Written by Philip P. Bliss, the old gospel hymn sings of Jesus as the light of salvation in this manner:

 .

Indeed, “the light of the world is Jesus.” There is no metaphor better than Christmas to proclaim Jesus as the Light of the World.

On Friday evening, December 2, I journeyed with my wife, oldest granddaughter, a young friend and his wife, and their two sons to Greenville, SC, to participate in the annual Christmas carol sing and lighting of the front campus of Bob Jones University. I had never participated in this or seen nearly a quarter of a million Christmas lights turned on simultaneously.

The Christmas carol sing started at 6:30 PM and lasted an hour. The sound of over 5000 voices singing in the evening air was emotionally and spiritually uplifting. Christmas carol after Christmas carol was sung until a crescendo was reached with Joy to the World, and then, with the words “let heaven and nature sing” reverberating in our ears, someone flipped a switch and 250,000 Christmas lights illuminated the December night with glorious brilliance and glowing beauty that proclaimed the joyous message of Jesus’ birth and His reign.

The photograph above freezes a bit of the splendor of that spectacular moment. Around me, I heard the muted whispers of “Wow! Look! Look!” For me and many others, it was a moment in which to reverence the One who is the Light of the World and the One who has overcome “the darkness of sin.”

The metaphor of light as it is used with reference to the coming of Jesus is Biblically driven, so much so, that in John 8:12 Jesus refers to Himself as “the light of the world.” In so doing, Jesus was not inventing something new; rather, He was reaching back and pulling forward the fabric of Old Testament prophesies. This Biblical use of light fascinates me. Consider the following:

• The first “And God said” of creation in Genesis 1 is God’s creative work of bringing forth light that dissipated the darkness of the primeval earth that was “formless” and “void.” It was a word that brought forth day’s light.
• Light is the place of the living (Ps. 56:13); shadows and darkness are the hues of death (Ps. 23:4).
• According to Psalm 103:2, God robes Himself in light, and, in the words of the beloved hymn, Immortal. Invisible, God Only Wise, God dwells “in light inaccessible, hid from our eyes.”
• In Psalm 27:1, the Psalmist declares that Jehovah is his light and salvation.
• Often, both the knowledge of God and God’s law are portrayed in terms of light (Ps. 36:9; Ps. 119:105 and 130; Prov. 6:23; and Isa. 51:4).
• Sin, defined as “any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God,” is depicted as rebellion against the light of God’s revelation and person (Job 24:13 and John 3:19-20).
• Woes and curses are cast against those who put darkness for light by their willful disobedience and apostasy (Isa. 9:2).

Along with these concepts, light is also used for the ruler of the people (1 Kings 11:36). The promise is that God will not leave the people without a “light” – a ruler who will judge them in equity (Ps. 67:4 and 98:9).

The sum of the above is that light is a metaphor for life, the garments and abode of God, knowledge of God, salvation, God’s law, and His rule over His people through His king. Faithful obedience to God’s Word is described as walking in the light. Sin, in contrast, is depicted as walking away from the light and into the darkness of terrible judgment. The promised King is the light of His people who both saves and rules the people of His love.

In the midst of this multifaceted metaphor of light, there is the promise of the Messiah who is the Savior and Light of the World. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great Light (Isa. 9:2). Arise, shine! Indeed, the Light is come, and the gross darkness that covers the minds and hearts of men is dissipated by the brilliance of God’s glorious light in the face of Jesus, and the peoples and kings of the earth shall come to the dawning of His light and the brightness of His coming (Isa. 60:1-3; 2 Corinthians 4:6).

In the midst of this language that portends fulfillment of superlative promises that are stupendous, the story continues and concludes with these royal words spoken by Magi: “Where is he that is born King of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him (Matt. 2:2).

Indeed, worship is the proper response to the One who is the Light of the World. But if one is blind to the Light, that worship is not going to be given. The Apostle John writes that Jesus is the Life that is the Light of men. He is the Light that shines in the darkness of sin’s night; however, that darkness has not comprehended the Light. “Yet to all who receive him, to those who believe in his name, he gives the right to become the sons of God” (John 1:4-5, 12).

The dark evenings of Christmastide glisten and gleam with a billion points of light declaring that Jesus is the Light of the World. Dancing in celebration of His Incarnation, these lights call us to believe and receive Him as the Savior. Dancing in celebration that Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords, these lights call us to bend our knees and to worship the One that John called “the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8).

Wow! Look at those lights prancing in the dark evenings of Christmastide lighting the path to Jesus! With the old songwriter, I sing: “The light of the world is Jesus.”

Christmas light points out that Jesus is the only Savior. Christmas light reminds us that unless our faith is in Jesus we are hopelessly lost in the darkness of sin’s night. Christmas light announces that Jesus is King Jesus and we bow and worship before His majesty.

Merry Christmas!

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

A senior English professor, Crenshaw has made a career of using his classroom to ridicule both the mission of Erskine as a Christian college and the faith of Christian students. For years, Bill Crenshaw has been the bane of multiple Erskine administrations that were unwilling and seemingly unable to deal with his antics.

The following has been made public: (1) Crenshaw has been suspended for the Fall semester; and (2) his institutional email account has been closed. At this time, in Due West and on Facebook, there is a great deal of speculation as to what this means and where it is going.

First Question

One of the questions that are circulating asks why Crenshaw was suspended at this time. Did President Norman suspend Professor Crenshaw for his frequent attacks on Christianity and Christian students? In point of fact, we do not know and may never know the answer to this question. Perhaps Dr. Crenshaw’s lengthy history of personal conflict with others in the Due West community finally caught up with him.

Second Question

A second question that is circulating asks the meaning of “suspended for the Fall semester” and the canceling of the institutional email. Well, these developments are code for “gone,” and do not expect to see Dr. Crenshaw back in an Erskine classroom again! “Suspension” is used for “face-saving.” “Canceling of the institutional email” is what takes place when an employee is removed.

The Deal

On the basis of what the Editor knows from his time on the Erskine BOT, it looks as though a deal has been cut. From the Editor’s BOT experience, the law firm that represents Erskine prefers to negotiate rather than litigate in these matters. That deal probably looks something like this: (1) Dr. Crenshaw will get his salary and benefits this year; (2) he will also get some “going away money”; (3) there is a non-disclosure clause that prevents both parties from speaking about the stipulations of the agreement; (4) there is an indemnification clause that relinquishes the rights of the parties to sue each other in these matters; and (5) there are stiff penalties that secure the silence and cooperation of both parties.

Pragmatically, this is a good deal for both sides. Dr. Crenshaw settles for a bag of money that will carry him through until he is 65 and he does not have to work. Dr. Norman has essentially silenced Dr. Crenshaw by pulling out his tongue and cutting off his fingers. Dr. Norman has removed a significant distraction and liability to the institution’s mission.

The Editor is not rock-sure of his speculations; however, he is willing to bet his hat. There are a number of reasons for the Editor’s confidence: (1) the silence of Dr. Crenshaw that began about six weeks ago; (2) the unwillingness of President Norman to discuss this manner when he announced it to the BOT on August 18; and (3) Dr. Crenshaw’s continued silence. It ain’t natural for Crenshaw to be silent about anything! The boy loves to talk . . . and talk . . . and talk!

Editor’s Question

The Editor has a question. Did Bill Crenshaw engineer this? The Editor’s answer is Yes! Dr. Crenshaw is shrewd – very shrewd. He is well aware of the direction of the ARP Church. He knows the direction that Erskine is now drifting. He wanted a way out. What was the best way out with maximum effect for him?

The Editor thinks that he found the way out. Well done, Bill! You played your cards well!

The Loser

Well, is there a loser in this affair? That answer is Yes! The losers are the nearly 2,000 secular Erskine alums who belong to and may participate on the “Alumni for Erskine” and the “Alumni for an Independent Erskine” Facebook sites. They have held Crenshaw in high esteem. They venerate him as their guru and their voice. He has been their champion for a secular Erskine since their college days. From his vitriolic writing on Facebook and elsewhere, the secular alums expected him to lead them in their “righteous war” against the forces of Fundamentalism and anti-intellectualism. “Crenshaw the Champion” would stand against the benighted and evil forces of evangelical Christian ignorance in the ARP Church and on the BOT and the Erskine administration and community. Instead, it appears that when given the choice of leading a crusade for secularism or “thirty pieces of silver” for his pocket, “Crenshaw the Champion” became “Crenshaw the Coward” and took the bag of money and ran to his North Carolina home on the lake.

Now, the Editor’s assessment of the situation may be wrong. How will we know? The Editor’s calculus has failed if the following happens: (1) Crenshaw again cranks up the rhetoric on Facebook, on his blog, and elsewhere and goes after Erskine and President Norman; (2) a lawsuit is filed by Crenshaw against Erskine; and (3) Crenshaw files a complaint with SACS. Indeed, time will tell whether the Editor has ciphered correctly.

Has the Editor Changed His Mind?

A number of you have asked the Editor the following question: “Now that Crenshaw is gone, have you changed your mind on the relationship between Erskine and the ARP Church?”

The answer to that question is NO! As a matter of fact, the Editor is more convinced than ever that the ARP Church should sever the relationship with Erskine. The business of Erskine College and Seminary is not something that the ARP Church should be involved in! We lack both the resolve and the resources that are needed to sustain and oversee the business of a college and seminary.

The Bible has something to say about knowing a tree by its fruit (Matthew 7:16-20; 12:33; Luke 6:43-44). Currently, the “fruit” (the secular alums) of Erskine College and Seminary represent a flat contradiction of the theological standards and philosophical understanding of the ARP Church in higher education and theological training. Is the purpose of the ARP Church in her endeavors in higher education and theological training through Erskine College and Seminary to produce a large number of graduates who hate and reject the evangelical Christian faith of the ARP Church and who unwaveringly oppose the philosophy and oversight of the ARP Church as her educational agency? If that has been the purpose of the ARP Church for the last 40 years, we have succeeded splendidly. However, if our goal was to do liberal arts education from an evangelical perspective and theological training that affirmed the ARP Church and have graduates who reflected the educational philosophy of the ARP Church and the theological verities of the ARP Church, we ARPs have failed miserably.

Luke 13:6-9 reads in this manner:

A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why encumbers it the ground?

And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that you shall cut it down.

After 40 years of attempts, it is time that we acknowledge the truth. We in the ARP Church do not have the financial and personnel resources to turn Erskine College into a Christian liberal arts college that exists to the glory of God, nor do we have the ability to run Erskine Seminary so that it functions to reflect and promote the ministry of the ARP Church. We have struck out! It’s time for a batter other than the ARP Church!

The Editor wishes that what he has written were not true; however, wishing does not change reality.

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

EDITOR’S REMARKS: The article below was originally published in The Greenville News and later repeated in The Aquila Report. The article is by Ms. Nancy S. Campbell and Rev. Andrew K. Putnam. The article appeared just after the meeting of the Erskine Alumni Association on Saturday, April 30, 2011.

The article is an example of unreality – an I-wish-it-were-true-but-it-isn’t-but-perhaps-I-can-convince-you-that-it’s-true! The only way the sentiments expressed in this article correspond to any reality is if we have entered the realm of the Superman comic books where parallel universes intersect and a news article from an alternate universe where there is a faithful, evangelical Erskine College somehow is posted in The Greenville News in our universe.

This article is balderdash and wishful thinking. It is simply an attempt to sell the proposed bylaws to two constituencies that have been and still are at odds with one another, the ARP Church and the Alumni Association. Apart from a new President, who is indeed an evangelical Christian, not much has changed. Yes, a few people have been moved on; however, at this point, the administration and faculty are essentially the same as they were last year.

The Editor is amazed that Ms. Campbell and Rev. Putnam trot out the issue of academic freedom at Erskine at this time. The issue is not and has never been academic freedom. Even SACS now recognizes that there is no threat to academic freedom at Erskine. Rather, the issues are faithfulness to the stated goal for Erskine as evangelical Christian, integrity in upholding and advancing the mission, and personal responsibility to own the goal and faith. At Erskine College and Seminary, “academic freedom” has become a code word for a license to subvert and attack the Christian foundation and the evangelical underpinnings that define Erskine College as evangelically Christian and the Seminary as Associate Reformed Presbyterian, Reformed, and orthodox.

Have we forgotten that many Erskine Board members and Erskine College faculty members have admitted that they do NOT know what a Christian worldview looks like? Not only do many on he Erskine faculty members not know what a Christian worldview is, they probably do not know what evangelical Christianity is. Dr. Bill Crenshaw, the controversial English professor and self-proclaimed opponent of evangelical Christianity at Erskine, on March 21, 2011, posted on the secular alums’ Facebook site that two-thirds of the present Erskine faculty members are so at odds with the stated purpose and goals of Erskine as an evangelical Christian college that they could not be hired today. Fascinatingly, Dr. Crenshaw, in his classroom and on Facebook and blog posts, has nearly perfected the art of criticism and the demeaning of evangelical Christianity – and that from a professor at a college that has and still advertises itself as an evangelical Christian college. Is there a pastor in the ARP Church who would allow Dr. Crenshaw to teach a Sunday School class? Is there a pastor in the ARP Church who would present him for membership in his congregation? How does such an irony as this make Erskine a distinctively evangelical Christian college? So, why do Ms. Campbell and Rev. Putnam bring up the topic of academic freedom? What we have witnessed at Erskine is abuse of academic freedom under the ruse of intellectual inquiry in order to promote antipathy for and attacks on the Christian faith.

