Q: What is SAFE?
A: SAFE stands for Students Aligned for a Faithful Erskine (SAFE). SAFE is edited by two Erskine alumni and one current student. SAFE exists to publish statements by students and alumni of Erskine College committed to Erskine’s mission and concerned about Erskine’s direction as an institution. Many of the statements published by SAFE are letters to officials of either Erskine or the ARP Church.

Q: Is SAFE affiliated with any other organizations or publications?
A: SAFE is not a formally-organized group or organization, is not affiliated with any other groups or publications, and acts independently of any outside groups or publications. The letters on the SAFE website express the opinions of the individual contributors and not necessarily those of the editors, the other contributors, the petition signatories, or those of any other organized groups or publications. Furthermore, the petition effort and the SAFE website were organized on the initiative of the students and alumni in question because of our concerns about Erskine; those efforts most assuredly did not occur because they were controlled or manipulated by other persons or organizations.

Q: If SAFE isn’t a formal organization, then how and why were the letters posted on the SAFE website?
A: One of the editors and leaders of the petition effort (Joshua Grimm) asked students who signed the petition letter of concern to consider writing letters if they so desired, and some who wrote letters consented for them to posted online so that their concerns could be publicly expressed before Synod.

Q: Do the letters on SAFE represent the views of all the contributors to SAFE, the Editors, and the signatories to the petition letter of concern?
A: Each letter solely represents the viewpoint of the contributor in question, and not the viewpoint of all the signatories to the petition letter or the viewpoint of the editors. Furthermore, as noted elsewhere, although the petition letter was posted on the SAFE website, the petition effort was formally distinct from the SAFE website and the letters on SAFE do not necessarily represent those of all or even a majority of the petition signatories. The letters convey each contributor’s individual concerns, though the SAFE contributors and the petition signatories obviously are in agreement with the broad concerns expressed by the petition letter.

Q: What is SAFE’s agenda?
A:First, it is important to remember what the petition letter stated: the signatories to the petition sought the help of the ARP Church in reforming Erskine out of love for Erskine and a desire to see it prosper as an excellent Christian liberal arts college. The signatories most surely do not hate Erskine – in fact, we have all benefited in various ways from the relationships and experiences we had at Erskine. Many of us have been very involved students on the Erskine campus; and many who consented to having their letters published on SAFE communicated their involvement and their love for Erskine in their letters. (Browse the “Student Letters” category to read more.)

Second, the SAFE contributors and editors, along with the petition signatories, simply want Erskine’s foundational educational standards – the Erskine College Mission Statement and the ARP Philosophy of Christian Higher Education – to be honored, upheld, and implemented as a matter of institutional integrity and stewardship. These standards make it clear that Erskine is institutionally committed to being a Christian liberal arts college (for helpful perspectives on this that are in harmony with Erskine’s institutional documents, cf. this 2007 convocation address by Dr. John Wingard and this series of posts by William Hunter) where learning and biblical truth are integrated in a challenging and excellent way under the Lordship of Christ. This gives Erskine a unique identity and a selling point that distinguishes it both from fundamentalist institutions and from secular and merely church-affiliated liberal arts colleges. However, the ultimate reason for the necessity of institutional fidelity is that for Erskine to be an institution of faith, it needs to be faithful to its mission.

Q: Does SAFE claim to represent the entire Erskine student body?
A: Absolutely not. In fact, several of the letters posted on the SAFE website note the current polarization of the Erskine student body between conservatives, moderates, liberals, and the apathetic. Joshua Grimm also noted this split when he spoke at Synod on behalf of the petition signatories who came to Synod.

Q: Do SAFE’s contributors and editors believe that admission to Erskine should be limited to Christians only?
A: Absolutely not! While several SAFE contributors (including the editors) expressed concerns about the direction of Admissions, those concerns were expressed in the context of concerns about a trend of institutional secularization and lack of faithfulness to the mission at Erskine. The more that Erskine is faithful to the Gospel and to its mission, the more Erskine can engage non-Christians with the Gospel and a Christian worldview in the classroom and on the campus. For a statement clarifying this point further, cf. Ashley Waldmeyer’s comments here and part III of William Hunter’s article on the Christian liberal arts.

Q: Why are the comments closed?
A:First, while we did want to “create a space and impetus for further discussion about Erskine”, the primary purpose of SAFE was to publicly communicate concerns about the institutional direction of Erskine to the broader Erskine community, to the ARP Church, and to the broader evangelical and Reformed world in hopes of encouraging further action to reform Erskine, not to serve as a blog for continual back-and-forth debate. Because of that, we are thankful for the formation of a commission to investigate our concerns and those of others within the Erskine community.

Second, a major reason we did not open the website to comments is because the Internet is far too conducive to contentious debating and malicious remarks. We did not desire to get into a point-by-point argument with those who disagree with us because our concerns were not about our peers (with whom we have discussed these issues in varying ways during our time at Erskine), but with the discrepancy between the institution as it is now and what the institution is formally committed to.

Finally, if anyone has concerns about what is on the website, they are completely free to email the Editors at our collective email address (safe.editors.feedback@gmail.com) or at our individual email addresses. Given the contentiousness of this situation immediately before, during, and after Synod, this seemed to be the most prudent course of action at the time.

Q: Why did many students decide to express their concerns publicly at this time?
A: While some of us are aware of the long-standing concerns many have had about Erskine – Christian students and pastors have been going to the ARP Synod about Erskine on-and-off since the late 1950s and into the late 1970s and beyond – one recent development elevated and intensified the pre-existing concerns expressed in the letters on this website.

The departure of Executive Vice-President and Academic Dean Dr. Donald V. Weatherman concerned many students who believed that Dr. Weatherman was the key advocate for Erskine’s Christian liberal arts mission within the Administration. His departure, in the context of several years of high faculty turnover (including the departure in 2007 of Philosophy Professor and Excellence-in-Teaching Award winner Dr. John Wingard to Covenant College), raised red flags for many Erskine students (evangelical or not) about the direction and stability of the institution. This only increased the sense of urgency to find help to reform Erskine. Because of this, we are thankful for the ARP Synod’s decision to form a commission to investigate Erskine’s faithfulness to its mission as an institution of Christian higher education.

Q: Now that a commission has been formed, what is the future of SAFE?

A: First, we encourage everyone to be in prayer for the Moderator of the ARP Church, Dr. John R. de Witt, as he prepares to appoint the commission, and for the commission once it begins to do its work. Second, we encourage all who choose to engage in dialogue on those matters to do so responsibly and charitably.

-The Editors