Erskine College & Seminary President David Norman has been asked to resign by the Executive Committee of the board. Rumors of this began to circulate late Tuesday, April 9. The rumors were confirmed on April 11 by an e-mail to the board from Chairman David Conner.

On April 1, the Executive Committee completed its analysis of President Norman’s annual performance survey. On April 9, a sub-committee met with President Norman to inform him of the Executive Committee’s findings and intentions. On Thursday morning, April 11, Chairman Conner sent out an e-mail informing board members of a “called” telephone-conference meeting of the board to hear the Executive Committee’s report on their review of President Norman and to take actions pertaining to their report. Chairman Conner also stated President Norman was given 10 days to resign and accept a “gracious in terms” severance package. In other words, according to Chairman Conner’s letter, he and the Executive Committee of the board have given President Norman until April 19 to resign or face a vote of “no confidence” at the board meeting on April 22.

Obviously, the stakes are high for President Norman. If he challenges the actions of the Executive Committee at the board meeting and loses, the “gracious in terms” severance package will probably be taken off the table.

The actions of the Executive Committee seem severe. Why are they rushing to judgment now? The school year ends in a month, and an action such as this will create conflict and confusion on the campus. Besides, the May meeting of the board is only six weeks away.

Why is Chairman Conner rushing to judgment with a razor-sharp sword? What is his agenda? HIS AGENDA IS THE REAL STORY!

Chairman Conner has made the following clear:

1. He is not a friend of the theological direction of the ARP Church;
2. He holds loyalty to Erskine College & Seminary over loyalty to the General Synod which appointed him to his stewardship;
3. He is opposed to the General Synod being written back into the Erskine bylaws; and
4. He promotes the separation of Erskine College & Seminary from the ARP Church (see URL: http://www.arptalk.org/covenant/).

As I see it, the following is Chairman Conner’s agenda: SEPARATE ERSKINE COLLEGE & SEMINARY FROM THE ARP CHURCH.

The following are obstacles for him:

1. He has lost the “nominations battle,” and seven nominees who are loyal to the evangelical Christian mission of Erskine will be approved by General Synod and seated on the board on July 1, thus creating a new majority;
2. Very few of the trustees take his “Covenant” of separation seriously, leaving it DOA; and
3. He is facing increasing opposition to his leadership on the board.

If I were Chairman Conner, here is what I would do:

1. Call for President Norman’s immediate resignation or, if necessary, call for a vote of “no confidence.”
2. If President Norman is willing to resign, offer him a “generous” severance package with a non-disclosure clause to keep him silent about the goings-on behind the scenes of the board.
3. Once President Norman is removed, appoint an Interim President who aligns with “Olde Erskine.”
4. Name a Search Committee from the current board which is decidedly more liberal than the board will be on July 1, 2013.
5. If the Interim President is an “Olde Erskine” type, the EC Foundation and the secular alums will increase their financial support significantly making the Interim President look like a rainmaker. Then move to truncate the search process and appoint the Interim President the new President, ala the process that produced Dr. Randy Ruble in 2006.
6. Even if it is illegal and winds up in court, find a way to stop the seating of the new trustees on July 1, 2013.
7. If all else fails, find a way to create a lawsuit. Legal actions are anathema to the General Synod.

Whom should we expect Chairman Conner to put forward as the Interim President? I am told Chairman Conner and the secular alums are high on Dr. D. Scott Davis (see URL: https://about.mercer.edu/officers/davis/). Dr. Davis is an Erskine College alum. “Old Erskine” is his reputation. Currently he is Provost at Mercer University (a school that severed its 173 year-old connection to the Georgia Baptist Convention in 2006).

Chairman Conner’s actions are obviously highhanded and precipitous. His repeated efforts to put distance between Erskine and the ARP Church have greatly increased the division and distrust on the board. Now, will his frantic efforts create confusion and uncertainty on campus at a critical time in the recruitment cycle, lead to further conflict within the Erskine community as the battle for succession begins, and greatly cripple the reputation of Erskine on all fronts?

In the near future, will there also be a vote of “no confidence” in the Chairman of the board? Is not Chairman Conner also responsible for the policies of the President he has supported and now abandons?

Attempts were made to contact both President Norman and Chairman Conner by phone. These calls were not returned.

These are my thoughts,


Charles W. Wilson

Share This:

[Editor’s Note: The sermon below was written by the Reverend Mark Wright. Mr. Wright is the Pastor of the Unity Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Piedmont, South Carolina. This was his Easter sermon for 2012.]

1Corinthians 15:1-11

“I believe . . . he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures.” The Christian church has affirmed the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead for 2,000 years without wavering. However, there have always been skeptics who question whether Jesus really rose from the dead. In February of 2011, The Anderson School of Theology for Laypersons (1) held a seminar at Boulevard Baptist Church in Anderson, SC. Two scholars associated with the Jesus Seminar, John Crossan and Marcus Borg, gave a number of lectures to a group of several hundred people. In Borg’s final presentation he spoke at length on the resurrection of Jesus, asserting that the accounts in the Bible are parabolic and not to be taken literally. Borg told his audience not to think about what really happened, but to consider what the story means. “Does it matter whether the tomb was really empty?” Borg asked. No, it was irrelevant. He said, “The resurrection of Jesus is not about the corpse of Jesus coming back to life by a supernatural act of God.” According to Borg the apostles encountered Jesus after his death through spiritual visions. Author Michael Horton responds to this type of explanation – he said, “Basically, when liberals use the language of faith but empty it of its content, the resurrection turns out to be little more than mass hallucination.” Their theory is harder to believe than the truth!

Contrast these comments by false teachers with those of the godly J. Gresham Machen, who said, “The disciples came to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead for the simple reason that Jesus had risen from the dead. They had not only seen his tomb empty but had seen him alive after his death on the cross.” The Christian faith is rooted in a supernatural, yet historical event. Either Jesus rose bodily from the grave or he did not. The Bible declares plainly that he did rise from the grave. Either the Bible’s account is true or it is not. Either we believe the Scriptures or we don’t. If the Bible is not true and Jesus did not rise from the dead we are the greatest fools on earth to believe it. As the apostle Paul said, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” If Jesus was not bodily raised from the dead, we are deceived and are wasting our time.

Without the resurrection, we are left with Jesus as a teacher who gave us a few moral precepts to follow, but he is not a Savior and he is not Lord. Without the resurrection, as has been said, “Christianity would be so much wishful thinking, taking its place alongside all other human philosophy and religious speculation.” (2) Without the resurrection of Christ, there is no salvation. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:17, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” If Jesus has not been raised, then Christianity is the greatest and longest running hoax that the world has ever known. On the other hand, if Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, then all that He claimed and taught is true and we had better believe it or else we will indeed die in our sins and be cast into eternal fire. The early followers of Jesus believed in the resurrection and proclaimed the resurrection, in spite of the denial of the Jews and the mockery of the Greeks.

As B. B. Warfield states, “There are only three theories which can be possibly stated to account for these facts. Either, the original disciples of Christ were deceivers and deliberately concocted the story of the Resurrection; or, they were woefully deluded; or the Resurrection was a fact.” Obviously, the apostle Paul in our text takes the Resurrection of Jesus as a fact. So did his hearers. The actual problem Paul is addressing in 1Corinthians 15 is that some of the Corinthians doubted that believers would be raised from the dead at the last day. In 1 Corinthians 15:12 Paul identifies the problem: “how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?”

The whole of v. 12 says, “Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” Since they accepted the fact that Christ had been raised, it was inconsistent for them not to think that believers would be raised as well. Paul was not trying to convince them that Christ rose from the dead, “but that one day they, too, would be raised with him to eternal life.” (3) Nevertheless, to lay the foundation for the resurrection of believers, in the first 11 verses he reviews the evidences for Jesus’ resurrection. There are four arguments that Paul presents to them to establish the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The first argument that Paul makes for the truth of the resurrection is that:

I. The Corinthians had already received the gospel truth of Christ’s resurrection.

Verse one begins, “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you–unless you believed in vain.” Paul had proclaimed the good news of Christ’s death and resurrection among the Corinthians. They had received the message as the truth. They had taken their stand on this gospel – their church was founded on it and all their hopes rested in it. They were living proof that the resurrection of Christ was a reality. They had been saved from their sins by believing in the resurrection of Christ. Paul is saying, “Look, you already believe in the resurrection of Christ – unless somehow your faith was actually an empty profession.”

How would they know that their faith was not in vain, i.e. not an empty profession? Paul said “if you hold fast that word which I preached to you.” The genuineness of faith is proved by one’s perseverance in that faith. Those who make a profession of faith and turn away from the faith, denying the resurrection of Christ, never had saving faith to begin with. A true believer is never in danger of losing salvation. However, as Jesus taught in the parable of the sower, many have an emotional experience or a momentary adherence to the faith that turns out to be false. A true believer bears the fruit of salvation and perseveres to the end.

Let me ask you, have you put your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of your sins? Do you confess Jesus as Lord and do you believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, as Romans 10:9-10 says you must do to be saved? Do you stand firm in this faith and continue to hold fast to the message of Christ’s death for your sins and resurrection on the third day? Our holding on to Christ is evidence that He is holding on to us. The transformed lives of Christians and their persevering in the faith of the gospel is living evidence of the power of the resurrection and therefore of the fact of the resurrection. The endurance of the church of Jesus Christ through 2,000 years is confirmation of the reality of his resurrection. Every Lord’s Day that we gather as Christians to worship the Lord testifies to the fact that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead!

The second argument that Paul makes for the truth of the resurrection is that:

II. The Old Testament Scriptures testified of the resurrection of Christ.

Paul said in verses 3-4 “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” The apostle Paul did not invent the gospel message. It did not originate with him. He received it, first of all from God himself. Secondarily, he received it and passed it on to the Corinthians as it had been passed on to him by others in the church. That message – of Christ’s death and resurrection, went back even to the Old Testament Scriptures. Paul says that the events of Christ’s death and resurrection came about according to what had been written long ago in the word of God.

The Old Testament in great detail describes the crucifixion of our Lord. It even points out that “Christ died for our sins,” as Paul said. Christ himself explained “the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures” to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Paul does not mention what passages he had in mind, but it is very likely that Isaiah chapter 53 was one of those passages. Isaiah 53 gives an account of the crucifixion that could only have been given by an eyewitness or through divine revelation.

Not only the death, but the burial of Christ is mentioned in this chapter. The burial was an important fact to mention because burial of the body was proof that Jesus had died. And the empty tomb was evidence that Jesus arose. Professor Leon Morris writes that “While Paul does not explicitly mention the empty tomb, these words are the necessary prelude to it and seem to imply it.” When Jesus was placed dead in that tomb, all the hopes of the disciples died as well. None of them expected Jesus to come back from death. Yet theologians such as Karl Barth want to have “a resurrection unconnected with any burial.” (4) Barth wanted to say that the resurrection takes place individually or “existentially” for each person. Dr. Gordon Clark explains, however, that “Christ rose just once, the 16th of Nisan, not September 4, when John Jones accepted Christ as Savior.” Paul says that Jesus was laid in a tomb and when he came back to life, he left the tomb. These are the facts which Scripture establishes. The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus were historical events, not existential experiences of the disciples.

Psalm 16 makes reference to the resurrection of the Messiah. Verse 10 says, “You will not leave my soul in Sheol, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.” On the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter was preaching to the crowd and declared that David, who wrote the Psalm, “Foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ.” Peter used these and other Scriptures to prove, as he said to the Jews, “that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” According to Acts 2:41, that day 3,000 souls were saved and entered the church through baptism. What about you? Have you repented of your sins and believed the message of the gospel? Have you been baptized and joined the church?

The third argument that Paul makes for the truth of the resurrection is that:

III. There were many eyewitnesses that could testify to the truth of the resurrection of Christ.

Can we prove that the resurrection happened? It depends on what we mean by proof. What kind of proof would be available to us 2,000 years later? The same proof that was available in Paul’s day – that of eyewitnesses. Throughout history, the testimony of reliable eyewitnesses has been used in a court of law. Based on standard rules of evidence, consistent eye-witness testimony from multiple credible witnesses would be considered the strongest form of evidence available. Paul first mentions the apostle Peter. “He was seen by Cephas.” We are not told the exact time or location of this appearance. It was probably sometime after Christ’s appearance to Mary and before his appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Peter was the first of the 12 to see the risen Lord. Albert Barnes comments that “This was a mark of special love and favor, and particularly, after Peter’s denial, it showed how ready he was to pardon, and how willing to impart comfort to those who are penitent, though their sins are great.” Peter would be the prime witness and spokesperson in the early days of the expansion of the church. As Peter was preaching on the day of Pentecost he said in Acts 2:32, “This Jesus God has raised up, to which we are all witnesses.”

