I begin with the speech by Rev. Andy Putnam, presently the Moderator of the General Synod of the ARP Church, to the Erskine College (EC) student body. The speech was published in the most recent ARP Magazine, and it is entitled “We Want Erskine to Be Erskine.”

In this article, Mr. Putnam makes a number of statements that are supercalifragilisticexpialidociousish. As he states his desire, he says:

And we also don’t want Erskine to be another regional liberal arts school where you can only find Christ in the Bible department. What we’re going after is something much more difficult to attain – something that requires sacrifice, determination and direction: an authentically Christian liberal arts educational experience.

So, how is this statement supercalifragilisticexpialidocious? It is a denial of both present reality and what can be done. EC is and has been a little, insignificant “regional liberal arts” school where students can only find Christ in the Bible department – and even finding Christ in the Bible department has not always been the case. EC is a regional college that has a recruiting radius of about 100 miles from Due West. EC has about as much name recognition and influence outside that 100 mile radius as does Erskine College, Wellington, New Zealand (and, yes, there is an Erskine College in Wellington, New Zealand – an historic landmark now). Apart from the few students who come from scattered pockets of alums and ARP congregations in outlying states, EC’s influence barely reaches beyond the Upstate of South Carolina. Also, as a “Christian college,” EC has about as much impact as Clemson University – that is, no corporate impact, only the influence of a few beleaguered Christian professors and a few solid Christians among the student body. In others words, the idea of EC as “an authentically Christian liberal arts” college is a figment and about as attainable as wishing on moonbeams.

Mr. Putnam’s words ignore the controversy of the last 40 years in the ARP Church over Erskine College and Seminary – especially the last four years. In order to have an EC that is “an authentically Christian liberal arts” college, EC must have a faculty, administration, and board that are “authentically Christian” and know what Christian liberal arts is and have a vision for EC becoming a Christian liberal arts college. None of that is in place, nor does it have a ghost of a chance of being put into place in the face of the opposition of the alums, the faculty, the administration, and the board. Mr. Putnam, as a member of the Erskine Board of Trustees (EBOT), knows that his words are nonsense. As a member of the EBOT, he is aware that the EBOT is an impediment to what he says he desires. What Mr. Putnam says he desires is the long-expressed desire and toilsome effort of the General Synod for the last 40 years, but Mr. Putnam’s roles on the EBOT, the by-laws revision committee and the infamous ad hoc committee, suggest that he is not working to achieve this goal. Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

Indeed, in order for EC to become “an authentically Christian liberal arts” college, it is necessary that the President of EC know what “an authentically Christian liberal arts” college is and be prepared to pay the price for the realization of that vision and goal. Sadly, Dr. David Norman does not know what “an authentically Christian liberal arts” college is. Witness the April Convocation (something like a chapel service) series on “THRIVE” (“The Human Restoration Initiative at Erskine”) – the brainchild of the Norman administration. The focus of the discussions was “human restoration” and “social entrepreneurship.” When asked what those are, according to one who was present, the response was something like this: “Well, we can’t define what the terms mean, and we are more concerned about the journey; nevertheless, we are sure the terms are meaningful.” Certainly, that is NOT a credible academic response, nor is it a serious Biblical and Christian affirmation.

Plainly, the Bible has something to say about “Human Restoration.” It is called evangelism. If what is reported to the Editor of ARPTalk is even close to accurate, evangelism is something of which faculty and administration know precious little. Witness the recent PR e-mail sent out on May 10th explaining and extolling the “THRIVE convocation,” Christ is not even mentioned. The Editor likes to think that Dr. Norman means well, but the poorly defined “helping the poor” rhetoric now being promoted by his administration looks suspiciously like the social gospel that effectively killed the witness of the old PCUS. In the face of the Biblical witness that Jesus is the only Savior, they are striving to save the world through social action. And as for “social entrepreneurship,” all I can say is that I know Jesus and Paul and Peter and John, but what is “social entrepreneurship”? Obviously, “THRIVE” is just more supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. They simply do not know what to do, and so they blather on!

Furthermore, Mr. Putnam writes,

We want Erskine to be an institution where there is a seamless fusion of the Christian faith and education – a place that nurtures you and yet challenges you – a place where you are not ridiculed for your faith, but instead are encouraged to see it integrated into all aspects of your education.

Wow, what a revisionist approach to the recent history of Erskine! EC has been a place where Christian students have been “ridiculed.” It is hard to say that EC has been a place where the Christian faith has been nurtured and attempts have been made to integrate faith and learning in a seamless fashion in the face of the 35-year teaching career of Dr. Bill Crenshaw. At best, the model has been and seems to continue to be compartmentalization.

Does Mr. Putnam apprehend the systemic ramifications of adhering to a Christian world and life view? If EC were to implement such a view, she would need “authentically Christian” faculty and administrators characterized by intellectual and Biblical compentcy and engaged in the lives of students Biblically. At the 2009 General Synod, in a public forum, Erskine administrators acknowledged they and the faculty did not know what the phrase “Christian world and life view” meant. I even gave then President Randy Ruble a book on the Christian world and life view so that he could read it and take what he had read back the faculty. Yes, there have been changes on the faculty and administration since then, but not much has changed. They are still ignorant of what a “Christian world and life view” is. Mr. Putnam is simply muttering supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. He has nothing to say!

Another astonishing example of supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is Erskine Theological Seminary (ETS). Thanks to the execrable Dr. Harvey N. Gaston, former Executive Vice President of ETS, and the man who will live forever in infamy as the man who made “Christian” optional at ETS and ran it into financial ruin, ETS conferred a Doctor of Ministry (DMin) degree on a Muslim cleric this past Saturday. We ARPs should be so proud. Let us praise the great god Diversity! I am sure that SACS and ATS are praising ETS for this noble broadmindedness and bold leadership in diversity. Just imagine the reaction of Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine as they look down from heaven on the seminary of the ARP Church that bears their name and see that it has now the distinction of graduating a Mohammedan to go along with at least one Unitarian minister, at least one Mormon cleric, and at least one Jewish rabbi. What a hall of shame for the ARP Church! What a condemnation for a seminary that has as its motto “For Christ and His Church.” Let me hasten also to note that diversity is the coin of hell and not of heaven. If this graduation is not supercalifragilisticexpialidocious to the Christian faith, what would it look like?

Along with this comes devastating news from the college. As of early May, there were only 111 new students. Dr. Norman has been confidently proclaiming the “largest entering class in Erskine’s history”: a new class of 250 with a minimum of 230. Well, when the Editor was on the EBOT most of the entering class would have been in hand by this point. By early May most of the good students are already committed, and to get the 119 students needed to reach the minimum of 230 by mid-August, the pocketbook of the endowment is going to be opened wide. As in past years, students will have to be bought, and poorly qualified students at that. At this point EC ceases to be academically concerned. Academically concerned institutions turn down students. At this point, the only thing necessary to get into EC is a beating heart. I am informed enrollement in the Fall class at North Greenville University (Baptist) (NGU) is about 1000, and the average SAT is 1130. I do not think that EC can anticipate that kind of a SAT score this year. Incidentally, NGU is actually a “Christian college” that is faithfully related to its denomination with a trustee removal policy similar to the one that Synod requested of the EBOT.

Well, if this kind of reality is not enough for the administration, faculty, and EBOT, the financial situation is disheartening. According to my sources, the fundraising goals of the Erskine Annual Fund are nowhere close to being met. Undoubtedly, apart from a fortuitous death or two or help from a well-heeled “Sugar Daddy” or “Sugar Mama” between now and July 1, it is going to be impossible to reach the target. One of the topics of concern in my last conversations with both Dr. Norman and Chairman Joe Patrick was the almost $600,000 support of General Synod to EC. It seems to me that they are more pre-occupied and focused on the $600,000 than faithfulness to God and a vision for EC as “an authentically Christian liberal arts” college. Their concern, if not obsession, is M-O-N-E-Y – jobs for the people in Due West! That is, Dr. Norman and Mr. Patrick’s concern is for people who live OFF OF and DISPARAGE the church rather than SERVE and EMBRACE the church!

Well, the Editor cannot say this is supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. No, no! This is sobering and sad!

Another non- supercalifragilisticexpialidocious event was the EC graduation Saturday morning. Mr. Bill Lesesne, a Founder and Director of the EC Foundation, was put forward as the face of Erskine when he introduced and conferred an honorary doctorate on Mrs. Winnie Philips. Let us remember that the EC Foundation was founded to divert money from Erskine so that the attorneys who sued the ARP Church after the “Snow Synod” could be paid. Asking Mr. Bill Lesesne to be the face of Erskine in introducing and conferring an honorary degree is about as impolitic on the part of Dr. Norman and the EBOT as asking Chuck Wilson to be the face of Erskine in introducing and conferring. At this point, it looks as though President Norman and the EBOT have succeeded in alienating both the ARP Church and the alums. Not every one can do that! I hear that skill is required!

Well, I have almost forgotten the most supercalifragilisticexpialidocious thing that has occurred. The prize has to be the document written by EBOT Chairman-to-be Mr. David Conner. At the meeting General Synod last year, a motion was made by Rev. Clint Davis and passed overwhelmingly that requested the members of the EBOT to amend the by-laws of the EBOT to comply with Synod’s policy for removal of trustees for cause. The report of the EBOT’s ad hoc committee written by Mr. Conner and adopted by the EBOT states that SACS and ATS policies will not allow the request of Synod to be adopted and implemented by the EBOT on penalty of loss of accreditation by SACS and ATS.

In support of the ad hoc committee’s report adopted by the EBOT and sent to General Synod, Chairman Joe Patrick said:

The supporting reasons for this response are made clear from evidence in historical Synod and Erskine documents, matters of law, accreditation standards, consultant advice and practical wisdom learned from other institutions by the diligent and thorough work done by the committee.”

In an e-mail to the ministers of the ARP Church, Mr. Patrick wrote these words:

The requirements of the accrediting agencies were more stringent than many of us anticipated and the materials demonstrate the constraints which shaped the Board’s decision.

An unnamed EBOT member said the following:

The thoughtful, deliberative, and thorough process that governed this ad hoc committee was inescapable and credible for all of us who read the report and were a part of the Board discussions on Thursday evening and Friday morning.

Ad hoc chairman, report author, and EBOT Chairman-to-be Mr. David Conner said:

The board is committed to making every effort to help members of the General Synod better understand its action. To every extent possible, presentations regarding the details of the response will be made to presbyteries and other interested groups prior to the General Synod meeting.

The following was posted in the Anderson Independent:

Crucial to the committee’s decision, the release said, was the fact that no other accredited school has a policy that allows its sponsoring denomination to remove board members.

SUBSEQUENTLY, we learn that the report of the ad hoc committee written by Mr. Conner and adopted by the EBOT is simply an exercise in supercalifragilisticexpialidocious nonsense. In fact, what Mr. Conner has written is specious. That is, it is FALSE!

Responding to the ad hoc committee’s report written by Mr. Conner is a minority report signed by 11 members of the EBOT which demonstrates that not only is the request of General Synod possible with SACS and ATS, it is in effect in SEVEN (7) schools that have SACS and ATS accreditation – and at least one school that is less than 100 miles from EC.

In Mr. Conner’s report he makes a great deal about EBOT trustees being “fiduciary responsible,” “competent,” “responsible,” and “informed.” If one takes the standard that Mr. Conner has established, does this standard include him? Does his standard not condemn him? The report that he presents is either a misrepresentation of the facts or failure to do due diligence in the research required for such a report. Either way, Mr. Conner is NOT “fiduciary responsible,” NOT “competent,” NOT “responsible,” and NOT “informed.” In fact, Mr. Conner has acted in a manner that is reckless and injurious to the EBOT, Erskine College and Seminary, and the General Synod.

The responses from the ARP left wing that I have heard and seen in print regarding the “Minority Report” are as alarming as they are amazing. They are breathtaking in their indomitable ignorance! Instead of an outcry against the deception or incompetence of Mr. Conner’s ad hoc committee’s report adopted by the EBOT and sent to General Synod, what I have heard and seen are attacks on the minority. I get the distinct impression that many of these folks would rather live with a lie than embrace the truth. Some of these ostriches with their heads firmly anchored in the sand even maintain that a minority report is out of order. They carp: “When has such a thing been done in the past?” I can attest to you that this is not the first time that a minority report has been presented to the General Synod. Besides, how else is a colossal and reckless failure of a publicly disseminated board report to be addressed?

One of the supercalifragilisticexpialidocious pundits who have joined Mr. David Conner in faulty research is Rev. Bill Fleming in his blog. Indeed, if one wants his words taken seriously, one needs to take the time to do the research to make sure one’s facts are accurate. (Here the Editor also takes the opportunity to congratulate DR. Bill Fleming on his Doctor of Ministry degree. The Editor has one too, as does the Muslim cleric who just graduated from ETS!)

Mr. Fleming uses the old canard that Erskine is not as bad as it was 30 years ago. To begin with, what a concession of condemnation! What damning with faint praise! Indeed, Erskine is not as bad as it was 30 years ago. However, if the goal is “an authentically Christian liberal arts” college, then we are still living in the land of fecklessness and failure. A metaphor for this is this: “I’m not as bad a thief as I was 30 years ago; however, I do continue to steal occasionally.” Incidentally, there is an appropriate Biblical injunction: “Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth” (Ephesians 4:28). The words “NO MORE” are applicable and immediate to both the thief and EC administrations.

Mr. Fleming writes “we have the most conservative administration the college has had in sixty years.” Sixty years ago Mr. Fleming was a new born. Sixty years ago was 1952. In 1952 EC still played football, and in 1952 the president was Dr. R. C. Grier. It was about this time that the “Erskine Revival” occurred. I wonder what Mr. Fleming knows about the “Erskine Revival”? I wonder what Mr. Fleming knows about Dr. Grier who was the last of the faithful “family” presidents. Mr. Fleming might want to look into this! Lower Long Cain ARP Church Elder Mr. John Calvin Grier is Dr. Grier’s grandson. I bet Mr. Grier would be happy to speak with Mr. Fleming and enlighten him as to what faithful leadership looks like.

Finally, Mr. Fleming writes:

Erskine has been seeking to renew their accreditation with ATS and SACS. Last year, that would not have meant much to me. But this year, I’m working at a school that is also renewing their accreditation. Board autonomy and academic freedom are serious. . . . If you haven’t seen the thoroughness and pickiness of reaccredidation boards, you probably can’t appreciate the seriousness of it. If the board is not free of undue influence, and does not take a warning from the accrediting agency seriously, they can and will shut it down. This happened a few years ago to Barber-Scotia College in Concord, North Carolina. . . . The writers of the minority report give their word that it won’t happen. They also gave their word that they know what is best for the college and denomination, and that they are acting in the school and denomination’s best interest. Do we really want to take their word for it? I don’t.

In response:

1. I guess Mr. Fleming did not get the e-mail; Erskine’s accreditation has been renewed;
2. The circumstances at Erskine and Barber-Scotia College are very different – a confusion of apples and oranges; and
3. Mr. Fleming ignores the findings of the “Minority Report.”

Mr. Fleming’s blog post is an exercise in supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Mr. Fleming and those who follow in his train had rather live with error than embrace the facts.

Finally, let me submit the following that was said to alums by Ms. Nan Campbell:

It’s not so much that we want to separate from the ARP Church, we want to step away from the people who force their view of inerrancy on others. We care deeply for Erskine, and we care deeply for the ARP Church, and we want Erskine to offer the most excellent education possible to the next generation.

Note this well: Ms. Campbell, current President of the Erskine Alumni Association, has now publicly declared that the issue dividing the ARP Church and Erskine is the ARP Church’s stance on the inerrancy of Scripture. THIS IS NOT JUST A PETTY POLITICAL STRUGGLE. IT IS A MATTER OF THEOLOGY. THIS IS SPIRITUAL WARFARE – the ineluctable conflict of God’s Word against the kingdom of darkness!

In 2008 the ARP Church added an affirmation of the inerrancy of Scripture in the original autographs to its “definition of Evangelical belief,” and required affirmation of that definition by all newly hired Synod agency teaching and administrative employees. Since that time, there has been a steady stream of criticism of the policy coming from Erskinites.

It also appears that support for this Synod policy is soft within the Erskine administration. Seeking to defuse the situation, Erskine President David Norman published a series of brief articles last year in the ARP Magazine on the topic of inerrancy, but these articles only raised more questions in the minds of many (http://www.arptalk.org/2011/03/28/scripture-is-made-up-of-mere-words/ and http://www.arptalk.org/2011/03/28/an-open-letter-to-david-norman/). And according to sources, at the last meeting of the EBOT in February, a senior Erskine Vice President was critical of the inerrancy policy, claiming that it makes it more difficult to hire qualified faculty members.

Ms. Campbell’s statement is not supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. No, it is a declaration of war on both the ARP Church and evangelical Christianity that is Biblical and Reformed. We understand that, and we are not especially surprised. But for the life of me, I do not understand people who claim to hold the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible as precious and who nevertheless desperately want to hold on to Erskine College and Seminary. What is it that causes them, Gollum-like, to cry, “My Precious! My Precious!”? What is there at Erskine that speaks of Biblical faith and practice? Indeed, to say that EC is “an authentic Christian” college and ETS is a Biblically faithful seminary is supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. It is a statement of nonsense that rejects reality. My suggestion is to give the whole rotten lot to the alums and let them take it to financial ruin and ignominy forthwith. Let Erskine become the Cokesbury College and the Auburn Seminary of the 21st century. In Biblical parlance, it is time to be rid of the “accursed thing”!

To those who are reading ARPTalk for the first time, I want to make this clear: I do not have an imagination good enough to make this stuff up. Indeed, we in the ARP Church as we deal with Erskine are on the other side of “the looking glass.” We have turned Christianity into supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Both the ARP Church and Erskine are dying. The judgment of God is on us both for our fecklessness and faithlessness.

