# Erskine Lawsuit Settled



## Marrow Man (Sep 17, 2010)

A settlement has apparently been reached in the lawsuit in the Erskine alumni/BoT and ARP Synod dispute.

Here's a link.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 17, 2010)

So basically, the ARP caved and gave the plaintiffs everything they wanted.


----------



## Marrow Man (Sep 17, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> So basically, the ARP caved and gave the plaintiffs everything they wanted.



Well, not actually. I agree it might seem that way on the surface, but the gist of the settlement reflects what Synod agreed upon at the June meeting, which was doing away with item #2 of the Moderator's Commission report, which essentially replaced the current Board of Trustees with an interim board.

The interim board was never allowed to happen because of a restraining order and lawsuit. But the interim board would have never existed past the June meeting of General Synod anyway, as a new board of trustees was supposed to be appointed at that time. This could not happen (except through the normal means of nominating and electing trustees to replace those who rotate off annually) because the case was tied up in court and would be for at least another year. When this proposal was made at Synod, I viewed it as not giving anything up, as we would agreeing not to replace the current board with an interim -- something that we could not do because of the court action and something that had expired as of the Synod meeting anyway.

But there were four recommendations from the Moderator's Commission that were approved by General Synod back in March. The three remaining ones are still in force. The first recommendation (rewriting of the by-laws to change the size of the board) is currently taking place. The third recommendation (a committee of past moderator's providing a list of potential nominees to the Committee on Nominations) is still in effect. Same with the fourth recommendation (requiring BoT members to comply with Synod's definition of an evangelical Christian).

One more thing did not take place in the settlement; apparently there was some effort from the plaintiffs' side to prevent any sort of church discipline from being taken against the two plaintiffs who were ruling elders in the ARP. I believe this had to be explained that not only was this not part of what General Synod had agreed upon, it was a violation of the ARP Form of Government. So, church discipline is still on the table. We will have to see now how the presbyteries handle this.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 18, 2010)

Ptl


----------