Next, Paul mentions that Jesus was seen by “the twelve.” That is, he was seen by them as a group. In John chapter 20 we read that “On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.” Luke’s account says that when they first saw the Lord, “They were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit.” In other words, they weren’t satisfied with a vision! But then Jesus showed them his wounds and let them touch him. He even ate a piece of fish and some honeycomb in their presence. He went on to teach them and explain that it was necessary for Christ to suffer and rise from the grave. He opened their eyes to understand the Scriptures and the meaning of it all. At that time he commissioned them as His witnesses. Jesus said, “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Though you and I are not eyewitnesses, by accepting the eyewitness accounts, we are also witnesses to the truth of the resurrection. We too have been charged with preaching the gospel and calling on men and women to repent and believe in the crucified and risen Lord.

Next Paul says in v. 6 “After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.” You might say that at first Paul mentions the quality of specific witnesses, such as Peter and the 12. Here he refers to the quantity of witnesses, over 500 who saw Jesus at the same time. Many commentators believe that this occurred at the site of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18. Over half of them were still alive and anyone reading Paul’s letter could have gone to these individuals and heard for themselves what they saw. It is highly unlikely that over 500 people would have all had the same hallucination at the same time. No, the truth is, they saw the risen Lord in the flesh. Both the quality and quantity of witnesses testify that Jesus really did rise from the dead.

Next Paul says, “After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.” The James referred to here is probably the half-brother of Jesus. James was originally a skeptic. John 7:5 says, “For even His brothers did not believe in Him.” It is possible that his experience of seeing the resurrected Christ is when he was converted and believed on the Lord. When James believed, the testimony of a family member and former skeptic was added to the number of witnesses. James became the leader of the Jerusalem church, wrote the epistle of James, and was considered along with Peter and John a pillar of the church.

Last, Paul mentions himself as an eye-witness. He said, “Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.” Paul’s witness was unique and was not during the time period that the others had seen Jesus. He saw the risen Lord after Jesus had ascended into heaven. Paul says he was like one “born out of due time.” He was not part of the group of Jesus’ disciples during his earthly ministry. For many years he had been an unbeliever and a persecutor of the church. On the Damascus road, the risen Christ appeared to Paul. There were other times that Jesus appeared to Paul as well. Having seen the risen Lord was one of the qualifications of an apostle. Paul said in humility, “For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” Paul was an apostle in the fullest sense, because Christ called him to the office, though he knew he was unworthy. Paul often gave testimony to the fact that he had been a persecutor of the church and yet became a preacher of the gospel. The only explanation was that he had truly seen the Lord and that the Lord had changed his heart. Paul was a powerful witness to the risen Lord.

So what does all this mean? It means we have the strongest possible historical evidence from ancient times that we can have – hundreds of eyewitnesses of the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Will you believe the testimony of these eyewitnesses recorded in Scripture? They are trustworthy witnesses and their number is great. They were not inclined to believe in the resurrection. The only explanation for their belief in the resurrection of Christ is that it actually happened.

The final argument that Paul makes for the truth of the resurrection is that:

IV. The common message of the church testified to the truth of the resurrection of Christ.

In v. 11 Paul said, “Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” Every true preacher of the gospel in the early church preached the same message – “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” Read the book of Acts. The message that was preached in the early church centered on the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The resurrection was a prominent truth over which there was no dispute in the church. John MacArthur writes that “Except for a few isolated heresies, the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection has not been questioned within the church until our modern age of skepticism and humanism. New Testament Christianity, whether ancient or modern, knows nothing of a gospel whose heart is not the risen Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

How should we respond to these things? Paul said, “so we preach and so you believed.” The response called for back then and today is to repent and believe the good news. Speaking to the philosophers in Athens, Paul proclaimed Christ’s resurrection: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31). Having heard the report, these men were faced with a decision. After Paul preached we read in Acts that “some mocked. But others said, ‘We will hear you again about this.’ But some men joined him and believed.” (vv. 32-34)

Here are your choices: You can mock the resurrection of Jesus as they did at the Anderson School of Heresy for Laypersons. You can decide to study Scripture and learn more about the resurrection. And you can embrace the Risen Christ, and with Thomas say to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus says to you this morning, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.” Today will you put your faith in him? He is the resurrection and the life. Those who put their trust in the risen Christ will be raised on the last day at His return. The gospel message is that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures. Believe this message and be saved. Then proclaim this message to all who will listen. Jesus Christ is risen! He is risen indeed.

Notes:

1. How incongruent and wrong, therefore, for an ARP minister, Rev. Tom Richie, to serve as president of the Anderson School of Theology for Laypersons.
2. John MacArthur, First Corinthians, p. 398
3. Ibid
4. Gordon Clark, First Corinthians, p. 253

Share This:

[Note: The idea for using Matthew 27.36 for the title of this sermon was borrowed from an extraordinarily gifted communicator I heard preach a sermon with this title about 1965. The sermon below was preached on Monday evening, March 25, 2013, at the West Union Chapel, West Union, South Carolina. The reading was Matthew 27:1-36.]

Matthew 27.35-36

And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, “They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.” And sitting down they watched him there.

Matthew’s narrative of the Crucifixion is captivating. It is a complicated story of betrayal. There are plots and sub-plots. And, of course, on Sunday morning, there is an unexpected twist.

The betrayal of Jesus by the Jewish religious and political leaders is a tale of hate and malice. The extent of their perfidy is evidenced by their uncharacteristic setting aside of their cherished traditions of justice and mercy. Demonically driven, they abandoned justice and mercy and embraced treachery and hell. In madness, they howled, “Let his blood be on us and our children.” And ignoring the law of consequences, they cursed themselves and future generations of their children and drank down shame and judgment like wine.

For many, Judas stands as the most craven character in the drama of the Cross. Whatever his reasons, he betrayed his friend and teacher and rejected his Savior and Lord for 30 pieces of silver (the price of a common slave). Indeed, at this point, if there were no other reason for hell than the just disposition of Judas, God would have had to commission an angel to construct the contours of hell and set them ablaze as a fiery maelstrom.

I think Pilate is the most disgusting player in the drama of the Cross. I hold him disgusting because I hate cowardice and dissimulation both in myself and others. He stands stereotypically for all despicable politicians, who, while holding Justice’s scales of impartiality and Government’s sword of power, wantonly abandon their duty and sacrifice truth, justice, and the innocent on the bloody altar of political expediency. Not even the 35,855 feet of water of Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench is sufficiently deep and dark enough to cover such loathsomeness.

The Roman soldiers are the players in this story to which I am drawn. Theirs is a special perspective. Outwardly, they are bystanders. Their posting in Jerusalem was simply one of many in a career of 25 hard years. They didn’t volunteer for service in Palestine. No one did! It was their misfortune. Their mistreatment and mockery of Jesus were merely a part of their duty in an execution ordered by the Governor. On pain of death, they meticulously executed the prescribed rituals of humiliation and torture. Nevertheless, the spectacle of THIS execution was not only sensational, it was different. Though they were required to participate in and be witnesses to the Crucifixion, I think they were puzzled by this execution as they attempted to grasp the meaning of the events overshadowing and engulfing them in mystery. “And sitting down [as] they watched him there,” what did they know and what were some of their questions? So, let us look at the Crucifixion from the perspective of the Roman soldiers.

First of all, what did the Roman soldiers know about Jesus? A great deal, I think!

Let us not assume these Roman soldiers were ignorant of who Jesus was. In fact, because of the extent of their knowledge, I contend they were uneasy participants in Jesus’ Crucifixion.

There are two ways we can know this. First, they were soldiers. What did Roman soldiers in Jerusalem do when they were on leave? They frequented the taverns of Jerusalem where cheap wine and strong drink were served in abundance, where loose women were found, and where interesting conversations were overhead and joined. A tavern is a good place for disseminating and obtaining information about people. Without a doubt, the taverns of Jerusalem were abuzz with talk about Jesus.

The second way I know these soldiers knew a good deal about Jesus is because Jesus received soldiers gladly when they came to Him. In Luke 3:14, we read there were Roman soldiers among those who went to Him asking: “What shall we do? Jesus answered the soldiers: “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.”

The most dramatic account of Jesus and a Roman soldier is found in Luke 7.1-9.

As Jesus entered Capernaum, an unnamed Roman centurion besought the elders of the synagogue to go to Jesus and ask Him to heal a household slave who was dear to him.

When the elders approached Jesus, they prefaced their request by saying the centurion loved them and had built them a synagogue. Jesus responded by agreeing to go with them to the centurion’s home.

As they came near the centurion’s home, he heard of their coming and sent a messenger saying he was neither worthy to go to nor to receive Jesus in his home, for he was a man of authority who had soldiers under his command. He said he ordered one soldier to go and he went and another to come and he came. He instructed the messenger to tell Jesus, “Say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.”

Jesus responded by saying He had not found such faith in Israel. He then healed the centurion’s slave.

Surely a story such as this could not have been kept a secret! Such a story would have spread through the legionnaires’ camps like fire over dry grass. Indeed, the Roman soldiers witnessing Jesus’ crucifixion knew about Jesus – His teaching, His miracles, and, especially, His kindness extended to them.

Second, what did the Roman soldiers think of the spectacle unfolding before them? Were they mystified by the level of hatred poured out on Jesus by the Jewish mob?

Most certainly, the soldiers had heard of Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and his subsequent suicide. They were also aware of the kangaroo court trials of Jesus by the Sanhedrin and King Herod. They were present when Jesus was brought before Pilate, they heard the angry mob call for Barabbas over Jesus, and they witnessed Pilate ceremonially washing his hands of the affair and heard him condemn an innocent man to death. Then, at the Cross, they watched as the Jewish leaders mocked Jesus as He hung on the cross and heard their insulting taunts as they called for Him to come down from the cross.

How did they account for such hatred and rejection of Jesus? Better still, how do we?

The clear teaching of the Bible is there is only one God – not many gods. The clear teaching of the Bible is Jesus is the Son of God and the promised Messiah. There is no other – in the past, the present, or the future.

The clear teaching of the Bible is Jesus is the only Savior of sinners. Jesus’ testimony in John 14.6 is “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” And the Apostolic testimony in Act 4:12 is Jesus is the ONLY Savior, “for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” In theological parlance, this is referred to as the exclusive claim of the Gospel.

No wonder the Jews hated Jesus so! They believed their scrupulous keeping of the Hebrew Law justified them before God; however, Jesus said it witnessed against and condemned them.

No wonder the pagans hated Jesus so! They believed their gods of carved stones and precious metals were real; however, the message of the Bible is they are demonic idols and stairwells to hell.

No wonder the Romans hated Jesus so! They believed Caesar, their living god of power and conquest, was king of kings. They condemned the early Christians saying “these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus” (Acts 17:7); nevertheless, the Apostolic witness is Jesus is “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6.15). And the witness of Jesus to Himself is He is “the Alpha and the Omega”, the one “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1.8), and the Amen of John in Revelation 19.16 is the name written on His vesture: “KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.”

Things have not changed much, have they? The exclusive nature of the Christian faith still declares Jesus is the ONLY Savior. And the hatred of the Jesus of the Bible is as palpably evident today as it was when the Roman soldiers kept watch at the Cross

Today, no wonder Jesus is anathema to liberal, universalist, antinomian, and exsanguinated churhianity! He condemns it as a lifeless counterfeit.

Today, no wonder Jesus is anathema to idealistic and moralistic social-dogoodism! He condemns it as a fruitless passion.

Today, no wonder Jesus is anathema to the false-prophets of libertinism who worship immoral excess! He condemns these who make a lifestyle of immorality as dead even while they continue in their sins.

Today, no wonder Jesus is anathema to Islam and all other religious constructs, philosophies, and isms in our world who say theirs is another road to God! Jesus condemns them as dead end roads to eternal death.