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

Since this paper addresses issues in the ARP Church, we are posting it on ARPTalk.

We invite your comments.

Download the Report in PDF Form HERE

Minority Report of Erskine Trustees Regarding the Erskine Board’s Response to the General Synod

The following report is presented to the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (the Synod) in response to the action taken by the Erskine Board of Trustees (the Board) at its February 17, 2012 meeting. A majority of the Board refused to thoroughly address a motion made at Synod’s 208th meeting stating in summary that they did not concur with changing the charter to recognize Synod’s authority to remove trustees, and that they did not seek further dialogue on this issue. We recognize that the issues discussed below have a lengthy history, and that the current Board’s action (as well as actions of the Boards of the past quarter century), which necessitates this report is yet another episode in the story of ongoing tension between these two bodies. We also recognize that these issues are complex, and we urge that delegates to the General Synod read this response with care. The stakes are high, for the historic relationship between the General Synod and its educational institutions now hangs in the balance. In addition, it is time for the Synod to move its focus to preaching the Word, discipling believers, and reaching the lost for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The list of Minority Report signers is varied—those who voted against the Board’s action and who voted for it (on the basis of information provided by the Board’s ad hoc Committee that has now been demonstrated to be factually incorrect), but now realize that their vote was mistaken. All are united, however, in the conviction that the Board’s action was not in the best interests of Erskine and that it was less than faithful to the Church of Jesus Christ.

I. Historical Introduction

Some on the Board suggest that the current problems between the Synod and the Board stem from the Synod’s effort to remove the Board in March of 2010, but a candid review of the evidence leads to quite a different conclusion. For example, in 1976, L.L. Dattler, as Moderator of Virginia Presbytery, spoke to the relational strain between the Synod and the Board present at that time:

We of the Virginia Presbytery do not in any way wish to hamper the greater Distinction for Erskine Campaign, nor do we wish to deal in personalities. The problems that disturb us have come about over a number of years, as the review of policies over a period of time demonstrate . . . If we see no change then we shall memorialize the General Synod again to take more direct action. By condoning the line of least resistance, the administration, the faculty, Board of Trustees, and each member of the General Synod is permitting stumbling blocks to impair the spiritual, the emotional, and the intellectual growth of these young lives which are entrusted to us by God and their parents.

His statement points to disturbances, occurring “over a number of years” prior to 1976, regarding the Board’s failure to properly implement the recommendations of the Synod. In fact, the Minutes of Synod over the past four decades tell a story of Synod’s instructions and entreaties, the Board’s evasive and incomplete responses to the directives of Synod, the Board’s consistent failure to implement the guiding principles articulated by the Synod, and Synod’s reluctance to hold the Board accountable until the Special Called Meeting of General Synod in March 2010. Witness this pointed language, taken from a motion passed by the 2007 General Synod:

That Synod call upon the Board of Trustees, Administration, Faculty and Staff of Erskine College and Erskine Theological Seminary wholeheartedly to fulfill the instructions of the General Synod regarding character and mission of the College and Seminary and, in particular, that they carefully and without evasion adhere to the requirement that any newly appointed administrative or teaching employee of any board shall have given satisfactory evidence of their belief in and adherence to the basic doctrines of evangelical Christianity.

This record of failure and conflict could not be denied, and prior to the March 2010 Synod meeting the Board, without dissent, passed a resolution recognizing this contentious history by stating in its opening words: “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.

In the wake of the Special Called Meeting of General Synod in March 2010 which voted to replace the existing Board with an Interim Board, legal actions by the then Chairman of the Erskine Board, employees of Erskine Theological Seminary, and finally by three of the dismissed trustees, were filed in civil court. As the costs of this legal battle continued to mount, the General Synod voted in June of 2010 to renounce its efforts to replace the Board contingent upon the dismissal of the lawsuit filed by the three trustees, and the suit was finally dismissed in September, 2010. Since March 2010, the Board has undertaken a series of actions that (whatever the motives of individual Trustees may have been) have had the effect of unilaterally redefining the relationship between the ARP Church and the Erskine institutions. In May of 2011 the Board approved a new set of Bylaws which in a number of ways acted to distance Erskine from the Synod. First, the Board in its Bylaws failed to acknowledge the organic relationship between the Synod and the Erskine institutions and the status of Erskine as an “agency” of the ARP Church. Second, it defined “undue influence” in such a way that any effort by the Synod to ensure accountability to the mission of the schools could be viewed by accrediting bodies as “undue influence.” Third, it reserved the right of trustee removal exclusively to the Board itself. And finally, the Board revised the Trustee appointment process prior to consideration by Synod’s own Committee on Nominations, making it almost impossible for Synod to alter its will from the floor of the Court, in such a way that the Board now has something close to a de facto power to veto prospective trustees that it does not want appointed.

Sensing that the Synod and Board were moving in very different directions, and seeking to resolve the points of confusion and difference, the Synod responded to this action by the Board in June 2011. The Synod passed a motion requesting that the Board enter into a process of charter revision, and proposed “preliminary language” for “consideration and review.” More specifically, the Board was asked “to provide the Synod with its feedback and proposed amendments in time for distribution and consideration at the Synod’s 2012 meeting, after which, an official proposal of amendment to the charter may be sent to the Board for consideration.” The Synod’s proposed language reads as follows:

Recognizing the historic and organic relationship between Erskine College and Seminary (‘the Institution’) and the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (‘the Synod’), the Institution recognizes the right of the Synod to a) through its Philosophy of Christian Higher Education and ‘Definition of an Evangelical,’ delineate the Synod’s aspirations for the institution; b) appoint all trustees to the Board of the Institution; and c) remove trustees for cause by a process set forth in governing documents of the ARP Church.

All Erskine Board members, faculty and administrators shall give affirmation that the Philosophy of Christian Higher Education and the Synod’s Definition of an Evangelical are in accordance with their own views and commitments. In its oversight of the Institution through the Board of Trustees, the Synod shall seek to act in accordance with the Holy Scriptures, the Westminster Standards, its own Philosophy of Christian Higher Education, and the laws of the State of South Carolina.

On February 17, 2012, rather than continuing the conversation as the Synod suggested, the Board simply declined to do what the Synod asked of it. It is the purpose of this minority report to address the Board’s response to this motion and to locate that response in the broader context of the Board’s ultimate failure to comply with the Synod’s directives. Like Mr. Dattler in 1976, we the undersigned have no desire “to hamper” Erskine and have no inclination to deal in personalities by singling out any individuals by name. Rather, we seek to promote the mission and vision of the General Synod in and through its ministry at Erskine College and Seminary, and in doing so, promote the success of the college and seminary. It is with these desires, which are ultimately for the glory of God, that this report is respectfully submitted.

In saying this, we readily acknowledge that responsibility for the current impasse lies with both the Board (for its resistance and failure to implement the Synod’s mission for the Erskine institutions), and with the Synod (for its failure to require ongoing accountability of the Board to the mission). Furthermore, the Synod’s own structure has hampered its efforts to respond to a more recent well-organized and determined opposition by those wanting a more independent Erskine, and especially to the vigorous public relations campaign mounted by those opposing Synod’s authority to remove trustees. In these efforts, the Synod has, in accordance with its nature as a deliberative body, functioned as a “committee of the whole.” It is a large body which normally meets but once a year. In addition, internal divisions within the Synod have made it difficult for it to steer a steady course in this controversy (a pattern that contrasts markedly with the effective efforts of the Georgia Baptist Convention to effect reform at Shorter College as referenced below as an example).

II. Four Reasons Cited by the Erskine Board in Declining Synod’s Request

Erskine’s response to Synod declines Synod’s request to change the charter of Erskine for four stated reasons: (1) potential impact on accreditation; (2) potential legal liability on behalf of Synod; (3) potential impact on academic freedom; and (4) potential impact on trustees’ independence to serve the mission of the Institution.

Note that none of the reasons rises above the “potential” level, suggesting that there are no known or established problems with the requested charter changes, only potential ones. Even if a definition of “potential” is accepted that understands this as “likely to occur” (which, as demonstrated below, is not the case) it remains that these are not known problems. For example, the Board stipulates, based on its research, that the accreditation agencies of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) or the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) have no member schools where a denominational body with trustee appointment authority also has trustee removal authority. Evidence will be provided below that this is not the case, and that these two accrediting organizations, which accredit Erskine College and Seminary, in fact, have not raised concerns when the charters of member schools have included provisions for trustee removal by a sponsoring denomination. Also, note that the second reason listed above by the Board has nothing to do with Erskine and everything to do with Synod and, therefore, only Synod would need to consider this as a reason to oppose the suggested charter change, not the Erskine Board of Trustees.

III. Minority Response to the Board Majority’s Action

Because the Board’s response demonstrates 1) a confusion as to the general principles of the relationship between Erskine and the ARP Church and 2) factual errors in its analysis of specific issues pertaining to that relationship, this section of the Minority Report consists of more general comments pertaining to principles of the relationship followed by a detailed analysis of the reasons given for denying the Synod’s request.

A. Preliminary Comments regarding the Synod/Erskine Relationship

1. The foundational issue involved in this current discussion—as indeed in the ongoing discord—is the relationship between Synod and Erskine. Are the two organizations equal in priority and authority? Does the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church hold a higher authority and priority, or does Erskine? Is Erskine an arm of the Church, or is it an independent civil entity? Is the relationship between Synod and Erskine vertical in nature, or horizontal? Erskine’s Board of Trustees is appointed by Synod for Synod’s purpose according to the Manual of Authorities and Duties of the ARP Church (hereafter, MAD): “The General Synod has appointed the [Board of Trustees of Erskine College] to carry out specific missions of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.” A recognition of the higher authority and priority of the General Synod would settle the current debate. If Erskine is an agency of the ARP Church then by implication the Board should recognize the authority of the Synod to remove trustees (as is the case with other agencies of the Church). In other words, the Synod is not asking the Erskine Board to grant this authority, but to recognize it. The authority already exists in the higher priority and larger authority of Synod. Refusal to recognize this authority by the Erskine Board indicates that the Board considers its authority and priority to be higher than that of the Synod for Erskine, and considers itself to be an essentially independent civil institution. If the Board were to recognize Erskine as an arm of the Church, it would submit to the ecclesiastical authority of the General Synod.

That the Board is unilaterally seeking to change the terms of the relationship between itself and the Synod is evident in the family metaphor it chose to use to describe that relationship. The relationship of Erskine to the Synod, it argues, is that of a child to its parents after that child has reached maturity and is now responsible for and to itself. But this is hardly an apt illustration, for the Synod defines the mission of Erskine, it appoints the trustees, and it is the single largest monetary donor to the schools. In light of this, a quite different family metaphor commends itself: Is not Erskine more like a rebellious teenager that insists on “doing its own thing” while still expecting to live off the resources of his or her parents?

2. Since the Board’s rebuff of the Synod’s request, there has been a good deal of rhetoric on the Erskine website to the effect that the Board still desires a close relationship with the ARP Church. But, considering its refusal to recognize the higher status of the General Synod, what sort of “close relationship” does the Board envision? The Board’s response makes it abundantly clear that the Synod is viewed as an outside or external entity, in a greater sense than just recognition that Synod is external to and distinct from the Board governing Erskine. They are viewed as separate entities that can relate cooperatively, but not as organically related to one another with appropriate structures of accountability.

Much, if not all, of the Board’s stated concerns evaporate if Erskine is regarded, rather, as an agency organically related Synod. Whether Erskine is seen to be organically related to Synod in much the same way as, for example, World Witness, really seems to be at the foundation of the ongoing tension between Synod and Erskine. Holding Synod to be an external body is a confusion on the part of the Erskine Board, for it fails to distinguish between the ideas of “distinct” and “separate.” Though Erskine is distinct from Synod, it is not separate from Synod. Furthermore, this understanding is reflected in the above statement quoted from MAD, concerning the appointment of the Board of Trustees of Erskine College to carry out specific missions of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. The MAD also requires that, “Erskine Trustees shall accept, believe and affirm in practice the Synod’s Philosophy of Higher Education and Synod’s Definition of an Evangelical.” The MAD holds that in regards to the teaching ministry of the Church, the Synod has ordained higher education to be “provided by Erskine College and Erskine Theological Seminary.” Perhaps the clearest example of this is found in the following MAD statement concerning the duties of the Erskine Board: “In the exercise of its authority, the Board shall comply with The Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, and its policies and programs shall be consistent with the purpose of the General Synod.”

3. The response of the majority of the Erskine Board assumes a sameness of relationship between Erskine and a variety of ‘external’ groups: the Synod, Faculty and Staff, Students, and Alumni. Considering Synod as an outside entity leads directly to such a misunderstanding. The relationship between Synod and Erskine is of a different kind than the other relationships which Erskine may have. The Synod-Erskine relationship is at a higher level, primarily because of the higher priority of the General Synod and the foundational nature of the relationship. By virtue of its having founded the schools, appointed the trustees, set the schools up as missions of the Church, and the lengthy legacy of financial support, the General Synod relates to Erskine in a unique way. Furthermore, if there is a sameness of relationship between Erskine and all of these groups, then SACS should have a problem with Synod’s appointing trustees. Yet if the proper vertical relationship is understood by both parties, accreditation issues concerning “undue influence” go away.

4. The Board’s response indicates that there ought to be a single-minded fiduciary obligation on the part of Erskine trustees for Erskine. Understanding such an obligation to be one of holding someone or something in trust, it appropriately describes the trustees’ obligation to Erskine. But it is not “alone” to Erskine that trustees are fiduciaries. They also have a fiduciary obligation to the General Synod, both because of its higher priority and because each trustee is appointed by the Synod. Moreover, it is the historic understanding of the Synod that a trustee’s fiduciary obligations to Erskine do not stand in tension or conflict with obligations to the Synod as his or her appointing authority, precisely because Erskine is organically related to the ARP Church as the educational arm and agency of the Church. In fact, were the relationship understood as it ought to be—as an organic relationship of the General Synod to one of its agencies—then there would be no artificially contrived conflict between the obligations.

Moreover, there is an additional danger to the interests of the Synod lurking here in this language of “single-minded fiduciary obligation” to Erskine. On this understanding, any demonstration of loyalty by Erskine trustees to the directives of the Synod could, in principle, be interpreted by the Board as a violation of this “single-minded fiduciary obligation.” Some current trustees believe that this language could sooner or later be used by the Board majority to remove trustees who acknowledge their fiduciary responsibility to both Erskine and the Synod.

5. The Erskine Board response suggests that safeguards are now in place via its revised bylaws to provide Synod with assurance that it will be heard in the future. Nevertheless, there is no assurance that these “safeguards” would make a difference when Synod seeks to correct the direction the Board has taken Erskine. Rather, the response seems almost blind to pre-March 2010 tensions as reviewed above. “[A]ppropriate formal and informal avenues for communication of issues and concerns between the General Synod and the Board of Trustees are in place, which have been and should continue to be respectfully, competently, and successfully utilized.” Does this truly give an accurate description of the communications between Synod and Erskine over the past quarter century? Obviously not! Indeed, as the Board has unilaterally redefined the relationship between the General Synod and the Erskine institutions by treating the General Synod as a separate entity (and refusing to acknowledge the organic relationship that has historically existed), any attempt by the Church to require adherence to MAD can now be construed as “undue influence.” The Board majority’s attitude to the Synod at this point is rather clear: ‘We will take your money and we will listen to what you have to say, but at the end of the day we will do as we please.’

The Board’s response continues to ignore the legacy of tension between the Church and schools in a section subtitled, “Effective and Working Processes Are in Place.” While offering limited ‘repentance’ for past shortcomings, the response suggests that, now that the Board has adopted new bylaws that spell out a trustee removal process, Synod can have “great assurance that the Board’s self-governance works [though as yet untested by any Synod concerns] and that any such situations properly brought to the Board’s attention will be thoroughly and appropriately investigated and resolved [not necessarily to Synod’s satisfaction].” Given the Board’s longstanding resistance to Synod’s wishes (resistance which continues with the Board’s February 17, 2012 action under discussion here), such assurances by the Board offer no reassurance at all.

6. The report confuses “Operational Autonomy” and “Compositional Autonomy.” The MAD makes the operational independence, or operational autonomy, of the Erskine Board very clear: “The Board of Trustees of Erskine College has direct control of the operation of Erskine College and Erskine Theological Seminary and is empowered to establish policies and educational programs and to manage all properties and funds.” Regarding the day-to-day activities of the institution, the Board is independent of the General Synod and all other entities as it exerts priority oversight of the operations. Compositional autonomy has nothing to do with activities or operations of the institution, but rather, the make-up of the Board. Synod, through its nominations process, oversees the composition of the board taking into account such guidelines as the appropriate number of board seats, the required number of ARP ministers as stated in the MAD, and the proper number of Erskine Alumni per the Erskine Bylaws. Compositional autonomy refers to the persons on the board not the operations of the Board making policies, detailing procedures, or initiating and overseeing programs.

