Erskine. could it have anything to do with the full ride she got? Just wondering?

    also, i would love to hear your reconciliation with your remarks of a few years ago about nothihing being above question. I think you quoted Soloman. I really don’t think you meant it. Maybe you should have said that anything is open to question as long as one agrees with your viewpoint.

    I’m just not sure you are what you profess to be.

  6. Scott Cook says:

    Hey Matt and Al,


    Hope your summer is going well. I had a few things to say in response to what you have written.

    The first thing is an important point of Grammar. You say, “You should be careful of calling what might be the work of the Holy Spirit, which is the third Person of the Trinity…” It is grammatically incorrect to refer to the Spirit as a “which.” The Holy Spirit is a person, not a thing, and so you should have said, “who is the second person of the Trinity…” Its a picky thing, but its a theologically important error that I am sure you did not commit intentionally.

    As far as entitlement goes, the church owns the school. The ARP founded the school. The ARP owns the land the school sits on. Erskine’s board is a board of the ARP and appointed by the ARP. The church has a genuine sense of entitlement, because the Synod is entitled to govern the school.

    I also second Dean’s reply to your section D. I hope you were just trying to be snarky, because the literary devise is clear as day. If you don’t see that, its just an epic fail. Sorry to be so blunt, but that’s the truth.

    Calling the work of the Spirit “Baal” is indeed a serious matter. And there is only one way to find out if that has happened: by examining the Scriptures. I would like to hear you defend the current status of things at Erskine in light of the Scriptures.


    Scripture clearly teaches that only God knows the heart of man (Jer. 17:9-10 and I Samuel 16:7). Perhaps you should be more modest in your claims.

    Do these men think they have an inside track to God? That would be a deviant belief and violation of the Reformed view of Scripture which, to my knowledge, all of these men hold to. Thinking that you are right and that your opinions are in conformity with Scripture does not mean that you think you have an inside track to God.

    Also, I wanted to point a few things out to you. DeWitt, Turbeville, and Chuck did not drag the bride of Christ to the court system and cause a major PR problem for the school. The chairmen of the BoT and the Alumni did that. These three men, to my knowledge, were not the ones who went to SACS complaining, which brought the probationary period upon us. Aldon and other Alums did that. Perhaps you’re wrong. Maybe it’s so long as the Alums have a forum that Erskine will never be safe. And I don’t mean S.A.F.E.

    • Matt Diaz says:


      Sorry for my incorrect grammar. I should have checked it more thoroughly.

      As for your first point. The church does NOT own the school. “The ARP owns the land the school sits on.” You must have meant, “The ARP owns the land on which the college sits.” You are not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition and therefore your grammar is wrong. Scott, find me legal documentation that the church owns the land on which the college sits. If the ARPC does not own the school, legally, than the church does not have a “genuine sense of entitlement.”

      Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think things are perfect at Erskine, but I know that Erskine losing its accreditation is one thing that is not good.

    • Jay West says:

      Uh, Scott. May I corect you? The Synod does not own the land, Erskine College is the name on the deed. Read the by-laws. Synod does not own the institution. In order for accreditation to occur, there can be no outside influence over the academy.

      No offense, but preachers should stick to preaching, well, not in most cases, and academics should be left to tend to the academy.

      • Brian Smith says:

        I am not following the argument here. Erskine sues the Presbyterian denomination who doesn’t own the land and property but still cannot separate?

        However, “Dr.” Jay West’s comments on preachers ‘preaching’ and academics pretty much tell the story of Erskine and its Christian and Academic integrity! ;) Dr. C’s right about one thing… ROTFL!

  7. Al Law says:


    Drink some more kool-aid!

    They have you where they want you.

  8. Chuck Wilson says:

    Please, in your comments, don’t miss Charles W. Wilson’s point. THE POINT IS THAT THE COMMISSION WAS RIGHT IN ITS ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION AT ERSKINE. The continuing refusal of rogue members of the BOT to settle their lawsuit against the ARP Church, according to the agreed upon terms that were framed by and argued for by Bill Patrick, the attorney for the BOT, and passed at the June meeting of General Synod, is evidence of both the failure of the present board system and the mutinous nature of a significant segment of the BOT that has no regard for the ARP Church that gave them the opportunity of serving on the BOT.

    ARP ministers and elders who identify themselves as “moderates” on Erskine issues have, once again, been betrayed. They bent over backwards in dealing with this mutinous, scheming, and grasping segment of the BOT that has been and is attempting to steal Erskine from the ARP Church and is also attempting to strip Erskine bare to base metal of every vestige of evangelical, Christian faith. At this point, the plaintiffs are spitting in the face of the whole ARP Church, but, especially, they are spitting in the faces of those “moderate” ARPs who, in rejecting the warnings of the Commission, argued for and voted to trust these “honorable men” who have demonstrated themselves to be dishonorable scoundrels. The self-identified “moderates” have been betrayed by rascals who are so rapacious that they have taken the ARP Church to civil court and created an academic crisis with SACS and ATS. Then, instead of owning their malevolent handiwork, they have sought to blame the ARP Church for their own acts of mischief-making. The ARP “moderates” have found that to trust these people is like trusting a rattlesnake not to strike.

    No wonder that Bill Crenshaw comments “ROFLMAO.” He’s got it right! He sees it clearly. The ARP “moderates” have been bamboozled, again. It’s not hard to do. These “moderates” who have become acclimated to swimming in the warm waters of a “culture of niceness and mediocrity” don’t know how to adapt to the frigid and sin-ridden waters of political intrigue and disingenuousness.