Truly, things have not changed. If the Roman solders at the Cross were present today, they would be no less mystified by the hatred poured out on the Jesus of the Bible. Apart from divine intervention and the Holy Spirit’s quickening of the heart, the enmity of the human heart toward the God of the Bible and His Christ has not changed.

My third and last point is this: What was the response of the Roman soldiers to Jesus?

I wonder. Were their hearts stirred to faith by what they witnessed? I think such was the case. As a matter of fact, I think the faith of those soldiers contributed to the rapid spread of the early Church and portended the evangelization of the Roman world. You are asking, “How can he say this?” Well, I read ahead and found these words in Matthew 27.54: “Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared [were terrified] greatly, saying, Truely this was the Son of God.”

Do not misunderstand how the word “fear” is used in the Bible. According to the Bible, “fear” or “terror” is the common response of people when they come in contact with God and are confronted by His holiness and power. For example, “fear” or “terror” is how Gideon (Judges 6.15) and Isaiah (Isaiah 6.4) described their encounters with God. Perhaps the reason some of us find the response of fear odd is because our culture has lost its Biblical moorings and God is no longer holy or powerful for so many.

Sometimes “fear” is a synonym for “faith.” For example, Jacob swore by “the fear of his father Isaac” (Genesis 31:53), and the phrase, “the fear of the LORD,” is often used for faith in God.

Obviously, the relationship between “fear” and “faith” are close. Perhaps they are inseparable. I like to think of them in this manner: in the quickening work of the Holy Spirit, “fear” is the hammer striking the die of “faith” that sets the image of Christ on the life of the believer and identifies the believer as royal coinage.

Well, here we are again in the Easter season reviewing the events of the Crucifixion. So, sitting down and reviewing again these extraordinary events, what is your response?

The events of the Crucifixion were soul-shaking. The Roman soldiers were compelled to cry out, “Truely this was the Son of God.”

In spite of our often hearing this story, the story is no less captivating and no less soul-shaking today than it was when the Roman soldiers sat watching Jesus die on the Cross. The story is real. Does the telling of the story cause us to tremble in fear? It should! Does the telling of the story elicit in us faith that cries out, “Truely this was the Son of God”? It should!

And sitting down and reading the retelling of this story with me, is your response the response of fear and faith?

Three of the saddest words in the Bible, I think, are found in Matthew 28.17. They describe the response of some who saw Jesus after the Resurrection and did not believe. The three words are: “But some doubted.” Like the Roman soldiers, do you fear God and confess Jesus is the Son of God, or do you stand off doubting?

Share This:

(Editor’s note: The official Erskine report can be read HERE. A detailed report on the meeting of the board is not the norm for the Erskine administration and board. Usually, an oral report is given by President Norman at a “Town Hall Meeting” in Due West.)

With a “G-O-L-L-Y!”, a “Shazam!”, and a “Sur-prise! Sur-prise! Sur-prise!”, we have traveled back in time to the Andy Griffith Show, the mythical town of “Mayberry”, and Gomer Pyle: U.S.M.C. Gomer Pyle may not have been the oddest of Andy Griffith’s characters, but he is the one whose words best describe my response to the February meeting of the Erskine board: “Sur-prise! Sur-prise! Sur-prise!” Without a doubt, the Editor of ARPTalk was SUR-PRISED! A spark of hope still burns for the reformation of Erskine!

What was remarkable enough to give the Editor of ARPTalk renewed hope for the reformation of Erskine College and Seminary? It is the work of the SCONE (the Sub-Committee on Nominations for Erskine). They chose seven nominees who are loyal to the evangelical Christian mission of Erskine. It is the overwhelming adoption of the seven nominees presented by the SCONE by the Erskine board. It is the board’s recommendation of these seven to the Committee on Nominations. Remarkably, Charles W. Wilson affirms this list!! Remarkably, with the expected approval by and recommendation of this list of seven by Synod’s Committee on Nominations and their affirmation by Synod in June, there is an evangelical majority on the Erskine board for the first time in over 40 years. That is, for the first time in over 40 years, a majority of the Erskine board will be trustees who both understand and affirm the stated mission of the institution and our definition of “Evangelical Christian.” Only time will reveal whether these folks are able and reformist enough to work together in efforts to transform Erskine into an educational institution known openly and proudly as evangelically Christian – an educational institution combining both academic excellence and Christian fidelity. Indeed, let us hope!

With these new leaders, perhaps Erskine can begin catching up to North Greenville University (NGU). Derisively referred to as the “hillbilly Bible College” by some Erskine professors and secular alums, on February 20, “CBS News released the latest ‘Best Professors’ list, which is compiled by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity,” and the professors at NGU were ranked number TWO in the nation. “Shazam!”

Dr. Richard Taylor and others on the Erskine board are asking, “What can we do to silence Chuck Wilson?” Yes, indeed, what can be done to shut down ARPTalk and the truth-telling by Charles W. Wilson? Here is the answer: missional fidelity, ecclesiastical fidelity, and Biblical fidelity at Erskine! With the seating of these seven trustees on July 1, missional, ecclesiastical, and Biblical fidelity are finally in reach at Erskine. In spite of obfuscations and clever scheming, THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS SILENCING CHARLES W. WILSON HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ERSKINE BOARD. And the heart of Charles W. Wilson is gladdened by this step!   :-)

In my last e-mail and posting, “The Sound of Silence”, I predicted the following regarding the February meeting of the Erskine board:

1. There will be much hand wringing over the SACS audit; however, the board will be assured all is well and under control by President Norman and Chairman Conner.
2. The word on the street in Due West is a consultant (who is an expert on matters regarding SACS accreditation) has been (or will be) retained to guide the Erskine administrators in their REMEDIATION process with SACS. Why is this necessary? Are these folks unable to follow directions, meet SACS’ nitpicking requirements and schedules, and write a long report? According to the December 10, 2012 SACS report in which Erskine was put on “warning,” the administrators at so-called “Fundy schools” (Anderson University, North Greenville University, and Shorter University) succeed where Erskine administrators failed.
3. As noted above, the SACS audit also involves Erskine Seminary. Whereas ATS granted the Erskine Seminary Columbia Campus degree-giving status, is this now the case with SACS? From SACS’ public documents, this does not appear to be the case.
4. The board will be informed the discussions between the board’s Ad Hoc Committee and Synod’s Moderator’s Committee are ONGOING. After both the request by General Synod for the Erskine board to write General Synod back into Erskine’s bylaws (2011 Synod) and the assurances of Erskine administrators and trustees this could be done at the meeting of Synod, the discussions are ONGOING almost three years later! Is this because of Chairman Conner’s obstruction? Why do we in the ARP Church countenance such obstinate rebellion?
5. Chairman Conner will attempt to differentiate between “agency” and “institution.” He will inform trustees Erskine is an “institution” like the ARP Church. Apart from historical ties and the money the ARP contributes as the institution’s largest contributor, Erskine is separate from, equal to, and not an “agency” of the ARP Church. The only tie is the appointment of trustees. Well, would someone be so kind as to explain what it means for Erskine to be the “arm” of the ARP Church in college and seminary education?
6. Whether publicly or privately, look for discussions regarding July 1, 2013, when seven new trustees are slated to be seated, and, if the new trustees are obviously loyal to the ARP Church, this will be unacceptable to the present majority and plans will be drawn up for NOT seating the new trustees. Chairman Conner will take this as a grand quest!!
7. With Dr. Tim Watson’s resignation from the board, President Norman has appointed Rev. Andy Putnam as the new chairman of the Seminary Committee. Mr. Putnam was one of the authors deleting the ARP Church from the Erskine bylaws. His appointment may not bode well for the seminary of the ARP Church. Dr. Watson instituted an “open door” policy for the representative of the seminary. Will this policy continue? Rumor has it there is little enthusiasm for this appointment.
8. In addition, a litany of woes will be read regarding recruitment, retention, budget, a rising discount rate, and development. But do not despair there is good news: Erskine is the safest college/university in South Carolina.

Well, let us see how the Editor of ARPTalk did as a prognosticator.

Regarding #1. As expected, the board was assured the SACS audit issues are under control. Really?? That was the story before Erskine was placed on “warning” by SACS. The words of former President Reagan ring true here: “Trust but Verify!”

Regarding #2. There were electronic conversations with numerous consultants. However, all the consultants in all the world are of no help if there is continuing dissonance between what Erskine presently is and missional fidelity (what Erskine should be!!).

Regarding #3. The situation at the seminary is grave. As one board member puts it: “With the numbers we saw, I don’t see how the seminary is going to make it!” Well, I think I have seen the same numbers he saw. I agree with the assessment.

Regarding #4. As expected, the discussions between the board’s Ad Hoc Committee and Synod’s Moderator’s Committee are ongoing. As long as Mr. Conner is the board chairman, do not look for a resolution agreeable to the Synod on the bylaws.

Regarding #5. Surprise!! Chairman Conner changed the discussion on language from “agency” and “institution” to “covenant” (see discussion below at the ‘*’).

Regarding #6. As Gomer Pyle would say: “G-O-L-L-Y!”, “Shazam!”, and “Sur-prise! Sur-prise! Sur-prise!” With the Erskine board having voted overwhelmingly to sustain the recommendation of the seven nominees of the SCONE to Synod’s Committee on Nominations, if they are recommend by the Committee on Nomination and approved by General Synod as expected, Chairman Conner is then left without a reasonable argument for not seating the seven new trustees in July. Did he get blindsided by his board? Did he miscalculate? Did he overstep? As I read the guidelines of SACS, attempting such an action now would bring Erskine into further “noncompliance” with SACS. Amazingly, in spite of emotional outbursts by Ms. Lisa Senn and Ms. Nan Campbell, and theirs and Dr. Richard Taylor’s negative votes, the board affirmed the nominees. The Rev. Kyle Sims, spokesman for the SCONE, is worthy of a hearty thank you. He ably presented the choice of the seven nominees in the face of a storm of emotional criticism. At the meeting of Synod last year, Mr. Sims said he was a voice for reformation at Erskine. He has flown his colors proudly and kept his word! Thank you, Mr. Sims!

Regarding #7. According to reports, all indicators at both campuses of the seminary are down. Morale among the seminary faculty members is low. Dr. Norman’s continuing restructuring of the seminary is not inspiring confidence in his leadership among most of the faculty members. Dr. Jim Meek, the new seminary VP, seems qualified. The questions: (1) Will Dr. Norman and the board allow him to lead? and (2) Can he regain the confidence of the ARP Church?

Regarding #8: :-)

Like the US Congress’ handling of the budget, the hard issues of budget shortfall, rising student discounts, recruitment, student retention, development, and missional fidelity were kicked down the road to a future meeting of the board. But there was a bright word from Due West: the Erskine basketball team had its first winning season since 1993. “G-O-L-L-Y!” :-)

*Though an elder in the ARP Church (Greenville ARP Church), Mr. Conner’s term as Chairman is marked by strife with the General Synod. Flying in the face of the historical connection between the General Synod and its Erskine educational agency, at the February meeting of the Erskine board he proposed a redefinition of the relationship between Erskine and the ARP Church as a “covenant”: “OUTLINE OF COVENANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AND ERSKINE COLLEGE AND THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY” (see URL: http://www.arptalk.org/covenant/ for the full text).  Apart from Chairman Conner’s (1) liberties with the word “covenant,” (2) his misunderstanding of the historical record, (3) his glossing over the theological differences between Erskine and the ARP Church, and (4) his attempt to refashion and redefine Erskine from perpetrator of the of the conflict with General Synod to victim, he seems to have borrowed his ideas from a document presented to Second Presbytery last June 7, 2012 that redefined the relationship between Second Presbytery and Covenant Way Retirement Center (formerly the Due West Retirement Center). See “Covenant Between Covenant Way Retirement Center and Second Presbytery of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church,” pp. 11-13. Key players involved at Covenant Way Retirement Center (CWRC) and at Erskine have deep connections to the Session of the Greenville ARP Church. After reading Chairman Conner’s proposed “covenant” for the Erskine and the ARP Church and CWRC’s “covenant” with Second Presbytery, one cannot help but wonder if Chairman Conner authored or co-authored both documents!? They are strikingly similar.