It is important to understand the differences between these two concepts. There is nothing in the determination of board composition that necessarily limits the Board (as it is at any time composed) from operating as it alone determines is in the best interests of Erskine. There is no essential difference between trustee appointment and trustee removal for cause; both are factors of board composition, not the board’s ability to decide and act. Yet the Board report claims that a more efficient determination by the Synod of an appropriate composition of the Board of Trustees (by recognition of Synod’s authority to remove trustees for cause, not granting such authority to Synod) would limit the Erskine Board’s independent ability of operation. This is not the case. For the Synod to remove a trustee for cause, thus re-configuring the board, is no different in terms of the Board’s operations from its reconfiguring the board each year through appointment of new trustees to replace trustees whose terms expire

B. Detailed Reply to the Board’s Four Stated Reasons

1. Potential Impact on Accreditation—In more recent dealings between Synod and Erskine, accreditation has been a “trump card” played by the Board as leverage against the Synod. There is no denying the negative attitude of accrediting agencies toward religion and religious bodies, especially if such are “conservative” or “evangelical” in nature. But accrediting agencies themselves must comply with published standards, and these standards limit their ability to act arbitrarily. A close reading of the standards quoted in the Board’s response does not reveal any violation by the proposed charter change. In fact, the proposed charter change would make the relationship between Synod and Erskine more clearly in compliance with the quoted SACS Comprehensive Standard, C.S. 3.2.2. The presence of such clarification of relationship in the official documents of at least six area colleges who are accredited by SACS and all of the Southern Baptist Convention’s seminaries (all accredited by SACS and ATS), proves that such language has not ever been, and is not currently, in conflict with the standards of these accrediting agencies.

The articles of incorporation of three South Carolina colleges associated with the South Carolina Baptist Convention (Anderson University, Charleston Southern University, North Greenville University), all accredited by SACS, establish that there is no real threat to Erskine’s accreditation if the “removal for cause” language is added to the charter. For example the North Greenville University (NGU) Articles of Incorporation, which were amended and restated in 2005 and sent to SACS, did not raise any concerns from the accreditation body. NGU’s accreditation was not in any way threatened, nor was the school put on probation, because of the presence of the following language:

South Carolina Baptist Convention may remove trustees prior to the expiration of the term of trustees’ election upon the recommendation of the Convention’s Executive Board, by vote of two-thirds of the messengers voting. Removal may occur only upon the Convention’s finding that removal of the trustee is in the best interest of the corporation and one or more of the following causes for removal are deemed in the judgment of the Convention to exist: breach of trust; neglect of duty; physical or mental incapacity of the trustee; conduct by the trustee which is deemed by the Convention to be immoral, fraudulent or dishonest; the trustee’s engaging in a conflict of interest transaction.

NGU subsequently received re-affirmation of their accreditation in 2011. Dr. Jimmy Epting, President of NGU, stated that SACS has never raised any concerns about this authority of the Convention.

Similarly, for the three colleges affiliated with them, the Baptist Convention of the State of Georgia has trustee removal authority as explicitly stated in the schools’ Articles of Incorporation. The language was drafted by Georgia Baptist Convention’s staff attorney, Tom Duvall, with the assistance of Nashville attorney, Jim Guenther. Duvall stated that he sent the language to the attorney at SACS and no concerns were raised about it. It was subsequently enacted during the time of a lawsuit against the Convention by the President and a majority of the Board at Shorter College, as they sought to remove the college from the Convention’s oversight. They based their desire to separate on threat of losing SACS accreditation—a threat that SACS representatives initially embraced. Nevertheless, even while Shorter College and the Convention fought in the courts of Georgia, the school was never placed on probation and their accreditation never threatened. SACS re-affirmed Shorter’s accreditation in 2002, the year the legal conflict ensued. When the Georgia Supreme Court ruled in the Convention’s favor in 2005, and the Board of Trustees was removed and replaced by the Convention, SACS did not intervene in any manner. The Articles of Incorporation of Shorter College (now Shorter University since its explosive growth after renewing its strong bonds with the denomination) established such trustee removal by the Convention by referring to the Georgia Nonprofit Corporations Act, which states in §14-3-808, “members may remove, with or without cause, one or more directors elected by them” and by making the Convention the only “Member” of the corporation in the Articles of Incorporation. Article VII of the Articles states:

The Corporation shall have one (1) member in accordance with Section 14-3-140(20 and Sections 14-3-601 et seq. of the Nonprofit Corporation Code, with such member being the Baptist Convention of the State of Georgia (the “Member”). The Member shall have those rights, powers, authority, benefits and privileges set forth in the Nonprofit Code or any other laws

Analogous to Erskine, the Bylaws of Shorter University also contain a process for the Board itself to remove trustees for cause in addition to the right of the Convention to do so.

The Board’s response quotes an email from an ATS Director, Accreditation and Institutional Evaluation stating, “with respect to denominationally-related schools where trustees are appointed/elected by the church, the church may not withdraw appointment of, dismiss, or remove trustees once they are appointed, and that the ATS Board of Commissioners would not consider the allowance of such removal or withdrawal of appointment of trustees by an ecclesial body to be good governance—because it means that the church is the de facto board if it has the authority to remove board members for a variety of causes.” This opinion of the sender, not official edict from the accrediting body’s Board of Commissioners, did not quote or identify any ATS standard that such removal authority would abrogate. Her reasoning about such an authority making the Synod the “de facto board” makes the same error of confusing operational autonomy with compositional autonomy as is apparent in the Board’s response to the Synod. In addition, she either purposely or negligently ignores the fact that the three largest ATS member seminaries that are related to a denomination have such trustee-removal-by-ecclesial-body provisions in their charters or articles of incorporation. Did she not know or was she being less than straightforward?

Her email was dated December 21, 2011. In February 2012, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary successfully went through ATS re-affirmation without any question of their charter’s acknowledgement that the Southern Baptist Convention not only appoints its trustees but also has authority to remove them. Similarly, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary is going through re-affirmation now in early 2012, and they have not received any stated concerns from ATS regarding the Convention’s trustee appointment and removal authority. The Articles of Incorporation of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC read:

The Southern Baptist Convention may remove a trustee prior to the expiration of the trustee’s term for any reason deemed sufficient to the Convention, without regard to any provision of the North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act, the election and removal of trustees by the Convention being religious acts within the scope of the free exercise of the Convention’s religion under the Constitution of the United States.

The following is the language from the charter of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY: “A trustee elected according to the provisions of the Third Article of the Fundamental Laws [a section of the Charter] may be removed from office by the Southern Baptist Convention according to procedures it adopts.”

A recent communication from another ATS official, also a “Director, Accreditation and Institutional Evaluation,” to a Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary (PRTS) professor who is working on their ATS self-study sheds great light on the above-referenced ATS official’s email response. The PRTS professor asked,

We are busily working away at our ATS self-study here at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. As we do so I wondered whether you could comment on whether or not our seminary bylaws (particularly Articles 1-3, as connected to Article 3, Section 3) stand in harmony with ATS standard 8.1.2.3? I’ve attached the bylaws document. We believe they do, and wholly affirm them without reservation, but want to be sure particularly in regard to our bylaw, Art. 3, Sec. 3, relating to our Board of Trustees: “Removal. The Members may remove any Trustee from office with or without cause.”

To this question, the ATS official responded,

I am assuming that this particular section of your bylaws is consistent with your denominational governance structures, authority, and practice. And for as long you [sic] determine that this is consistent with your mission, as stated in the documents submitted to ATS, ATS would not encroach on the school’s prerogative to determine how it governs itself; and for as long as such practices are not in violation of local, state, and federal laws. (Emphasis added.)

All this provides more than sufficient evidence that trustee-removal language in Erskine’s charter should not threaten either SACS or ATS accreditation. So, why was the removal of the Board of Trustees by the Synod in 2010 the cause of SACS probation, and why did the ATS official misstate her organization’s official position on such authority in her email to the ad hoc Committee of the Erskine Board? Here, the suggestion of recently retired Shorter University Board Chairman, Dr. Nelson Price, is revealing. It is his opinion that SACS is more than happy to come to the aid of college administrations and boards in their efforts against religious sponsoring bodies. When the college via the administration or the board self-reports an undue influence by the denomination, SACS is happy to bring pressure to the situation. He thought it was very likely that either an Erskine administrator or a trustee solicited SACS’ cooperation in Erskine’s clash with the Synod. That both the Erskine President at the time and a former Erskine Trustee (who was among the trustees dismissed by the March 2010 Synod and who subsequently sued the Synod) had close ties to SACS, suggests that this explanation is plausible. It is also possible – or even probable – that a lack of explicitly recognizing the Synod’s trustee removal authority in the Charter or Bylaws of Erskine led to the probationary action since representatives of SACS reportedly stated at the time that clearly delineated removal authority on the part of the Synod would not be a problem with accreditation. As for the ATS official who sent the email to the ad hoc committee, her motivations remain suspect.

2. Increased Legal Liability for Synod—Note that this potential liability is not a de novo, or newly created potential liability but a potential increase in a potentially already existing potential liability. The appointment of the trustees who control Erskine already makes Synod liable—if the argument regarding “ascending liability” is valid. Contra the legal opinions of two participants in the Board’s ad hoc committee meetings and an attorney later hired by Central Services, we have found that such liability is no more than a remote possibility, and that there are steps that the Synod can take at modest cost in order to shield itself from such a remote threat.

Keith Munson, the attorney who represented Synod in its defense against the Erskine trustees and others who brought suits against the Synod in 2010, offered the following comment about this supposed ascending liability: “By ascending liability I assume you mean a situation like where a Football team hazes a student until he gets seriously injured and sues the coach, the school for hiring the Coach, the Trustees for hiring the President that hired the coach and then the Church for negligently selecting the trustees that negligently hired the president that hired the coach … As a member of the legal profession, I am sorry that the possibility of such remote culpability is even possible” (emphasis added). Tom Duvall, staff attorney for the Baptist Convention of the State of Georgia, stated that he has no concerns whatsoever about ascending liability. His organization has three SACS-accredited colleges and they all have trustee removal language in their Articles of Incorporation. He said that as long as the two bodies are separate and distinct corporations, that full operating and policy authority is vested in the Board, and the Convention does not get involved in day-to-day operations, there is no significant ascending liability threat.

Nashville attorney Jim Guenther has represented colleges and seminaries in dealings with denominations and accrediting agencies, and has represented denominations and state conventions in dealings with their educational institutions. He wrote the Articles of Incorporation for the three South Carolina Baptist colleges. Guenther states that the key consideration in determining ascending liability is control. Control is safe and appropriate as long as a suitable corporate structure and relationship are established; control is NOT appropriate if the parent group has operational control of day-to-day activities of the affiliate. According to his criteria, he understands the Synod-Erskine relationship to be safe and appropriate. Guenther speaks with considerable authority on this issue—he and his firm have been involved in between fifty and sixty ascending liability cases. Most were dismissed, and HE HAS NEVER LOST AN ASCENDING LIABILITY CASE. It is his opinion that trustee appointment authority rather than removal authority (which he states is implicit with appointment authority) evokes ascending liability challenges from plaintiffs’ attorneys. In fact, many of his cases occurred before the trustee removal language was added to Southern Baptist Convention seminaries’ articles of incorporation. In plain language, removal authority may actually decrease legal liability for the appointing body. This was the conclusion of the attorney who wrote the board removal [policy for the Synod: “Arguably, the Board Removal Policy strengthens the ARPC against the spurious claim of increased risk of ascending liability.”

Nevertheless, such a threat of legal liability has become another “trump card” in discussions with Synod. As stated earlier, even if this were a significant risk, this is a concern for Synod, not the Board, and it is already present in appointment authority if the liability is real. One response to this, if indeed members of Synod consider the threat to be of significance, is to purchase liability insurance to cover such a remotely possible occurrence. Mr. Guenther concurs with this suggestion. Such available coverage is relatively inexpensive because of the remote nature of the threat, based on our past history. Mr. Guenther recommends that a denomination purchase liability insurance for itself and its subsidiaries to cover the legal costs of dismissing or defending a case. Another approach, suggested by an insurance underwriter, is to have the Synod agencies that are incorporated to write into their liability insurance policies that the General Synod is a “named insured” or “affiliated entity” (sometimes referred to as a “shared limits endorsement”) and then Synod would be covered by the liability insurance of the agency (this is usually at no cost or minimal cost).

3-4. Academic Freedom and Trustee Independence—The Board’s last two reasons for declining Synod’s request both involve a persistent confusion of operational and compositional autonomy. Nothing in the clarification of Synod’s ability to remove trustees for cause directly affects academic freedom any more than does Synod’s appointing of the trustees. The Board acts independently however it is composed. The Synod’s Board Removal Policy delineates the causes for trustee removal: “Causes For Removal: The Synod of the ARP expressly adopts the removal of members of its Agencies and Standing Committees only ‘for cause’ including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Failure to maintain a duty of care; 2. Failure to maintain a duty of loyalty; 3. Failure to maintain a duty of fiduciary; 4. Failure to maintain a duty of Christian unity; and, 5. Failure to maintain the duty of Christian godliness.” In fact, the due process outlined by Synod is arguably much more rigorous than the Board’s own process for removal of a trustee. It is harder for Synod to remove Erskine trustees than it is for the Board to do so.

The “including, but not limited to” language has caused concern among some Erskine trustees, but no trustee need to “look over her shoulder” to see if Synod is looking because of the way she voted on an issue of Erskine governance. Trustees need only to act in concert with their obligations of appointment. This “but not limited to” language is standard, recognizing the inability to delineate all appropriate causes for removal, and is more stringent than the ‘for-any-reason-deemed-sufficient-type’ language of the Southern Baptist Convention for its schools. This is not unreasonable, and a school desiring a close affiliation with its sponsoring body should not cower at such language.

To further emphasize that there is no threat to academic freedom or trustee independence, we again quote the MAD (an official document of the General Synod) which makes it clear that the Synod has no desire to, nor can it under its current policy, limit trustee independence or academic freedom: “The Board of Trustees of Erskine College has direct control of the operation of Erskine College and Erskine Theological Seminary and is empowered to establish policies and educational programs and to manage all properties and funds” (emphasis added).

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations:

A number of conclusions are inescapable. Since 2010 a majority of the Erskine Board seems to be unilaterally seeking to redefine the relationship between Erskine and the ARP Church through bylaws provisions that effectively marginalize the role of the Church, and it has rebuffed the most recent request of the Synod to bring those bylaws and the Charter into conformity with Synod’s expectations of its other agencies. With respect to this last action, the Board acted on the basis of research that was demonstrably incomplete and assertions by the ad hoc Committee that were factually incorrect. Nevertheless, it is also now clear that a majority on the Board do not wish for Erskine to be an “agency” of the Church that is organically related to the Synod. Instead, it envisions a “cooperative” relationship of essentially independent entities in which the Board is not accountable to the Synod. In short, after decades of conflict in which the Board majority has more passively resisted the efforts of the Synod to define the mission of the Erskine institutions, the Board has now arguably embarked on a trajectory that, if pursued, will likely lead to the separation of Erskine from the ARP Church. Indeed, if the Synod does not act decisively at the 208th meeting to address this challenge, it will be difficult to stop this process of separation.

In an effort to re-focus the conversation between Synod and the Board about the relationship of Erskine College and Erskine Theological Seminary to the ARP Church, and to attain clarification of various matters in dispute, we offer the following two recommendations:

1. That Synod reaffirms this statement in the MAD: “The Board of Trustees of Erskine College has direct control of the operation of Erskine College and Erskine Theological Seminary and is empowered to establish policies and educational programs and to manage all properties and funds.”

2. That the Moderator of Synod appoint a Special Committee to Study the Relationship between the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and Erskine College and Theological Seminary. This committee shall consist of seven (7) members, four (4) of whom shall be teaching elders and three (3) of whom ruling elders. It shall determine if and how an appropriate and healthy relationship between the General Synod and the Erskine institutions can be re-established. More specifically, this Committee shall: (a) evaluate the current status of the relationship between General Synod and Erskine; (b) identify what the future of the relationship ought to be according to the best interests of the General Synod; (c) clarify any outstanding issues pertaining to the legal authority of Synod to remove Erskine trustees in accordance with South Carolina law, accreditation matters, liability, and any other issues relevant to the relationship of Erskine to the Synod; (d) work with the Erskine Board of Trustees (or their designated representatives) to determine if and how the current impasse can be overcome and discover why the Erskine Board did not do its utmost due diligence and ended the conversation with Synod so abruptly; and (e) report their findings with recommendations for action to the 209th General Synod in 2013.

We the undersigned trustees of Erskine College and Seminary respectfully submit this minority report to the 208th General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.

Good Cop! Bad Cop!

As the readers of ARPTalk are aware, the Editor has come to the conclusion that Erskine College (EC) and Seminary (ETS) cannot be fixed by the ARP Church. The ARP Church simply does not have the financial and people resources needed to get the job done. The efforts by the members of the General Synod have been ineffectual for more than 40 years now, and there is nothing on the horizon to suggest that change is on the way. In fact, the situation is now worse than it has been. The members of the General Synod demonstrated in the June 2010 General Synod that they lacked the will and courage to defend the ARP Church’s legitimate interests in court, and the Erskine Board of Trustees (EBOT), with no real fear of the ARP paper tiger, has now decisively rebuffed the 2011 General Synod’s polite request for a Charter change (amazingly, a consensus document that was signed on to by President David Norman and EBOT representatives at the 2011 General Synod). Only fools would hold out hope that things can be fixed now. I have said it before and let me say it again: Enough and away with the cancer and evil called Erskine!

The Editor is pleased that he seems to have been joined in his efforts to cut Erskine free from the ARP Church by the current Moderator, the Rev. Andy Putnam. Consider the following: Moderator Putnam was on the committee that rewrote the EBOT’s By-Laws. Do you recall that it was these By-Laws, framed in a defiant refusal to recognize the organic relationship between the General Synod and Erskine and their denial of General Synod’s right to remove EBOT trustees for cause, that prompted the motion by the Rev. Clint Davis at last year’s General Synod? When the EBOT approved those By-Laws, Moderator Putnam argued against efforts to fix them, suggesting that such changes could be made later in the context of charter revision. As I remember, in a conversation, he said a revision favorable to General Synod would not be difficult.

Then Moderator Putnam was placed on the EBOT’s committee charged with responding to the General Synod’s overture in Rev. Clint Davis’ motion, and reports are that he was fully supportive of the EBOT’s rebuff of General Synod’s overture to the EBOT.