Well, have we also forgotten that ETS faculty is bitterly divided over the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible? Have we forgotten that ETS does not reflect fully the theological standards of the ARP Church? Have we forgotten why so many of our ministerial candidates have abandoned ETS for more faithful seminaries? In just a few days, the overwhelming majority of ministerial candidates who will graduate from seminary and take calls to congregations in the ARP Church will NOT be ETS graduates. They were not willing to trust ETS with their theological training despite the fact that they could have attended ETS virtually tuition free.

The relationship between the General Synod of the ARP Church and the Erskine Board of Trustees (EBOT) is still fractured. The antagonisms and divisions on the EBOT are still present. The long history of the EBOT’s failure at fiduciary responsibility and oversight of the college administration and the seminary administration continues to persist like an unrelenting plague. Indeed, that dark cloud is going to be difficult for the new President to dissipate.

This article by Ms. Campbell and Rev. Putnam is the worst kind of PR nonsense. At this point, Erskine College is being advertised as something that Erskine ain’t! Erskine ain’t evangelical Christian! It may be the goal of the new President, but that is not what Erskine is now. It is unthinkable that Erskine College is being advertised as a distinctively “Christian” college, and it is just as unthinkable that ETS is advertised as a faithfully Reformed and Presbyterian seminary that affirms the inerrancy of the Bible.

Academic Freedom and Faith Are Not Enemies

Nancy S. Campbell, President, Erskine College Alumni Association, and

Andrew K. Putnam, Moderator-Elect, General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church

In higher education, a perception exists that the academic inquiry found in an excellent liberal arts environment and a genuine commitment to Christian faith are essentially incompatible. However, in our roles for Erskine College and Seminary as president-elect of the Alumni Association and moderator-elect of the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) Church, we see these two elements as not only complementary, but essential components of the Erskine mission. Furthermore, we believe as with other important apparently opposing values, maintaining balance between them is worth the hard work—even when it means working through family feuds and differences.

A year ago, members of the Board of Trustees and alumni of Erskine were engaged in just such a dispute with the institution’s founding denomination, the ARP Church. Support of opposing views on these issues had polarized supporters to the point of breakdown.

That breakdown threatened to dismantle the board and resulted in a series of procedural and legal actions. These actions were both supported and opposed by many from within the denomination and the alumni. As expected, they also attracted the attention of the press and the institution’s accrediting associations.

With an agreement to keep the duly elected board in place, the legal action was dropped. This is where the story moves from the predictable to the notable. Over the past year, we have repeatedly witnessed genuine collaboration and commitment to achieving the wholeness that includes Christian faith and academic excellence.

Rather than allowing a stalemate to cripple Erskine, the original, intact board found common ground. First, the board unanimously appointed Dr. David A. Norman to succeed the retiring Dr. Randall T. Ruble as president. Not only was this decision unanimous, it took place within two short months of the height of differences. Next, the board created a bylaws committee comprised of trustees, alumni, faculty, ARP ministers, and members of other denominations to address accreditation recommendations and organizational concerns.

The two of us are serving on this bylaws committee. Our group has proposed a collaborative framework for the board and denomination to work together more effectively to place gifted leaders on the board. In addition to putting words on paper, we have witnessed notable progress in building collaboration between Erskine supporters across diverse, passionately held views.

What has propelled this progress? Dr. Norman’s inspiring vision of an institution where both authentic Christian liberal arts and genuine academic inquiry flourish.

While the board addressed its governance issues, excellence in education at Erskine continued as expected. For example, over the past year, 100 percent of Erskine students who applied to medical school (about ten percent of the graduating class) were accepted. Nearly half of the 2010 graduates continued their studies at graduate schools, several of them going directly to doctoral programs.

More recently, accrediting associations have recognized the institution’s atmosphere of academic freedom. Evidence of Erskine’s Christian influence appears not only across the campus in academics, arts, and athletics, but across the upstate and into the world in churches, businesses, government and non-profit organizations.

We view the events of the past year as a God-given learning opportunity. The time for assigning blame is well over. Erskine is focusing on the future. This past Friday, April 29, Erskine inaugurated Dr. Norman as its fifteenth president. We are grateful for the ways in which God has blessed Erskine, and we are excited about working toward the vision Dr. Norman describes for Erskine. We have an excellent faculty and collaboratively engaged alumni and denominational leaders.

Regardless of your connection to Erskine, we hope you’ll witness along with us how genuine academic excellence and authentic Christian faith are blended and balanced to prepare graduates who flourish as whole persons—intellectually, physically, and spiritually—to become leaders who are locally active and globally minded in guiding their families, careers, churches, and communities.

EDITOR’S REMARKS: The article below, Editorial On Abusing Matthew 18, by Dr. D. A. Carson, is found at Themelios at The Gospel Coalition.

The Editor is not going to presume to add anything to this fine article by Dr. D. A. Carson, who says it all. The Editor simply voices his Amen. However, please indulge the Editor to make a few plaintive observations regarding Matthew 18 and the ARP Church.

First of all, the Editor has found that Matthew 18 is the haunt of scoundrels. Three years ago, when the Editor began to call attention to Barthianism at ETS and pointing out administrative and financial abuses, the Editor was accused of failing to follow Matthew 18. At that time, the Editor was amazed that so-called intelligent men were denying the reality of serious theological and administrative breaches at ETS during the tenure of former Executive Vice President Neely Gaston. Those actions of the former Executive Vice President were obvious and blatant. Indeed, in the light of the noonday sun, he had promoted Barthians and then said he had not and followed that by publicly stating that all the ETS faculty members affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible. Questions regarding Matthew 18 were voiced loudly in meetings of presbyteries and General Synod with regard to what the Editor and others were saying. Well, when a ship is on fire at sea, it is not time to discuss the nature of fire but to get water on the fire! Why were these pious advocates of Matthew 18 not putting water on the fire? Why were they not acknowledging the reality of the fire that was consuming their ship? Their failure has nearly resulted in the financial collapse of ETS. Their failure has nearly resulted in an accrediting disaster with ATS. Could it be that their failure to act decisively has nearly wrecked ETS?

Second, as has already been alluded to, Matthew 18 seems to be the refuge of those who are unwilling to confront serious theological and administrative issues and correct them. The issues regarding the inerrancy of the Bible are as public and open and noisy and sharp and seminal to the future of ETS as they can possibly get. The same is true of the administrative failures.

Why is it now that all the ARP and PCA faculty members at ETS have not signed on to the doctrinal statement on inerrancy that was posted on Reformation21 by Erskine College and Seminary faculty members? Dr. Richard Burnett, who is the center of this theological storm, says that he now affirms the inerrancy of the Bible. If that is the case, why has he not signed the statement on inerrancy? The statement is as vanilla as can be! Why has he not signed?

Once again, Matthew 18 is getting pulled out. It is argued that the proper approach to deal with the matters at ETS is not to make a public statement; rather, the proper approach is to go to the administration, then to the President, and then to the EBOT. Well, for the last three years, as the ETS ship was burning at sea from stem to stern, where were these advocates of Matthew 18? Were they going to the administration, the President, and to the Board? Or were they busy defending an indefensible status quo?

Well, not much has changed! Why is it that these non-signatory brothers are not willing to stand? These are the men who are tasked to teach ministerial candidates in the ARP Church about the responsibilities of and the courage needed in the Christian ministry. Thank God that most of our ministerial candidates have chosen to attend other seminaries than ETS for their theological training!

Editorial On Abusing Matthew 18

Several years ago I wrote a fairly restrained critique of the emerging church movement as it then existed, before it morphed into its present diverse configurations.(1) That little book earned me some of the angriest, bitterness-laced emails I have ever received—to say nothing, of course, of the blog posts. There were other responses, of course—some approving and grateful, some thoughtful and wanting to dialogue. But the ones that displayed the greatest intensity were those whose indignation was white hot because I had not first approached privately those whose positions I had criticized in the book. What a hypocrite I was—criticizing my brothers on ostensible biblical grounds when I myself was not following the Bible’s mandate to observe a certain procedure nicely laid out in Matt 18:15–17.

Doubtless this sort of charge is becoming more common. It is regularly linked to the “Gotcha!” mentality that many bloggers and their respondents seem to foster. Person A writes a book criticizing some element or other of historic Christian confessionalism. A few bloggers respond with more heat than light. Person B writes a blog with some substance, responding to Person A. The blogosphere lights up with attacks on Person B, many of them asking Person B rather accusingly, “Did you communicate with Person A in private first? If not, aren’t you guilty of violating what Jesus taught us in Matthew 18?” This pattern of counter-attack, with minor variations, is flourishing.

To which at least three things must be said:

(1) The sin described in the context of Matt 18:15–17 takes place on the small scale of what transpires in a local church (which is certainly what is envisaged in the words “tell it to the church”). It is not talking about a widely circulated publication designed to turn large numbers of people in many parts of the world away from historic confessionalism. This latter sort of sin is very public and is already doing damage; it needs to be confronted and its damage undone in an equally public way. This is quite different from, say, the situation where a believer discovers that a brother has been breaking his marriage vows by sleeping with someone other than his wife, and goes to him privately, then with one other, in the hope of bringing about genuine repentance and contrition, and only then brings the matter to the church.

To put the matter differently, the impression one derives from reading Matt 18 is that the sin in question is not, at first, publicly noticed (unlike the publication of a foolish but influential book). It is relatively private, noticed by one or two believers, yet serious enough to be brought to the attention of the church if the offender refuses to turn away from it. By contrast, when NT writers have to deal with false teaching, another note is struck: the godly elder “must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9 NIV).

Doubtless one can think up some contemporary situations that initially might make one scratch one’s head and wonder what the wise course should be—or, to frame the problem in the context of the biblical passages just cited, whether one should respond in the light of Matt 18 or of Titus 1. For example, a local church pastor may hear that a lecturer in his denominational seminary or theological college is teaching something he judges to be outside the confessional camp of that denomination and possibly frankly heretical. Let us make the situation more challenging by postulating that the pastor has a handful of students in his church who attend that seminary and are being influenced by the lecturer in question. Is the pastor bound by Matt 18 to talk with the lecturer before challenging him in public?

This situation is tricky in that the putative false teaching is public in one sense and private in another. It is public in that it is not a merely private opinion, for it is certainly being promulgated; it is private in the sense that the material is not published in the public arena, but is being disseminated in a closed lecture hall. It seems to me that the pastor would be wise to go to the lecturer first, but not out of obedience to Matt 18, which really does not pertain, but to determine just what the views of the lecturer really are. He may come to the conclusion that the lecturer is kosher after all; alternatively, that the lecturer has been misunderstood (and any lecturer with integrity will want to take pains not to be similarly misunderstood in the future); or again, that the lecturer is dissimulating. He may feel he has to go to the lecturer’s superior, or even higher. My point, however, is that this course of action is really not tracing out Jesus’ instruction in Matt 18. The pastor is going to the lecturer, in the first instance, not to reprove him, but to find out if there really is a problem when the teaching falls in this ambiguous category of not-quite-private and not-quite-public.

(2) In Matt 18, the sin in question is, by the authority of the church, excommunicable—in at least two senses.

First, the offense may be so serious that the only responsible decision that the church can make is to thrust the offender out of the church and view him or her as an unconverted person (18:17). In other words, the offense is excommunicable because of its seriousness. In the NT as a whole, there are three categories of sins that reach this level of seriousness: major doctrinal error (e.g., 1 Tim 1:20), major moral failure (e.g. 1 Cor 5), and persistent and schismatic divisiveness (e.g., Titus 3:10). These constitute the negative flipside of the three positive “tests” of 1 John: the truth test, the obedience test, and the love test. In any case, though we do not know what it is, the offense in Matt 18 is excommunicable because of its seriousness.

Second, the situation is such that the offender can actually be excommunicated from the assembly. In other words, the offense is excommunicable because organizationally it is possible to excommunicate the offender. By contrast, suppose someone in, say, Philadelphia were to claim to be a devout Christian while writing a book that was in certain ways deeply anti-Christian. Suppose a church in, say, Toronto, Canada decided the book is heretical. Such a church might, I suppose, declare the book misguided or even heretical, but they certainly could not excommunicate the writer. Doubtless they could declare the offender persona non grata in their own assembly, but this would be a futile gesture and probably counter-productive to boot. After all, the offender might be perfectly acceptable in his own assembly.(2) In other words, this sort of offense might be excommunicable in the first sense—i.e., the false teaching might be judged so severe that the offender deserves to be excommunicated—but is not excommunicable in the second sense, for the organizational reality is such that excommunication is not practicable. The point to observe is that whatever the offense in Matthew 18, it is excommunicable in both senses: the sin must be serious enough to warrant excommunication, and the organizational situation is such that the local church can take decisive action that actually means something. Where one or the other of these two senses does not apply, neither does Matthew 18.