In 1986 the General Synod gave oversight of CWRC to Second Presbytery. From the outset, the relationship was marked by ambiguities regarding the extent of Second Presbytery’s oversight and tensions regarding (1) the approval and appointment of trustees and (2) financial disclosure. With regard to questions about financial disclosure, the retort was one of “Trust us! Don’t you think we know what we’re doing!?” In the last two years, sharp conflict erupted between Second Presbytery and CWRC over CWRC’s insistence on having a certain individual as a board trustee and, once again, nondisclosure of financial documents. In response to Second Presbytery, the board of CWRC declared independence from Second Presbytery. However, the board seemed uneasy with their new-found freedom and the relationship between CWRC and Second Presbytery was recast as a “covenant.” Last June at the pre-Synod meeting of Second Presbytery, Second Presbytery acquiesced to the wishes of CWRC. Since then, the ongoing financial difficulties of CWRC have become painfully clear. According to the letter sent from the CWRC board, CWRC will be closed no later than May 15, 2013, when the bank seizes the property and assets. Regretfully, CWRC closes with many questions being asked about the board’s handling of monies – especially the “Life Lease” escrow account. Residents apparently stand to lose large sums of money that they or their estates were supposed to get back. Is this why the CWRC people were not forthcoming with financial statements?

At this point, we in Second Presbytery owe Dr. Rob Roy McGregor an apology. For years, he voiced warnings about CWRC. We shut our ears to his warnings regarding financial issues at CWRC. Second Presbytery also owes a letter of apology to General Synod. We have failed in the stewardship of oversight entrusted to us by General Synod in 1986. We have allowed a culture of secrecy, non-transparency, and non-accountability to thrive. Now we see the stark realities of a shattered dream, broken promises to vulnerable residents, and the reputations of trusted leaders questioned.

What direction does Chairman Conner desire for Erskine? Is he advocating the CWRC path? His arguments are baffling. His arguments about liturgy, worship, theology, and piety as directional rubrics ordering the relationship between Erskine and the ARP Church are nonsense. They are simply fatuous. Does Chairman Conner realize the absurdity of his arguments?! If implemented, his “covenant” map is a road to ruin for Erskine – as it was for CWRC! BY THE WAY, did I fail to say Chairman Conner’s “covenant” failed to pass muster with the board? The board was not prepared to join him in an act of covenanting! The “official” report from Erskine does not even mention Chairman Conner’s “covenant”.

In the words of Bob Dylan: “Times they are a changin’!” Are the days of the strife-makers on the Erskine board numbered?

Yes, there is a glimmer of hope for Erskine. With the recommendation of the seven nominees by Synod’s Committee on Nominations and Synod’s approval of the slate of nominees of the Committee on Nominations, on July 1, 2013, there is an evangelical Christian majority on the Erskine board! With five more faithful trustees in 2014 who understand and affirm the evangelical faith of the ARP Church and the mission of the college and seminary, there will be an overwhelming evangelical Christian majority on the board. At that point, reconstruction of Erskine in the manner our Southern Baptist brothers and sisters have achieved at so many of their colleges and seminaries is possible at Erskine – a true reformation. This is my prayer for those who have stood and labored so faithfully, who have hoped and prayed so long, and who have been marginalized and scorned so often in Due West.

Now I find myself in the land of quandary. I did not expect this. Should I rethink my thoughts about separation? “Sur-prise! Sur-prise! Sur-prise!”

However, before I close this article, let me give this warning: DO NOT BE SURPRISED BY ANOTHER LAWSUIT. Are ARPs prepared to fight for what is theirs? The EC Foundation has a war chest for this purpose. The folks who make up the ineptocracy of “olde Erskine” are infuriated by the board’s approval of the new board nominees.

(Editor’s Note: In case the reader is interested, the Editor of ARPTalk made numerous phone calls to both Chairman Conner and President Norman attempting to contact them for this article. Neither has responded.)

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

Share This:

Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel were extraordinarily talented performers!!

Their first big hit in 1965 as Simon & Garfunkel was The Sound of Silence. While the radio played in the background, I was sitting at the kitchen table and talking to my mother as she prepared supper when I first heard the song. Paul Simon’s ability to compose and arrange, their vocal harmonization, and their talent with the guitar have made them popular music legends. Many of their songs are now pop standards. As a matter of fact, I heard The Sound of Silence again on the Highlands, NC, radio station a few days ago. It was the inspiration for this article.

Since the initial news a month ago (December 10, 2012) of the accrediting agency SACS putting Erskine College & Seminary on “warning” status, not a word has been heard out of Radio Due West. Mum has been the word from the directors of the EC Foundation and the so-called Alumni Association, and nothing has been reported in the ARP Magazine and the local papers. The sound heard so loudly is the sound of recreant silence. Is this surprising to you?

As noted, it has been a month since Erskine College & Seminary was put on “warning” by SACS. Where is the transparency promised by the Erskine administrators and board leaders? Where is the open communication with the ARP Church promised by Erskine administrators and board leaders? The sound we are now hearing is recreant silence! And the recreant silence is deafening!

In Erskine’s continuing story of spiritual and academic decline, there are only two substantive sources regarding the SACS disaster: (official SACS responses and the letter from SACS to Erskine below) and Dr. Norman’s cryptic letter to the Erskine community. The Erskine academic community once sought to walk in step with Davidson, Furman, and Presbyterian; now, according to SACS, Erskine is mired in the mud of “warning” with the following: Memphis College of Art, Tennessee; Mid-Continent University, Mayfield, Kentucky; Interdenominational Theological Center, Atlanta, Georgia; Louisiana College, Pineville, Louisiana, Emmanuel Christian Seminary, Johnson City, Tennessee; Georgia Perimeter College, Decatur, Georgia; Navarro College, Corsicana, Texas; Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical College, Orangeburg, SC; Southwest Virginia Community College, Cedar Bluff, Virginia; Texas College, Tyler, Texas; University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia; and Wytheville Community College; Wytheville, Virginia.

Erskine now stands academically with gnats (UVA excepted, which is a bona fide academic giant, but ran afoul of SACS because of conflict between the president and board)! Erskine grads must be proud! However, President David Norman says this is but a small thing and no cause for worry. It is but a flesh wound. I wonder if President Norman has ever seen the following clip?

Indeed, the SACS “warning” is not just a “flesh wound”!! In contrast, in an interview on public television last month, the President of Presbyterian College understandably crowed that 90% of Presbyterian’s grads go on to grad school.

It may be impolitic and not nice, but is it unreasonable to ask why so many of the participants in this train wreck have not spoken out and taken responsibility for the “warning” by SACS? Where is the voice of former Preside Randy Ruble? In the last ten years, was his tenure as President not the longest? Did not the secular alums bless him for his wisdom and academic leadership? Were they mistaken? Instead, was he sleeping in his Belk Hall office? For a man who spent a goodly portion of his time after retirement from Erskine Seminary participating as an auditor for ATS and SACS, how is it he failed to attend to the necessary PAPERWORK and protocols?

As impolitic and not nice as it may be, is it unreasonable to ask what former Acting Academic Dean of the College Gid Alston was doing with his time? Was he more focused on the “critical thinking” controversy involving former English professor Bill Crenshaw than on faculty evaluations? As a coach and head of the Athletic Department, was his time more occupied with recruiting athletes than on evaluations of staff members? Are these inconsequential questions? Are these not noncompliance issues noted in the “warning” by SACS?

And since the SACS report includes Erskine Seminary, what is former Executive Vice President of the Seminary Neely Gaston saying? Has anyone stood watch in Due West longer than he in the last ten years? What does he say now? He boasted he would do what he wanted and did not care what the academic auditors thought. And what does Dr. Robby Bell say now? Was he not Dr. Gaston’s Academic Dean of the Seminary for most of Dr. Gaston’s tenure? Was not Dr. Bell’s Deanship marked by recreant silence? What was he doing? Why is he continuing in his silence? Are these men now saying “This is not my concern!”?

As impolitic and not nice as it may be, is it unreasonable to ask what the various Chairmen of the Erskine board were doing the last ten years – particularly, Messrs. Scott Mitchell, Joe Patrick, and David Conner? Were they too busy undermining the ARP Church’s efforts to rein in a rebellious and rogue agency to look after the academic affairs of Erskine College & Seminary? Were they not attempting to frighten the timid ministers of the ARP Church with “the big bad wolf” of SACS over governance? However, on SACS’ comprehensive audit, where is a noncompliance mark regarding governance or the interference of the ARP Church? Did these men fail in their academic stewardship of Erskine? Instead, did “the big bad wolf” of SACS turn and bite them?

As impolitic and not nice as it may be, is it unreasonable to ask what board members, who are members, elders, and ministers in the ARP Church, were doing? Indeed, some were speaking out for the ARP Church and warning of an impending collision with SACS; however, what of those who joined hands with those who worked tirelessly to undercut the legitimacy of the ARP Church’s oversight of one of its agencies? When given the opportunity to revise the bylaws so as to recognize the legitimate role of the ARP Church, why did they refuse to do so? Why were they too busy trying to distance Erskine from the church that they failed to take care of business and see that Erskine maintains her accreditation? Have they served Erskine well?

As impolitic and not nice as it may be, is it unreasonable to question the thinking and direction set by those who supported the legal actions against the ARP Church after the 2010 “Snow” Synod? A goodly number complained the majority of the ARP Church “sinned” in the actions of the 2010 “Snow” Synod in our attempts to correct the ineptness and fecklessness of both the Erskine administration and board, but what do they say now? HAS NOT THE SACS AUDIT CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS AND WARNINGS OF THE MODERATOR’S COMMISSION? Did not the Erskine pundits decry the findings and warnings of the Moderator’s Commission as intrusive, insignificant, and unsubstantiated? What are they saying now? Why are they silent?

As impolitic and not nice as it may be, is it unreasonable to ask Erskine board trustee Richard Taylor and former trustee Parker Young to answer publicly regarding SACS’ “warning”? Were they not very outspoken in the courtroom in Newberry? Did not Dr. Young inform the world he was an expert on SACS, and Erskine was going to lose SACS’ accreditation because of governance issues? In addition, what are Dr. David Danehower and Ms. Mary Lou Grier Holmes saying? As the moderators of the two Facebook sites for the alums to chat, they are uncharacteristically silent. Do they realize both they and Erskine’s academic standing have been betrayed by anti-ARP Church administrators, board members, and faculty trustees they promoted as their champions? Is not the sound of recreant silence deafening?

Conversations now with Erskine administrators and anti-ARP Church board members are bizarre. Is President Norman taking pointers from former Executive Vice President of the Seminary Neely Gaston? Dr. Gaston described himself NOT as a servant of the ARP Church; rather, he was a servant of “the greater” church. Well, is this what President Norman is – “a servant of the greater church”? This is what he claims now! Regardless, was not President Norman hired to be a servant of the ARP Church? On more than one occasion, has he not spoken of himself as a servant of the ARP Church and thanked the ARP Church for the stewardship entrusted to him?

Nowadays, President Norman says he is concerned for the health of the ARP Church. He says the ARP Church is “splintered” and “unhealthy”. Well, if the ARP Church is in turmoil, is it not because the institution of which he is the President has created division by its recalcitrant rebellion and unwillingness to be “the servant of the ARP Church”? Is not theirs an attitude of “The ARP Church is the church of Erskine if it pleases us, and we lead in this dance – send us the money!”?

The sound of silence is about to be broken in Due West. The meeting of the Erskine board takes place next month. What will take place?

The Cliff Notes version of my predictions is as follows:

1. There will be much hand wringing over the SACS audit; however, the board will be assured all is well and under control by President Norman and Chairman Conner.

2. The word on the street in Due West is a consultant (who is an expert on matters regarding SACS accreditation) has been (or will be) retained to guide the Erskine administrators in their REMEDIATION process with SACS. Why is this necessary? Are these folks unable to follow directions, meet SACS’ nitpicking requirements and schedules, and write a long report? According to the December 10, 2012 SACS report in which Erskine was put on “warning,” the administrators at so-called “Fundy schools” (Anderson University, North Greenville University, and Shorter University) succeed where Erskine administrators failed.

3. As noted above, the SACS audit also involves Erskine Seminary. Whereas ATS granted the Erskine Seminary Columbia Campus degree-giving status, is this now the case with SACS? From SACS’ public documents, this does not appear to be the case.