    So, why is there such emotional intensity in this discussion? As is demonstrated by the comments thus far, this is a culture clash of competing religious systems. On the one hand, there are the proponents of historic, evangelical Christianity, and, on the other hand, there are the proponents of a secularized, apostatized, and neo-paganized form of liberal christianity that not only denies the power of Christ but also deviously misuses the Bible and transmogrifies the language of Christianity. That is, they worship a Baal Erskine that is academically correct, liberally focused, and religiously inclusive. As I see it, the problem for some of these alums is that they are uncomfortable with their god. Why don’t they embrace their god? Why do they have an inordinate desire to hang on to their Christian baggage? Are they ashamed of their god? Indeed, we who are evangelical Christians are not loathed to embrace our God!

    Chuck Wilson

  9. Scott Cook says:

    Dear Matt:

    Sorry I was not able to respond to your post. Today is my day off and I have been with my family today. I will respond in substance tomorrow.

    Dear Al:

    I noticed you did not reply to any of the arguments I advanced. If you feel you are unable to reply with anything more than ad hominem arguments, that’s fine. Such arguments remind me of Macbeth’s analysis of life: “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

    • Scott Cook says:

      Note: The second sentence should read, “Today is my day off and I have been with my family all day.”

      • Al Law says:

        Heck Scott, I don’t even know what ad hominem means, but I do know your quote from Macbeth fits Chucky to a T.

        Here’s what I do know. Chuck is mean spirited and non Christian in his attitude and writings.

        DeWitt is an interloper who hops from denominatin to demonination when he can’t get his way. His actions in his year as moderator were devious and underhanded. His “survey” of students was rigged and slanted, and fortuanately he was shown for what he is at synod.

        Turbeville is the untimate hypcrite. He applauds Wingard for resigning from a school to which he would not sent his own children, yet Turbeville allowed his daughter to spend four years of her life at the devil infested Erskine. One does have to wonder whether the full ride shcolarship she received was the determining factor over Turbeville’s ‘strongly held beliefs’. Could it be that a hundre grand trumps values? Just asking.

        Also, Turbeville stood in front of a graduating class a few years back and touted that nothing is above question. He encouraged them to always have an open mind and question everything. Yep. that’s called acaemic freedom where I come from ,but it seems that he only talks the talk and does not walk the walk. Maybe it’s question everything excetp what I tell you not to question. Could it be?

        This whole thing is nuts. I went to Erskine (did you ? I honestly don’t know), and I can tell you that the only time I was intimidated was when I went into finals with a lack of preparation.

        I loved my professors at Erskine, but I wish I had someone like Bill Crenshaw to argue with. You see, that’s how people learn, and if the snivling, whiny students can’t stand to have their beliefs challenged, then what the heck are they doing in college. Surely, not preparing for the real world.

        If people like Chuck, deWitt, Maye, Query and perhaps even you, get their way, an Erskine diploma will be worth no more than the paper upon which it is written.

        Thank God,people like Aldon Knight are keeping the SACS up to date with the goings on at Erskine. That accredidation is the least we own the past, current and future students.

        Is that non ad hominem enough for you?

        • Daniel Stephens says:

          Actually, no, the whole thing is either abusive ad hominem or tu quoque. From Wikipedia:

          Abusive ad hominem – Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to invalidate their argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.

          tu quoque – A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.

          As for the student surveys: were you there? I was. I was in a room with seven students, Dr. DeWitt and another commissioner. In that room I talked about my concerns for Erskine and most of the other students vigorously disagreed with me. There were atheletes, society members, musicians, and others represented. Honesty it was a great cross section of Erskine students.

  10. Chuck —

    I’m laughing at many things on this post and these comments — for example, Dean T.’s schooling of Matt for mistaking a literary device for a literal statement (funny on SO many levels) and then mistaking Matt’s use of a literary device as a literal statement — but I am not laughing because I think the moderates have been “bamboozled again.” If anyone has bamboozled the moderates, it is your side, the radical right, who are guilty of that. So, no, I‘m not finding humor where you think I am.

    But Scott Cook’s pronouncements are always fonts of endless amusement.

    As are yours, Chuck, when, for example, you claim I’m barking up the wrong tree with ARPs about Christian Reconstructionism when many of your supporters cite Gary North and RJ Rushdoony in their “Likes” list. Actually, I’m wrong: I agree with you that traditional ARPs — the moderates, mostly — have little truck with Christian Reconstructionism. It’s the newbies, the interlopers, the steeple-jacking fundies whose blood flows theocratic in their veins, don’t you think, who are the reconstructionists. Some exceptions of course, but are the wild-eyed recent “converts” who joined the ARPC because it was so in line with their beliefs — or because it was small enough to be taken over and remade in their own image.

    That’s not funny.

    But you do give me a dark laugh, Chuck, clinging to and trying to sow your lies. Don’t be surprised by what you reap. Your side is already known by their fruits, which are as ashes in the mouth once you bite through the thin skin of false piety.

  11. Al Law says:


    As for the lawsuit, I’ll say again: Going through thr “church courts” would be like me suing you with your father as the judge, and all your cousins making up the jury. Not much chance of me getting a fair trial wouldn’t you say?

    I’m also told that you are, indeed, a student at Erskine. Two questions: If it’s so bad, why are you there? and two, if you are that age, why aren’t you acting your age and raising some hell instead of spending time on something like this? For heavens sake, man, you are only young once. Take advantage of it. Surely, you have better things to do. Enjoy.