One might of course argue that it is the part of prudential wisdom to write to authors before you criticize them in your own publication. I can think of situations where that may or may not be a good idea. But such reasoning forms no part of the argument of Matthew 18.

(3) There is a flavor of play-acting righteousness, of disproportionate indignation, behind the current round of “Gotcha!” games. If Person B charges Person A, who has written a book arguing for a revisionist understanding of the Bible, with serious error and possibly with heresy, it is no part of wisdom to “Tut-tut” the narrow-mindedness of Person B and smile condescendingly and dismissively over such judgmentalism. That may play well among those who think the greatest virtue in the world is tolerance, but surely it cannot be the honorable path for a Christian. Genuine heresy is a damnable thing, a horrible thing. It dishonors God and leads people astray. It misrepresents the gospel and entices people to believe untrue things and to act in reprehensible ways. Of course, Person B may be entirely mistaken. Perhaps the charge Person B is making is entirely misguided, even perverse. In that case, one should demonstrate the fact, not hide behind a procedural matter. And where Person B is advancing serious biblical argumentation, it should be evaluated, not dismissed with a procedural sleight-of-hand and a wrong-headed appeal to Matthew 18.

Notes:

1. D. A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005).
2. This argument could be ratcheted up to the denominational level for those who—mistakenly, in my view—think that “church” in Matt 18 has that sort of multi-assembly organization in view.

Chuck Wilson Was Right!

The SAFE Students Were Right!

The Moderator’s Commission Was Right!

The Snow Synod Was Right!

The Editor of ARPTalk does not need to make comments. The comments that follow speak loud enough!

A tip of the hat to Mrs. Janis Cunningham, Mr. Randy Harrison, and Mr. Daniel Wells!

The comments appear as they were posted on Facebook. The Editor has not attempted to note spelling and grammatical errors.

---

First Thread

Jay West

David Norman has denied Jay Herring, a seminary and long time ARP, tenure. Although Jay had been recommended by the Dean, executive VP, and the tenure committee, some unnamed individuals expressed to Dr. Norman privately that they questioned the process. So Dr. Norman rejected the tenure application. I cannnot surmise Dr. Norman’s reasons, but outside undue influence remains a problem. I have known Jay Herring for over twenty-five years and know him to be a man of deep faith with a passion for others. I can only imagine that some in the ARP denomination raised their heads because he voiced his interpretation of scripture during the recent court case between the college and ARP denomination. The underlying message here is to repress your voice even when convicted by Scripture. Is this what we want our college and seminary students to absorb?

Linda Young Price

The evil doers are still trying to capture their prize…total control of Erskine. Are we about to inaugurate a pawn for their power?

Jay West

Seems we already have

Abbey Veal

I’m afraid you’re right Linda. Norman has tasted the Kool-Aid and likes it. This proves that he won’t listen to his own staff and will be loyal to Chuck Wilson and his crowd. The Alumni are the losers here. Norman will quickly learn that the church will not bail out Erskine.

Linda Young Price

My heart is sick.

---

Second Thread

Daniel Wells

Alumni For Erskine – A Christian Liberal Arts College

Some people in this group noted how the “Pharisees” turned their backs on David Norman a couple of days ago. Just to give an update on this matter… Dr. Norman replied to Chuck’s open letter at ARPTalk in the comments section. Ironically, they seem to be on the same page now. (link)

Mary Lou Holmes

‎”Mere words” are still “mere words” according to Dr. Norman. God’s words are still God’s words. “inerrancy” sorry to say is not one of God’s words. No matter how precious to Wilson. No matter how he’s fought for 40 years to get it into the ARP vocabulary. It is still a newly minted doctrine of man.

Mary Lou Holmes

‎40 years of Wilson is a mere blip in the history of Erskine and the history of the ARP Church.

Mary Lou Holmes

It isn’t just this group noticing how Wilson behaves like a Pharisee. Search his site for the word “love.” He has never ever used it. Not even once to mean brotherly love. He only used it for Valentine’s Day to mean romantic love between a man and a woman who share the same glasses. Wilson doesn’t understand the God of the New Testament.

Mary Lou Holmes Wilson ought to be focused on the precious lamb of God. Not his own precious words.

William Crenshaw

Daniel — not much to Dr. Norman’s response. Isn’t it mostly a reprint of the first article on inerrancy? So what’s new?

P. Mark Wilson

It seems like Chuck Wilson and David Norman are bosom buddies. I would have hoped that the President of Erskine would not roll in the mud that Wilson flings. I think that public discourse with him is beneath his position as college president. Does anyone else share my concerns?

Abbey Veal

I’m afraid Dr. Norman has dipped his finger in the Kool-Aid.

Daniel Wells

Bill,

Do you really not think what Dr. Norman posted as a clarification is not significant? I can’t always tell the difference between when you are kidding and when you are doing “critical analysis of a text”.

I take the following comments by Dr. Norman to be a very clear expression of his position on Scripture and Inerrancy and the ARP interpretation of it:

Norman: “Do I believe and support the ARP position on Scripture? As you know, my answer is, unreservedly, ‘YES!’.

I know there are many who would like to obfuscate my very clear position on this.”

Then, at the end of the article Dr. Norman gives us a glimpse into whether or not he sees this as a ‘newly minted doctrine, since 2008′ when he says:

“Since my conversion as a child, I have never wavered in my belief in absolute biblical authority. I am not sure when I first heard the doctrinal formulation adopted by the ARP synod in 2008, but I know I cited it in writing as my own position as early 1994.”

So, according to Dr. Norman, some are trying to obfuscate his very clear position on Scripture that he has personally held since 1994 (when Dr. Strobel was President at Erskine). I find that to be revealing, and, personally, very encouraging. I hope we all do and that we can ALL support Erskine more and more financially as it pursues its educational purpose and missional goals. I say let’s all show our support of Dr. Norman and of Erskine by clicking the “like” button!

William Crenshaw

Daniel — That is of course nonsense. Who has been trying to obfuscate the president’s position? Show me. Evidence. What you’ll find is that people have been trying not only to CLARIFY the president’s position, because he IS president and what he thinks counts, but also to clarify through that Erskine’s corporate position. It hasn’t been easy to get clarification, but I think we have it now.

But not from anything the president says in his letter to Chuck. That’s all general and abstract, essentially without meaning. You and Janis and, yes, the president have been dancing hard to avoid saying what this idea means for Erskine. I and others have been trying to pin you all down to gets specifics, to examine implications. You have tried to avoid being pinned down because the implications are not only embarrassing but are almost certainly destructive to Erskine. You are rarely specific and concrete. You hide behind the smoke of generalities and accuse others of obfuscation.

And, yes, Mark, I share your concerns. I think most of us do. I hope so. Most of us should be appalled at what has been revealed over the last few weeks on this site, and I find it disturbing that more of us aren’t condemning it.

I might be wrong. Maybe there are only a few of us appalled by what we see. If that’s the way it is, so be it. But if it is not, silence is assent.

We will have people interviewing in a few weeks for a position in the English Department at Erskine. They will ask us, as potential colleagues (not administrators) to tell them what the inerrancy clause in the faculty contract actually means. And now, thanks to the president, I can tell them.

It means that you have to believe in Satan. You have to think that Satan is an “actual person.” You have to avoid trying to understand terms, especially theological terms, because the Evil One will use your pride to hurt Erskine. You have to believe in angels and demons and all that such belief implies and denies. We reject science as it is practiced by the professionals. We have, we will have to say to the candidates, a college president in the 21st Century who says that Satan exists.

Imagine going to an academic conference, as all professors do. For me it would be the Modern Language Association, or, more fun, a medieval group, to hear papers and exchange ideas. It might be a history conference, a biology conference, a psychology conference. Not one sponsored by CCCU but the real professional conferences in whatever field we’re talking about. Now imagine a college president getting up at that conference and warning us not to pursue our studies into our fields too deeply lest Satan use our explorations for his own subversive purposes. What do you think would be the reaction at such a conference? Stunned silence? Guffaws? Incredulity? It certainly would not be a chorus of Amen, My Brother.

We might also consider the intellectual and theological cowardice evinced in an article that tries to spin honest inquiry into, on the one hand, “hyper-definitions” of mere words while on the other insisting those “mere words” be used as a filter on new applicants — a filter that the article refuses to define by hiding behind Satan’s skirts. And this from the leader of an academic community. The mind reels.

There is, as the cliché goes, an elephant in the room. We’re trying to maintain Erskine as a solid college, the one most of you alums graduated from, but the leader of the college is kowtowing to a man who a few years ago was an outcast and is invoking Satanic threats to avoid answering basic questions about the implications of the policy he endorses.

It is beyond embarrassing. Mortifying is too mild a word.

With what has been revealed on this site, do you think we can remain the college you graduated from?

They will destroy the college to save it.

So yes, Mark, I share your concerns. And yes, Daniel, I think the president has clarified his ideas, but not the way you claim he has.

And that clarification can only hurt the college. Satan won’t hurt the college. But our pronounced fear of Satan will. (Editor’s emphasis)

Jay West

Wilson and Wells unite in their support of Norman! Just saying… pass the pepto!

Jay West

As the song says, ” I see your true colors shining through.”

Jay West

‎@Daniel- Let’s be honest. The alumni can provide the resources to make Erskine successful. You and the other saboteurs do not have the means. Make no mistake, the downfallof theinstitution began with your actions.

Daniel Wells

Bill-

So, I take it you are not clicking the “like” button. If not, I understand. We can’t all like the same things or support the same philosophies. That’s why it is good that we have various kinds of schools and freedom to choose to support them or not. We can either get on the train or get off the train, no one is holding a gun to our head either way. But, as Dr. Weatherman used to say, when it comes to Erskine being the evangelical Christian College of the ARP Church…THAT train has left the station. As for me, I click the like button and I still hope we all can.

William Crenshaw

Daniel — I think you’re the only “like” button so far. I think well over a thousand people belong to this group. I think you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Rusty Biggins

It appears the wind is blowing from left to Right. At least the white flag I am ready to raise is blowing that way.

Janis Cunningham

Bill, your post above is frightening. Your unbelief is written there so clearly for all to see. But I do not believe there are many here who would agree with you, because I think there are those who may disagree with inerrancy who would still say they believe in Satan and angels. Bill, without believing in those things, you deny so much about Christ. You take away His purpose in dying on the cross to save believers from their sins. I am assuming you don’t believe in heaven or hell, because you should be very afraid of dying with the views you hold.

John Randolph Harrison

Bill I think you would be far outnumbered on this site by people who believe in a literal Satan. Don’t think you will get many supporters for those comment either.

William Crenshaw Randy — you maybe right about the number of people on this board who believe in devils and demons and all that such a position implies and reveals. And if you are right, it’s just such a sad commentary on so much.

John Randolph Harrison

I think its sadder that a professor at a Christian college would say in print he doesn’t believe in Satan and angels, especially EC.

Jay West

Why is it that people like you and Weatherman who have no family legacy with Erskine think you have the right to reform her into an institution far from what the patriarchs and matriarchs of her past intended. I am still so amazed that people of your persuasion are still so egotistical. If you did not like Erskine, why attend as a student? Why try to make an ant hill out of a palace?

Daniel Wells

Randy, that was precisely SAFE’s point. We thought it was sad and odd and unfair, given that Erskine was advertised to us as an evangelical Christian school where all the faculty are Christians. All SAFE wanted to do was make sure the Board…

John Randolph Harrison

Jay? Is your position the same as C’s? I don’t that position is even close to the founders of EC.

Jay West

Daniel Wells, you were not telling the TRUTH. You flat out lied! But, you will have to stand before the Lord one day and answer. Good providence!

Jay West

By the way, the denomination can name the board, but we can withhold the funds. I promise you, that if you, McDonald, Wilson, Turbeville, Mulner and the rest of the taliban think we will support your views in the end- YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN. I would rather see a humane death than students study under your extremist doctrine!

Janis Cunningham

Jay, this is not about family legacy. It is about a church denomination that has been around over 200 years and is trying to be faithful to God in all it’s ministries. There is no way a Christian college can fulfill it’s mission with unbelievers on the faculty.

John Randolph Harrison

You didn’t answer my question Jay. Is that the kind of Erskine you want?

John Randolph Harrison

C says he doesn’t believe in Satan, angels, literal hell and so on. I didn’t mention anything about talking animals and trees waving and neither did he in this thread. Is that the kind of professors you support? You are just deflecting and trying to change the subject.