4. The board will be informed the discussions between the board’s Ad Hoc Committee and Synod’s Moderator’s Committee are ONGOING. After both the request by General Synod for the Erskine board to write General Synod back into Erskine’s bylaws (2011 Synod) and the assurances of Erskine administrators and trustees this could be done at the meeting of Synod, the discussions are ONGOING almost three years later! Is this because of Chairman Conner’s obstruction? Why do we in the ARP Church countenance such obstinate rebellion?

5. Chairman Conner will attempt to differentiate between “agency” and “institution.” He will inform trustees Erskine is an “institution” like the ARP Church. Apart from historical ties and the money the ARP contributes as the institution’s largest contributor, Erskine is separate from, equal to, and not an “agency” of the ARP Church. The only tie is the appointment of trustees. Well, would someone be so kind as to explain what it means for Erskine to be the “arm” of the ARP Church in college and seminary education?

6. Whether publicly or privately, look for discussions regarding July 1, 2013, when seven new trustees are slated to be seated, and, if the new trustees are obviously loyal to the ARP Church, this will be unacceptable to the present majority and plans will be drawn up for NOT seating the new trustees. Chairman Conner will take this as a grand quest!!

7. With Dr. Tim Watson’s resignation from the board, President Norman has appointed Rev. Andy Putnam as the new chairman of the Seminary Committee. Mr. Putnam was one of the authors deleting the ARP Church from the Erskine bylaw. His appointment may not bode well for the seminary of the ARP Church. Dr. Watson instituted an “open door” policy for the representative of the seminary. Will this policy continue? Rumor has it there is little enthusiasm for this appointment.

8. In addition, a litany of woes will be read regarding recruitment, retention, budget, a rising discount rate, and development. But do not despair there is good news: Erskine is the safest college/university in South Carolina.

Why do we ARPs have this debacle in Due West? Is it because we have sinned with a high hand? Most ministers in the ARP Church will not officiate at a wedding if one of the couple is a Christian and the other is not. We call this being “unequally yoked,” and we will quote numerous texts from the Bible why this is both sin for the couple and the officiating minister. How is it we see this so clearly, and how is it we have missed it in setting up the Erskine board? The problem on the Erskine board is a collision of competing world views – one Christian and the other secular or non-Christian. Why do we expect Erskine College and Seminary to reflect evangelical Christianity when half of the trustees are uncomfortable with and not committed to the evangelical Christian faith of the ARP Church? Why are we silent on this? Why have we not rectified this? Has this sin so deluded us we are now embracing the infamy of judgment as a blessing?

“Moving forward” is one of President Norman’s favorite phrases. The wreck of Erskine is not going forward built on the “sand” of an unequally yoked board. The efforts of those who desire the reformation of Erskine into a decidedly and distinctively evangelical Christian college are going to fail for they are attempting to build on a foundation of sand (Matthew 7:24-29).

What is God doing in all of this? A minister in another denomination who is familiar with Erskine recently observed:

It’s passing strange that intelligent people miss the obvious implications of distancing the college and seminary from its historic constituency and financial base. It brings that one Jeremiah text [Jeremiah 34:17] to mind. “We want our freedom . . . from the ARP! We want to be free from ‘denominational interference’ and accountability to some old Fundies!” God says, “I declare to you ‘freedom’ to decline, to go bankrupt, to wander in a dry wasteland of modernity and unbelief.”

What is this sound of silence we hear? Has God now given Erskine the freedom to wither, to go broke, to sink into insignificance, and finally to become only a heartbreaking memory? Is this the Romans 1:21-28 principle in action? Is He handing Erskine over to delusion, judgment, and destruction? Is God removing Erskine from our sight?

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

The following publicly available information is provided by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) concerning the accreditation of Erskine College. Information presented below is in accord with the Commission’s disclosure policy; staff of the Commission cannot comment further on questions specifically related to Erskine College. The institution has reviewed this statement prior to public posting.

Action by the Board of Trustees of SACS Commission on Colleges took place on December 10, 2012, and the institution’s next review is December 2013.

WHAT IS THE ACCREDITATION STATUS OF ERSKINE COLLEGE? Erskine College is accredited by SACS Commission on Colleges; however, the institution was denied reaffirmation of accreditation and placed on Warning for 12 months following its comprehensive decennial review. Prior to the institution’s next review by the Commission in December 2013, a Special Committee will conduct an on-site evaluation of its compliance with the Principles of Accreditation—the accreditation standards of the Commission. The Commission’s accreditation includes all components of the institution—all programs, branch campuses, off-campus sites, and distance learning programs as reported to the Commission; thus, the Warning status applies to the entire institution.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE DENIED REAFFIRMATION AND PLACED ON WARNING? Warning imposed by the Commission’s Board of Trustees at the time of an institution’s comprehensive decennial review follows a determination of significant non-compliance with the Core Requirements, Comprehensive Standards, or the Federal Requirements of the Principles of Accreditation of the Commission; failure to make timely and significant progress toward correcting the deficiencies that led to the finding of noncompliance; or failure to comply with Commission policies and procedures. The maximum total time during one monitoring period that an institution may be on Warning is two years. In December 2013, Erskine College will have been on Warning for 12 months. For additional information about sanctions, see the Commission’s policy entitled “Sanctions, Denial of Reaffirmation, and Removal from Membership” that can be accessed at http://www.sacscoc.org/policies.asp.

WHY WAS ERSKINE COLLEGE DENIED REAFFIRMATION OF ACCREDITATION AND PLACED ON WARNING? Erskine College was denied reaffirmation of accreditation and placed on Warning because the SACSCOC Board of Trustees determined that, at the time of the institution’s decennial review, it had failed to demonstrate compliance with Core Requirement 2.5 (Institutional effectiveness), Comprehensive Standard 3.2.10 (Administrative staff evaluations), Comprehensive Standard 3.2.13 (Institution-related entities), Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.1 (Institutional effectiveness: educational programs), Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.2 (Institutional effectiveness: administrative support services), Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.3 (Institutional effectiveness: academic and student support services), Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.5 (Institutional effectiveness: community/public service), Comprehensive Standard 3.3.2 (Quality enhancement plan), Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1 (General education competencies), Comprehensive Standard 3.5.4 (Terminal degrees of faculty), Comprehensive Standard 3.7.2 (Faculty evaluation), and Comprehensive Standard 3.12.1 (Substantive change) of the Principles of Accreditation. The cited standards expect an accredited institution to provide evidence that it (1) engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research based planning and evaluation processes, (2) identifies outcomes, assesses their achievement, and uses results for improvement, (3) has sufficient terminally qualified faculty, (4) evaluates faculty and administrators, (5) identifies general education competencies and their attainment, and (6) reports substantive changes requiring approval. (To read the full statements for the standards cited above, access the Principles of Accreditation at http://www.sacscoc.org/principles.asp.)

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN DECEMBER 2013? The SACSCOC Board of Trustees will consider the accreditation status of Erskine College following review of a First Monitoring Report submitted by the institution addressing the standards cited above for noncompliance and the report of the Special Committee that will visit the institution in fall 2013. The Board will have the following options: (1) reaffirm accreditation and remove the institution from Warning, without an additional report or with a Fifth-Year Follow Up Report; (2) deny reaffirmation of accreditation, continue accreditation, continue Warning and request an additional report; (3) deny reaffirmation of accreditation, continue accreditation, continue Warning or place the institution on Probation, authorize a Special Committee, and request an additional report; and (4) remove the institution from membership with the Commission on Colleges. Commission staff will not speculate on what decision might be made by the Commission’s Board in December 2013.

For additional information regarding the Commission’s accreditation process, access the Principles of Accreditation (http://www.sacscoc.org/principles.asp).

Share This:

Editor’s Note: The sermon below is by the Reverend Vincent S. Alig. A former missionary, church planter, and pastor in the PC(USA). Mr. Alig lives on the mountain side of Walhalla where, along with his wife and numerous friends and supporters, he is endeavoring to establish an evangelical retreat and study center. Mr. Alig preached this sermon on January 20, 2013, Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, at the Richland Presbyterian Church, Richland, SC. The Scriptures read were Proverbs 3:5-8 and Romans 13:8-10. If you are interested, Mr. Alig has written a book about his interesting life. More information may be found at http://www.vincentstevenalig.com.

I had finally saved up $400.00 in my work at the Eisner grocery store. Now, at last I could buy David Walmsley’s bright yellow 1974 MX 100. He was going to buy a new 1975 Honda 125 Elsinore, so he needed to sell the Yamaha. I was thrilled to take home my first full-fledged motocross bike on that autumn afternoon.

I took the bike into my garage and went over it from stem to stern to make sure it was ready to ride. It was in beautiful condition and I couldn’t wait to get it out to the track for my first ride at the end of the month.

A few days later, David Walmsley stopped by. He was still waiting to buy his Elsinore, and asked if he could just take one last spin up the street on his old MX 100. I couldn’t see any harm in that. If anybody knew how to ride that Yamaha, it should be her former owner. So I handed the handlebars over to Walmsley.

He took off down the street like a scalded bat. I cringed as I listened to him straining the engine out past the redline through first gear, second gear, third gear, and fourth. Then when he finally shifted into fifth, he was still holding the throttle wide open. I heard the engine whine at a higher and higher pitch as the MX 100 became a smaller and smaller yellow blur at the other end of Green Leaves Road. Suddenly everything was silent.

I ran down the street with my buddies Steven and Thomas to find Walmsley trying to kick start the silent Yamaha. Only the kick starter wouldn’t move. The kick starter couldn’t move because David Walmsley had held the throttle wide-open too long. His frenzy for more and more speed had strained the engine beyond the limits of its tolerances. The piston seized solid against the cylinder wall and the rod bearings burnt out. The MX 100 was history. She wasn’t going to go anywhere without a couple hundred dollars worth of complete engine re-building.

I learned a couple of lessons that day. The first one was that former owners do not take as much care of their former possessions as current owners do. The second lesson was that it is very important to understand the limits of tolerance.

Understanding the limits of tolerance in an engine is of the utmost importance for the reaching of any performance goals. The tolerance is that crucial distance which must be maintained between the metal piston and the metal cylinder wall to enable the piston to continue to move up and down so that the engine can produce maximum power.

If the tolerance distances become too small (as when the piston expands too much as the engine overheats), the engine will seize solid as the piston gets so tight as to get stuck in the cylinder. If the tolerance distances become too great (as when the piston gets worn out from the abrasive effect of dirt in the engine), the engine won’t even be able to start because there won’t be enough compression of the fuel and air in the engine for the ignition to work. But if the engine is built and maintained within the limits of tolerance, then engine will run at peak performance and will be able to propel you all the way to the ends of the earth if you want.

In my last year at Tweed Coast Parish of the Uniting Church in Australia, I was thrilled when a senior from Tweed River High School phoned me. I was thrilled to get this phone call because this student wanted to interview me as part of her research for a senior thesis paper on the relevance of Christianity to life in the 21st century. Her central question to me was this: “Are the Ten Commandments relevant to the future of the world?” I wish that every high school student were seriously asking this question.

Such a question would have been unheard-of in previous generations. On this Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, let us remember that this is an all-important life-or-death question for the world in the 21st century.

If it isn’t such an important question, why did the ACLU go to such great lengths to disbar and punish Alabama Judge Roy Moore or anybody else who refused to remove the Ten Commandments from the wall of his public courtroom or the lawn of the public park a few years ago?

The relevance of the Ten Commandments is greater than ever. Yet, how many of us can even remember what the Ten Commandments are? When was the last time any of us took a good look at them to meditate on their wisdom? America’s love affair with unlimited tolerance has replaced any consciousness of the eternal limits of tolerance.

Unlimited tolerance (or multiculturalism) is “in” (says youth worker Bob Hostetler). It has become the sole virtue of our culture, and intolerance the sole vice.

…Today there is a “new unlimited tolerance,” [also known as multiculturalism] which means to consider every individual’s beliefs, values, lifestyle, and truth claims as equally valid. So not only does everyone have an equal right to his or her beliefs, but all beliefs are equally true.

Today’s unlimited tolerance goes beyond respecting others’ rights … to praise and endorse everyone’s beliefs, values, and lifestyle.

….If you say, “Jesus is the only way to salvation,” you’ll be branded as intolerant because unlimited tolerance today means to consider everyone’s belief as equally true.