Now some uninitiated souls might find this situation odd. They might even suggest that Moderator Putnam has been less than faithful in representing the interests of the General Synod of which he is the Moderator. But such base murmurings fail to grasp the full extent of Moderator Putnam’s political acumen. Can it not be seen that Moderator Putnam has found a way to placate both the left wing of the church (which wants to see Erskine free of General Synod’s control) and right wing of the church (which wants to see Erskine cut loose)? Furthermore, once Erskine is gone, gone, and, PTL, gone, Moderator Putnam will have solved the financial problems of the ARP Church in one fell swoop. Perhaps, as Moderator Putnam himself likes to say, he has been playing chess while the rest of us have been playing checkers!

To be sure, the Editor has played the “bad cop” in exposing Erskine’s infidelities. Now the circumstances at least suggest that Moderator Putnam wants to see Erskine gone, and that behind the scenes he is playing the “good cop” counterpart to Chuck Wilson. The Editor is happy to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Moderator Putnam in this endeavor.

Andy, it has been a delight to play the game of “Good Cop! Bad Cop!” with you.

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

News Release

Below is a news release on the Coach Bobby Petrino situation at the University of Arkansas as I imagine it might be dealt with by Second Presbytery. Anyone who thinks that the spoof below is a legitimate news release should be medicated and locked away in a closet in a dark attic.

“Bobby Petrino, former Head Coach of the Arkansas Razorbacks, has been through more hardship than any person should have to endure. He and his wife and family are currently attempting to heal and move forward. Therefore, it is our opinion that the administration at Arkansas should not have fired him. In so doing, they have only torn away the scab that covered a healing wound.

“What is more, Coach Petrino has indicated that at the time of the inappropriate relationship he sincerely believed – and very sincerely believed – that what he was doing was appropriate.

“Therefore, we recommend that the entire matter be swept under a large rug, that it not even be discussed further, and that Coach Petrino be reinstated as Head Coach. After his reinstatement, we believe the matter should be considered closed.”

Yes, indeed, there are devils in “sincerity”!

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

All Roads Lead to Greenville!

With all the miseries that have beset the ARP Church regarding Erskine College (EC) and Seminary (ETS) the last five years, an obvious thing has been lost in the miasma of words. That is, all roads lead to Greenville.

I am old now and not as quick as I once was, but even an old guy who is nearly bat-blind from glaucoma can see it. As a matter of fact, it is startling in its scope. All roads lead to Greenville Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (GARPC)!

Consider that Dr. Richard Taylor, an elder on the session of the GARPC, is one of the plaintiffs who took the ARP Church to civil court after the “Snow” Synod. As I remember, he gave a most entertaining performance as a witness in the courtroom in Newberry. As I recall, it was something about his feelings being hurt when General Synod voted to remove him from the Erskine Board of Trustees (EBOT).

The influence of the session and congregation of the GARPC on EC and ETS and the ARP Church is enormous. The first time I realized the reach of the influence of the GARPC was soon after the meeting of General Synod last year. Recall that there was an appeal of “charges” brought against Dr. Jay Hering, NT professor at ETS, regarding his joining with ETS non-ARP professors Dr. Richard Burnett and Dr. Michael Bush in an injunction against the ARP Church after the “Snow” Synod. I was one of the members of Second Presbytery who brought charges against Dr. Hering. On the floor of General Synod, in a communications SNAFU (that is, “Situation Normal All Fouled Up”), as the General Synod was winding down on Thursday, I reminded Moderator Andy Putnam that the item was pending before Synod. After some scurrying around, the document was found. I think I made the motion that the matter be forwarded to the Ecclesiastical Commission on Judiciary Affairs (ECJA). However, a few days after returning home, I received a phone call from Moderator Putnam regarding the motion I made. He informed me that a quorum could not be found on the ECJA for two reasons: (1) a seat was open; and (2) a number of members of the ECJA had to recuse themselves because they were members of the law firm in Greenville (and members of the Greenville ARP Church) that represented the EBOT plaintiffs in the litigation against the ARP Church. My advice was for the Moderator to hold the matter until this year and see if the makeup of the ECJA changed, and I think that was the course of action taken.

Recently, as I was thinking about the impasse that exists between the ARP Church and the EBOT, I noticed something else odd. Presently, Mr. Joe Patrick is the Chairman of the EBOT, and he is the son-in-law of EBOT member Dr. Richard Taylor, who is one of the EBOT plaintiffs who took the ARP Church to civil court. He also attends the GARPC. Then I noticed another spectacularly interesting thing: Mr. Dan Eller, Synod’s legal counsel, is also Dr. Taylor’s son-in-law and a member of the Greenville ARP Church. Well, I suppose all roads lead to GARPC. It looks institutionally incestuous, does it not?

But wait, there’s more! Mr. David Conner chaired the recent Erskine Board committee that rebuffed the General Synod’s request for a charter change, and reports are that Mr. Conner, a Greenville attorney, is to be the next Chairman of the EBOT. Mr. Conner is also a member of the GARPC and a member of the session of that church.

Another fascinating aspect to the story “All Road Lead to Greenville” is the role of the pastor of the GARPC, Rev. Matt Miller. In discussions with me and others, Rev. Miller made it clear that he disagreed with Dr. Richard Taylor’s actions of bringing litigation against the ARP Church. If I remember the conversations correctly, Rev. Miller used the word “wrong.”

However, when charges were brought against Dr. Taylor before his session by five members of Second Presbytery, Rev. Miller joined on with the opinion of the session – indeed, there was no objection on the document that came from the session of the GARPC. Then, when the session of the GARPC “circularized” Second Presbytery with a 10-plus-page document before the Second Presbytery could even hear the case, Rev. Miller’s name was not filed in opposition to the actions of the his session, nor was his voice heard in opposition on the floor of Second Presbytery. One wonders what Rev. Miller believes. He says it is “wrong” to take the church to court; however, when action is taken that actually deals with the issue, he joins the cause of those who defend one who has taken the church to civil court in an action that Rev. Miller deems “wrong.” This is puzzling to me. I cannot believe that Rev. Miller buys the “sincerity” argument. Well, at least, it demonstrates that all roads lead to Greenville!

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

ATS Gives ETS A+

The blowing of the wind that you heard and felt a few days ago was the collective sigh of relief that came out of Due West, SC. Finally, the folks at Erskine Theological Seminary (ETS), President David Norman and acting Executive Vice President Steve Lowe, were able to let out their breath and breathe normally again. The ATS (Association of Theological Schools) audit is now a nightmare of nights’ past. The question that was terrifying the Erskine people was whether or not ATS would forgive ETS for all the indiscretions and violations that occurred under the “reign of incompetence” of former Executive Vice President Harvey N. Gaston.

The team of editors who put together the ATS Self-Study were diligent and expansive in exposing and admitting to a veritable myriad of violations, infractions, and abuses of ATS policies, directives, and protocols. The Self-Study was 465 pages long. The copy I have must weigh 10 pounds! It is a full ream of paper.

The editors of the ETS Self-Study did something that is as rare as kryptonite in the Due West community. They demonstrated leadership. That is, they took responsibility for and ownership of all the failures of Dr. Harvey N. Gaston’s broken reign that former Erskine President Randy Ruble allowed to crash into a sea of ATS violations, financial distress, conflict with the ARP Church, and empty classrooms. In fact, using good Roman Catholic language, the editors, having done a “mea culpa, mea gran culpa,” clearly did what had to be done: they came clean and acknowledged what was wrong at ETS.

Their plans to fix ETS may not succeed; however, they were truthful in presenting the problems and clear in a plan to address those problems. The ATS auditors were impressed. ATS is not about closing seminaries. ATS exists to promote seminaries. The auditors read the ETS Self-Study and were impressed with self-evident genuineness. The result of the ATS audit: the ETS audit was approved with commendation. In my words, it was an A+.

Well, do you suppose that the long-running controversy between Erskine and the ARP Church would have been resolved years ago if there were three or four men/women on the Erskine administration and EBOT with as much wisdom and insight as the editors of the ETS Self-Study? Did you notice that the editors of the ETS Self-Study did not attempt to inform ATS auditors that the ETS administrators, faculty, and staff were “competent,” “informed,” “engaged,” “independent” and “fiduciary responsible”? To begin with, the editors of the Self-Study are not given to “acts of stupid.” It was abundantly clear that just the opposite had taken place. There was no attempt to cover up the obvious.

A question that I have been asked by a number of friends is this: “Chuck, how should the EBOT have framed its response back to General Synod? What would a response look like that would capture the heart of General Synod?” Well, the template is in front of the EBOT. Indeed, instead of asking Mr. David Conner to write what many of us consider an insult, I would have hired the editors of the ETS Self-Study to write a response.

Well, if I were framing a response to General Synod’s request, I would have done the following four things.

First, the report would have begun with an apology to General Synod: “Whether by design or ignorance, those representing the EBOT to the 2011 General Synod have misspoken and misrepresented our relationship with SACS and ATS regarding accreditation. We cannot and must not do what our representatives indicated. We apologize. We ask General Synod’s indulgence and forgiveness.”

Second, a mea culpa that would have looked something like this would have been written: “We affirm the conciliatory efforts of the representatives of the EBOT to the 2011 General Synod in that we genuinely desire a new beginning with the ARP Church. We are prepared to take responsibility for present and past failures of the EBOT and administrations. To show our good faith, we name . . . (and the list would have been long and detailed {465 pages ??} and nothing like the cryptic and terse almost-apology that was made by EBOT Chair Joe Patrick and EBOT member Bill Cain last June at General Synod). We apologize for these named failures and sins and others that we have missed. We give no excuses. We take full responsibility. We ask for your forgiveness. We acknowledge that we have betrayed the church.”

Third, two things I would not have mentioned: (1) the “independence” of Erskine; and (2) the words “competent,” “responsible,” “informed,” “engaged,” and “fiduciary responsible” would never have been written-on-paper with regard to Erskine administrators and EBOT members. I would not have insulted the ARP Church with a denial of the obvious.

Four, having admitted the mess and taken full responsibility for and ownership of it, I would have charted a path to get the college and seminary out of the mess, and I would have invited the General Synod to join in “the fix.” and, most importantly, I would have made sure that “the fix” was something that would capture the heart, the mind, the soul, the vision, and the money of the ARP church.

If a response like that had come from the EBOT, the stars would not have fallen out of the night sky, but the whole world would have heard Chuck Wilson cheering, and he would have sat down and penned a motion for the 2012 meeting of Synod to INCREASE (not maintain) Synod’s commitment to EC and ETS. As it is, Chuck Wilson and many others like him look at the response of the EBOT to General Synod and say: “Good grief! Let’s be rid of this cancer! Let’s put our money in the business of the church!”

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

News from Christian Colleges That Take Commitment to Their Statement of Faith and Mission Seriously

1: See the following URL regarding Grove City College:

• Obama’s Monumental Misunderstanding

2: Below are two interviews with Dr. Philip Ryken, President of Wheaton College. Did you know it is possible for a “Christian” college to be vibrant and relevant from a Christian – and, yes, even a Reformed – perspective? We ARPs and pitiful Erskine are well behind the 8-ball when it comes to educational integrity and values.

• The Challenges in Christian Higher Education
• From Pastor to President: an Interview with Philip Ryken

3: I hear from sources at Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Alabama that their seminary has brought Third Millennium Ministries on board. A year-and-a-half ago President David Norman of Erskine was heavily recruiting them. Amazingly, Briarwood PCA Church with an unaccredited seminary gets Richard Pratt and Third Millennium. What happened? Amazing! Amazing!

4. The following was sent to me by Rev. Tony Locke. It demonstrates what happens when a denomination fights for its college. How foolish and nearsighted and what cowards we ARPs are! We ran in fear of the BOIs called The EC Foundation. We did not win the prize! We took the course of quitedness! Many of the Erskinites and the ever-so-cautious and fearful ARPs were quick to criticize Mr. Ken Wingate’s opinions that he brought forth at the “Snow” Synod on behalf of the Moderator’s Commission as uninformed. Now, I wonder, is Mr. Wingate saying, “I told you so!”? If he is not, he should be!

Louisiana College wins court fight over scripture

also at

Louisiana College Wins Legal Battle for Inerrancy — Lessons for the ARP Maybe?

and

Louisiana College wins court fight over scripture – secular court has no jurisdiction to settle theological disputes

written by Leigh Jones:

Louisiana College trustees and administrators at the end of March won what could be the last battle in a long war over the school’s adherence to its biblical foundation.

On March 28, a Louisiana district court judge dismissed a suit brought against the school by four professors who claimed defamation and infliction of emotional distress in a disagreement with school leaders over the inerrancy of scripture.

In what school administrators have billed a landmark decision upholding religious liberty on campus, Judge Mary Doggett ruled that because the disagreement centered on theology, secular courts had no jurisdiction in the matter.

“Under the Establishment Clause, the consideration is whether the issues which the Court will have to resolve will necessarily turn upon competing interpretations of religion, thus resulting in the court becoming ‘entangled’ in an ecclesiastical dispute,”

Doggett wrote, referencing the First Amendment. “The ‘Entanglement Doctrine’ provides that a court must decline jurisdiction over a lawsuit when the dispute is so intertwined with matters of religion that a proper resolution cannot be made without interpreting or choosing between competing religious principles or doctrines.”

“The ‘Entanglement Doctrine’ provides that a court must decline jurisdiction over a lawsuit when the dispute is so intertwined with matters of religion that a proper resolution cannot be made without interpreting or choosing between competing religious principles or doctrines.”

The case brought by the four professors-Carlton Winbery, Frederick Downing, James Heath and Connie Douglas-clearly arose out of a theological dispute, Doggett concluded.

During depositions, the professors “candidly testified that their errant view of the Bible was in conflict with the inerrant beliefs of the [school] administration,” according to Doggett’s ruling.

The professors filed suit in 2005 against the school amid a growing furor over the school’s movement away from Baptist doctrine. The professors fueled the controversy with statements they made during class, including voicing skepticism over the bodily resurrection of Jesus and Mary’s virginity, school President Joe Aguillard said.

In response to complaints from parents and students about how liberal the small college in Pineville, La., had become, the Louisiana Baptist Convention appointed a new slate of conservative trustees to oversee operations, Aguillard said: “Their goal was to bring the college back to its biblical roots.”

When several faculty members recommended using M. Scott Peck’s “The Road Less Traveled” as the cornerstone text in a course on Christian values, Aguillard and other administrators baulked. The school’s academic freedom policy allowed the book to be used in the course, as long as the professors told students it was written based on Buddhist principles. Any teaching about the book also had to include a juxtaposition of Christian values against the values set forth in the book.

As soon as Aguillard denied the professors’ request to use the book as a cornerstone text, they filed suit.

The resulting court battle, which dragged on for almost seven years, was not the first time a Louisiana court was asked to weigh in on the fight over the theological direction of Louisiana College. When the Board of Trustees in late 2004 promoted Aguillard, then a faculty member, to the school’s top job, a group of donors and alumni concerned about his conservative views filed suit. The state’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school.

Before the latest case reached court, all four professors retired. While the school won the case in district court, the professors could appeal.

Although the infighting over the school raged for about four years, starting in 2003, disagreements over the school’s stand on the inerrancy of scripture are pretty much over now, Aguillard said. During the last five years, enrollment has grown by 89 percent. The school is building more dormitories and hiring more teachers for its 1,600 students. It just opened a School of Divinity, and next year, Louisiana College will welcome its first class of law students.

Aguillard attributed the school’s recent growth to its willingness to stand up for biblical truth: “God’s Word is true, and Louisiana College will never move from its position on biblical inerrancy, regardless of attacks from any and all directions.”

5:  Below is a letter that I posted in the “comment” section of the last ARPTalk posting. I think it needs to re-posted in this context. The letter is written by Mr. Martin A. Moore, Chairman, Board of Trustees of Covenant College, and is addressed to their alumni regarding the new President of Covenant College, Dr. J. Derek Halvorson. ARPs might like to notice how the vetting is done at Covenant College.

“On behalf of the Covenant College Board of Trustees, I am pleased to announce the selection of Dr. J. Derek Halvorson ’93 as the sixth president of Covenant College. Dr. Halvorson’s tenure will begin on July 1, 2012.

“The unanimous vote by the Board of Trustees evidences our strongly-held belief that Dr. Halvorson will provide the godly leadership needed to further advance the College’s mission of exploring and expressing the preeminence of Jesus Christ in all things.

Dr. Halvorson is the president of Providence Christian College in Pasadena, California. In addition to his current executive position, he brings experience in fundraising and constituent relations from his previous roles at Covenant, and experience in teaching at the university level and in the financial markets. HE HAS BEEN ORDAINED AS A RULING ELDER IN THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA (PCA), AND HE MUST PASS A THEOLOGICAL EXAM ADMINISTERED BY THE PCA PRIOR TO HIS INAUGURATION. [my emphasis]

“After graduating cum laude from Covenant with a bachelor of arts in history, Dr. Halvorson earned a master of arts from the University of Arizona and a doctorate of philosophy from Loyola University Chicago – both in history. He and his wife, Wendy, are the parents of a son and a daughter.

“In addition to selecting the sixth president, the Board of Trustees today unanimously voted to sign a letter of intent with Providence Christian College, expressing Covenant’s intent to acquire Providence. We believe this sister institution – a small, Reformed, residential liberal arts college on the West Coast – is a remarkable fit with Covenant’s mission and purpose and offers an opportunity for Covenant to extend the reach of its mission. In consultation with key constituencies, including the faculty, we will with due diligence pursue the acquisition and operation of Providence Christian College.

“We are thankful for God’s faithful and generous blessings upon Covenant College since its founding in 1955 in Pasadena, California, and we look forward to continuing to advance Covenant’s founding mission under Dr. Halvorson’s leadership in this new chapter in the life of the College.”

The Chairman of the Covenant Board of Trustees writes that the new President of Covenant College “must pass a theological exam administered by the PCA prior to his inauguration.” In the past – perhaps, just perhaps – if the good folks on the Erskine board who are so quick and bold to inform the General Synod that they are “competent,” “informed,” “engaged,’ and “fiduciary responsible” had used such wisdom and good sense, the impasse that now exists between the ARP Church and Erskine would not be standing between the ARP Church and Erskine like a mountain in a desert. Instead, there might be a spirit of cooperation. Well, it is a thought – just a thought!

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

Among those who are historically Reformed, evangelical, and confessional, the marks of the church are understood as three:

1. The preaching of the Word
2. The right administration of the sacraments; and
3. The exercise of discipline.

While the Westminster Confession of Faith does not (unlike the Belgic Confession, art. 29) expressly term church discipline a “third mark” of the church, it nevertheless devotes an entire chapter to “Church Censures.” There it speaks of such censures as

“necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from the like offences, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honour of Christ, and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders” (Westminster Confession of Faith, XXX.3).

This confessional emphasis upon the “necessity” of church discipline is clearly reflected in the ARP Book of Discipline. It recognizes, first of all, that church discipline is necessary for the service of the Church in the world:

“Under the rule of Christ expressed through the Church, discipline is that submission that frees the Christian for more effective service. Such service by the Church in the world demands a disciplined individual and corporate life. Each Christian is incorporated into the disciplined community and is responsible under its government for the total ministry of the body as the body is responsible for each individual and group in the Church” (Book of Discipline, I.1).

It adds,

“The exercise of discipline is made necessary by the need more fully to reconcile Christian individuals or groups to God and one another, to prevent mercy from becoming a soft and finally cruel indulgence, and to control those whose words and actions may seriously hinder the witness of the whole body of Christ” (Book of Discipline, I.3).

In other words, church discipline is not an optional exercise for the church, and here we must ask how long a body that will not discipline its own members can continue to call itself an historic and Reformed church?

The question that was before Second Presbytery at its March meeting was whether the action by Dr. Richard Taylor, an elder in the Greenville Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (GARPC) and a member of the Erskine Board of Trustees (EBOT), in suing the ARP Church in civil court, constituted a violation of his ordination vows. Five members of Second Presbytery had filed “charges” with the session of the GARPC against Dr. Taylor.

As the readers of ARPTalk are aware, this matter involves the civil suit brought by Erskine Trustees Dr. Taylor, Dr. Parker Young, and Mr. David Chesnut after the 2010 “Snow” Synod. In First Presbytery, after the session of the Pinecrest ARP Church refused to act with regard to Dr. Parker Young, First Presbytery voted to “assume original jurisdiction” of the matter (meaning that Dr. Young was answerable directly to First Presbytery in this matter).

In response to the actions of First Presbytery, Dr. Young fled the jurisdiction of First Presbytery by renouncing his vows of membership in the Pinecrest ARP Church. This means that he asked the session of the Pinecrest ARP Church to remove his name from the membership roll. In effect, by doing this, Dr. Young settled the question. Since First Presbytery had voted to assume jurisdiction of the matter and Dr. Young removed himself from the bounds of First Presbytery’s jurisdiction, the matter was settled in First Presbytery. Nevertheless, in First Presbytery the action of an elder in suing his own church in civil court is viewed as behavior calling for a process of church discipline.

The following are the vows that both elders and ministers take in the ARP Church:

1. Do you believe in one God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—and do you confess anew the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord, and acknowledge Him Head over all things for the Church, which is His Body?
2. Do you reaffirm your belief in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of the living God, the only perfect rule of faith and practice, to which nothing is to be added and from which nothing is to be taken at any time or upon any pretext?
3. Do you accept the doctrines of this Church, contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, as founded on the Word of God and as the expression of your own faith and do you resolve to adhere thereto?
4. Do you accept the government, discipline, and worship of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church?
5. Do you accept the office of ruling elder (deacon) in this congregation; and do you promise to perform faithfully all the duties of the office; and do you promise to endeavor by the grace of God to live your life in Christian witness before the church and in the world?
6. Do you promise to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the session and to the higher courts of the Church?
7. Do you promise in all things to promote the unity, peace, purity, and prosperity of the church?”

(Form of Government, pp. 202-203)

The question that was put before the session of the GARPC was this: “Was Dr. Taylor’s action in suing the ARP Church in civil court a violation of his oath as an elder, particularly, was his action a violation of question 6: “Do you promise to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the session and to the higher courts of the Church?” Quite obviously, Dr. Taylor rejected the ruling of General Synod at the “Snow Synod” and joined with others in suing the ARP Church in civil court. Was that action a violation of an elder’s vows?

Though the responses of the session of the GARPC to those who brought charges against Dr. Taylor are somewhat tedious and convoluted and overreaching at points, the basic arguments are as follows. One, since Dr. Taylor sincerely believed that as an EBOT trustee he was doing the right thing when he filed suit against the ARP Church in civil court (“That Dr. Taylor, as a trustee, truly believed that the action taken by the General Synod with respect to the attempted removal of certain trustees would be detrimental to the welfare of Erskine College and Seminary, and also believed that no other options were available to him and the other plaintiffs”), then his action superseded the ruling of the highest court of the ARP Church and the vows he had taken as an elder in the ARP Church.

Well, are we now to assume that we have a higher vow for elders and ministers – THE VOW OF SINCERITY? Also, are we also to assume that one’s loyalty to an agency board that General Synod has appointed one to serve on in behalf of and for the sake of the General Synod is a greater loyalty than one’s loyalty to the General Synod itself?

Two, the Session argued that Dr. Taylor’s actions were vindicated by the General Synod’s action in June of 2010 renouncing its effort to replace the Erskine Board of Trustees (“That the terms of the settlement overwhelmingly approved by the General Synod at the June 2010 meeting are almost identical to the relief sought by Dr. Taylor and the other plaintiffs in their action”). The argument here seems to be that since the “Compromise” of the 2010 June meeting of the General Synod resulted in a return to the status quo, and, since the legal actions by Dr. Taylor and others were dropped, then “no foul” took place with regard to vows. However, in the negotiations that took place, the plaintiffs attempted to extract from General Synod’s representatives a statement that would have provided immunity from ecclesiastical discipline for those ARP elders who had raised their hand to sue their church in civil court. Of course, such a concession could not be given.

Three, the Session argued that the dismissal of charges serves to promote the unity, peace, purity, and prosperity of the church (“That the matter has been settled between the parties to the litigation and further proceedings would not promote, but would instead hinder, the ‘unity, peace, purity and prosperity of the church’ as provided in the Form of Government.”). This is an evasion of the issue. Obviously, there is a question that is left unanswered, is there not? Is suing one’s church in civil court a violation of an elder’s vows?

This must be a particularly touchy matter for the session of the GARPC. The four ministers and one elder who brought charges against Dr. Taylor were not informed of the process of the session’s action or invited to be present or to present their case before the GARPC’s session. Then, when Second Presbytery met, the session of the GARPC circularized the presbytery with a 10-plus-page argument for their case before the matter even came before the presbytery, which is generally looked on as a violation of our procedures because it is an imposition on the court of arguments before the case is even taken up.

And this must also be a particularly touchy issue for Second Presbytery. These same men who brought charges against Dr. Taylor were not allowed to present their case before Second Presbytery either. Second Presbytery simply refused to hear the case without explanation.

This matter has now become a “Complaint” (something like an appeal) before the General Synod. This “Complaint” is signed by four ministers and two elders in Second Presbytery.

There are two questions looming before the 2012 General Synod:

1. Is the action of an elder in suing his church in civil court a violation of the vows of an elder? and
2. Does SINCERITY trump the vows of an elder?

I wonder if General Synod, unlike Second Presbytery, is willing to give a fair hearing to the Complaint that is before it. I wonder if General Synod is willing to give straight answers to the questions that are raised by the Complaint.

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

What the Editor of ARPTalk has been reporting for the last four years now has a stamp of validation. All that the Moderator’s Commission reported at the “Snow Synod” also has a validation stamp now. My only complaint with the members of the Moderator’s Commission is that they thought it distasteful to reveal everything that they had uncovered.

This Fall ETS opened the doors to about 35 new students in the MDiv program. At this writing, ETS has about a total (head count) of 180 students. In the past, the FTE (Full Time Equivalency) has run at about 45 percent of the head count for the seminary. That means the FTE is about 80 students for all programs (MDiv, the various MAs, ThM, and DMin). To give perspective as to how far ETS has fallen, what some have called “little GPTS” (non-ATS-accredited Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary) now has more MDiv students than ETS. Apart from the receipts that come from the government for the DMin program for Army Chaplains, ETS would have already had to make drastic cuts in personnel, shut down programs, and may have closed.

The members of the EBOT who pride themselves on their “fiduciary responsibility,” and “engagement,” and “loyalty to Erskine” have, for the last eight years, indolently watched as Dr. Harvey N. Gaston ran roughshod over personnel, launched ill-advised programs, set a theological path that guaranteed a collision with the ARP Church, and wasted money like it was water, and, all the while, he sent reports that indicated he was running balanced budgets and setting records for student numbers. Members of the EBOT sat sleepily and nodded and said: “That’s nice!” How is it that I and many others were aware that Dr. Gaston’s attitude was (and, indeed, he said it to me): “I don’t give a damn what the auditors think!”, and no one on the EBOT seemed to be aware of his attitude? How is it that I and many others were aware that his attitude towards the ARP Church was the same, and no one on the EBOT seemed to be aware of his attitude? Where were these members of the EBOT who so proudly boast of their “fiduciary responsibility,” “engagement” and “loyalty to Erskine”?

It is reported that President Norman has appointed a committee on downsizing ETS. How will that look? May I suggest that in order to come close to a balanced budget it will have to look something like this:

1. With the exception of the MEDCOM program at Fort Jackson, retrench to the Due West campus by closing all extension campuses;
2. Reduce faculty to 7 members (one professor for New Testament; one professor for Old Testament; one professor for Theology; one professor for Church History; one professor for Christian Education; one professor for Counseling, and one professor for Practical Ministry);
3. One of these faculty members will also have to be the Executive Vice President of the Seminary because the funding is not available to bring in an outside VP;
4. The secretarial and administrative staff will need to be reduced to no more than four; and
5. The space in Bowie Seminary Building will have to be minimized in order to conserve operating expenses.

Even with reductions this severe, it will be difficult to balance the budget. President Norman has announced that the Columbia site is going to be continued. One can only wonder as to its funding.

Oddly, one of the most maligned professors at ETS during the tyranny of Dr. Harvey N. Gaston, Dr. R. J. Gore, is the man who saved the Army Chaplains’ DMin program this Fall when it was at jeopardy over the non-Christians that Dr. Gaston had allowed in the program. Being an Army Chaplain (Reserve) who wears the rank of Colonel, he knew how to deal with the Army “brass.” Now, if ETS is saved from serious sanctions by ATS, it will also be because of Dr. Gore’s negotiating and writing skills in compiling the self-study and composing a great deal of it. One can only wonder why Dr. Robby Bell, who is presently the Academic Dean, was not asked to do the work of an Academic Dean and attend to the task of the self-study.

ETS is such a strange and odd place theologically and ecclesiastically. Dr. Steve Lowe is presently serving as the acting Executive Vice President of the Seminary. Whether Dr. Lowe counts me a friend or not, I count him a friend; however, Dr. Lowe is a former fundamentalist Baptist who is now a United Methodist who is a Calvinist and who affirms inerrancy, and who is the acting head of a Presbyterian seminary. With no offense to Dr. Lowe (and I do not think he will take offense because during lunch at Fatz we discussed this), he makes the perfect poster boy for the oddness that ETS has become. No wonder those who actually believe in confessional and evangelical Presbyterianism opt for theological education and training at RTS-Charlotte and GPTS and Westminster and Covenant and RTS-Jackson.

Well, the EBOT met on February 16 and 17 to respond to the request that came from the 2011 meeting of General Synod regarding the “removal with cause” of board members of ALL the boards of the General Synod. The motion passed by the General Synod was framed with the knowledge and consent of President Norman and other Erskine people present and with the assurance that the motion would not be offensive to the EBOT and would be championed by those present.

Interestingly, at the meeting of the Moderator’s Committee on Erskine, Chairman of the EBOT, Mr. Joe Patrick, spoke effusively of his and the EBOT’s desire to rebuild bridges to the ARP Church and of reestablishing the confidence of the church in the integrity of the EBOT and Erskine College and Seminary. If my memory is correct, Mr. Patrick also spoke similar words to the General Synod.

The motion made by Rev. Clint Davis and, if I am not mistaken, passed without dissent, was a compromise motion. The motion was put together after the Wednesday evening session of General Synod. Present at the meeting were Rev. Clint Davis, Rev. Matt Miller, Dr. Kyle Sims, Rev. Andy Putnam, Rev. Paul Mulner, Dr. R. J. Gore, Rev. Morrie Lawing, and President David Norman. All were consenting to the motion that was framed. When the question arose as to whether this motion would pass muster with SACS and ATS’s protocols for accreditation, those present with intimate knowledge of the protocols assured the group that the language in the motion did not threaten accreditation.

Well, I guess Rev. Andy Putnam, Chairman Joe Patrick, and President David Norman have had a change of heart! But I have a question: Does this look like disingenuousness to you?

The document, written by Mr. David Conner, “Response of the Erskine College and Theological Seminary Board of Trustees
to the 2011 General Synod’s Requests,” is an attempt at Macchalliavellian double-speak. However, it does not work! In spite of a preponderance of high sounding piousness, the paper comes across as sleazy and crude rather than forthright. The following is an analysis of the paper.

If there has ever been a document that demonstrates the ineptitude and failure of the EBOT, this is the document. In its 18 pages there is no ownership by the EBOT or by the writer of the paper of the monumental failure that Erskine College and Seminary have been. The only thing that comes across is the self-righteousness of the EBOT as the mantra of “fiduciary responsibility” (a fig leaf for declaring independence from the ARP Church) is intoned. There is no humble recognition by the members of the EBOT that in the past they have not been “engaged,” that they have not exercised “fiduciary responsibility, “ and that they have proven to be disloyal to both the ARP Church and Erskine by their incompetence. This board system has been a colossal failure for the past 40 years.

The author of the Erskine paper, Mr. David Conner, speaks of Erskine as an adult child that is now independent of its parent. Well, does an independent child continue to live off his parents’ largess? Why does this independent child come to the General Synod of the ARP Church, year-after-year, and ask us to provide a full one-third of the non-designated operating funds? And those are the true numbers as given by President Norman.

Mr. David Conner states that the reason that the EBOT cannot comply with the request of the General Synod is because of SACS regulations. That was not what President Norman, Rev. Andy Putnam, and Rev. Matt Miller said in the backroom meeting at the meeting of General Synod last June. That is not what Chairman Joe Patrick said when he stood before the Moderator’s Committee on Erskine, nor is that the impression he and other Erskinites gave as they spoke before the 2011 Synod. By the way, that is not what President Norman said in his recent interview with InHigherEducation: “Even though SACS was a factor, Norman said it would be unfair to imply that the trustees voted the way they did because of pressure from the accreditor. He said that the primary reason was broader than SACS rules. ‘I think that at this point in our history we need to make a very clear statement that the Erskine Board of Trustees has fiduciary duties for the institution,’ he said” (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/02/20/erskine-board-rebuffs-request-it-let-church-remove-trustees#ixzz1nRFkJ4lS). Well, what do those “fiduciary duties” look like? According to my sources, ETS has lost about $300,000 this school year and the year is not yet over. As of 12/31/11, the Endowment stood at $39,567,452. When I went on the EBOT in 1998 the Endowment stood at over $42,000,000. In the last six months, with a good market, the Endowment has lost money at an astounding rate. Well, I have confused issues at this point. To return to the point: How is it that Mr. Conner speaks of SACS and ATS protocols when they are not at the heart of the matter? What kind of political spin is this?

Incredibly, Mr. Conner speaks of “liability” issues for the ARP Church if the EBOT were to do what General Synod asked. Well, who does the ARP Church have to fear in “liability” matters? Honestly, I do not think that the ACLU or an atheist organization is going to sue the ARP Church. The only people that have recently sued the ARP Church are EBOT members and professors at ETS. Is this statement by Mr. Conner fearmongering? Is this statement by Mr. Conner a threat? When Mr. Billy Patrick spoke of legal action at “The Snow Synod,” it was a threat, was it not?

The words for this mess are sleazy and tawdry. The actions by the Erskinites last year were nothing more than a ploy to obtain the funding of the ARP Church for another year.

Let me tell you what the strategy is. I am framing the following on the basis of many conversations. Indeed, there are many who want to see Erskine changed. The people who are the power brokers today do not want to see Erskine return to what Erskine was. Here is the strategy. It is a strategy of deception of both the ARP Church and the various alumni groups. On the one hand, tell the ARP Church what the church wants to hear, maintain the funding by the church, and change the EBOT through the nomination process (to who knows what!). On the other hand, tell the alumni what they want to hear so that they do not withdraw their funding. It is no accident that the EC Foundation has recently been given official status by President Norman (and the EBOT ?). I am sure that the ARP readers of ARPTalk will be gladdened to know that the ARP Church is one of the equally important funding constituencies of INDEPENDENT Erskine College and Seminary. The ARP Church is as important as the Alumni Association, and the EC Foundation.

Somehow in this sleazy and tawdry mess we have elevated deception and disingenuousness and insincerity to be virtues. In 2 Corinthians 10:3-5: “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” Somehow in our relationship with Erskine College and Seminary these words have been lost. Instead, we have elevated the Washington wisdom of politics and compromise as our guiding lights. How did we get to such a sin?

For too long we have pointed to Erskine College and Seminary as the reason for the existence of the ARP Church. How is it that we have forgotten that faithfulness to the Lord Jesus Christ and His will as clearly expressed in the pages of the Bible is the only reason for the existence of the church of Jesus Christ. Anything else is idolatry and disobedience, and these wait on the judgment of God.

Erskine has declared independence from the ARP Church. Okay, let them have their independence. Give the nominating process for the EBOT to them also. Let them pay their own bills too. Let the ARP Church cease to fund that which is not of the ARP Church.

I think the saddest episode in this cheesy tale of woe is Chairman Joe Patrick’s actions. Before the General Synod and in his communications to the ARP Church he has shown his pious and compliant face. In June at General Synod he stated that he was a servant of the ARP Church who only wanted to know the will of the church so that he could attempt to implement it. However, on Friday, February 17, Chairman Patrick stood before the EBOT in its open session and read from Psalm 103. When he came to verse 6 that states, “The LORD performs righteous deeds and judgments for all who are oppressed,” Chairman Patrick said, “It is very clear that Erskine has been oppressed by the ARP Synod for the last two years, and if you cannot see that, then you are blind.” He continued until Rev. Andy Putnam informed him that his comments were “out of order.” Indeed, Mr. Patrick has another face, does he not? Well, I suppose I cannot see! In the past two years the General Synod has given Erskine College and Seminary over $1,000,000. Gosh, what oppression!

Joe, what you and your buds have done to the ARP Church ain’t rain!

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

Addendums

• Motion made by Rev. Clint Davis, passed by the 2011 General Synod
• Response of the Erskine College and Theological Seminary Board of Trustees to the 2011 General Synod’s Requests February 17, 2012 (PDF)
• Erskine Theological Seminary Vision Statement by Dr. R.J. Gore, then Dean and Vice President (1988)

   

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 former member of Second Presbytery once referred to our presbytery as “The Star Wars’ Cantina Presbytery”. By that, he meant that the presbytery was made up of the oddest people.

I was taken aback by his cutting sarcasm; however, after the Fall Meeting of Second Presbytery on Tuesday, October 11, 2011, I am now convinced that Second Presbytery is indeed the “the Star Wars’ Cantina Presbytery” of the ARP Church. We are much more than odd. We are a gallimaufry of various blends and shades of strangeness that makes Second Presbytery a caricature of a presbytery that is then a caricature of itself – a garish Hudibrastic burlesque of Presbyterianism!

Attached and at the end of this article, is a copy of the “memorial” that was brought before Second Presbytery, first, by the Session of the Spartanburg ARP Church, and then the Sessions of the Redeemer ARP Church and the Unity ARP Church joined in support of the “memorial” by adding the names of their Sessions. This memorial was the most important item before Second Presbytery for consideration. The salient points of the “memorial” are three:

1 – The EC Foundation:

Established after “the March 2010 ‘Snow Synod’ to support resistance to the efforts by the General Synod . . . as it sought to ensure missional fidelity at Erskine College and Erskine Theological Seminary as agencies of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church,” the EC Foundation exists (a) to “support these [Erskine] institutions as they are involved in any civil litigation” against the ARP Church, (b) to impugn “the honor and reputation of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church by alleging on its website that the General Synod acted ‘illegally’ at its March 2010 meeting, and by speaking of the General Synod as ‘an unreliable and capricious partner’ in its dealings with Erskine,” (c) to express “gratitude for the support of ‘some alumni and friends of Erskine’ who ‘object to the current direction of these institutions,’ who ‘have suspended their financial support of Erskine,’ and who have instead ‘chosen to make gifts to this foundation’” and has thus jeopardized the financial stability of Erskine College and Seminary, and (d) to support “the recently terminated Dr. William Crenshaw, a man known for his opposition to Evangelical Christianity and to the mission of Erskine College as an Evangelical Christian liberal arts college.”

2 – The Question

The question regarding Mr. John R. Hunt, an elder in the Young Memorial Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, and Messrs. William W. Lesesne, Lee W. Logan, and James W. Gettys, Elders in the Due West Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church:

Since “elders in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church have solemnly promised ‘to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the session and to the higher courts of the Church’ (Form of Government IX.D.3.6), and ‘in all things to promote the unity, peace, purity, and prosperity of the church’ (Form of Government IX.D.3.7),” have these Elders violated their ordination vows as “Directors” of the EC Foundation?

3 – The actions called for:

That the Sessions of these Elders “investigate the activities of Mr. William W. Lesesne, Mr. Lee W. Logan, and Dr. James W. Gettys, and Dr. John R. Hunt respectively as Directors of the EC Foundation, to determine whether their activities as Directors of the EC Foundation have been in conflict with their role and responsibilities as elders in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, and to ascertain whether ecclesiastical charges should be filed against these elders. Both Sessions shall report back to Second Presbytery with their findings and proposed courses of action at a called meeting of Second Presbytery to be held no later than November 30, 2011.”

In the simplest of terms, the Sessions of the Young Memorial ARP Church and the Due West ARP Church were asked to investigate the activities of four Elders as they are both Elders in these congregations and “Directors” of the EC Foundation and to determine whether or not their involvement with the EC Foundation is in violation of their ordination vows as Elders in the ARP Church.

Others may see the story of the October 11th meeting of Second Presbytery differently (and I invite the views of others), but these are my recollections and observations.

1. For the record, I had NO part in framing or putting forward this “memorial.” I was surprised by it. I support its sentiment; however, I would not have presented the motion in the manner that it was presented. When the “memorial” was debated, I did not speak to it; nevertheless, I did vote for it.
2. The emotions that had been fomented against the “memorial” verged on hysteria. If I had been Messrs. Lesesne, Logan, Gettys, or Hunt, I would have spoken for and voted for the investigation. As a mater of fact, I would have insisted on it. I would have wanted both the wisdom of my cause explained and the righteousness of my cause seen. As it is, there is a blanket of doubt and distrust over the affair.
3. The performance by Mr. Neely Gaston, former Executive Vice President of ETS, has to be the most bizarre show of the day. With a red face, neck veins bulging, and voice warbling, he once again declared the actions of the “Snow Synod” illegal as he attempted to read page-after-page from South Carolina law. Finally, the Moderator asked him to speak to the point. I do not think he ever did, but he did sit down. This chimera that the “Snow Synod” acted “illegally” is simply an act of self-delusion. Yes, the actions of the “Snow Synod” were taken to civil court; however, I do not know how Mr. Gaston and others get to the notion that General Synod acted “illegally”. In point of fact, the affair was settled by what is called by many as “The Compromise,” and the legal actions were dropped before the civil court could rule on the matter. It was not one of Mr. Gaston’s better days.
4. The most convoluted speech of the day was given by Mr. Randy Ruble. Without speaking to the issue that was being debated, Mr. Ruble rehearsed his role in the lawsuits that were filed by the BOT and members of his faculty after the “Snow Synod”. He seemed to give the impression that he was an innocent bystander in the affairs; He declared that he was a faithful churchman, and then he acknowledged his complicity in the law suits and financial matters regarding the EC Foundation, stating that he had given $4,000 to the EC Foundation to assist in paying attorneys’ fees for the plaintiffs. He also said that his actions were efforts to help newly appointed President David Norman. Well, as I remember the story, many of those actions occurred before President Norman appeared on the scene. No doubt, time has passed, and I am sure that Mr. Ruble’s recollections of the details may have corrupted.
5. The saddest speech of the day came from a member of the Session of the Due West ARP Church. This Elder informed the presbytery of what “wonderful and good men” Lesesne, Logan, Gettys, and Hunt were. In the past, he pointed out that Lesesne, Logan, and Gettys, Elders in the Due West congregation, were men who had worked hard for the cause of Erskine College and Seminary – even giving their lives in the employment of Erskine. He also noted that Hunt had given faithfully to Erskine. The Elder said that the Due West congregation and community had been bitterly split by this controversy between the ARP Church and Erskine College and Seminary. He said that too many people had left the Due West congregation because of this clash. It was time, he said, to let bygones be bygones. Every one sins; does it really matter what these men are doing on the EC Foundation? An investigation of the activities of these men would hurt the Due West ARP Church, the community, and Erskine. To ask these men if their vows as Elders in the ARP Church and their activity on the EC Foundation as “Directors” were in conflict was too controversial and disruptive. This matter should be overlooked for the sake of peace. The great imperative before us was that we should “love one another” and forget what had taken place and that these men were still attempting to subvert the ARP Church and the present Erskine administration. A friend has written the following words regarding this Elder’s words: “From time to time during debate at meetings of Presbytery, we are reminded that we are all sinners, and the reminder is proffered as a rational for excusing those whose actions or words are being examined. That is non-information and immaterial to any debate, and it does not relieve the body of its responsibility to examine infractions of duties, theological standards, or ethical behavior in an effort to maintain presbytery, denominational order and, hence, peace.”
6. The responses of the representatives of the Young Memorial ARP Church were troubling. The elder representative was horrified that the Session was being asked to investigate the activities of Mr. Hunt. A Session should not be asked to investigate the actions of one of its members, he declared. Mr. Jeff Bost, the Pastor of the Young Memorial congregation, confessed that he was so distressed over the matter that he would not have been able to sing the “Psalm of Unity” (Psalm 133) if the “memorial” had passed. That is, if the Session of the Young Memorial ARP Church had been asked to do something that is very vanilla Presbyterian, Mr. Bost would have been devastated by it.
7. Mr. Matt Miller, the Pastor of the Greenville ARP Church, did the most surprising thing of the day when he introduced the Erskine administration and BOT into the debate by reading an e-mail from President David Norman and Chairman Joe Patrick to the presbytery. Essentially, the communiqué stated that the matter of the EC Foundation was an Erskine matter and informed the presbytery that they were dealing with it. At the time, no one seemed to notice that what Mr. Miller did was a violation of presbytery’s protocol and “out of order.” That is, the audacity of the action was such that everyone was caught by surprise. Likewise, at the time, no one seemed to notice that Erskine matters took precedence over and trumped Second Presbytery in the oversight of its own house. In fact, Erskine (the tail of the dog) wagged the dog (the church). If anything demonstrated that Second Presbytery has become “The Star Wars’ Cantina Presbytery,” that did!

There were three extraordinarily distressing issues that arose from this debate that have been publicly demonstrated on the floor of Second Presbytery for all to see. Let me explain.

1. The Erskinolatry of “olde Erskine” was unmasked and put on display for all to see. The direction of affection was clear, and, for many of those who spoke, it ran toward Due West rather than vertically. I was stunned by what I heard and saw. I came away with the impression that the first and great commandment is written in these words: “Thou shalt love one another as thyself and permit anything without question or rebuke for we are all sinners and not to do so is not to be nice. The second is like unto it: with all thy mind and soul and strength, thou shalt love thy Higher Power as thou art able to conceive him. On these two hang all the Twelve Commandments.” By the way, if you are not familiar with the Eleventh and Twelfth Commandments, they are: “(11) Thou shalt be nice”; and “(12) Thou shalt say no critical thing about Erskine no manner the depth of the evil, for in so doing our god is pushed over on his face.”
2. Everyone is tired of this conflict over Erskine and wants it to “go away”; however, instead of doing the thing that will resolve the conflict, we run from it. We run from “peacemaking.” We attempt “peacekeeping” rather than “peacemaking.” According to Matthew 5, Jesus did not sanction “peacekeepers” – those who do the expedient thing and cover up the issues! We attempt to keep the peace by “peacekeeping” because we fear how others will esteem us. We show little or no fear of the God of the Bible who placed us in a position of leadership. Moreover, doing the right thing is hard if we cherish calm and the accolades of others. Perhaps I expect too much from the small pond of the ARP world where egos, reputations, and careers are forced into tension with biblical/confessional/ecclesiastical fidelity. However, the tensions that divide us can only be resolved through “peacemaking,” for in “peacemaking” issues are resolved rather than “swept under the rug.” I think the following words by Martyn Lloyd Jones are particularly applicable to both Second Presbytery and General Synod: “There is no purpose in having a basis or a confession of faith unless it is applied. So we must assert the element of discipline as being essential to the true life of the church. And what calls itself a church which does not believe in discipline, and does not use it and apply it, is therefore not a true church.” (What is an Evangelical? The Banner of Truth Trust, 1992, p. 83.) It is heart-wrenching to watch men seek to maintain the status quo by “peacekeeping” rather than attempting to bring health to the church by “peacemaking” – resolving the issues that divide us! However, as they say, it is what it is!
3. I was amazed at how little the members of the Sessions of the Due West ARP Church and the Young Memorial ARP Church knew about our Presbyterian polity. They could have done a great service for Second Presbytery and the General Synod by: (1) Noting that we are divided on Matthew 18:15-20 and have no consensus as to the difference between a “private” and “public” offense and asked presbytery and General Synod for instruction; (2) Noting that we are divided on the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6 and asking presbytery and General Synod for an official interpretation; and (3) Noting that our “Book of Discipline” is a contradictory and convoluted document and therefore useless, and asking Second Presbytery to memorialize General Synod to revise and update it. Instead, they became defensive and fled from the opportunity to be constructive.

I close with this story. When Raphael was painting his famous Vatican frescoes, a couple of cardinals stopped by to watch the master and criticize his work. “The face of the Apostle Paul is too red,” said one of the churchmen. Raphael retorted, “Paul blushes to see into whose hands the church has fallen.”

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

Memorial to Second Presbytery

Whereas, elders in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church have solemnly promised “to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the session and to the higher courts of the Church” (Form of Government IX.D.3.6), and “in all things to promote the unity, peace, purity, and prosperity of the church” (Form of Government IX.D.3.7), and,

Whereas, Dr. John R. Hunt is an elder in the Young Memorial Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, and Mr. William W. Lesesne, Mr. Lee W. Logan, and Dr. James W. Gettys are elders in the Due West Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, and,

Whereas, Dr. John R. Hunt, Mr. William W. Lesesne, Mr. Lee W. Logan, and Dr. James W. Gettys are Directors of the EC Foundation, and,

Whereas, the EC Foundation was formed in the wake of the March 2010 “Snow Synod” to support resistance to the efforts by the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church as it sought to ensure missional fidelity at Erskine College and Erskine Theological Seminary as agencies of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, and,

Whereas, one of the stated “values” of the EC Foundation is “to support these [Erskine] institutions as they are involved in any civil litigation,” and,

Whereas, the EC foundation raised substantial funds to support the lawsuit of Dr. Richard Taylor, Mr. David Chesnut, and Dr. Parker Young against the General Synod, and,

Whereas, the EC Foundation has impugned the honor and reputation of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church by alleging on its website that the General Synod acted “illegally” at its March 2010 meeting, and by speaking of the General Synod as “an unreliable and capricious partner” in its dealings with Erskine, and,

Whereas, the EC Foundation on its website has expressed gratitude for the support of “some alumni and friends of Erskine” who “object to the current direction of these institutions,” who “have suspended their financial support of Erskine,” and who have instead “chosen to make gifts to this foundation,” and,

Whereas, such intentional diversion of funds from Erskine to the EC Foundation poses a hardship and threat to the wellbeing of Erskine, and creates further challenges for the Erskine administration as it seeks to faithfully implement the stated mission of the schools, and

Whereas, the EC Foundation on its website has expressed support for the recently terminated Dr. William Crenshaw, a man known for his opposition to Evangelical Christianity and to the mission of Erskine College as an Evangelical Christian liberal arts college,

Therefore, Second Presbytery hereby instructs the Sessions of the Due West Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and the Young Memorial Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church to investigate the activities of Mr. William W. Lesesne, Mr. Lee W. Logan, and Dr. James W. Gettys, and Dr. John R. Hunt respectively as Directors of the EC Foundation, to determine whether their activities as Directors of the EC Foundation have been in conflict with their role and responsibilities as elders in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, and to ascertain whether ecclesiastical charges should be filed against these elders. Both Sessions shall report back to Second Presbytery with their findings and proposed courses of action at a called meeting of Second Presbytery to be held no later than November 30, 2011.

1. Mr. Buddy Ferguson and the team that was with him are to be commended. They were confronted by a hostile crowd, and he and his team performed admirably.
2. Some of the people present were Mary Elizabeth Todd, Kevin Metz, Jay West, Kevin Brock, Nan Campbell, Charles Blakely, and John Tribble, who had come up from Atlanta to make his thoughts known. I sat at the same table with Mary Elizabeth Todd; however, the noise level was so high that she didn’t know who I was, and we had a civil conversation.
3. The first question was: “Where is David Norman? Why isn’t he here? We have a word for ‘the young man!’” Mr. Ferguson explained that Dr. Norman was in Virginia visiting a donor. Then they wanted to know how many of the chapter meetings Dr. Norman had attended. Mr. Ferguson answered about half. These alums seemed to be very put out that Dr. Norman wasn’t there; they had come for a piece of “the young man.”
4. John Tribble startled me with his question. Erskine has engaged a national recruiting consultant, and he asked: “Where is the money coming from to pay the consulting firm? Why is this money being paid to people who are not Erskine people?” He gave the impression that he was entitled to this information. He gave the impression that the Erskine administration was doing something underhanded. A young lady named Tobe Frierson, an Erskine employee who works in recruiting and who was also a part of Mr. Ferguson’s team that evening, explained the merits of the consultant. She noted that the “old” system was “broken” and that this arrangement was working very well. At this point the tired old canard of the “Bible College” was paraded out like a ghoul to frighten the alums one more time. It was clear that the point of this interrogation was a fear that Dr. Norman’s administration might be focusing on recruiting evangelical Christian students to attend Erskine. Their desire is a secular diversity that only tolerates a generic, insipid, and empty form of Christianity. Such is their broadmindedness that evangelical Christians need not apply. It was astonishing to watch anti-Christian xenophobia at work. Clearly, the attitude was this: we are entitled to what we want and we don’t want the Christian faith taken seriously. John Tribble announced that he was a fifth generation Erskine grad. He then opined that he needed to be heard and that all those people who were trying to “change” Erskine were second- class interlopers.
5. These alums know little of how the Erskine Board of Trustees (BOT) works. They asked: “Why isn’t a representative of the BOT here to speak with us? We are entitled to information!” They failed to understand that the BOT exists to oversee the work of the administration and that the administration is the public voice of the institution.
6. Indeed, the alums are upset with Dr. Norman and his administration. There are too many changes and new people they don’t know or trust! They are going to withhold their gifts to Erskine. The most vocal on this matter was Jay West. After a couple of drinks and a bottle of wine, he was still very clear in his opinions. He stated that he had changed his will again so that a 1.4 million dollar gift had been withdrawn. He said that he would re-instate his 1.4 million dollars if Erskine would listen to him and the alums instead of the ARP Church. Well, I have been hearing this out of West since about 1998 when I was on the BOT. He treats his will like a “Yo-yo.” Yawn! This antic has gotten old. Erskine will never see any money out of Jay West! That you can take to the bank!
7. Regarding the constitution of the BOT, the refrain went like this: “We have the money. We have the voice. We matter. How dare the ARP Church control the appointments to the BOT?”
8. The most bizarre and jaw-dropping question of the evening was this: “How dare David Norman and his administration not speak out on behalf of the EC Foundation and defend the names of Lee Logan, Jim Gettys, John Hunt, and Bill Lesesne since a motion (“memorial”) by the sessions of three congregations in Second Presbytery has been made calling for an investigation of these men as Directors of the EC Foundation”? Incredible!! I didn’t believe my ears! The EC Foundation has no connection to Erskine. In fact, the EC Foundation hurts Erskine by siphoning contributions away from Erskine. Logan, Gettys, Hunt, and Lesesne are not employees of Erskine. The matter before Second Presbytery involves four ordained elders in Second Presbytery. Why are these ARP elders Directors in the EC Foundation (1) when the EC Foundation has paid for litigation against the ARP Church, (2) when the stated purpose of EC Foundation is to collect money in order to sue the ARP Church, (3) when the goal of the EC Foundation is to oppose the ARP Church’s oversight of Erskine, which is one of the agencies of the ARP Church, and (4) when the EC Foundation regards the ARP Church an “outside influence” in its oversight of Erskine? I do not know what those people were drinking for supper; I was drinking water.
9. Generally speaking, the alums’ animosity toward the ARP Church and President Norman in particular and evangelical Christianity in general was palpable.
10. An interesting tidbit is that only about 6% (about 40) of the student body of Erskine is ARP. It seems that ARPs no longer trust Erskine.
11. The BIG surprise of the evening: NOT A WORD WAS SPOKEN IN PUBLIC ABOUT DR. BILL CRENSHAW! I wonder why!?

Well, I’m sure I have missed something; however, I think I have hit on the salient points. I’m sure others will add points I have missed. I’m also sure some will interpret the evening differently. Be that as it may . . .

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

When the Editor of ARPTalk first saw this photograph, the words that came out of his mouth were: “FAR OUT!” Indeed, far out in beauty! Far out in space! Far out in technology!

Other than the photograph, there is NOTHING beautiful about this issue of ARPTalk. It is about as FAR OUT as one can get in the realms of the bizarre and surreal without going through the Looking Glass and having mercury and lead laced tea with the Mad Hatter at the cotillion of the evil and insane Queen of Hearts. Reading the comments posted is something like eating a Lay’s potato chip: “Bet you can’t eat just one! Indeed, the Editor challenges the reader to look at the third part of the issue and read just one post and stop. The content is so FAR OUT that it is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You cannot take your eyes off the scene. Read some of these comments and see if you do not exclaim: FAR OUT!

This issue of ARPTalk is very long – in fact, the longest by far!! It is divided into three parts:

1. The Reasonable;
2. The Wounded; and
3. The FAR OUT Crazies.

(Forgive the Editor’s liberties. He could not think of another word to describe what he read.) The Editor suggests that the Reader peruse parts one and two first (“The Reasonable” and “The Wounded). These are short. The comments from AFE (“Alumni for Erskine”) and AFIE (“Alumni for an Independent Erskine”) are very long. Those comments make for excellent bathroom reading, far more entertaining than Southern Living or Field and Stream.

All comments below are presented as the are found. Some formatting changes have been applied, and the highlighting is the Editor’s. As they say, they are what they are!

I. The Reasonable

Editor’s Remarks:

The posts below are reasonable and noble. Now, in the words of Paul Harvey, “Page 2: The rest of the story.” Both Mr. Nussbaum and Mr. Prohaska have been attacked by the BOIs for their “impertinence” in disagreeing with the party line. Mr. Nussbaum was so mauled by the AFE alums that he removed himself from the site.

Jason Nussbaum

Jason Nussbaum

[Editor’s Note: The “bold” type is by Mr. Nussbaum for emphasis]

I have spent the majority of the day in Due West meeting with faculty, staff, students, and even a 90 minute conversation one-on-one with Dr. Norman. A few observations which I feel need to be communicated to the alumni on this site. I count it a privilege to be both an alumnus and former faculty member, as this has given me an added insight. I do not want to betray the confidence of anyone, and thus will speak in generalities. Please know that as I make these comments, they come from conversations with individuals who I can trust have Erskine’s best interests in mind, namely faculty that I have developed very close relationships with during my time at Erskine. Time will be the true test as to whether Dr. Norman is successful in his efforts and aspirations, but I am at least reassured that things are not as bad as everyone makes them out to be.

1. The consensus of the faculty and staff is that there are some reservations about speaking up because they do not want to lose their jobs, but most state that the “day to day” of how Erskine operates has not changed. The faculty have not been asked to change the way or the content of which they are teaching.
2. The faculty I have spoken with, none of whom support the Commission or the concept of the Synod taking control of the college, all adamantly support the removal of Dr. Crenshaw. I never took Dr. Crenshaw’s class, and do not wish to argue one way or another in regards to his situation as I have not been made privy to all the facts. My encouragement to the alumni is to be very careful in what you believe out of the postings on this site. It is in our own human nature to assume the worst, and to construe facts in our minds to support our own position. I came into today deep down hoping to find that what has been posted on this site is true, but I cannot say that and uphold my integrity.
3. Dr. Norman has agreed that videotaping the Columbia alumni meeting is a good idea, and has given me the permission to do so. I will be recording with my personal camera, and posting the video directly to this page in its entirety
4. I addressed a major concern in regards to the lack of communication from the BOT and the administration to the alumni. It is my firm belief that the alumni will choose to believe ARP Talk or the postings on this page, and in many cases I feel like these two mindsets are not an accurate reflection of what is happening in Due West.
5. Dr. Norman stated repeatedly that the alumni and our loyalty during this time of transition are vital. He was adamant in that he does not support the extreme views of either side of this rift, as neither side has Erskine’s best interest at heart. Alumni or church members who are 100% polarized in one direction or the other do not see the reality of the situation. The reality is that those of us in the middle ground who truly want what’s best for Erskine, and are not hell bent on letting “our side win” need to speak up and voice our opinions more. Those who are most polarized are also the most vocal, and truth is not always upheld to the utmost degree.
6. The alumni who have posted on this site that “Erskine has changed and is not the same” are simply not accurate in my opinion. Sure, you may come onto campus and do not feel the warmth you did as a student, simply because the people are different, and you are not plugged into this community anymore. I have been gone 2.5 years, and felt like a celebrity walking into Moffatt today. The truth is that for alumni who graduated 10-20 years ago, you aren’t going to have the same connections here as you did when you were a student. Erskine will not be the same place as when you were a student, because the students do not know who you are anymore!
7. I was very impressed with Dr. Norman’s vision for what is happening with the admissions process. Only time will tell, but I feel his current strategies are hitting the nail on the head. His desire is to increase enrollment so that tuition will cover the operating expenses of the college, and the annual fund will become the added bonus that will help Erskine improve its facilities, technology, scholarships, and endowments. The statement that Dr. Norman does not consider the alumni essential is simply false. If the college can sustain its operational costs and not dip into the annual fund for basic functions, alumni money becomes the added bonus that will push Erskine higher and higher.
8. It is absolutely essential that all alumni verify the facts of what they are hearing before reacting and getting upset. Admittedly, I was very upset and anti-administration because of the influence of this website, but my impression has been completely changed today. When long time, trusted faculty voice their overwhelming support for Dr. Norman to me in a one on one conversation, I feel comfortable trusting that his vision is in line with what is best for Erskine. These are faculty who have shot straight from the very beginning, and who admittedly did not think Dr. Norman was the right choice for this position. To hear them offer their overwhelming support for him was very encouraging, especially when not prompted to do so.

In closing, please hear me when I say that I am not converted to “the other side”, but have more confidence today that Dr. Norman is not in support of them either. I don’t feel that the true views of the majority of people in the ARP church are being represented by the loud voices we are hearing, and that he is willing to stand up against the extremists of both sides. I am not fully endorsing Dr. Norman, because now his actions have to line up with his words, and only time can tell whether that will happen or not. My faith in the goodness of Erskine has been restored, and I will continue to support and pray for the faculty, staff, administration, and students who are suffering the consequences of two bickering extremist parties who do not truly have Erskine’s best interests at heart.

[Editor’s note: The Editor is not privy to whom Mr. Nussbaun is responding; however, from the context of the discussion, it seems that the questioner is Ms. Mary Elizabeth Todd. Mr. Nussbaum is respond to a question regarding the recruitment of students.]

Jason Nussbaum

‎1) Absolutely not. They are focusing on targeting students with information directly received from SAT/ACT, which now includes the student’s GPA. Instead of spending $100K a year in mailings to students who may not have any interest in Erskine, they will send an e-mail to the students who meet the Erskine standard for admission. This will include a link to apply online, and a detailed system of getting the student the information that is most pertinent to their area of interest, including letters from alumni who discuss how Erskine has helped them achieve success in their field. Instead of standing at a high school fair and waiting for students to come to us, he is taking a very proactive approach in going after the students who can be academically successful at Erskine. Also having a better management of admissions in the fall to work more closely with students who are on the borderline to increase numbers, while also preventing the end of spring panic which has often resulted in letting anyone with a pulse in the door just to put a butt in a bed

Mary Elizabeth Todd

Another question are the people you talked to concerning Dr. Crenshaw aware of how it has been reported as being handled? and another one- what was said about the concern about the Synod’s actions- And I think most of us here would just let them let it go back to the way it was way back where there were no statements of inerrancy- which may or may not being asked of the college- how do they feel about what has occurred recently with Dr. Gettys. I mean many of us are vocal but I think what concerns us most is not necessarily Dr. NOrman but more what the Synod is going to do- is this constant threat of change of the BOT so that they can have more control. If this was the ARP church that I remembered I would not be worried- but there are some that pull sneaky tactics- like the snow synod. Dr. NOrman indicated to me that both these sites and the site that must not be mentioned are frustrating to him. So what you say there is in line with what he said to me.

Jason Nussbaum

The faculty I have spoken with are aware of what Dr. Norman and Dr. Crenshaw have said, and all have supported that what Dr. Norman have said are true. I have been told (by faculty, not Dr. Norman) that his firing was the result of not only the culmination of his actions for the past years, but are most specifically related to a conflict and unprofessional actions towards another faculty member. I have been told that this action was faculty requested, and that the case against him was being built long before Dr. Norman took charge. From my understaing, Dr. Norman and others have called for the charges against the EC Foundation board members to be dropped. The ARP church is going to continue to nominate members to the BOT who represent the best interests of the church, however, I think many ARP ministers are realizing that the Synod which bought into the DeWitt/Wilson/Wingate scandal were not in the best interests of the college. The ones who have been coerced into Chuck’s mindset are in the minority, and speak out of turn, mis-representing the views of the majority of the ARP’s.

Daniel Prohaska

Daniel Prohaska

Here’s a vision for Erskine; tell me what you all think! (For the record, this was someone else’s idea, but I think it’s worth examining):

• An academic institution second to none.
• Incorporating Biblical truth into every classroom and every aspect of student life.
• Building a strong academic foundation during a student’s first two years, then applying that background to a rigorous set of critical thinking courses.
• Building students up in the Christian faith.
• Have members of the Board of Trustees, Synod, and Alumni occasionally spend time in residence halls with students.
• Have every member of the Erskine community embody what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ.
• Expand Erskine’s student base to include the entire southeast.
• Bring the student body up to 800 or even 1000.

Is everyone seeing what this person is trying to say? What is the vision of Erskine that Alumni are trying to protect? What values are being threatened and by whom specifically? What has changed on campus that threatens the legacy of Erskine?

One thing I have found that EVERYONE agrees on is this: Erskine will be dead in ten years tops, probably sooner. If we all agree on this, why can’t we start working to settle the differences we have peacefully? Why must both sides of this debate get bogged down in online spit ball contests on Facebook and blog sites? Real talk will yield real results. If we are all the Christians we claim to be, it is high time we start acting like it. Nothing will ever get done through yelling words of hate and fear. Real progress is made when leaders from all sides of a conflict come together with mutual respect to reconcile their differences. If this has been done before, I’d love to see proof of it.

II. The Wounded

Editor’s Remarks:

Note this blog post on The Aquilla Report. The following story is “used with permission.” The story demonstrates the effects of the “critical thinking,” tolerance, and understand of “freedom of speech” for which the BOIs are noted.

The Unsuspecting ASSAULT: An Alum Looks at the Erskine Story

By Cathy Craig Neil

When did God leave our educational system? Why did he leave? Is he coming back? These are questions that many Americans are finally asking. This is based on information I have been reading on forums and social networks like Facebook concerning the major assault of adverse theology in our Christian colleges. Living in an area for 17 years and connected deeply with a very small Christian college I was unaware that quietly and slowly it was being stripped of its heritage, values, morals and most of all the Christian foundation it was created upon so many decades ago.

The atmosphere changed over the time period I lived there. The college was in the middle of a battle it was not prepared to fight. This endeavor emerged from those who had the desire to change the foundation of God’s church to meet the current ambitions of an American society that is caught up in a travesty of selfishness, greed and political correctness.

The fallout of the mess hit my family directly. My husband along with many who worked there were in various ways shown the door. Basically, many good Christian families’ lives were torn apart by an invisible enemy that slyly crept through each facet of the campus like a snake. We and those others in the same boat had to pick up the pieces, and start over somewhere else leaving family, friends and many years of hard work behind. It was devastating.

At the time, I was not aware of the devious plan of the enemy. He would take one school and pick it apart and then move onto another.

Now, the fight has catapulted to a war in the backyard of my own alma mater. It was heartbreaking enough to be among one of the many who watched the decline of one of God’s great institutions. I cannot wrap my brain around the surge of in-fighting, bickering and name calling that has become the speech on Facebook and other websites about the college I graduated from along with many of my family members dating back to my grandfather.

It makes me sad. We have allowed our greed, personal causes and selfish desires to run God out of our public schools, neighborhoods, government and now our Christian colleges. It is one thing to be called a liar, yelled at through cyber space or questioned by many who decided they knew more than I did and I lived in it! I witnessed this demolition in one college; I don’t want it happening again especially where I received my degree.

In my effort to reach those that I hold dear through forums it became technological warfare. I was trying to warn them. This occurred in about a 24 -36 hour turn around that I was extended hate, verbal abuse and even informed by a certain past alumnus who claimed to be “gay” he would not give another dime of his money to that institution until their liberal agenda was accepted. His sly attack on me started with a message that questioned the validity of what I had written. I have never met this man or heard of him, but he let me know in no uncertain terms that he disagreed with me almost as a threat.

As far as his withholding his contributions I am sure that God can get money anytime from anywhere and that his would not be missed.

Writing my entries on the forum I told them “the names may have changed, but the game is still the same.” It has just found a new home to do business. Apparently, very few agreed with me and the ones who did not as I wrote lashed out at me with a vengeance. I had to make sure I was not on a secular website that hated Christians. No! I was on a forum of my own alumnus from a Christian college! I became acutely aware that they didn’t believe me or that I had already been a pawn in this clever scheme of the devil. We had “already been there and done that.”

This so bothered me that I lost sleep over it. I never dreamed that anything like this would happen to the cherished college of my family and so many friends that I thought were friends. The divisions are so thick you “can cut them with a knife.”

Within a 48 hour period of making the effort to warn this family of friends, the Lord showed me these words of his, Titus 3: 9-11: “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

The storm that is now on the other side of the horizon had worn me out physically and mentally but I knew what God wanted me to do. It is like watching your adult child make mistakes that you know will eventually catch up to them. They refuse to listen because they believe they know everything and don’t need advice. God was telling me to leave this group to their fate. I had warned them.

Leaving the love I have for this great institution to follow Jesus I wrote my last entry. I warned them once more of the fate of our alma mater if they didn’t stop the fighting. If a non-Christian had stumbled onto this particular forum he would have decided he never wanted to be a Christian if this is the way we act. No wonder our country is in the mess it is in. The Christians are setting an example that we are no different than anyone else. You cannot give what you don’t have, and if Christians do not exhibit the love of Jesus in their hearts even with each other, we have all lost. There was no love in the comments written that I could see; it felt like an all out attack on the cross of Jesus.

In the end of my entry I wrote that the words spewing out on the pages of this forum were not making God happy. That was when God revealed to me the Scripture from 1Corinthians 14:33, “For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace.” There was nothing peaceful about what I was reading or the actions being taken among those involved with the actual decisions of the future of this Christian college.

This unsuspecting assault would never have happened if Christians would follow the truth of God’s Word; not twisting his Word to meet our own agendas. Following God’s Word as he wants us to understand it would show us how to live our lives so that we will know how to keep his institutions in line with what he desires.

So let me ask you again: When did God leave our educational system? He left when God’s church stopped standing up for the truth. Why did he leave? He moved out of the way because he is a gentleman and will not force us to love him or to do his will.

Is he coming back? I hope so. But we need to ask him and really intend on doing things his way.

Cathy Craig Neil and her husband Mark own their own property management business. Cathy is a licensed PMIC and a graduate of Erskine College. She is also a columnist/author for www.believersbay.com.

III. The FAR OUT Crazies

Editor’s Remarks:

There is not much to be said here by the Editor. The venom and vituperation evident speak volumes.

Selected posts from AFE, 9/5

David Dangerfield I think this group needs to get back on topic. I appreciate individuals who’ve chosen to remind everyone they hate the fighting on both sides. I hate it too.
Perhaps even more, I’m disgusted by the notion that this group was founded for fighting. No. This group was founded for defense. I’m not sorry for reacting when Erskine, my friends, and truth itself is attacked. Period.
That being said, I will continually protest proposed changes to the Charter that give the Synod official/legal power to do what it did at the Snow Synod. And, unless any new information comes out, I will continue to ask why Dr. Bill Crenshaw isn’t in the classroom – where he has been for 35 years. I will continue to promote academic freedom against any and all challenges. I will continue to mourn the loss of so many employees who for various reasons are not at Erskine anymore, even as I strive to promote an Erskine where any and all would desire to be employed. These are the things we need to focus on!
I want peace too, but NOT if it means turning my back on what is right and what is true.
And, I’ll do this all while being, far from secular, but firmly convicted that our cause is indeed a cause of Christ. Constructed in fellowship, affection, and care for our fellows who still call Erskine home. In righteous outrage at the lies and attacks that some have maliciously carried out in the name of some perverted version of Christianity. I’m outraged. More than outraged at being called secular. I was taught that God is honored by truth and virtue, loving thy neighbor as they self. Didn’t Christ command that? Wasn’t that the greatest commandment? What love is there in attacking innocent employees and a fine Christian Liberal Arts College?
The bitter fruit we’ve seen with Erskine, it is simply part of a larger harvest in the ARP Church. A symptom of some deep division that they must work out. We know one another by our fruit. And, instead of celebrating when someone falls – we need to be true Christians. We must pray for those people, even those with whom we so ardently disagree. None of us can relish in any institution or person’s tragedys and still be keeping Christ commands. Amid it all, we are commanded to love and pray for one another.
I pray for the ARP Church and, I will not, I will never, turn my back on Erskine

Ann Clarke Judd Thank you, David. I and many, many, others will not turn our backs either!

Gerry Lord David, I stand with you. Well said. I believe Jesus was against a rigid orthodoxy, such as appears to be promoted currently by factions in the ARP church. For Erskine to not only remain who she has been, and move far ahead, she must not bow to one perspective of viewing the world and faith.

Scott Fleming The latest and greatest I’m hearing out of Due West today is that Dr. Norman has forbidden Dr. Crenshaw from going on campus. Has anyone else out there heard it or can confirm or dispute it?

Becky Lauderdale Can’t confirm or dispute, but if it’s true: All these years Bill has been teaching, and now he’s considered “dangerous”? Wouldn’t want critical thinking to break out on campus, would we?

Marie Richardson Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sheesh. I feel honored to have been taught by someone ‘dangerous’ then.

Jonathan Breazeale Wouldn’t surprise me at all. What a childish thing to do.

Jim Ogilvie How old was Norman when Dr. Crenshaw began teaching at EC?

Nancy Hall Gautier Confirmed by Dr. Crenshaw on the other site.

Jim Ogilvie Sounds like more grounds for a protest march ! The streets and sidewalks of DW ARE open to the public, right ?

Jonathan Breazeale Hate to suggest this but this is something the ACLU would love to jump into.

Selected posts from AFE, 9/6

Vicki Lown Maybe it is time for alumni to make an appearance together to support the cause. Only then will students become involved. You know how it is when you are a student. You really do not think how these issues are so important no matter what side you are on until you get a little older. And I know that does not apply to all students, but the majority. So finding ways they can get involved whether there is media or not could be the place to start. If it gets large enough, media will come.

David Dangerfield Some alumni board members are talking about having the SGA President at the next Alumni Directors meeting. That might be a step in that direction. A few students have also expressed interest in having lunch next time a few of us are on campus

Selected posts from AFIE, 9/6

Beth Caldwell Buzogany Regarding news coverage for a protest march, I think it is a good visual that television stations and newspapers would carry. Getting the cameras and reporters there will need to be coordinated well in advance of the march. Do we have a PR person in our midst who could take on that task and either be or assist a spokesperson, once we decide on a date and time? If we get a commitment from a station, we will need a sizable turnout to insure that they run the piece.

Gerry Lord I will volunteer to be an assistant PR person. As a pastor, I’m used to public speaking, and have dealt with media–however, I am in the lowcountry, and know there are probably experienced PR folks on here. I have the time to make calls, send letters and emails. So whoever wants the big job, I’ll help. (Could we get a float at Homecoming and let Bill Crenshaw ride???)

Beth Caldwell Buzogany Perhaps the float could honor Dr. Crenshaw’s being named Professor of the Year for 2010. They haven’t named one for 2011 yet, have they?

Rick Beard I’ll try to find out if we can get in the parade.

William Crenshaw

American Association of University ProfessorsAcademic Freedom for a Free Society

September 6, 2011

VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL

Dr. David A. Norman President
Erskine College
P.O. Box 308
Due West, South Carolina 29639

Dear President Norman:

Dr. William B. Crenshaw, a tenured full professor and holder of an endowed chair in the Department of English with thirty-five years of service at Erskine College, has advised this Association of your August 12 letter notifying him of his immediate suspension with pay from his academic responsibilities pending the outcome of dismissal proceedings. Professor Crenshaw has informed us that he has been denied access to his office and to his college e-mail account. We understand that the letter was sent after Professor Crenshaw declined to accept an early-retirement agreement which would have paid him his salary through August 2013.

Assuming the accuracy of the information in our possession, we are writing to advise you that this action is unacceptable under the enclosed 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and the complementary 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings (also enclosed). We note that the procedures for dismissal set forth in pages 35-36 of the Erskine College faculty manual are essentially consistent with the key provisions of the 1958 Statement.

One of those provisions, which the faculty manual incorporates almost verbatim, is the following: “Suspension of a faculty member during the [dismissal] proceedings is justified only if immediate harm to the faculty member or others is threatened by the faculty member’s continuance.”
In an August 21 e-mail message to you, Professor Crenshaw questioned the basis of the suspension “because,” he wrote, “your documents have never indicated that you considered me a harm to myself or others. . . . ” You responded on August 23:

“Immediate harm to yourself or others would be threatened by your continuance. The reasons for this were set out in my letter to you dated August 12, 2011. There is one reason in particular that I would like to call to your attention. The College cannot permit you to hold your position on an active basis and while doing so [permit you to] encourage people to quit donating to Erskine and to quit sending their kids to Erskine.”

As far as we can ascertain, the August 12 letter did not ascribe any bases for Professor Crenshaw’s suspension, much less a perceived threat of immediate harm, and the reason given on August 23, even if true (Professor Crenshaw sharply contests its accuracy), hardly seems to involve an imminent threat to anyone’s safety or well-being, though its being employed as a basis for the suspension does lend additional credence to Professor Crenshaw’s claim that the actions taken against him were based on considerations that violate his academic freedom. In addition, since by your own account Professor Crenshaw’s allegedly “disloyal” speech occurred in an online forum, suspending him from his faculty responsibilities will clearly do nothing to prevent further such expressions.

We find it puzzling, moreover, that the same faculty member who, according to your August 9 proffer of early retirement, is “leaving Erskine in good standing” and whose “many contributions over the years are greatly appreciated” should by August 12 become such a danger that you would be compelled to suspend him immediately.

An administration’s action to suspend a professor from service, absent threat of immediate harm, is a matter of basic concern to our Association. We urge that the suspension be lifted, that Professor Crenshaw’s access to his office and to the campus e-mail system be restored, and that any subsequent action be consistent with the above-cited procedural standards. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Gregory F. ScholtzAssociate Secretary and Director
Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Governance

Enclosures

cc:
Mr. Joe Patrick, Chair, Board of Trustees
The Rev. Andrew K. Putnam, Moderator of the General Synod of the ARPC
Dr. Norton Bradley Christie, Interim Vice President and Dean of the College
Professor Brooks Kuykendall, Faculty Chair
Professor Larry Watson, President, South Carolina Conference AAUP
Professor William B. Crenshaw

Marie Richardson The insanity of this entire situation is astounding.

Helen Elizabeth Malone Ditto Marie. It is like we are watching a strange sitcom/reality tv show unfold and no matter how much or how loud we yell at the characters on the screen, nothing will change the story lines.

Gary Bordogna Right now, I bet Dr. Norman is saying !@#$%^&*.

Nancy Hall Gautier Gary, I bet Chuck is too.

Timothy P. Bradshaw Give ‘em hell Bill! I think all they understand is fire and brimstone…

Stacy Hall ‎”Mama always said, ‘stupid is as stupid does’.” (Forgive me if I missed the punctuation, it’s been a long time since high school

Jim Ogilvie Sounds like a “warlock-hunt” at Erskine !

Jonathan Breazeale Dr. Norman cannot curse! It would violate his Statement of Faith!

Stacy Hall Do we still have spies here? If so, ARPTalk will be interesting tomorrow.

Jamie Cheshire-Opp Dr. Crenshaw – YES!!! Amen!

Hayden Mills Pollack Too cool, this makes my day!

Marci Tuten Greci Wonderful.

Joe Sullivan Yeah- Go Bill!

John Brawley Wow! I’m glad that you’re are defending yourself and getting some very strong backing. My initial response was “Give ‘em hell, Bill.” But that is tempered with the realization of the damage this could mean for Erskine. My experience with regulating bodies is that when an institution violates its own published regulations they really start smelling blood. I can’t see this ending well for Erskine without more administrative change. A move like this, in violation of Erskine’s own policies, shows inexperience and ineffective leadership. I am sure that we haven’t see all the cards that each side has to play but I imagine that there is potential for blood to be spilt. Still, give ‘em hell!

Jonathan Breazeale In the immortal word of Ferris Bueller, “sometimes, you just have to say ‘what the f…’” My point being, in this current world, playing nice is like urinating your pants. You’ll get a warm feeling but down the road, you’ll realize you “hurt” yourself in the interest of others.

Jay Daniel Maurer Jr. I know it’s easy for me to say “go Dr Crenshaw”, but GO DR. CRENSHAW

Lewis McKelvey Common sense would lend one to believe that with the AFT&G folks weighing in here, some sense of sanity might return to Dr. Norman and the Synod decision-makers. Unfortunately, I too often tend to be pessimistic in these situations, thinking that Dr. Norman and his ilk will find cause to yet again trivialize the situation – continuing along their blind, merry way. I hope I’m wrong.

Anyway, glad to see Dr. Crenshaw’s fighting back!

Beth Caldwell Buzogany Dr. Norman has got to be thinking, “Why did I ever come to Erskine?” But then, as he reassured Stacy Hall in his response to her letter, he and his family will be fine no matter what happens. Take no prisoners, Bill!

Jay West Just one more flaming example of Norman’s inexperience and inability to lead. How long will Joe Patrick and the board allow this incompetent brief era to continue. They are allowing an outside influence (ARP) to exercise a hit list through the faculty and administration. In the end, they will use Norman’s own incompetence as the excuse and deflect the blame. To the BOT, enough is enough, it is time to do your job. Do not play with the legacy of an institution or the legacies of our professors. Joe Patrick, i have known a long time, his father Jody is a man I love dearly, and I hope that Joe’s former resolve and foresight will urge him to do the right thing. Enough!

Mary Elizabeth Todd WOW- is my first response- second response what is next-well I am sure the phones are burning up the lines today- on what to do next byt the TOS. I am also sure that there are some of those calls that Dr. Norman will have no idea that are being made. It also appears that in this letter he is caught is telling a lie in the battle of his own letters or emails August 12 and Aug 23 letters- also from my understanding they are taking as the rule -that is true with any mental health professional- meaning that a professor is in immediate risk of killing himself/herself which should have him removed for a mental evaluation to protect them or he is a threat to bodily harm someone else- which would have the police arrest him- even a restraining order has to have at least that part so I doubt legally Dr. Crenshaw can be kept off campus but at this point I would stay off simply because I am sure his attorney has told him to do so. Besides I do not remember that Dr. Crenshaw has ever told us not to give money to Erskine- We have done so but that is our right as alumni-

Ray King Does any of this mess resemble the noble tradition that our fathers knew? How is this praiseworthy?

Mary Elizabeth Todd I would like the men involved to ask if themselves if the results are all that matter- what kind of lessons are they teaching the students -you can do whatever you want just say that “God said…” reminds me of the song the street preacher sings in the Mass by Leonard Berstein.

Jay West This is by far not the first lie Norman has told to the alumni. I have an entire list.

Selected posts from AFIE, 9/8

Jay West Homecoming Media Coverage. I am working to bring the news media to the Erskine campus for Homecoming. Some of you may remember a spot I did with a local news station after the Snow Synod. Just wait for homecoming. I encourage everyone to attend and voice your concerns for Erskine. We need someone to design a T-Shirt for the occassion. Maybe Helen can pull off another good one that we can purchase online. Nonetheless, I am assured the media will be there, and it is time for all of us to be heard. If Norman won’t listen to the alumni, I promise the viewing area will listen. I want to encourage Crenshaw, Gaston, O’Cain, McAllister, Gambrell, Hendricks, and eveyone else to come and speak your mind. The mic is yours.

Selected posts from AFE, 9/9

Eric Goodwin Dr. Norman closes his email to the faculty regarding Dr. Crenshaw with the following valediction – “All for Christ!”

Eerily reminiscent of the rallying call of the Crusaders slaughtering infidels? God wills it!

Harry Meyer III When I was a boy, I accepted God because of my parents. As a young adult, including the years I was at Erskine, I was a “believer” out of habit…but I did not give it much thought. In graduate school, as I grew in my understanding of science, I became convinced that “faith” was no longer necessary…a crutch I no longer needed. In the years following graduate school, I matured (at least a little) and found that the faith of my youth had a place in my life and it grew into a maturing faith. Then I wasted an enormous amount of time trying to reconcile biblical teaching and scientific fact. Now, I have come to understand that my profession and my faith can coexist without tainting the other. One of the things that has allowed that personal reconciliation is remembering the men who first introduced me to “real” science…Bright Lowery, Howard Thomas, and Bill Junkin. Men who taught science well and lived faithful lives. The investment they made in me and the example of their lives has served me well for 30 years.

Selected posts from AFIE, 9/9

William Crenshaw Headed back to Due West to clean out my office, and because my internet is down, I may be going dark for a few days — so this seemed to be a good time to share some thoughts with the alumni boards.

FIRST, Diane and I can’t thank you enough for the support you all have shown over the last months and especially the last days. The alumni sites were lifelines that countered the inevitable depressed feelings that come from being fired. The comments from ex-students are extra special: students, constantly passing through Erskine and Due West, are the raison d’être for Erskine and its teachers.

And that brings up the SECOND point: the focus has been temporarily on my being fired but the focus should and will return to Erskine. Actually, my firing is not so much about me as it is about Erskine — the new Erskine of Dr. Norman and the men behind him. My firing isn’t even personal — it’s just a symptom of the New Erskine disease. I told my colleagues on the Grievance Committee last spring, when we heard Dr. Hering’s case, that I was next. The administration is going down a list provided to them from the famous undue outside influence; I knew where I was on the list; I know, within a couple of candidates, who is next. So my firing was both predictable and inevitable. The problem is that Erskine is being hijacked; the good news is that the hijackers can be stopped.

Which means that THIRD, we must all be steadfast and patient. Right now the administration is facing a hurricane of criticism. They have the sails reefed and the hatches battened down; they’re determined to wait until this squall blows over and then the sails will be unfurled, the hatches opened, and the ship will sail ever on, always bearing starboard. Well, we have to show them that the squall won’t blow over, that Erskine will not drop off our radar screens, that they cannot just wait us out. They need to know that we’re always here, watching, judging, moving to block their plans to hijack the college. We can’t let them feel secure or comfortable, not for a second. It won’t take much to do this — just as reminder now and again that we’re still here, that we’re not going to let them get away with just anything.
As I said at the beginning of this struggle, back in March of 2010, we can lose but they can’t win. So in that sense, they have already lost. Our job now is to make sure that we don’t lose too.

Thanks again for your support of the Erskine we all knew. That is the focus and the prize of this struggle.

Selected posts from AFIE, 9/10

Selected posts from AFE, 9/10

Beth Alexander Rickenbaugh For those alumni that remain in the ARP Church, please send your concerns to Rev. Andrew Putnam, moderator of Synod. His email address is andrewputnam@mac.com. I just did. Not only should the BoT know how we feel about what is happening, but the Church should also know. I don’t know, it may just be “spitting in the wind” but I felt like I needed to make my views known to him.

Selected post from AFE, 9/15

David Dangerfield It has been reported that the Erskine Faculty Executive Committee met and voted to affirm that Dr Crenshaw’s procedural rights had not been violated. I am working to confirm and to fi out if Dr Crenshaw addressed the committee.

Selected posts from AFIE, 9/14

Selected posts from AFIE, 9/17

Ron Barnett If there are any current Erskine students in this group, or if any alumni in the group know of any current students who would be willing to talk on the record about these issues for The Greenville News, please email me at rbarnett@greenvilleonline.com