Janis Cunningham

Well, thank the Lord for the students who had the courage to speak up. And yes, Daniel, the evidence of the problems is here for all to see.

John Randolph Harrison

I think I would have deleted that thread also Jay.

Jay West

John, what position are you speaking of? I believe in evil and sin, because I experienced it first hand with Wells and the taliban. Actually,it is quite comical to read their statements, knowing the schemes they inacted. I believe in angels. However, I realize that much of the OT was passed down by oral tradition and whether or not there are original transcripts is just time wasted when we could feed the sheep. Jesus did not say, believe in me, inerrancy, animals talking, and trees waving- because it did not matter. I believe the Bible is the word of God, but I also believe in the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that the talibal have been faithful stewards of God’s word. Hope this helps!

Rusty Biggins

I’m with Jay on this. It’s time that all of us who cannot support the new evangelical Erskine need to agree to “walk” and not look back. Not another dollar, child, or grandchild should we ever send to Erskine. If Erskine is going to pursue being an evangelical Christian college, then they will have to do it without us. They will have to do it by getting new students, new faculty and new donors who support their new Mission. The gulf between us and them is too wide to bridge.

Jay West

WAKE UP! It is about family legacy, an Erskine family that has existed for centuries. Without the Erskine family- outside of the ARP, the college would not exist! PERIOD. It is about those of us and our ancestors who have given our resources, time, and love. How would you feel if someone entered your family by marriage and tried to change everything you stand for in life! there is no difference!

Jay West

Be specific. Ask the questions you want me to answer. Unlike Wells and the Taliban- I will stand on what I believe!

John Randolph Harrison

And what do you think C is doing making statements like he did. You think the “ancestors” would support a professor stating such a position.

Jay West

‎@ Daniel- come out and play! Why do you hide when confronted with the truth?

John Randolph Harrison

C says he doesn’t believe in a iiteral Satan, angels or hell? I asked you more than once if you did and if that the kind of professors you support teaching at EC.

Rusty Biggins

JRH- None of us were here when the founders founded Erskine, so you can’t dare pretend to say for sure what they stood for. That is only YOUR interpretation of them, and ours may be different.

Janis Cunningham

JAY!!! Christ’s Church is open to ALL who believe!!! Erskine is a Christian College! This is about the CHURCH and it’s mission to spread the GOSPEL! Your family legacy means nothing, absolutely nothing when it comes to faithfulness to Christ! Think about the rich young ruler, Jay. His good works were not enough to merit Christ’s favor! Your family legacy won’t do it either. When we stand before Christ we will be judged on how we were obedient to what the scriptures teach. And that obedience is out of a great love for the Lord which is given to us through faith. Do not keep minimizing the Truth of scripture, Jay. It is a battle worth fighting for!!!

Jay West

I do not know. I do know that Bill Crsnshaw is a professional who understands how to prod students and readers to contemplate what they think and believe. I think Bill is a Christian- though it is not my job to judge Bill. I have watched, worked and studied under him for years. Bill is a tremendous professor with incredible gifts. It is interesting to me that the Taliban blames the professors and adminstration for what the students learn, yet they do not accept that many of them did not do their job as pastors with their youth. Did they take them to feed the sheep, clothe the homeless, minister to the elderly? Do you think they would call parents into question?

John Randolph Harrison

Rusty they stood for the WCF. Jay what is it you do not know? If there is a literal Satan? If there are angels? And you were the Chaplain of a Christian college?

Jay West

Spoken like a true PHARISEE!

Rusty Biggins

Yep, and NAZIS too!

John Randolph Harrison

Thats what people do when they get frustrated is call people names.

Jay West

JANIS, What is so hard to understand? No one is deminishing Scripture. Are you telling me that all of the people that attended Erskine for centuries should have no say in her direction- WHEN THEY PAY THE BILLS? Answer please. Simply- yes or no. Do you understand that virtually every building on that campus was paid for by either an alumni or friend? Do you not understand tha the endowment is funded year after year by the alumni? Are you saying that all of the other alumni from other Christian denominations don’t matter? Not very reformed if you believe in the universal body of Christ. Your point is clear- now you have some power and screw us! Not gonna happen. FOR THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW HAVE BEEN ALIENATED FROM CHRIST- THEY HAVE FALLEN AWAY FROM GRACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Janis Cunningham

Rusty, interesting that you would bring that up, because I have a quote handy from the founders of the denomination: Associate Reformed Synod at Greencastle, May 31st,1799:

Jay West

NOT NAMES- I BELIEVE THAT THE TOS IS THE MODERN DAY PHARISAIC GROUP OF OUR TIME! I am being very serious!

John Randolph Harrison

And what are those who don’t believe in Satan, angels and hell? Believers? I believe the people that gave that money would be appaled at statements like that from professors.

Jay West

John, Is hell a literal place? Is it separation from God?

John Randolph Harrison

Don’t know do you. But at least I believe it exist. I answered your question. Do you believe in Satan as a literal person and that professors who don’t believe in him or angels should teach at EC. Its a simple question Jay.

Jay West

JANIS, they were speaking of members a church, and we are speaking of an institution of higher learning. maybe there is a little difference. Just saying…

Janis Cunningham

Jay, those who are faithful Christians will be HAPPY to see Christian professors and will be delighted to send their children there! I’ll remind you that the hiring conditions say the new faculty must be evangelical Christians, not ARP. Bu…See

Jay West

John, the Bible doesn’t state that Satan was an actual person!!!!

Jay West

More like a fallen angel

John Randolph Harrison

I have asked you the same question at least 5 times Jay. You have answered with questions and name calling. Going to bed since you aren’t go to give a straight answer.

John Randolph Harrison

Well if thats your answer Jay. What about professors that don’t believe in angels. Should they teach at EC when they ourwardly profess otherwise.

Jay West

I am only contesting your definition of evangelical, which is not evangelical, but Pharisaic. I would agree more with Jim Walls- you should read “The Politics of God.” Who said you and the others get to define evangelical? Even the ARP’s definition is much different that what it was 30 years ago.

Rusty Biggins

Janis, are you suggesting that the early ARP’s, even before the founding of Erskine, promoted “inerrancy” and “church discipline” in the same way it has been talked about in the past year? You can’t be serious. Have you not read any of the ARP family history that has been laid out on this site by long time ARP’s, whose distant ancestors have direct connections to those founders? I’d suggest you put your book down and go back and read the previous posts if you want to know the history.

Jay West

I think I would be more concerned if they believed in Jesus. Is believing in angels a precursor to faith? NO. However, the college is where those debates should take place without the fear of losing one’s job.

Janis Cunningham

Jay, don’t play games. We both know what evangelical means. I am sick of hearing the redefining of words. The ARP was off track 30 years ago and by the grace of God, it is getting back to being a faithful church.

John Randolph Harrison

No Satan no reason for Jesus death on the cross. Not sure he if he even even believes in Jesus and the resurection since he avoids the question and knows its a deal breaker.

Jay West

Janis, is all seriousness, read chapter 3 of Galatians: those who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ, they have fallen away from grace. That is precisely what is happening here.your focus is on the law and not on Christ. we miss the generosity of his grace when we venture into a performance based faith.

Jay West

Janis, who says the ARP was off track 30 years ago? Do you get to make tat determination? Historically, has the church ever been wrong and outside of God’s will? YES. this is one of those times!

Jay West

JANIS, one final question for you. Do you believe that God honors people who lie and scheme? simply, does the end justify the means?

Janis Cunningham

Jay, you are sooo wrong! How can we disciple young men and women to live out their faith and live for the glory of God when professors are mocking their faith in the classroom at a so-called Christian college?! Bill has said tonight that he is basically embarrassed to have a Christian president of the college! You have this backwards, Jay. Those who love the Lord seek to obey His commands. It is out of the greatest love that the ARP wants to make Erskine a God-honoring institution!

Janis Cunningham

Jay, if anyone is into performance-based faith, it is you and some others who post here. You brag about your family legacy and gifts to the college and the buildings your money has built. Do you think that gains God’s favor??? Really???

Jay West

The ARP wants to make Erskine a law honoring intitution. And I am sooo right! To debate is fruitless. Are you really reformed? Do you believe in the power of the Holy Spirit? Do you believe in the universal body of Christ? Do you think that all Christians believe exactly the same things? If those pastors are doing such a wonderful job in their churches, what are they worried about- students developing their own faith aside from a parental faith. I can only say what I say with the grace of Christ because I have experienced the generosity of His grace. As well, I have seen first hand what ultra conservative parents do to the psche of their children. GRACE is real. You do not have to force feed it to them. Let them wrestle with it and grow!

Jay West

Wait! I am perplexed. Who gets to decide what a God- honoring institution looks like? as we have discussed and you have admitted, the ARP has changed in the past 30 years. How do you know you are right?

Jay West

Well, if we gave it to gain his favor, but we don’t. We give becuase we believe in all of the people who make up thepersonality of the institution- Lesesnes, Griers, Logans, Wolleys, Gastons, Agnews, Fergusons, and on and on. The mistake you make is assuming that ERskine is a place- it is more. It is the people, and you can;t replace that no matter how hard you try.

Janis Cunningham

As a parent, I can send my kids to public universities and expect that they will have agnostic and atheist professors and pray a lot that their faith will be strong in the face of mocking. But I should also have the choice to send my children to a Christian college where Christ will be exalted and my children taught through a Christian worldview. It is inexcusable that kids have had their faith mocked at Erskine. I think it is disgusting.

Jay West

12:50 and still going strong!

What about the students and a few faculty members that have used their faith to lie and tear out the heart of the institution? You can not have it both ways! Do you condem their behavior as well?

Jay West

That is disgusting as well!

Jay West

Have you not noticed that Daniel Wells disappeared from the thread? Every time he has to face the truth- he crawls under a rock! That is disgusting and cowardly!

Janis Cunningham

Jay, it is 12:50 and I imagine Daniel and even Bill have simply gone to bed. I’m on my way, too. Nite.

Third Thread

Jay West

In a response to Chuck Wilson’s open letter to David Norman concerning his view of inerrancy, Wilson implies that Norman leaves the reader with a politically, ambiguous answer. Below are excerpts of their conversation that cause me great consternation.

Let me state that due to my love of Erskine and my intuition that alumni will begin to withhold funds, I searched for ways to embrace Norman and his presidency. I even met with Norman and then Chairman Scott Mitchell and offered to help raise funds if he would listen to the voice of the alumni.

BUT… I am displeased to come to the realization that Chuck evidently has influence with Norman. In short, THIS IS SCARY!

Norman writes,

“I know you read it because you wrote me afterwards saying:“In my 40 plus years in General Synod, you are the first Erskine president who has openly and boldly said that he was going to stand by and with the directives of the ARP Church.”

I think a lot of you, Chuck, and I know that your commitment to the Word of God is very high.

Wilson responds,

“Thank you for your “Yes.” That clears the air.

You memory is almost as bad as mine. I sent a check.

We are brothers. Brothers can always discuss subtleties in theology. That’s fun.”

Why would Chuck wilson send a check if he did not approve of the direction Norman is taking the college? I rest my case!

Mary Lou Holmes

In 200 years of Erskine and ARP Church history this is not the first time this has happened. Wilson is not the beginning of history and he won’t be the end. Presidents always get checks from supporters. The interests of the ARP Church and Erskine SHOULD be one and the same. To the extent that they are not, that is the fault of Wilson and other divisive newcomers who have been driving a wedge between themselves and the traditional ARP Church with their fighting words and self-righteousness. Now that we know their aim is to take over the ARP Church and purge all the traditional ARPs, we can do something about it. The leadership of the ARP Church is only there to serve the members. If the leaders don’t serve the congregations, then the sessions of each church can replace them. It is time for that to happen. Self-described “rabid idealogues” need to be removed from leadership positions in the ARP Church before they shrink the church and cause it to become unrecognizable as a Christian church.

Just as the government of the United States must represent the people, the leadership of the ARP Church must represent the members. When Andy Ward takes a position that is diametrically opposed to the Session of the Pinecrest Church we have to wonder how the leadership is representing the members.

Mary Lou Holmes

What reasons did Dr. Norman give for denying tenure to Jay Herring?

Carey Whitman

Norman knows that TOS will be displeased with him if he gives tenure (i.e. job security) to someone they want to see defrocked and fired. And Norman is scared of TOS. So he makes decisions that will keep himself on their good side rather than on what is right.

Mary Lou Holmes

What reasons did he give? Did he just say “no” and slam his door?

Carey Whitman

Norman gave no substance to back up his decision. Here are the facts:

1. A 4 person committee reviewed and approved J’s application for tenure. (interim VP Dr. Lowe and Dr. Melton among the 4).
2. The academic dean signed off.
3. VP (Dr. Gaston at the time) signed off
4. Norman says “no” and slams the door.

Of course, this has implications which reveal what Norman thinks of his staff. At the very least his capricious rejection suggests undue influence. Consider how quickly he responds to Wilson. Wilson calls him out on inerrancy, and, even though Norman had already written 3 articles, he responds in less than 24 hrs. He had nothing new to add but he doesn’t want Wilson and co.to think that he doesn’t jump at their beck and call.

Norman fancies himself as a independent thinker. But I think it’s clear that he is afraid to do anything, even granting well-earned tenure, if TOS will not approve.

Mary Lou Holmes

Let’s make our voices heard. Let’s send our contributions to Erskine College Foundation with the stipulation that the money be withheld unless and until Dr. Hering is granted tenure.

Dr. David Norman and the administration of Erskine College & Theological Seminary would like to make the members of the Board of Trustees and their advisors aware of the following:

A recent post on the blog ARPTalk, dated February 2, 2011 and titled “Erskine Theological Seminary Irrelevant to the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church” asserts that Erskine Seminary professor Dr. Richard Burnett denies Biblical inerrancy and that such denial is a matter of public record. We believe these comments regarding Dr. Burnett to be misleading and unnecessarily inflammatory.

In 2008, the Seminary Committee of the Board of Trustees investigated issues related to Dr. Burnett’s teaching on Scriptural authority. That committee agreed that Dr. Burnett affirmed the inspiration of Scripture and its infallible authority in keeping with the Westminster Standards. The committee also unanimously found that Dr. Burnett was in full accord with the terms under which he was called and affirmed his continued ministry at the Seminary.

Earlier that same year, the Erskine Board of Trustees enacted a policy regarding the hiring of new faculty and administrators that contains specific wording regarding Biblical inerrancy. It is this wording with which Dr. Burnett takes issue. However, since Dr. Burnett was hired and granted tenure before the adoption of this wording, he is under no obligation to concur with that wording as a condition of his continued employment at Erskine.

In discussions with this administration, Dr. Burnett has expressed that he fully supports Dr. David Norman’s leadership in continuing to clarify how a commitment to Biblical inerrancy is lived out in the Erskine context. For more on Dr. Norman’s statements regarding inerrancy, please see parts one and two of his current series of articles in ARP Magazine.

At this time, the Editor of ARPTalk is obliged to make a candid and succinct response to the above e-mail from the Erskine College and Seminary administration.

So that all readers may be informed, below is what was written by the Editor of ARPTalk.

Finally, looming large like the proverbial elephant-in-the-room is the problem of the “Barth Brothers,” Drs. Richard Burnett and Michael Bush. Thanks to Dr. Gaston, Dr. Burnett (a PC(USA) minister) is now a tenured professor of systematic theology and Dr. Bush (a PC(USA) minister) is the VP for Development at ETS. None of this bodes well for ETS. Their neo-Barthian views of the Bible and denial of the inerrancy of the Bible are a matter of public record. That is what ignited this conflagration that has spread from seminary to college and throughout the General Synod and that has made the ARP Church a byword for theological and ecclesiastical ineptness and lassitude among conservative Presbyterians and other evangelicals. Does the reader think that there is going to be any scenario of healing and reconciliation between ETS and the ARP Church that fails to address the bewildering and controversial and inflammatory decisions of Dr. Gaston in embracing and defending such heterodoxy? Are we in the ARP Church going to abandon our position on the Bible? Are we going to adopt a definition of Biblical authority that rejects inerrancy and accommodates the heterodoxy of neo-Barthianism and Protestant secularism that permeates the mainline Presbyterians? Indeed, for the past half-century, ETS has always been more liberal than the ARP Church. This must stop. This must stop now! If it does not, it may see the demise of both ETS and the ARP Church. Does the ARP Church need ETS if ETS is going to be as irrelevant to the ARP Church as ETS has been and is? Do ARP candidates for the ministry want to attend ETS for any reason other than the fact that they can attend virtually tuition free? Even under these circumstances, many of our brightest and best have chosen other seminaries. Rightly so!

What is “misleading and unnecessarily inflammatory” about the truth? In the last three years, both Dr. Richard Burnett and Dr. Michael Bush have publicly and often disagreed with the statement of inerrancy that is held by the ARP Church. The following are a few examples of what has been reported that one are both of these men have written or said:

• ARPTalk(5.1) – Do Burnett and Bush Affirm Inerrancy? No!
• ARPTalk(8.3) – Martyrs of Due West
• ARPTalk(13.0) – Barthianism at ETS: Things Haven’t Changed!
• ARPTalk(Extra5) – Dr. Richard Burnett Publicly Acknowledges That He Does Not Concur with Inerrancy
• ARPTalk(Extra9) – Extra! Inerrancy: The Interminably Long vs. the Concise

It is not “misleading and unnecessarily inflammatory” to note the role of these men in the controversy that hounded the ARP Church in the last two years. They, and particularly Dr. Burnett and his denials and attacks on inerrancy, were the flashpoint for the controversy that has ensured.

What IS MISLEADING is to say that Dr. Burnett merely “takes issue” with the wording of the General Synod’s 2008 statement regarding inerrancy as it has become binding on new teaching and administrative staff at Erskine. The doctrine of inerrancy is well-known. It has been and is the consensus of orthodox evangelicalism in the United States. It has been expressed in the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” (1978), in the membership vows of the Evangelical Theological Society, and in the 1979, 1980, and 2008 statements by the General Synod of the ARP Church. All of these statements refer to or clearly assume the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture in the original autographs. Dr. Burnett has not affirmed and says that he cannot affirm these statements.

The doctrine of inerrancy is not a theological mystery. It is a known quantity! Scripture itself claims to be without error and inspired by God down to the very words of the biblical text, and yet we also know that the manuscripts of the biblical books were not transmitted without scribal mistakes. Thus we speak of “inerrancy in the original autographs” and with the firm assurance that God has providentially preserved the text substantially intact. Because of this, our copies and translations are very reliable although they are, technically speaking, not inerrant. But Dr. Burnett refuses to speak of the original manuscripts and to tie the doctrine of Scriptural authority to the concrete biblical text in this way, and he is left only with the fallible copies and translations. But how can one coherently speak of such fallible copies as inerrant or infallible? IT CANNOT BE DONE! And so, instead of the well-established doctrine of inerrancy, Dr. Burnett wants to base the authority of the Bible solely on the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit and on how through the Spirit’s work the Bible “becomes” God’s word to us. This is none other than the subjectivism of Karl Barth, Dr. Burnett’s theological hero.

Check the articles above in ARPTalk. Dr. Burnett has not attempted to hide his denial of inerrancy under a bushel. In an Erskine Seminary faculty meeting in April of 2008 two faculty members (the “Barth Brothers,” Drs. Richard Burnett and Michael Bush) declined to affirm the General Synod statements of 1979 and 1980 that “the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God without error in all that it teaches.” The faculty then unanimously passed a substitute motion that these statements simply be added to the ETS catalog instead. Some ARPs will well recall how the former Executive Vice President of Erskine Seminary, Neely Gaston, then went around claiming that the faculty had “unanimously affirmed inerrancy,” only to be publicly corrected on this point by Dr. R. J. Gore at the 2008 meeting of the General Synod Moderator’s Committee on Erskine. It was this troubling situation, and others like it involving Drs. Burnett and Bush, that caused the General Synod to further strengthen our statement on the authority of Scripture at the General Synod of 2008 with the following: “’The Bible alone, being verbally God-breathed, is the Word of God written, infallible in all it teaches, and inerrant in the original manuscripts.” Dr. Burnett took great exception to this statement in his May 29, 2009 “Open Letter to ARP Pastors,” in his March 17, 2010 editorial in the Greenville News, and in his April 20, 2010 “A Teacher’s Theological Guide to Inerrancy in the Original Manuscripts: A Non-Barthian Approach.” That last document is a 22-page sarcastic mocking of the General Synod’s position on inerrancy and of those who support it at Erskine. Dr. Burnett uses 56 points to scream that he does not believe in inerrancy – 56 points of the same thing! In none of these documents does Dr. Burnett affirm the “inerrancy” of Scripture – HE DEINIES INERRANCY!

No doubt all of this is inconvenient for the administration of Erskine College and Seminary. Perhaps that is why they immediately shift attention to the administrative question of what Dr. Burnett was obliged to affirm when he was hired. They refer us to the Erskine Board Seminary Committee’s 2008 whitewash of Dr. Burnett’s views. In fact, this was hardly an even-handed process. It is reported that Dr. Burnett had Dr. Neely Gaston and Dr. Robbie Bell in the room running interference for him. (As readers of ARPTalk will recall, Dr. Bell is the author of the confusing and misleading paper circulated in First Presbytery that wrongly contended that John Leith was an opponent of Neo-Orthodoxy). The Editor of ARPTalk has spoken with a number of trustees who were present at that meeting and who are most uncomfortable with the conclusion that the Seminary Committee reached. At the least, the Committee acted under pressure and on the basis of incomplete information, and its decision was based largely, as the Erskine administration seems to concede, on the fact that the General Synod did not require an affirmation of inerrancy at the time that Burnett was hired.

The Editor is mystified as to how Dr. Burnett “fully supports Dr. David Norman’s leadership in continuing to clarify how a commitment to Biblical inerrancy is lived out in the Erskine context” when Dr. Burnett does not believe in inerrancy. How can he support what he does not believe and is not committed to?

Why does the Erskine administration now embrace and defend one who has publicly shown his contempt for the ARP Church, who has mocked the doctrine of Scripture affirmed by the ARP Church, and who has demonstrated his opposition to the policies and decisions of the ARP Church by filing a legal action in the civil court of South Carolina against the General Synod of the ARP Church? Is not the title of the offending ARPTalk article correct? Does not this mess demonstrate that ETS is indeed now “irrelevant to the ARP Church”?

What the Editor wrote is NOT “misleading and unnecessarily inflammatory”! IT IS AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH!

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

From the pen of Mr. Aldon Knight: a soliloquy.

I am appalled. Again.

For anyone who has either given David Norman your support, or is still holding out on doing so, it has come to my attention that representatives from Reformed Theological Seminary [RTS] were on campus recently recruiting for their seminary. Need [sic] trick, David. I would have at least waited more than 3 months – you know, just to not arouse too much suspicion (wink wink).

A little background here. RTS was formed in June 1963 when a handful of fundie-leaning fanatics decided that there was no seminary in the US that was committed enough to the fundamental interpretation of the Bible as God’s inerrant Word. God forbid (literally, in their minds) that humans should interpret the Bible and actually use it in life. Norman, you know, has a degree from RTS.

But wait, I just remembered something – Erskine has a seminary too! In fact, Norman is officially now the president of that seminary.

Now I’ve worked around a lot of higher ed presidents over the past 15 years at a number of very good institutions. I think all of these presidents would agree that their job could be summed up in short like this:

“The president’s job is to cast the vision for the future of the institution. It is to ensure, through support and broad management of the various academic and administrative functions, that the well-being of the institution is maintained and enhanced, and that the financial health of the institution is maintained and grows. It is to attain and maintain healthy enrollment numbers as the primary basis for financing the institution, and to be the institution’s chief advocate to potential external funding sources.”

Something very close to that, give or take some details.

So here’s the question: HOW DOES HAVING RTS ON CAMPUS RECRUITING STUDENTS AWAY FROM OUR OWN SEMINARY CONSTITUTE MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING THE WELL-BEING OF OUR OWN SEMINARY?

Is Norman going to say that this was the doing of Paul Patrick, current Erskine chaplain and staunch supporter of the Moderator’s Commission? If so, David, who’s in charge here? You or him [he]? Do you agree with him? If not, are you going to issue an official reprimand for such insubordinate behavior, and for such an egregious insult to your presidency?

Is Norman going to say he didn’t know the RTS folks were on campus? They were in MOFFATT DINING HALL FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. They were then hosted by Paul Patrick in “The Barn”, Patrick’s scary little lets-hold-hands-and-wait-for-Jesus-together spot. I understand the president himself may have shown up at that too.

Let me say again what I said in my last post. THE STATUS-QUO [sic] STILL STANDS. The cult that currently controls the ARP Synod is a devious bunch of extremists. They ain’t interested in compromise – that’s all a ruse. The handful of zealots that founded RTS has now been reborn in the form of a group of people in the Synod who think the world is headed for Hell, and want Erskine as their next little bastion of fanaticism.

And Norman is their guy.

From the pen of Mr. Jay West: an exchange with Dr. David Norman, President of Erskine College (EC):

Jay West writes:

Below is an official response from David Norman over the recent controversy concerning RTS recruiting under the shadows of Erskine Theological Seminary [ETS]. After I met with David Norman several months ago, I decided to address any issues pertaining to Erskine with him first prior to a discussion on facebook [sic]. Though I do not agree with RTS being able to recruit on campus, I do not think that Norman was promoting this event. He is very clear to state that “he looks forward to a day when denominations are irrelevant.”

My concern was that the the [sic] chaplain offered a seminary an opportunity to recruit at a student activity designed to disciple students. WHAT WOULD BE THE COLLEGE’S POSITION IF THE SEMINARY INVITED ANDERSON COLLEGE, PC, WOFFORD, and NORTH GREENVILLE TO RECRUIT AT THEIR CHURCH FUNCTIONS? Not good!

However, I appreciate David Norman’s openess [sic] and timely response. I feel that this will encourage dialogue and understanding among the alumni concerning his vision.

My email: His responses follow!

[In the exchange below, Dr. Norman answers Mr. West in the body of Mr. West’s e-mail. To help the reader to distinguish between Mr. West’s words and Dr. Norman’s responses, Mr. West’s words are in black and Dr. Norman’s responses are in blue (Editor’s comment).]

David,

Following our last discussion, I made the conscious decision to vet any issues that arise with you before addressing them with the alumni. Therefore, I am asking you to provide me with some clarity concerning several issues that have been brought to my attention as an alumni [sic] of both the college and the seminary.

There is a forest fire brewing among alumni. Tonight, I received several calls from alumni concerning the fact that a recruiter from Reformed Theological Seminary was invited to campus and approved by the Chaplain. Not only so, but the recruiter was invited to the BARN for a weekly gathering and there erected a tent to recruit. As well, you must know that some people are claiming that you were present at the BARN for this event. What does it say to our students in the cafeteria about our sister institution when the chaplain invites another seminary to campus which is in direct competition?

Is this true? What aspects are true or false?

Yes. This is true. When I asked Paul about the recruiter at the Barn, he said that he allows any evangelical seminary to come. ETS has come before, but it is usually not worth the time because most Erskine students are already aware of what ETS has to offer. The RTS recruiter brought ice cream sandwiches for everyone. I ate one while talking to the recruiter about the troubles RTS is having with its radical inquisitors. I explained to him why I thought ETS would be a better choice. We were good natured about it. We are partners, not competitors.

If this is true, I have several concerns:

1. The Chaplain is an ARP minister. Why is he inviting another seminary, other than ETS, to campus to recruit students? Does he not support the seminary he graduated from as a student? If Patrick wants to participate with the RUF and RTS activities, he needs to consider returning to the PCA.

I think the best way to answer your question is to remind you that both ETS and RTS are not-for-profit, mission directed institutions. If our mission was the means to profit (as we are used to thinking about organizations in our country), we would be competitors. Because our profitability takes a back seat to our mission, however, other organizations that share our mission are PARTNERS, not COMPETITORS.

I am not a big fan of fighting over denominational affiliation. We may disagree, but I look forward to the day that denominations are irrelevant. My primary loyalty is to the church universal. That is part of what I like about the ARP. Most ARP congregations confess weekly their belief in “the holy catholic church”. Just in case the meaning of those words is not clear, it is an expression of loyalty that transcends the kind of denominational barriers some alumni seem to be worried about.

2. Has he invited Erskine Theological Seminary to the BARN to recruit?

Yes. I asked Paul the same question when I saw the recruiter at the Barn.

3. Were you in attendance, and what was your position concerning the presence of RTS and not ETS. [sic]

Yes. I was there. I enjoyed the ice cream and had what I would consider a good conversation with the recruiter (see above).

4. It is my understanding from a board member that the Chaplain reports to the VP of Student Services. Did Dr. Agnew approve this? Does he actually report to Dr. Agnew? Does the chaplain have a problem reporting to a woman?

Paul reports to Dr. Christie. As the VP of student services, however, Dr. Agnew has approved RTS being on campus in the past. I am not aware of Paul having a problem reporting to a woman.

I am asking for clarification, in order to squash any undue rumors, and I hope that this is not true. If I do not hear from you before tomorrow (Friday) at lunch, I will assume all is correct.

Jay West

Thanks for your help, Jay. I am glad to know that I have you as an ally. It is wild how these things can get blown out of proportion. I really appreciate your help in calming people down. Please let me know if you have any further questions. I will copy Robin, Paul, Brad and Scott in case they hear any of the same concerns you are hearing.

All for Christ!

David

To say that the above posts by Mr. Knight and Mr. West are bizarre is a kindness. They have taken “bizarre” to a new dimension. Is it the dimension of the “Twilight Zone”? No! Wait! Is it a level of paranoia that has gone to the incalculable?

Please consider the following points.

• Mr. Knight must not be aware of what has been taking place on the EC campus for years. RTS has had a recruiting presence on the EC campus for years. This is not something new. There were no attempts to hide it. There has been no cover-up. As far as the RTS-Atlanta people are concerned, they followed all protocols. They contacted student services. They were given permission. These are the procedures that were in place last year when Dr. Randy Ruble was President of EC. By the way, if the Editor is not mistaken, the people who are presently in student services were hired under Dr. Ruble’s leadership. What is this “wink wink” stuff? There is no conspiracy here! A mountain has been made out of no hill!
• The blast at the Erskine Chaplain, Rev. Paul Patrick, is heavy-handed. In an interview with Chaplain Patrick, he informed the Editor that he did not know about the RTS-Atlanta visit until after it was approved. Indeed, Chaplain Patrick was courteous to visitors on the EC campus. That is expected!
• Mr. Knight’s description of the ministry of “The Barn” as “Patrick’s scary little lets-hold-hands-and-wait-for-Jesus-together spot” is sophomoric at best. This comes from one who has never attended an event at “The Barn.” Well, is this one of those cases where if you find that you cannot compete with your opponent, then you resort to bashing your opponent? How is “The Barn” “scary”? All of this sounds more than a bit paranoid, does it not?
• What does it matter that Dr. Norman has a degree from RTS-Orlando? He also has two other degrees from two other schools – one in the US and the other in Scotland. The Editor has a DMin for ETS. What does it matter that the Editor of ARPTalk has a degree from ETS? Well, it must mean that the Editor is an Erskine alumnus.
• The reaction of Mr. Knight and Mr. West to RTS borders on paranoia. Mr. Knight’s depictions of RTS as a “bastion of fanaticism” and “fundie-leaning fanatics” and the leadership of the ARP Church as a “cult” are disturbing.
• Somehow Mr. Knight has lost sight of the fact that RTS is not an insignificant and little-known Presbyterian seminary in the USA. RTS is the largest Presbyterian seminary in the USA. And RTS is well respected for both theological orthodoxy and academic integrity.
• Both Mr. Knight and Mr. West have made much of the presence of RTS representatives recruiting on the EC campus. So, what is the big deal? Are the ETS people unable to sell their product to EC students? Do they even try? Consider the following from EC grad Mr. Daniel Stephens, who is now an RTS-Charlotte student rather than an ETS student:

I was on Erskine’s campus for 4 years and took 4 classes at the seminary, yet they never contacted me once about attending ETS. RTS came down and took me out to dinner and met me on one other occasion. It was very clear to me who wanted me and who didn’t. RTS invited me for a tour, gave me a travel mug, let me have a book from their bookstore, and had me talk to professors; Erskine did none of this. RTS gave me information freely; I asked ETS for information and they didn’t give me anything. Instead of blasting RTS for doing a good job, maybe Aldon Knight should direct his energy towards getting ETS to take advantage of these same opportunities.

The above incident is not an isolated incident; rather, it is longstanding. Years ago when the Editor was contemplating attending seminary, he contacted ETS and asked for information. Forty years later, the Editor still has not received a reply.

The RTS people are recruiting at EC because they are being entreated by students. If EC grads did not perceive the RTS product as superior to the ETS product, the RTS people would not be on the EC campus.

• It is just simply paranoia on the part of Mr. Knight and Mr. West to think that RTS is attempting to take over EC/ETS and the ARP Church. How many times has this been said in the last 40 years? The struggle is about EC/ETS being faithful to Biblical authority. It is about EC/ETS being faithful and representing the evangelical Christian witness of the ARP Church. The ARP Church is not a “cult.” The ARP Church stands in the mainstream of historic, Reformed, and evangelical Christianity. Mr. Knight, Mr. West, and friends reject this faith and are rabid in their hatred of it.
• Mr. West seems to combine paranoia with arrogance in more or less equal measure. Does the reader find it bizarre how Mr. West attempted to command President Norman as his “boy”? Does Mr. West, a former Erskine VP for development, still have anger issues over the circumstances of his departure from Erskine? He certainly has spoken often of that on his Facebook posts.
• Mr. West speaks of Rev. Patrick returning to the PCA. That says more of Mr. West than it does of Rev. Patrick. Rev. Patrick is the Vice Moderator-Elect of the General Synod of the ARP Church. Rev. Patrick is a multi-generational ARP who is still an ARP. Yes, for a short time, Rev. Patrick was the Associate Pastor of the Smyrna Presbyterian Church, Smyrna, GA, a congregation of the PCA. Mr. West demitted the ministry of the ARP Church. Mr. West left the ARP Church for the PC(USA). Mr. West has openly stated that he is in disagreement with much of what he once vowed to be sacred.
• The Editor is at a bit of a loss at the concern of Mr. Knight, Mr. West, and the “concerned” alumni. What do they care about ETS? ETS is supposed to be the seminary of the ARP Church. Mr. Knight, Mr. West, and most of the “concerned” alumni are not ARPs. The only thing they have for the ARP Church is disgust, a fact that many of us consider to be a compliment.
• The following statements reflect an interview that the Editor had (at the Editor’s request) with EC Chaplain the Rev. Paul Patrick: (1) The Chaplain has never invited any seminary to advertise at “The Barn.” If someone who represents a legitimate Christian ministry asks to give an announcement, the Chaplain will allow a “two minute announcement.” (2) Both ETS and RTS have been given this opportunity. (3) The last RTS-Charlotte representative to give an announcement at “The Barn” is an EC alumnus whose father is an ARP minister, whose wife is also an EC grad, and whose father-in-law is an ARP minister. Well apparently, this is all very ominous to Mr. West!
• Mr. West writes: “If I do not hear from you before tomorrow (Friday) at lunch. . .”. Who does Mr. West think he is? The Editor is amazed that Dr. Norman was so gentle with him. Does Mr. West suffer from both paranoia and delusions of grandeur?
• With all that has been said about ETS, one wonders what the impetus for this was. Where did it come from? Did it come from the ETS administration of Executive Vice President H. Neely Gaston? That would seem logical. Does the reader remember that the impetus of much of the civil litigation against the ARP Church was ETS directed and launched?
• What is going on? Why the fuss? There is an Erskine Board meeting this Thursday and Friday. This is POSTURING. What is at stake at this meeting? (1) The vote for Dr. David Norman as President was nearly unanimous. The Editor has been informed that there was one trustee who did not vote. Now, we will find out if the board is really united behind Dr. Norman. (2) It is the opinion of the Editor that Dr. Norman, as is demonstrated in his writings, speeches, and actions, has done, in the minds of some, a terrible thing: HE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT HE IS AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN WHO TAKES HIS FAITH SERIOUSLY AND WHO HAS A HIGH REGARD FOR THE ARP CHURCH. (3) The paranoid element of the board that represents the anti-church and anti-God segment of the alumni are going to attempt to legally “steal” EC/ETS from the ARP Church. (4) If Dr. Norman does not go along with this anti-Church and anti-God elements of the board, the attacks on him will set a new low for viciousness.
• Just so that the reader does not think that Mr. Knight and Mr. West are exceptions and not representative of the secular and paranoid alumni, the Editor presents another Facebook post to give the reader a feel for what is being written.

From the pen of a certain Ms. Beth Alexander Rickenbaugh:

Smells a little fishy to me…just as it has smelled since Norman was named president. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it must be a duck! RTS is now taking over the ARP denomination and the Seminary will suffer as a result. Remember, this has been years in the making, since 1969…with many [sic] many ARP ministers supporting the action. Pity the fool that denies what is happening!

Does this post need an explanation? Does this too look like paranoia?

• What is clear? Mr. Knight, Mr. West and the secular alumni hate the evangelical faith of the ARP Church. In other words, they reject the God of the Bible and distort the concept of God to square with their unbelief. They are sold over to unbelief. This struggle is not about intellectual freedom; rather, they desire a functionally atheistic Erskine where Christian faith is tolerated but only as a matter of private opinion that impacts nothing in life. There is no room for the great Lord Christ, the Lord of the Universe and Hope of all the world, and thus there is no room for evangelical Christianity because Biblical Christian faith cannot exist in such a toxic atmosphere. Actually, what is desired is not for EC to be like a “state school,” but for EC to exhibit an environment that forbids discussion of the God of the Bible and the claims he makes on his human creation. The manifestation of this God-hatred is to be seen in the Facebook posts of the secular alumni. This is not about Dr. Norman, Chaplain Patrick, the ministry of “The Barn,” or the ARP Church. This is paranoia that is directed at the God of the Bible. Indeed, their trademark is paranoia ‘Я’ us!

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

Download This Issue of ARPTalk in PDF Format

The trifecta losses of the old PCUSA, UPCNA, and the PCUS were the result not of the failure of orthodox theology or outright victory by liberals, but of the ecclesiastical pacifism and pusillanimity of those who professed orthodox theology. The question asked by the defeated and distraught conservatives was: “What happened to us?” The answer is this: LOOK IN THE MIRROR! YOU HAPPENED! You were not defeated; YOU GAVE THE CHURCH AWAY!

Indeed, those conservatives in the old spiritually bankrupt denominations either withdrew from the struggles or would not stand resolutely in the face of persistent and organized rebellion and heresy. The default setting ecclesiastically for those defeated Presbyterian evangelicals was the Rodney King dictum: “Can we all get along?” The Biblical way of saying that is: “Peace, Peace, when there is no peace.”

Unfortunately, not much has changed amongst evangelical Presbyterians since the demise of the PCUSA, the UPCNA, and the PCUS.

The marks of the Church according to classic Reformed theology are three:

1. The faithful preaching of the Gospel;
2. The right administration of the Sacraments; and
3. The proper exercise of discipline.

Evangelicals of all stripes celebrate the first two, but many tend to shy away from discipline. And the reason they shy away from discipline is that discipline is difficult and demanding. Evangelicals generally want purity without conflict. Reformed evangelicals tend to be willing to “give away the farm” rather than fight for the full three-fold integrity of the Gospel. The nature of conflict is that it is often messy and hard and strident and painful and bitter and divisive. If conflict arises, the Rodney King evangelicals, in their aversion to conflict, will, while affirming orthodox theology, in ecclesiastical matters, countenance falsehood in order to avoid the rigors of discipline and conflict. They will embrace a lie in order to avoid the unvarnished truth that offends their polite sensibilities. They will abandon and betray their brothers who are contending for the full three-fold integrity of the Gospel if it seems to those Rodney King evangelicals that their brothers in the struggle are, God forbid, “mean,” “cold,” and“heartless.” They can never figure out that the conflict is between a Christian construct of faith and a non-Christian construct of faith. Without real spiritual discernment, the Rodney King evangelicals invariably identify polar opposites as the same and dump the genuine for the fake. Then, when the church that the Rodney King evangelicals have served is lost, they dolefully moan: WHAT HAPPENED TO US? And, once again, for the Rodney King evangelical the answer is YOU HAPPENED.

Make no mistake, the issues of the Church have never been lost because of the failure of orthodox theology or a rigorous defense of the same. Most church issues have almost always been lost in the ecclesiastical arena because of pietistic and diffident churchmen who prefer nonresistance and pacifism to contending for the faith!

ARPTalk(Extra12): The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves was offensive to some of our readers. What was the offense? There were complaints that the Editor lumped the “good” in with the “bad.” Obvious observation!

The use of overstatement and hyperbole always runs the risk of being misunderstood. However, the Editor is aware that the loyal defenders of the ARP Church, who happen to be in the minority on the Board of Trustees at this time, knew they were NOT the focus of the Editor’s article. The Editor was aiming at the guilty on the Board. Sadly, at this point, the Board is mutinous, that is, in open rebellion against the appointing body, to whom they were under sworn allegiance. Sadly, at this point, the Board is seeking, in some manner, to separate Erskine College and Seminary from the ARP Church. That is theft! And worse: an effort to kill the denominational Christian arm of higher education!

Do not be deceived, that is what is taking place. Consider the following evidence. First, the so-called “reconciliation” committee’s proposal is no attempt at reconciliation. They offer to make a deal that IS NOT theirs to make. The division of the appointments of trustees is not theirs to make. At this point, they are continuing to break faith with the ARP Church. They are COVENANT BREAKERS. They have broken covenant with the vows they took when they signed on as trustees. And now they want the ARP Church to negotiate with them? If this is not mutiny, it is certainly subterfuge – understood narrowly as being the use of a stratagem to gain a self-serving end.

Second, the mutinous and deceitful voice of the Board is an alliance of at least Craig White, Parker Young, Scott Mitchell, Robert Galloway, Joe Patrick, Richard Taylor, Lawrence Nycum, Lisa Senn, and David Chesnut. Some of these are more raucous and discordant than others.

Indeed, these folks may represent the majority of the Board when it meets on June 7 at Bonclarken. Chairman Scott Mitchell began the civil proceedings and dropped over $50,000 on attorneys’ fees of Erskine’s money in a civil suit that he instigated and withdrew. Parker Young, Richard Taylor, and David Chesnut took up and now continue the civil suit against the ARP Church that Scott Mitchell began and Erskine Seminary faculty members Jay Hering, Richard Burnett, and Michael Bush aided and abetted the civil court action. According to sources, Lawrence Nycum has floated a proposal to remove trustees who are outspoken in defense of the ARP Church. Robert Galloway threatens a motion that, if passed, would have the Board declaring itself as self-perpetuating and independent of the ARP Church. In conjunction with these, the EC Foundation, made up of former Erskine people (some of them ARP elders!), continues to solicit funds in order to pay the attorneys’ fee for the civil suit against the ARP Church. Notice what they say on their website:

There is still much work to be done. Continuing to defend Erskine in civil courts requires expenditures for experienced attorneys who have aided other South Carolina institutions such as Furman University and Wofford College.

The Editor asks: Defend against what? Against the denomination’s effort to reassert and maintain the Christian orientation of the institution? The Editor has often written of the Furmanization of Erskine in ARPTalk. Now we add Wofford and come up with a new phrase: The Fermano-Woffordization of Erskine. There is no doubt about the direction that these conspicuous secularists want to go.

Interestingly, time and money and events are NOT in favor of an attempt to seize and sever Erskine College and Seminary from the ARP Church. These folks are very aware of this. Their actions reveal DESPERATION. However, they are also aware of a trump card that they have. They are aware of and are counting on the Rodney King evangelicals in the ARP Church.

Here is the unvarnished truth: IF ERSKINE IS LOST, IT WILL BE BECAUSE WE BECOME RODNEY KING EVANGELICALS AND GAVE ERSKINE AWAY! If in the years ahead we have to ask what happened to our college and seminary, we will have to confess: WE HAPPENED!

And what if that happens? It will be the outcome of our addiction to pacification and our aversion to conflict and it will be our unwillingness to discipline the culpable and it will be our proneness to quick-fix, anesthetic solutions and it will be our reluctance to insist on strict conformity to ARP standards in doctrine and form of government and it will be our reluctance to defend seriously against milquetoast preaching, heresy, near heresy, and unmitigated rebellion and it will be our leniency in tolerating secularism of any stripe and it will be our latitudinarianism in thinking secularism and evangelical Christian faith are compatible and it will be our long-standing disinclination to stand and contend for the faith.

God forbid! In the past we have been Rodney King evangelicals. Yes, in past years our motto has been: CAN WE ALL GET ALONG?

“There comes a time,” says Dumbledore, Harry Potter’s headmaster at Hogwarts, “when each of us must make a choice between what is right and what is easy. Here’s hoping we choose correctly.”

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

Download This Issue of ARPTalk in PDF Format

“The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” is the only way left to describe the Board of Erskine College and Seminary. These trustees who have been nominated by the Nominating Committee of the ARP Church and elected by the General Synod are suggesting what amounts to an act of theft; these trustees who have willingly bound themselves to protect and promote, first, the interests of the ARP Church and, then, the interests of Erskine College and Seminary have shown themselves villainous; these trustees, so many of them who are not ARPs, whom we in the ARP Church were assured are “good people who are just like us,” are traitorous and they are NOT “good people who are just like us”; these trustees have demonstrated both the validity of the Investigatory Commission in recommending their removal and replacement and the wisdom of the adoption of the report by the Called Meeting of General Synod in March; and, finally, these trustees now make it necessary that the General Synod of the ARP Church do all that is necessary morally, ecclesiastically, and legally to secure and maintain what is historically and rightly the heritage and legacy of the ARP Church. Consider the lunacy of the proposal below (comments to follow):

1. College and Seminary have separate Boards of Trustees. The Moderator of General Synod would be an ex-officio voting member of both Boards.
2. The Seminary Board would be elected wholly by the General Synod for 4 year terms, with responsibility for all seminary related activities, including budget and assets. The Seminary Board would have a membership of 12, of which 3 but no more than 4 must be ordained ARP pastors.
3. The College Board of Trustees would be a semi-perpetual Board composed of twenty-four members serving 4 year terms.
   • The Board of Trustees would elect three members, of which two must be alumni of the College.
   • The Board Nominating Committee would recommend names to the General Synod Nominating Committee.
   • General Synod would elect 3 members, one of which must be an alumnus/alumna. The General Synod Nominating Committee would consider names submitted by the Board, but may nominate to the General Synod whomever it wishes.
   • The Erskine College Alumni Association President would be an ex-officio, voting member of the College Board.
   • If there are vacancies on the Board, the body electing that member would replace that member.
     • At least 50% of the College Board elected members would be alumni of the College.
     • This Board would have responsibility for all College related activities, including budget and assets.
4. Board members completing their terms of service on either board would be ineligible for election to either board for three years.
5. The new Board structure would become effective July 1, 2010. Boards would meet separately subsequent to that date. Current Board members would be asked their preference for the Board on which they wish to serve, and assigned by seniority of service on the current Board of Trustees to the new Boards based on stated preference. Members newly elected to terms beginning July 1, 2010, would also be asked for preference, and assigned to Boards based on those preferences. Once one of the two Boards is filled, all other members are assigned to the remaining Board. Should the College Board be reduced to less than 24 by this process, half the vacancies are to be filled by the Board of Trustees and half by General Synod, with terms beginning July 1, 2011. Should the Seminary Board be reduced to less than 12 by this process, the vacancies are to be filled by the General Synod, with terms beginning July 1, 2011.
   • NOTE: Under this process the minimum number of the College Board would be 18 in the coming year, and thereafter 24. The minimum number of the Seminary Board would be 6 in the coming year, and thereafter 12. These numbers do not include the ex officio members.
6. Election of the President would be the responsibility of the 20 most senior members of the College Board of Trustees and the 6 most senior members of the Seminary Board of Trustees, along with the Moderator of General Synod and the Erskine College Alumni Association President, meeting together.
   • NOTE: This provides for proportionate voting for the President in the ratio more closely aligned with the historical weights assigned to the two parts of Erskine (85% College, 15% Seminary) which are used internally. Further, it allows only those who have served at least a year and have had the opportunity to become more familiar with Erskine issues to vote on the most critical decision that the Board makes.
7. The relationship between the General Synod and the two boards will be restructured so as to maintain the College’s accreditation by SACS and the Seminary’s accreditation by ATS and by SACS.
8. Any charter and by-law changes will be drafted to conform to this agreement by a Drafting Committee of four, two appointed by the Moderator of General Synod and two appointed by the Chair of the Board of Trustees, or, alternatively, by a mutually agreed independent expert. Changes will be adopted by methods currently provided in the Charter and By-Laws.
   • NOTE: If it is legal to do so, the changes should not be amendable by either party but voted up or down.
9. Plaintiffs in the current lawsuit would be involved in the process of reviewing the charter and by-law changes and would agree legally that passage of the changes would be the end of their action against General Synod, and General Synod would provide them with legally binding commitments that they and lower courts of the church would not take any action against them in civil or church courts that are based on actions up to and including the effective date of changes in the charter and by-laws.
   • NOTE: The appropriate body that can act on behalf of General Synod needs to be clearly identified and their authority clearly specified. It would seem that the ultimate authority for General Synod is the General Synod itself.

“The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” is in open rebellion against the ARP Church and has no intention of implementing the evangelical mission of the college that the General Synod has repeatedly outlined. In the past the Erskine Board has used passive-aggressive resistance to avoid the directives of the church. In other words, they would say they would, then they would not, and then they would present reports to the General Synod that obscured the truth.

“The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” is a den of scoundrels and liars who have been caught in a public lie. These are the mutinous leaders who at the February Board meeting and at the March meeting of General Synod duplicitously whined:

In a spirit of humility and acknowledgement of our failings, and a desire to give the glory to God, and to move Erskine forward; we concur in principle with the recommendations of the Moderator’s Commission. . . .The Board recommends that the size of the Board be reduced over the next six years. . . . The Board agrees to move forward expeditiously to adopt effective policies regarding financial integrity, conflicts of interest, integration of faith and learning, board training, etc., which are aligned with and advance the objectives set forth by Erskine’s current mission statements and Synod’s Philosophy of Christian Education. . . . The Board fully recognizes Synod’s final authority to appoint trustees to the Erskine Board. . . (Editor’s emphases).

WHAT DISSIMULATORS!

The above statement sent out by Chairman Mitchell is an outright attempt by “The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” to stopping General Synod from electing this year’s slate of trustees. The rebellious leadership of the Board recognizes that the election of the new slate of Trustees will dramatically change the balance of the Board. May God grant the failure of the machinations of mutinous and evil people! May God grant that the General Synod elects righteous men and women to the Board who hold mutiny and dissimulation in disdain!

The above scenario by “The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” was authored by the members of a reconciliation committee. What doublespeak! According to the Editor’s information, after the election of Dr. David Norman in the morning, the Board spent the entire four hours of the afternoon in a meltdown. That can mean only one thing. A “nuclear option” was on the table. And what is the “nuclear option”? It is a move to have the Board to declare that it is independent of the ARP Church and self-perpetuating. Frankly, this is a game of “Chicken.” The leaders of “The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” do not think that the General Synod has the courage to challenge them in civil court, for that is the only option that is left for dealing with theft.

“The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” is determined to separate the college and seminary. Look at the proposal. This is a proposal that the Editor expected. This is not something new. That idea has already been floated before by Board members and rejected. This is also an idea that has had longstanding support amongst Erskine Presidents. In the 70s, President Stanyarn Bell said that if he could have his way he would bulldoze the seminary. Indeed, there is no love lost between the college and seminary communities. Why? Both communities contend for the same dollar.

The ultimate goal of “The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” is independence from the ARP Church. To be sure, when events do not make sense, it is wise to ask what is going on. How did such a divided Board come to a unanimous decision? It is not hard if one has the long view in mind. Certainly, the view has been broadcast widely on Facebook. The unanimous election of Dr. David Norman as President is a ruse by “The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” – in the Editor’s opinion, a calculated evil. Let us think together. Could this be the unfolding of the story?

• If “The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” is successful in gaining independence from the ARP Church and establishes itself as a self-perpetuating Board, the first thing that will be done will be an attempt to vote outspoken ARP loyalists off the Board. The voice of the evangelical Christian will be past history. The Christian heritage of Erskine College and Seminary will be abandoned for a secularism with some religious window dressing that looks like the PC(USA). Why not? That is who the mutinous leaders are!
• The election of Dr. David Norman as President was done in order to pacify the General Synod and smokescreen the real intention of “The Erskine Board of Thieves.” Dr. Norman’s Presidency will be very short. Dr. Norman will be a casualty. Dr. Norman will be THE DISPOSABLE PRESIDENT.
• “The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” will abandon any semblance of the integration of faith and learning and evangelical Christian mission. There will be a full FURMANIZATION of Erskine.
• Outspoken evangelical Christian voices will be driven from the college and seminary.
• If a scenario take places that sees both the college and seminary withdrawing from the ARP Church, within 18 months the seminary will disappear in order to consolidate resources to save a cash-starved college.

“The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” is a duplicitous and corrupt body! Chairman Scott Mitchell asked for a vow of confidentiality from ministers in the ARP Church whose first duty and loyalty is the church. He demanded that they remain silent on matters that will harm the cause and name of the church in a violation of their ordination vows. That is not Scott Mitchell’s to ask of ARP ministers! What a little man – so full of hubris! What a bowl of deception! Why not do everything in broad daylight? Daylight would be the transparency that has so long eluded the Erskine Board!

“The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” has now given new meaning to the twin towers of Erskine: ACADEMIC MEDIOCRITY and ADMINISTRATIVE DUPLICITY! Read their proposal. These people are certifiably “crazy.” They need psychotic medication. They propose having one President answering to TWO boards. This is starting to sound like a Three Stooges show.

The plan of “The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” does nothing to resolve the current conflict on the Board. As a matter of fact, the plan with a half-and-half division guarantees endless conflict and division.

If the plan of “The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” is successful, Erskine College and Semianry will no longer be an agency of the ARP Church.

And speaking of forefathers, the Editor is annoyed with the ancestry game that Robert Galloway and others of these rascals play. The game goes like this: My great-great grand father did so and so, and my great grandfather did so and so, and my great uncle did so and so, and my father did so and so. That works as far as bloodlines for race horses are concerned. That, however, does not work for us. We are not horses. God is not concerned about bloodlines. There are no grandchildren in the Kingdom of God. The issue is who the individual is. These cads have revealed that they are not the recipients of their forefathers’ hearts. Interestingly, most of these people are not even ARPs now. In truth, there are very few, if any, hereditary ARPs left at Erskine – in the administration, on the faculty, or on the Board.

Once again, we must stay the course. We must recognize that we are not dealing with Christian commitment. We must be prepared to deal with “The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” as pagans and outlaws and take them to civil court, if necessary, as long as necessary. We must refrain from giving them money. Whatever money that is designated for Erskine must be set aside in as escrow account and used for legal affairs. Realistically, “The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” does not have the resources to pay for an extended legal struggle. They will bankrupt the institution. Is that their goal THE DEATH OF ERSKINE?

Finally, let us make sure that we have righteous nominees for the Board. In the past, we have been willing to compromise on the governance of Erskine and we have paid and are paying a bitter, bitter price for that lack of resolve.

Oh yes, there is one more thing. Here is an option for the Board:

• One College, one Seminary, one President for each, and one board for each
• College Board:10 members, all appointed by the Synod, 2 must be ministers and the Moderator is ex officio voting member as well
• Seminary Board: 10 members, all appointed by the Synod, 5 must be ministers and the Moderator is ex officio voting member as well

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

Download This Issue of ARPTalk in PDF Format

There are many words in the dictionary that can be used to describe the situation at Erskine College and Seminary. What is the best one? “Scandal” is a simple word, and the simple word is usually the best. “Scandal” is defined in this manner:

“A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society and the outrage or anger caused by such an action or event.”

Yes, “scandal” is THE word – “THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE!”

Indeed, Erskine is a public scandal in the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ in general and particularly to the ARP Church. Below are some reasons why the Editor writes of THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE. This article brings together just a FEW of the scandal-worthy things that have taken place. Please, forgive the random order of the listing.

1. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is a Board of Trustee (BoT) that is in open defiance of and rebellion against the ARP Church that appointed it. It is a scandal that trustees who have given their word of support to the ARP Church refuse to follow or implement the directives of the ARP Church. It is a scandal that some of these trustees (David Chesnut, Scott Mitchell, Richard Taylor, and Parker Young) have taken the ARP Church to civil court in order to contravene the decisions of the General Synod concerning the college and seminary.
2. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is an administration that, for more than 35 years, not only ignored, but subverted, the mission of Erskine College and Seminary. The mission calls for Erskine College and Seminary to be distinctively evangelical Christian. No competent person who understands what an evangelical Christian is will call EC/ETS distinctively evangelical Christian.
3. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is that the BoT has, year after year, misrepresented the situation at Erskine College and Seminary to the General Synod in the BoT’s annual reports to General Synod.
4. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is a tenure system that promotes RIP – “Rest in Place.” The Editor encourages the reader to consult the “Erskine Report” in the various Minutes of General Synod. Where are the academic accomplishments? Where are the books and papers published? Yes, there are lists for the seminary faculty (this year), but where are the lists for the college faculty? Indeed, there are some who are busy working and publishing, but they are scant. Clemson, for example, has a five-year tenure system. After five years, a faculty member’s tenure is reassessed. At Erskine it is RIP!
5. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is a faculty that very largely rejects the faith of the church that they were hired to promote. In a sane world, the BoT owns and operates Erskine College and Seminary in trust for the ARP Church. The faculty members of Erskine are not a law unto themselves. The BoT and administration on behalf of the General Synod of the ARP Church have hired them to promote the cause and welfare of the ARP Church. In essence, they have become the dog who bites the hand of the man who feeds the dog.
6. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is a President who uses bifurcated disingenuousness in dealing with a personnel issue. Publicly, President Ruble speaks well of Dr. Bill Crenshaw; however, privately, with others, President Ruble speaks of the embarrassment to Erskine that Dr. Crenshaw is and of the long record of complaints against him. Alas, according to President Ruble, it is too difficult and expensive to remove Dr. Crenshaw because he threatens lawsuits. How pragmatic of Dr. Ruble . . . and how disingenuous! What of the lives and minds that Dr. Crenshaw is being allowed to influence and intimidate in and out of the classroom? Is it too expensive to remove a deleterious influence from the classrooms of our sons and daughters? How shortsighted! Such unwillingness and disloyalty to sworn responsibility have lost the loyalty of ARPs who now will no longer even consider Erskine for their children.
7. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is an Executive Vice President of Erskine Theological Seminary (ETS) who systematically misrepresents his institution to the Church. Why is it that Executive Vice President Gaston continues to insist that all the faculty members at ETS affirm the inerrancy of the Bible? Numerous times he has publicly written or stated this. The most recent affirmation by Executive Vice President Gaston was at the March meeting of General Synod. Dr. Gaston handed the Editor a report with this assertion. After the report was handed out, he asked that it be taken up because, as he said, the report had not been approved by the BoT – an inexplicable oversight! (There are, however, copies of the report available.)
8. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is the misappropriation of money given for one thing and used for another. President Ruble, on the floor of General Synod last March, awkwardly explained that the sum was not $1,000,000 but only 900-and-something-thousand-dollars and the affair was just an accounting error. Such misrepresentation is scandalous!
9. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is the BoT’s electing President Ruble to the office of President of Erskine College and Seminary by ONE vote.
10. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is the Chairman of the BoT, Scott Mitchell, launching a lawsuit against the ARP Church and then withdrawing it and, thereby, costing Erskine at least $50,000 in legal fees.
11. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is the Erskine College Faculty’s voting Dr. Bill Crenshaw the Yount’s Excellence in Teaching Award for 2009/10. Those of us who are older remember Dr. Younts. This award insults and betrays his high Christian ideals. The millstone to the left is the Editor’s award for Dr. Crenshaw and the Erskine faculty. See Matthew. 18:6.
12. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is the Chairman of the BoT at this year’s college graduation calling President Ruble “one of the great Presidents of Erskine” when the divide between the ARP Church and Erskine has never been so great or contentious. Frankly, Dr. Ruble’s Presidency has greatly exacerbated the divide between Erskine and the ARP Church. One wonders what Mr. Mitchell’s criteria for greatness are? Are they mediocrity and rebellion and doubletalk?
13. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is the fiduciary IRresponsibility of the BoT and administration in allowing Mr. Woody O’Cain to overspend somewhere between $600,000 to $850,000 in the recruitment of, that is, the buying of, last fallʼs freshmen class. Sadly, as far as anyone knows, Mr. O’Cain has not been reprimanded for his spending spree. One wonders, how much has he spent to get a class for this fall?
14. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is a HALL OF SHAME of Erskine BoT members, administrators, and alums either filing civil court actions against the ARP Church and encouraging others to do so: Randy Ruble, Neely Gaston, Jay Hering, Richard Burnett, Michael Bush, David Chesnut, Richard Taylor, Bob Elliott, Parker Young, Scott Mitchell, Lee Logan, Wes MacAlister, Gid Alston, Bill Lesesne, Jay West, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera (see http://www.ecfoundation.net/id1.html.)
15. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is an academic Dean of the College whose only academic achievement appears to be nationally recognized as an expert in jump rope. And no, the Editor is not making this up!
16. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is the takeover of the seminary of the ARP Church by two PC(USA) ministers who have not been able to find academic employment in PC(USA) academic institutions and who have publicly and defiantly rejected the stated position of the ARP Church on the authority of the Scripture and have attempted to remake the seminary in the image of their aberrant theological constructs.
17. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is the number of ARP ministerial candidates who, in good conscience, will not attend ETS – even when the tuition is free.
18. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is the number of ARP parents who, in good conscience, will not send their college students to Erskine College – even when the discount rate is much decreased.
19. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is an administration that cheerleads for the legal efforts against the General Synod and solicits money to pay the legal costs of the lawsuit against the ARP Church. Many alums on Facebook are boasting of the contributions they have sent to Erskine for the DEFENSE FUND. None of them has reported that their gifts were sent back to them!
20. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is the singing of the hymn “The God of Grace and Glory” by Harry Emerson Fosdick. Fosdick was a spokesman for outright theological liberalism (he denied the Virgin Birth and the deity of Christ) during the Fundamentalist/ Modernist Controversy during the 1920s and a leader in the fight against the orthodox cause. One of the ETS administrators was overheard gleefully saying that he liked the hymn because Fosdick was the one who wrote the sermon “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” One wonders, did this individual choose that hymn for the ETS graduation?
21. THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is a college student’s filing charges with SACS regarding the continuing “culture of intimidation.”

In conclusion, THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE is the ARP Church for not addressing these matters with dispatch and resolution. Today, May 21, 2010, the BoT has elected Dr. David Norman the fifteenth President of Erskine College and Seminary. From all reports, Dr. Norman is very capable and his election is to be commended. However, in order for THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE to be corrected, the task of reclamation must begin with the General Synod of the ARP Church. Without the vigilance of and the unalloyed support of and the prophetic voice of the General Synod of the ARP Church, Dr. Norman’s task will be needlessly onerous. If the General Synod of the ARP Church is not willing to give such support and expect reciprocal support, then THE SCANDAL OF ERSKINE will continue simpering along like a shallow stream.

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson