Editor’s Note: This document is an expansion of comments made on the floor of the March Called Meeting of Synod. After the Temporary Restraining Order was filed in the Erskine College case on April 9, a third party – with the permission of the author – submitted the document to the Executive Board of the Synod at their meeting a few days later.

The Aquila Report has confirmed that an oral presentation of the document was made to the board which was received for information and no further action was taken. Several bloggers have since posted the paper. Because the document contains an opinion on the Erskine case that is both general and public, The Aquila Report has determined that it is suitable for publication at this time. We held this story several days to give time for the Moderator and Parlimentarian to publically comment. While none have yet been received, they will be posted

1. The 2009 meeting of the General Synod of the ARP Church instructed the Moderator to “form a special commission to investigate whether the oversight exercised by the Board of Trustees and the Administration of Erskine College is in faithful accordance with the standards of the ARP Church and the synod’s previously issued directives,” and “to report back to General Synod no later than the 2010 meeting of General Synod with a report and the Commission’s findings and recommendations.”

2. The memorial which the Synod adopted, the report of the Moderator’s Committee on Memorials, the debate on the floor of Synod, and the composition of the commission as appointed all indicate that it was the intent of the Synod to create an ecclesiastical commission, not a committee, and to restrict that commission from taking any other action than to investigate and report back to Synod.

3. While the authorization to investigate “whether the oversight exercised by…” and “is in faithful accordance with…” is subject to various interpretations, the meaning of “Standards of the ARP Church” and “previously issued directives” is unambiguous. Both are the result of official actions adopted by the General Synod and recorded in the Minutes of the General Synod and other appropriate documents. The Commission was obligated by its charge to confine itself to investigate “whether the oversight exercised… was in faithful accordance with…” those officially adopted and recorded items.

4. The Manual of Authorities and Duties (MA&D) lists the duties of the Moderator, and the Form of Government (FOG) regulates ecclesiastical commissions. The Moderator departed from the MA&D by appointing himself a voting member of the Commission instead of serving as a non-voting advisory member. Furthermore, the Moderator departed from the FOG XIV.B.3.b. by appointing two ruling elders, Mr. Wingate and Mr. Robinson, who were not members of the 2009 General Synod. Without the eligibility of those three persons, the Commission failed to meet the minimum requirements of FOG XIV.B.3.d.(4).

5. The Moderator created at least the appearance of conflict of interest by appointing himself, a voting ex-officio member of the Erskine Board, and Mr. Query, an appointed voting member of the Erskine Board, as voting members of the Commission to investigate the Erskine Board. Conflict of interest is also raised by the appointment of Mr. Maye, an appointed voting member of the Erskine Board, as an advisory member of the Commission.

6. The Commission exceeded the bounds of its charge by inquiring into areas not addressed by the Standards or directives of the Synod, such as the financial decisions of previous boards. Moreover, the Commission flagrantly exceeded its authority when at the February 18-19, 2010 meeting of the Erskine Board it conditioned its potential recommendation to remove the Board immediately based on whether or not the Board agreed totally to the Commission’s other findings and recommendations. Such an ultimatum clearly constituted unauthorized action by the Commission.

7. The preliminary report of the Commission states that “The Minutes of the General Synod from the past 40 years give evidence of a long-standing concern about Erskine College and Seminary.” While it is true that there are periodic references to concerns about Erskine in the Minutes, there are many more commendations, including the following adopted by the 2008 General Synod, “That Erskine College and Seminary faculty, staff and administration be thanked for their devotion to the ARP denomination and to Christianity throughout the world.” (2008 Minutes, p.502) Furthermore, “directives” to Erskine are rarely found in the Minutes, although this should come as no surprise, since the MA&D and the FOG XIV.A.2.a. state “A board shall perform special work entrusted to it without particular instructions from the appointing court but shall follow the general instructions of the court.” The general instructions are found in the MA&D and the FOG.

8. Both the preliminary and final reports of the Commission engage in sweeping generalizations and employ highly opinionated language such as “irreconcilable and competing visions,” “untenable situation,” and “culture of intimidation” while providing little or no independently verifiable documentation to support these claims. The reports rarely tie their claims to the “Standards” and “directives” of Synod, and even when they do their claims are presented without context and never mention actions taken by the Board and Administration to respond to the Synod – actions which are readily available in the Board reports recorded in the Minutes of Synod. Both Commission reports evidence no semblance of impartiality on the part of the Commission.

9. The Moderator departed from the FOG XIV.B.3.a. by having the Commission report to a called meeting of Synod rather than a stated meeting as prescribed. Furthermore, by restricting the called meeting to hearing and acting upon the findings and recommendations of the Commission, the Moderator precluded the members of the court from offering alternative remedies which might have spared the college and the church from the turmoil which has ensued. The obvious effect of having a commission report to a stated meeting is to prevent a commission from restricting the options of Synod.

10. The claim of the Commission in its preliminary report that “We believe that the release of some conclusions and our recommendations [prior to the called meeting] would have the effect of depriving Synod of the deliberative process…” has been revealed to have just the opposite result. The effect of the Commission’s withholding of its draconian recommendation to immediately remove the Board of Erskine deprived the delegates of the opportunity to thoughtfully and prayerfully prepare for the deliberations and to consider the potential far-reaching implications of approving such a recommendation.

11. The Moderator added to the appearance of conflict of interest and partiality by presiding over the called meeting of Synod. Roberts Rules of Order recommend that when a presiding officer is a party to a controversial matter, he should relinquish the chair while the matter is being considered. Since the Moderator was a voting member of the Commission and the Vice-Moderator was an advisory member, neither should have presided. Instead, an impartial member of the court should have been appointed to preside.

12. The characterization of financial actions of previous Boards as “financial irregularities” was misleading and prejudicial to the current Board as well as being outside the charge of the Commission, since it failed to demonstrate how such matters were tied to the “Standards and directives” of Synod. The standard of “competent, engaged and independent” is found nowhere in the “Standards and directives” of Synod; the Commission had no authority to judge the Board by its own tendentious standard, and the Synod clearly erred in allowing this standard to be applied. The reports of the Commission give every appearance of a partisan effort to discredit and demonize the Board in order to justify fashioning a Board which would be compliant to the views of the Commission.

13. The Commission clearly attempted to foreclose any opportunity for redress by the Erskine Trustees as illustrated by Mr. Wingate’s claiming both the civil law as a justification for the arbitrary removal of Trustees and I Corinthians 6 as a prohibition against resorting to the civil courts for relief. At the same time the Moderator used his authority to specify the only matters to be considered at a called meeting to deny the Trustees an opportunity to appeal until the June stated meeting, by which time the Commission’s recommendations would have become a fait accompli. The net removal of 14 specified Trustees was either for cause or was purely arbitrary. If it was for cause, the Standards of the Church contain a Book of Discipline and the by-laws of Erskine College, which were approved by the General Synod, both of which contain detailed provisions for due process. If the removal was arbitrary, it was a violation of FOG II.C.1.&2. In either case the General Synod violated its own Standards and directives by concurring with Commission.

14. The Commission usurped the authority of the Nominating Committee of Synod by nominating individuals to serve on the so-called interim board and violated the MA&D by failing to follow the policies of Synod governing the nominating process, including the prohibition against nominating its own members for service on any boards. By making the nominations part of the exclusive matters to be considered at the called meeting, the Moderator precluded the delegates from exercising their ordinary rights to nominate alternate candidates. The Synod violated its own Standards and directives by concurring with the Commission.

15. The Commission not only failed to demonstrate that its investigation was in keeping with its charge, it also failed to demonstrate that its findings were fair and accurate and that its proposed remedies were the most reasonable and effective available. The Moderator could have expanded the agenda of the called meeting of Synod or waited for the stated meeting as prescribed by the FOG to allow for consideration of alternatives. The alternative plan presented by the Board of Trustees would have avoided most or all of the legal, constitutional and ethical controversy that has occurred. The fact that the Trustees plan would have taken longer was insufficient reason for rejecting it, since no immanent danger to Erskine was established. On the contrary, the “rush to judgment” called for by the Commission, aided by the Moderator and abetted by the called meeting of the General Synod has endangered both Erskine and the ARP Church.

CONCLUSION

The actions of the Special Commission on Erskine and the called meeting of the General Synod are so egregious, the violations of Synod’s own Standards and directives are so numerous, the treatment of the Trustees of Erskine is so arbitrary and cruel, and the consequences of these actions are potentially so catastrophic for both Erskine and the ARP Church that they call for immediate redress. The Executive Board of Synod should exercise its authority to act in an emergency to suspend the actions of the called meeting of Synod, refer the whole matter to the Ecclesiastical Commission for Judiciary Affairs for a ruling on the constitutional issues, and recognize the Board of Erskine that existed prior to the called meeting as still being the rightful Board.

Doug Petersen is a minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and is currently serving as the pastor of Boyce Memorial ARP Church in King’s Mountain, North Carolina. He has served two full terms on the Board of Erskine College and Seminary.