….[But] Christians are subject to a much higher law than the new popular doctrine of unlimited tolerance. We follow the example of Christ, who out of His perfect love accepted Samaritans and Phoenicians and treated even tax collectors and prostitutes with dignity [but who also because of His perfect love commanded them all to “sin no more.”]1

There is a deep underlying pseudo-scientific worldview which has given rise to this exaltation of unlimited tolerance (multiculturalism) as the one rule to which all of life must be subject. The popular pseudo-scientific presupposition is that everything and everyone we see around us is the product of a random process of unpredictable events over billions of years. The world exists by the chance combination of events and reactions. As does all of the organic and inorganic matter on earth. Everything and everyone is simply the latest evolutionary version resulting from billions of years of random interactions. How dare anyone so randomly produced presume to elevate any one belief system or philosophy over another?

God has a different worldview. God’s worldview is from the vantage point of the sovereign Creator of everything that is. God’s worldview answers the scientific vision of the random universe with the Living Word of His life-creating order. The Ten Commandments of the Old Covenant are vitally relevant. The Ten Commandments form the bedrock of the universal limits of tolerance which have been completely fulfilled by the New Covenant order which God revealed to us in the appearing of Jesus Christ.

The Good News which God reveals to us in Christ is there are real limits of tolerance which He designed into creation for our well-being and joy. God’s limits of tolerance are the radically liberating limits of love. As God says to us in His word from the letter to the Romans:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love you neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Romans 13:8-10)

The limits of love clearly delineate the deadliness of self-centered sin. God’s limits of love lead us all the way to an unrestricted life of boundless joy and peace now and forever. The more you think about it and the more you live it, the more you realize how wide-open God’s worldview really is in the laboratory of this life.

The amazing irony of the new unlimited tolerance is that the actual scientific worldview it claims to be based on is really a very narrow-minded system in its own rules and laws. As Billy Graham put it:

….There is no room for careless broad-mindedness in the laboratory. Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level. It is never 100 degrees or 189 degrees, but always 212. Water freezes at 32 degrees; it is never 23 degrees or 31. Objects heavier than air always are attracted to the center of the earth. They always go down, never up.

I know this is very narrow, but the Law of Gravity decrees it so, and science is very narrow. Mathematics is also very narrow-minded. The sum of two plus two is four, never three and a half. That seems very narrow, but arithmetic is not broad-minded. Geometry is also narrow-minded. It says that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points on a plane. That seems very dogmatic and narrow-minded, but geometry is intolerant.

… If you should ask a woman the directions to New York City and she said, ‘Oh, just take any road you wish, they all lead there,’ you would question either her sanity or her truthfulness. Nevertheless, the new tolerance has chanted the mantra that all roads lead to heaven, and we have behaved as if we believe it.

….But Jesus Christ, Who journeyed from heaven to earth and back to heaven again, Who knew the way better than anyone who ever lived, said, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. But narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14)2

The Christian imperative goes beyond tolerance, which simply avoids offending someone else. We Christians are commanded to “do everything in love.” (1 Corinthians 16:14 NIV). We are commanded to love, to actively seek to promote the life and good of others.”

Unlimited tolerance says, ‘You must approve of what I do.’

Love responds, “I must do something harder. I will treat you respectfully even when your behavior offends me.”

Unlimited tolerance says, “You must agree with me.”

Love responds, “I must do something harder. I will tell you the truth, because I believe that the truth will set you free.”

Unlimited tolerance says, “’You must let me have my way.’

Love responds, “I must do something harder. I will plead with you to follow God’s way, even if you get angry or say unkind things about me, because I believe you are worth the risk.”3

The limits of tolerance as outlined by God are the limits of love. The limits of love are costly, but more than worth the cost if we are to grow up all the way to the heights of God’s abundant life for us in Christ.

Suppose that a kite could think for itself. It might say, “Here I am high in the wind [on top of Stone Mountain] … and I feel the powerful lift of the wind, but I also feel an equally strong pull toward the ground from this string attached to my center and held tightly by that small child.

“This whole arrangement is wrong,” thinks the kite. “The so-called kite flyer on the ground is holding me down with that string. If it weren’t for that string to which I am cruelly tied, I could really fly. I know it because I can feel the power of the wind trying to push me higher, but the flyer on the ground holds me down. I know. I’ll secretly bring a pair of scissors on the next flight and then watch me soar!”

The rest of the story is the sad tale of the mysterious break in the string, the sudden jolts and then the tailspin fall to the crash on the earth. Something which the kite did not know is the aerodynamic [ limits of tolerance]. It was the tight connection of string and kite and the flyer on the earth that made kite flying a possibility in the first place.

It seemed logical to the kite, on the basis of the feelings of wind pressure and downward tug, that the youngster on the ground was hindering the kite. But these feelings were not a true or accurate readout of the total situation. The kite needed the ground based flyer even though the string put the kite itself under strain. The strain was a good strain, the tension was a good tension.

It is a fact about human life that we function best and are freest to reach our greatest potential when we trust the truth and keep connected to the truth. This is true in sports events, in science, and it is true spiritually as well. The connection many times creates intense strain upon us, but the strain is basic to living and it is the strain that creates growth.

God’s limits of tolerance hold us accountable to love like the string on the kite. It is the connection that makes the flight upward possible.4

Jesus Christ clearly pointed out the limits of tolerance on the way to salvation.

He plainly pointed out there are two roads in life. One is broad- the one lacking in faith, convictions, and morals. It is the easy, popular, supposedly-careless way. It is the way of the crowd, the way of the majority, the way of the world. Jesus said, “There are many who go by it.”

But Jesus also pointed out this road, easy though it seems to be, popular though it is, leads to destruction. So in loving, compassionate intolerance, He says, “Enter by the narrow gate….because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life.”

Christ was so intolerant of our lost estate He left His lofty throne in heaven, took on Himself the form of a human being, suffered at the hands of evil men and died on a cruel cross of shame to purchase our redemption. So serious was our plight He could not look upon it lightly. With the love that was His, He could not be broad-minded about a world held captive by its lusts, its appetites, and its sins.

Having paid such a fabulous price, He could not be tolerant about women and men’s indifference toward Him and the redemption He won. He said, “He who is not with Me is against Me.” (Matthew 12:30) And He also said, “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3:36)

Christ spoke of two roads, two kingdoms, two masters, two rewards, and two eternities. He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6)

The limits of tolerance are clear. We have the power to choose whom we will serve. The alternative to choosing Christ brings certain destruction. Christ said that! Only the way of the Cross leads home.5

The new unlimited tolerance of multiculturalism tries to be inoffensive. The love of Jesus takes risks. The new unlimited tolerance glorifies relativism. The love of Jesus reveals absolute truth. The new unlimited tolerance costs nothing. The love of Jesus costs everything.

Jesus doesn’t call us to be tolerant. He commands us to love. Only when we selflessly and sacrificially do that will the world see the “more excellent” alternative to the new unlimited tolerance.6

Not even Charles Darwin really believed in the random universe of evolution. As he lay on his deathbed, he lamented aloud at how impossible it would be to fill in all the missing links in his theory.

This is not a random universe. We are all the beautiful handiwork of the Creative Genius who knit us together in the sanctuary of our mothers’ wombs. We are the sacred creatures of the God of all love and goodness. God has revealed His created order to us on Mt. Sinai. He has even shown us the Way to fulfill His Ten Commandments in the love of Jesus Christ. We can see the eternal limits of tolerance in the cross of our Lord.

The world’s problems will never be solved until the question of sin is settled. And the cross is God’s answer to sin. To all who receive the blessed news of salvation through Christ, it crosses out – cancels forever–sin’s power.7

Live in the freedom of God’s love, so that the world may know the life-giving limits of tolerance which have been revealed to all of us on the cross of the King of Kings.

AMEN

ENDNOTES

1. Hostetler, Bob, “Ministering Amidst the New Tolerance,” Plugged In youthworkers’ newsletter, USA, Feb. 1999.
2. Graham, Billy, “The Sin of Tolerance,” sermon published by B.G.E.A., PO Box 779, Minneapolis, MN 55440
3. IBID note 1.
4. Palmer, Earl, A Faith That Works, Regal, USA, 1980, pp. 76-77.
5. IBID note 2.
6. IBID note 1.
7. IBID note 2.

Share This:

SACS Report

Erskine Cited for TWELVE Violations

Erskine Placed on WARNING

Below is the evaluation of Erskine College and Seminary by SACS (December 10, 2012):

The Commission denied reaffirmation, continued accreditation, and placed . . . on Warning: Erskine College, Due West, South Carolina [f]or twelve months for failure to comply with Core Requirement 2.5 (Institutional effectiveness), Comprehensive Standard 3.2.10 (Administrative staff evaluations), Comprehensive Standard 3.2.13 (Institution‐related entities), Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.1 (Institutional effectiveness: educational programs), Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.2 (Institutional effectiveness: administrative support services), Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.3 (Institutional effectiveness: academic and student support services), Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.5 (Institutional effectiveness: community/public service), Comprehensive Standard 3.3.2 (Quality enhancement plan), Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1 (General education competencies), Comprehensive Standard 3.5.4 (Terminal degrees of faculty), Comprehensive Standard 3.7.2 (Faculty evaluation), and Comprehensive Standard 3.12.1 (Substantive change) of the Principles of Accreditation.

In other words, Erskine was audited and “failed.” SACS commissioners “denied reaffirmation, continued accreditation, and placed [Erskine] on Warning.” The full text of the report may be read in PDF format HERE. See pages 5 and 6 for the part relevant to Erskine. Explanations of citations are found on the SACS website.

According to e-mails and other communications from President David Norman, the items cited by SACS are rather insignificant and easily corrected by the September 2013 deadline.

There are 12 violations cited by SACS. According to individuals I have spoken with in higher education, this is a staggering indictment of Erskine’s leadership and indicative of systemic administrative failure, and the September deadline cannot be met. However, according to those I spoke with, if progress is apparent, leniency will be shown and more time granted by SACS for remediation.

The following is what will happen if Erskine fails to comply with SACS’ instructions:

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN DECEMBER 2013? The SACSCOC Board of Trustees will consider the accreditation status of Erskine College following review of a First Monitoring Report submitted by the institution addressing the standards cited above for noncompliance and the report of the Special Committee that will visit the institution in fall 2013. The Board will have the following options: (1) reaffirm accreditation and remove the institution from Warning, without an additional report or with a Fifth-Year Follow Up Report; (2) deny reaffirmation of accreditation, continue accreditation, continue Warning and request an additional report; (3) deny reaffirmation of accreditation, continue accreditation, continue Warning or place the institution on Probation, authorize a Special Committee, and request an additional report; and (4) remove the institution from membership with the Commission on Colleges. Commission staff will not speculate on what decision might be made by the Commission’s Board in December 2013. [from a publicly available document provided by SACSCOC]

As to be expected, FACEBOOK sites lit up. On the Alumni for Erskine site, Ms. AS Bowen posted the following insightful and informative comments:

Having been on almost a dozen SACS committes [sic] for 10yr and mid cycle evaluations of schools, I know for a fact that when something came up short (like the details/progress mentioned in the letter), the committee gave the school the opportunity at the time of their week long visit to produce said items. To still be in the final report as a “does not meet” indicates these things do not exist like they should.

I also know that there are volumes of instructions provided literally years in advance of this 10yr visit to aid the school in doing what needs to be done and documenting it appropriately. . . .

That is a REALLY long list. I don’t know that I have ever been on a visiting committee where we indicated more -maybe 5- failure to comply statements. . . .

And while some of these standards may be a bit esoteric, there are some that are so straightforward and easy to achieve that heads should role [sic] for letting them go unmet.

Outspoken Erskine student Mr. Eric Goodwin nearly had a meltdown:

This is no more than the official recognition of what has been reality on Erskine’s campus for several years now. From the administration to the students, talk is abundant and action is rare. It is the Erskine disease: bullshit to cover laziness. Some of you know it best as THRIVE, but it is everywhere: even the Euphies. At some point I guess it catches up to you – SACS finally got us.

In spite of Erskine’s longstanding and continuing conflict with the ARP Church, Erskine WAS NOT cited by SACS for a GOVERNANCE noncompliance. The 12 citations primarily involve the administration of Erskine as an educational institution. In spite of the scare tactics by the secular alums the past two years, decrying the ARP Church’s attempts to regain control over Erskine, the SACS commissioners did not note undue influence by the ARP Church as a citation.

For those of us who were present at the 2010 “Snow” Synod, who read the Moderator’s Commission’s Report, and who have been following Erskine’s rebellious decline over the past two years, we are not surprise by SACS’s “warning.” We have been predicting it. We have been expecting it.

At the 2010 “Snow” Synod, Mr. Ken Wingate, a member of and spokesman for the Moderator’s Commission and the Chairman of the SC Commission on Higher Education, warned a thorough audit by SACS would have dire consequences for Erskine. He said, “You have a problem of systemic failure as an institution due to board and administrative failure.” The response of the secular alums, the secular trustees, and the incompetent administration of then President Rand Ruble was a spin campaign of attack. They said Mr. Wingate and the other members of the Moderator’s Commission were “wrong”; they charged the Moderator’s Commissioners had “made it all up” and were “mean and “power hungry.” Are these things now being said of SACS?

I wonder what former board chairman, Mr. Scott Mitchell, who filed legal action against the General Synod is saying now? I wonder what former President Randy Ruble, a former SACS auditor, the man who appointed as Academic Dean a coach known far and wide for his work as an “Advisor for The Jump Rope Institute,” and who bears considerable responsibility for this accreditation debacle, is saying now? I wonder what former trustees David Chesnut and Parker Young and current trustee Richard Taylor who joined in filing legal action against the ARP Church are saying now? I wonder what anti-ARP Church trustees Nan Campbell, Lisa Senn, Crosland Stuart, and others are saying now? I wonder what Chairman (and ARP Elder) David Conner and trustee (and ARP Minister and former General Synod Moderator) Andy Putnam who have worked assiduously to write the ARP Church out of the bylaws are saying? I WONDER IF THEY ARE SAYING SACS IS NOW EXERCISING UNDUE INFLUENCE!?

Even more importantly, I wonder what prospective students and donors are saying right now. Erskine’s accreditation is now under a dark and ominous cloud, and will be for a number of years at least! Both student recruitment and efforts to raise needed funds for an institution already on the financial brink will undoubtedly be severely hurt.

Well, I know what I am saying: THE 2010 MODERATOR’S COMMISSION WAS RIGHT! All the warnings of the Moderator’s Commission are now checked off!

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

Share This:

Well, it’s the Christmas Season again. Erlene loves all things Christmas, and, somehow, her delight in Christmas has transformed her husband, a recovering Grinch, into a Christmas-lover.

As part of our Christmas festivities – and no Christmas celebration is complete apart from this, we watch Miracle on 34th Street. Now, I’m not talking about one of the remakes of the film; I mean the original, 1947 movie staring Maureen O’Hara, John Payne, and little Natalie Wood. All other productions are not certified for “Christmas-festivities-to-be-done-so-that-Christmas-can-be-celebrated-righteously-at-the-Wilsons.” And if you disagree with this, you’ll have to take it up with my wife. I only know what I’m told.

Truly, Miracle on 34th Street delights and warms the soul. If nothing else, it reminds us of a simpler time. It reminds me of my childhood. I can actually remember the first time I saw the movie. I remember watching my daddy smile.

However, like so many things connected to Christmas, the story of Miracle on 34th Street is wishful storytelling. All the wishing and hoping in all the world won’t make Santa Claus real. There is no miracle in Miracle on 34th Street; it’s just a good story. It’s a part of the secular demythologizing of Christmas by those whose only connection to the Christian faith is anemic and vapid baggage inherited from those whose faith was authentic and passionate. These, having abandoned Christian truths, prize sentimentalism over the Biblical story and have no place for a miracle apart from a warm, fictitious tale for children.

The Biblical story of Christmas is an abomination and offense to those who know not our Lord Jesus Christ and look for his coming again. They want celebration without Jesus. It’s kind of like the Japanese celebration of Christmas: a truly secular season with Santa, decorated trees, and gifts but no “God-in-the-the-flesh,” no Incarnation, no Messiah, no salvation, and no miracle.

Nevertheless, the story of Christmas is the story of a MIRACLE – the miracle of the Virgin Birth of Jesus. “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (KJV, Isa. 7:14; also see Matt. 1:23).

Actually, miracles in the Bible are rather uncommon. Miracles in the Bible don’t occur willy nilly but in order to attest, verify, and direct our attention to the mighty acts of God’s salvation and judgment. Two examples of this are: (1) the miracle of the Flood in which God saved Noah and his family but judged a wicked and unbelieving world; and (2) the miracle of the Ten Plagues in which God delivered the Children of Israel out of slavery in Egypt but plundered and desolated the Egyptians in terrible judgment.

Though Jesus condemned the cynics, skeptics, and unbelieving for asking for miraculous signs (Matt. 12:39), “signs and wonders” were a hallmark of the life and ministry of Jesus to the point it is impossible to read the Gospel accounts without running headfirst into a miracle. “Signs and wonders” accompanied the preaching of the members of the infant Church (Acts 4:30 and 5:12), and the ministry of the Apostle Paul was also authenticated by “signs and wonders” (Acts 14:3, Rom. 15:19; and 2 Cor. 12:12). Indeed, according to Hebrews 2.4, “signs and wonders” confirm the message of the New Testament, and “we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things” found in “the message” lest “we neglect so great salvation” (KJV, Heb. 2:1 and Heb 2:3).

The Virgin Birth is an offense of stumbling to many. “I will not believe unless I can examine and understand” is the curt boast of the skeptic. The atheist announces: “There are no miracles; there is no Virgin Birth.” Bill and Wanda I-Work-Hard-Everyday-and-Don’t-Have-Time-to-Worry-about-Religious-Stuff say: “Thank goodness for the Christmas season because we get a day off; we’ll have a Jack and Coke to get us in the Christmas mood – make it a double, please.”

In spite of the shrill voices we hear debunking Christmas and the shameless commercialization of greedy profiteers, Christmas still points to a young woman and an angel announcing she will have a baby because “the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God,” and you shall “call his name JESUS” (KJV, Luke 2:35 and Luke 2:31).

Augustine and Anselm are regarded as Church Fathers. Their intellectual abilities and accomplishments are astounding. To guide their studies, both men had as their maxim these words: “I believe in order to understand.” Before them, however, there was Mary who stepped into this paradigm of faith. Not comprehending the hows or whys of the miracle encompassing and gripping her life, she replied in faith, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word” (KJV, Luke 1:38).

Once again the gladsome message of prophets and angels is heard in the black, velvety evening sky proclaiming a miracle: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive.” For those whose ears have been opened by the Holy Spirit to hear and believe, it is the great message of the miracle of the birth of the Savior. For those whose ears are closed in unbelief, it is just a thunderous sound signifying nothing – no miracle at all!

Is your celebration of Christmas like Miracle on 34th Street – an escape into faithless fantasy? You know, there is another way!? It’s the way of faith. It’s the way of believing to understand. It’s the way of an angel announcing a MIRACLE: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive.” It’s the way of Mary’s FAITH: “Be it unto me according to thy word.”

Merry Christmas,

Charles W. Wilson

Share This:

The news coming out of Dallas at the meeting of SACS is calamitous for Erskine College. Erskine’s accreditation has not been renewed! However, the news coming off the obituary page  is more positive, for Erskine if not for the deceased. I am told Erskine administrators in Belk Hall can be heard humming “Praise God for timely departures!”

1. Dallas

On Tuesday, December 11, while attending the meeting of SACS in Dallas, TX, President David Norman wrote the following in an e-mail to board and faculty members: “I regret to bring you some disappointing news from Dallas, where I am attending the annual SACS meeting. I don’t have details yet, but I was just informed that the SACS commission met last night and decided to continue our accreditation without re-affirming for the next twelve months.”

According to President Norman, “the reason for the surprisingly disappointing action was Core Requirement 2.5, which reads”:

The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that (1) incorporate a systematic review of institutional mission, goals, and outcomes; (2) result in continuing improvement in institutional quality; and (3) demonstrate the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission. (Institutional Effectiveness)

Dr. Norman added:

“It was because we had known deficiencies regarding this Core Requirement that we expedited our strategic planning process last year.”

The story coming out of InsideHigherEd confirms this. The InsideHigherEd article reports Erskine has been put back on “warning status.” One thing is for certain: this is the recruiting season, and this news bodes ill for those bedraggled employees attempting to recruit students for next Fall’s freshman class.

Interestingly, as bad as the financial situation is at Erskine Seminary, ETS passed the ATS audit this year with flying colors. But the Erskine personnel preparing for the ATS audit were more experienced. Were they also more competent? Why were they not enlisted to help with the SACS audit?

Notice, one, the reason for the continuance of SACS’ “warning” status has nothing to do with Erskine’s longstanding conflict with the ARP Church. The reason is the administrative incompetence by two Erskine Presidents: Randy Ruble and David Norman.

At the 2010 “Snow Synod,” the members of the Moderator’s Commission warned General Synod of possible systemic failure at Erskine in the areas of finance and academic administration. In spite of loud nay-saying by Erskine administrators, board members, and others who claimed the warning of the Moderator’s Committee was alarmist rhetoric, all were warned Erskine was “at risk” in these areas. Clearly, a recent audit by an independent financial agency warns that significant fund raising must be accomplished now. The red warning flags are flying high. This time, however, the warning does not come from a Moderator’s Committee but from an independent financial agency. Even Ms. Nan Campbell, the voice of the so-called Alumni Association, acknowledges the legitimacy of the warning of dire consequences of the independent audit.

The genesis of the warning by SACS comes from the administration of former President Randy Ruble. He failed to prepare the college for the impending audit by SACS. One of the priorities of a college president is to make sure the college is prepared to deal with the periodic audits by the accrediting agencies. Because of the extensive nature of these audits, preparation has to be an ongoing process. It seems President Ruble’s way of preparing for the inevitable was to appoint Coach Gid Alston as Vice President and Academic Dean to deal with the matter while Dr. Ruble sat in his office in somnolent indifference. In other words, knowing he was about to retire and the audit would not occur during his watch, he kicked the can down the road.

Notice, two, the culmination of this disaster is the presidency of David Norman. As a young man with no extensive experience in running an academic institution, Dr. Norman’s first real job (not counting a brief stint with the small Trinity Forum) is the Presidency of Erskine College and Seminary. Only with the Erskine board and in Due West is such a fool thing possible!

The new and inexperienced President then appoints Dr. Brad Christie as Vice President and Academic Dean. It was touted Dr. Christie had the experience to deal with accreditation issues. Well, what happened to the experience?

According to Dr. Norman, the fracture line is in the strategic plan (a draft copy can be viewed here). For those who have read the strategic plan, they are not shocked by the news coming out of Dallas. Indeed, when the Editor read the document his response was: “Where’s the plan?”

Collectively, Dr. Norman and the members of his administration have failed College Administration 101. SACS has given them a failing grade. It is remediation time. Dr. Norman and the members of his administration will now have until this September to take College Administration 100 for “no credit”.

Dr. Norman has assured us he is omni-competent. When he was introduced before Synod, we were informed he went through his Ph.D. program at the University of Edinburgh “on the fast track.” Now he and his brain trust will have to slow down. They will have to learn academic leadership involves attention to hard reality, rather than arcane philosophical-theology speculations about whether the human soul can have conscious existence apart from the physical body. Accrediting agencies expect educational institutions to present a vision for the future, coherent strategic planning on how to get there, and detailed assessment of plans and programs. Has Dr. Norman’s administration provided this? Have Dr. Norman and his brain trust failed their own “thriving” and “flourishing” tests?

Without a doubt, the Editor has been harsh on Dr. Norman; however, let us not overlook Dr. Randy Ruble’s “ineptocracy.” His focus on his second retirement and his ethereal portrait in the Founders’ Room, and his failure to attend to business made success for President Norman highly unlikely. Also, the unwillingness and inability of successive boards to deal with this matter spotlights the fiduciary feckless ineptitude of trustees during and since the presidency of Randy Ruble.

2. Death

As reported in the first paragraph of this article, the obituary page of the Greenville News Online reported the death of Mr. Clarence Jan Westmoreland on November 8, 2012. Mr. Westmoreland was a graduate of Erskine College. After he retired from advertising and public relations with Pfizer Pharmaceuticals in 1993, he became active in the Erskine Alumni Association, even serving as President. He established the Westmoreland Performing Artist Program at Erskine. According to his obituary, he is survived by a sister, a niece and her husband, their children, numerous cousins, and “his partner of 33 years, ________ [male name deleted by Editor].” It is also reported Mr. Westmoreland has left a large bequest in his will to Erskine.

Since 1977, the publicly stated position of the ARP Church on homosexual behavior is as follows:

For all conditions of men and women, the renewing grace and changing power of Jesus Christ are freely offered. To those enslaved in the bonds of any sinful practice or thought pattern, Jesus Christ can bring freedom and release.

Today, many seem to be caught in the web of homosexual practices and thought-patterns. In Christian love we declare that God’s Word clearly forbids homosexual practice as a sin against God. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ we affirm our obligation to show Christian love and concern for homosexuals, and call them to repentance, cleansing, and deliverance in the saving power of Jesus Christ.

Erskine presidents, administrators, faculty members, and board members are bold to prate about their Christian faith. It is said presidents, administrators, board members, and faculty members have been asked if they can affirm the evangelical faith of the ARP Church, and they have so affirmed. However, this seems to be all talk and no substance. It seems we speak AT one another about two completely different formulizations of the word “Christian” which are as incompatible as Christ and the devil. Indeed, as President of the Erskine Alumni Association, Mr. Westmoreland served on the Erskine board. Did our position on homosexual behavior not precede his service by years? Did our position on homosexuality not preclude him from service on the Erskine board? Was he asked to affirm our belief system? Was he vetted as to his beliefs and practices? Did the president not know? Did the chairman of the board not know? Was a blind eye turned?

Erskine administrators and trustees have gladly received monies for an art program from one whose lifestyle is in conflict with the church Erskine is supposed to represent. Now, the President and trustees are excitedly anticipating receiving monies from the estate of one whose homosexual lifestyle is directly in conflict with the position of the ARP Church – whose view is the consensus of historic Christianity. This is not a question of what liberal American churchianity believes or tolerates. At stake is the Christian integrity of both the ARP Church and Erskine College and Seminary which is the ARP Church in higher education.

In the 1950s, a tobacco company offered to make a substantial donation to a Fundamentalist Baptist college. The spokesman for the company said he understood the position of the college prohibited all tobacco use; however, the gift could be given anonymously and with NO strings. According to the president at the time, the offer was eye-popping. The college needed the money. The president and the members of the board were greatly tempted to take the offer. Nevertheless, the gift was refused. The president of the college said: “We would have become a bunch of hypocrites if we had taken the money.” They held smoking to be sinful and incompatible with a Christian lifestyle. They valued their beliefs. They valued their integrity. They chose to trust in God who gives wealth. Today this college is prospering. The folks at Erskine trust in death from whom all blessings flow!

It seems integrity has long disappeared from the Erskine campus!

The Editor is aware his argument does not, as they say, “stand a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding.” Even many of you who normally agree with the Editor will part company here, saying, “Chuck, this is too far; this is impossible to police.” Well, whose money would you not receive? What are the boundaries of your integrity on this matter? Do the Fundamentalistic Baptists have more integrity than covenant confessing Presbyterians in the ARP Church? Are you of the cynical company of Ecclesiastes 10:19, “A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things [KJV]”? No wonder the ARP Church is pitiful, poor, and dying! No wonder Erskine College and Seminary is pitiful, poor, and dying! It can be said of us: “They trusted in money! And their god abandoned them!”

As the Editor said, he is aware his argument is going to fall mostly on deaf ears. He is aware accusations of intolerance are going to fall on him like rain. However, the Editor is reminded of the words of Psalm 119.32: “I will run the way of thy commandments.” What is the way in which the folks at Erskine run? Whatever it is, it has sent them leanness of soul and purse!

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

Share This:

Have you read Psalm 119:60? The Psalmist writes: “I will HASTEN [author’s emphasis] and not delay to obey your commands” (NIV). A corresponding New Testament text is James 4.17: “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (ESV). When we in the ARP Church are confronted with the history of Erskine, what do we say? Have we hastened to obey God? Knowing the “right thing,” have we attempted to do it? We are very familiar with Erskine College and Seminary’s story of infidelity which sadly stretches back for more than 40 years. We read the disingenuous and obfuscatory reports by Erskine administrators and board leaders to General Synod and to the ARP Church, and, in our sinful unwillingness to address their duplicity, we have become complicit in that dishonesty. We know Erskine Presidents have hired, countenanced, promoted, and protected “false teachers” on the faculty who have rejected and ridiculed the Christian faith and taught their students to do the same in the name of “critical thinking” and “academic freedom.” We are not unaware of the board’s MO in subverting the ARP Church’s efforts to reform Erskine College and Seminary into a distinctively Christian institution. With all this before us, we have shrugged our shoulders and looked away and sent them money to do it again. We have not hastened to deal with Erskine according to what the Bible clearly teaches regarding false teaching and deceit. We have made excuses. We have known what the “right thing” is, but we have ignored it. We pray and ask God’s blessing on the ARP Church and Erskine College and Seminary, and then we wonder why God has closed up the heavens to us! And we despair that God sends us not a blessing but a famine of the soul and empty pews!

Nevertheless, the foolishness of our disobedience and faithlessness continues. Like ancient Israel, we continue to walk in the ways of self-delusion! We do not seize the day and return to God in repentance and new obedience. Carpe diem is far from us.

1. Proposed Summit by the Parsimonious

Before the last two meetings of the board, Ms. Nan Campbell, the President of the Erskine College and Theological Seminary Alumni Association (EAA), on behalf of the EAA board, proposed

“trust and communications-building summits with leaders from the General Synod, Erskine’s Board, Administration, Faculty, and Alumni. . . .”

The Moderator of General Synod, Dr. Steve Suits, wisely refused to participate in this “Summit.” This call for a “Summit” is a FARCE. Ms. Campbell, as President of the EAA, is the President of NOTHING. The EAA is a non-organization. It is a loose connection of Erskine alums whose only identity is through Mr. “Buddy” Ferguson and his office as Director of Annual Fund and Alumni Affairs. Besides this, the Moderator of General Synod does not have the authority to do such a thing. He is not a “bishop”.

Unsatisfied with Dr. Suits’ answer, Erskine Board Chairman and ARP ruling elder David Conner took up Ms. Campbell’s cause and took it to the Executive Board of General Synod. Once again, the answer was “No!” The sort of forum proposed by the EAA is precisely what already exists: the Erskine Board of Trustees. Are Ms. Campbell and the alums of the EAA unhappy with the Erskine board? Or more likely, was their goofy proposal designed to put further pressure on the ARP Church?

A few weeks ago, I received in the mail the Erskine: 2011-12 Annual Report. One wonders if Ms. Campbell, the President of the EAA, has read and examined this financial statement. Did she notice only 18% of degreed college alums give to Erskine College? Did she notice only 6% of seminary alums give to Erskine Seminary? Did she notice only 13% of alums overall give? If Ms. Campbell wants to use her time wisely for the sake of Erskine rather than for blatantly political ends, the financial lovelessness on the part of the Erskine alums would be a prime target for her to consider. Indeed, one thing can be said about Erskine alums: they are a parsimonious lot! Given that some of these alums received a tuition-free education, they do not give back much to Erskine College and Seminary! Why do they have such disregard for Erskine? Therefore, how is it that Ms. Campbell and the EAA have the unmitigated gall to suggest a “Summit” or anything else?

It is also necessary to note that credit for any gift given by Erskine alums is claimed by Ms. Campbell and the EAA. That is misleading! There are many alumni who give to Erskine who hold the EAA and the direction they want for Erskine in disdain. I am one of those, and there are many others. I greatly resent their claim of credit for what I have given. Indeed, the notion of the EAA representing Erskine alums is a fiction. The highly politicized EAA represents the secular, anti-ARP Church segment of the alumni.

But wait, this story of arrogance and overreaching continues. Erskine board Chairman David Conner is not pleased with questions 6 and 7 in the “Doctrinal Commitment Questionnaire for Nominees.” Mr. Conner, a member of the Session of the Greenville ARP Church, was so bold as to ask the Executive Board of General Synod to overturn the action of General Synod. Well, this is to be expected from a lawyer who functions as a pettifogger on matters regarding the ARP Church.

The offending questions are as follows:

(6) If your commitment to any of the above stated doctrinal standards and commitments of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church change during the term of your service, will you notify the chair of your committee or board, and either demit your position, or submit to the process and internal bylaws of the committee or board of whom you are a member, as well as the higher authority of the Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, where it deems appropriate as the appointing body, in reassessing your term of service?

(7) If you are considered delinquent in your stated duties and/or doctrinal commitment as a committee or board member, will you submit to the processes and internal bylaws of the committee or board of whom you are a member, as well as the higher authority of the Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, where it deems appropriate as the appointing body, in reassessing your term of service?

Wisely, the Executive Committee of General Synod informed Chairman Conner and the Erskine board the Executive Committee of General Synod did not have the authority to overturn an action of General Synod. There was nothing else the Executive Board of General Synod could do.

What could be behind this request by Chairman Conner? In Chairman Conner’s letter, he wrote he was writing “on behalf of the Board of Trustees of Erskine College and Theological Seminary.” I have spoken with a number of trustees who say Chairman Conner WAS NOT writing in their behalf on this matter. Do you suppose these board members I spoke to were lying and misleading me? What are Mr. Conner, President Norman, and Ms. Campbell up to? If past actions are an indicator, you can be sure they are not up to doing the will of the ARP Church. The direction being charted by Mr. Conner and his ilk is now abundantly clear: they want an independent Erskine.

Why do we in the ARP Church not hasten to deal with these matters regarding Erskine College and Seminary? Do we not know what the “right thing” is? Why do we countenance such sleaziness in our midst? Do we not know that to know the right thing to do, and fail to do it is sin?

There are, however, those who know what the “right thing” is, how to do it, and also how to “hasten” in doing it. Inside Higher Ed is not a friend of Evangelical Christianity or our “Philosophy of Higher Christian Education”; however, their article on Shorter University chronicles that what we in the ARP Church desire for Erskine College and Seminary can be accomplished if we have the courage and perseverance to do it. At Shorter University, Evangelical reform has taken place, and, in spite of all the dire predictions by the “Chicken Little” liberals, Shorter University has not lost SACS accreditation. Also, notice that giving to the school has increased. Finally, how is it Southern Baptists demonstrate a higher and better ecclesiology in their dealings with educational institutions than does the ARP Church? Now that is ironic and humbling for us Presbyterians who pride ourselves on being “connectional”.

Well, someone is going to ask: “What will happen if we fail?” The answer is simple: NOTHING WORTH HAVING WILL BE LOST!

2. Trustee Changes

Now, with the resignations of Dr. Larry Nycum and Rev. Tim Watson from the Erskine board, there will be SEVEN (7) nominees for General Synod to appoint to the Erskine board this June. To say we are at a pivotal place in the life of the ARP Church and Erskine College and Seminary is a monumental understatement. If we are prepared to seize the day, NOW is the time for change. The deadlock on the board can be unlocked and reformation can begin.

At the last meeting of General Synod, Dr. Kyle Sims, Pastor of the Lancaster ARP Church and member of General Synod’s Committee on Nominations, boldly, clearly, passionately, and publicly declared he was for the reformation of Erskine College and Seminary. He asked for time. He said we should go about the process of reformation in an orderly fashion through the nominating process. He noted the majority of the Synod wanted to see Erskine transformed into an Evangelical Christian college and seminary faithfully honoring and implementing our “Philosophy of Christian Higher Education”.

Carpe diem! Indeed, the 2013 meeting of General Synod is the time for us to seize the day. The 2013 meeting of General Synod is the time for us to “hasten” to obey God. We know our sins: neglect of oversight and unwillingness to correct the problems at Erskine. We would much rather be well liked than effective or faithful. Will we have the faith, courage, and gumption to finally do “the right thing”? All it will take is the nomination of seven discerning and courageous Bible-believing and ARP Church-loving nominees by the Committee on Nomination and their appointment by the 2013 General Synod. We have bemoaned the deadlock. Now can the “right” and “middle” of the ARP Church join hands and do what more than 75% of us say we long for? Can we seize the day?

Carpe diem! How can we do it? One, we can “hasten” to do “the right thing” and vote to change the board; or, two, we set Erskine free from the ARP Church and let the institution go its way and reroute our resources to renewing the ARP Church. Both of these options are righteous. To continuing vacillating on this matter is flagrant sin.

These are my thoughts,

Charles W. Wilson

Share This: