Shorter became a part of my life in 1977, when I began working in the Registrar’s Office. It was a great place to work because there was a feeling of family, not only with the faculty and staff but also with the students. Of course there were fewer students at the time. I watched as the college grew in number of students and faculty/staff.
I can remember that after I started to work there, the rumblings of the fundamentalist movement started to be heard. I was not that familiar with what they were talking about due to being brought up in a Methodist family. I had recently joined the Baptist faith and saw there were differences in the governing body but the Christian love was still the same. According to the Bible, God intended for His love to reach out to all of His human creation. We read in Acts 10:44-45 that while Peter was still speaking the Holy Spirit fell on everyone who heard the word. It goes on to say that all the circumcised believers who came with Peter were astonished that the Holy Spirit had been poured out to the Gentiles. Because God created and loved us He intended for all of us to work together to spread His love and not segregate to only one group that has total knowledge of His word. Where would we be if God had not given the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles?
Shorter College/University has been a Christian centered institution from the very beginning. It has been open to many different denominations. We had many international students while I was there who had very different thinking. These differences were accepted, and we learned from each other.
What bothers me most of all is the faculty/staff being forced to sign the personal faith statement or lose their jobs. I question how a group that is pushing for a Christian centered institution is interpreting the passages in the book of Acts?
Christian love does not demand that someone become something they are not but is a love that is open to overcoming cultural, institutional and even supposedly biblical prejudices. Our mission in life should be to intentionally work to overcome our prejudices, a work worth doing, that God’s Spirit will help us to accomplish. We need to become more inclusive and accept Christ’s command to show inclusive love.
My prayer is that God will open the eyes of the current administration/trustees to see what Shorter College/University has been through the years: an institution of learning with Christian based ideals. A place where students were given the freedom to learn without being restricted by certain regulations put forth by trustees and administration. How can we minister to those who do not know about God’s love and forgiveness if our education is limited to just what a certain group interprets the message of God to be? After all, Jesus’ command is to go forth and bring all to Him.
Are we going to let the dedication of previous faculty and staff be forgotten and the Shorter that we have all loved and admired be for naught? I hope not. Our city, state, and nation continue to need young men and women who have received a well rounded education like the many previous alumni.
I visited the websites you used as reference and now i have to wash my eyes to stop the burning.
WoW....What a hateful few pages..
Tell me this....
Why do you care if gays marry or have protection from discrimination?
Does it cost you money? Does it infringe on your liberties?
Tell me how does it change your life in any way?
50 years ago similar hate filled screeds were published to justify resistance to civil rights and interracial marriage.
If you look at the vileness being written now about Gays the comparisons are very plain.
When Christians proclaimed that...... doom I say Doooom would be upon us if DADT was repealed....
They were completely wrong.
When Christians proclaimed that Giving women the right to vote would be horrible....
They were completely wrong.
Why do Christians continue to insist everyone adopt their moral codes?????
It's Barking Madness.....
Rhuidean
I never expected that you would actually go to the APA website and read their information.
Yet you cite research...Please oh Please provide a link to your research...I so much want to see it.
However I have repeatedly provided verse and chapter of the bible as evidence of Christian hypocrisy.
So back to my original argument:
Shorter has a right to discriminate....And it is discrimination..
It's clothed in hypocrisy and bigotry....hiding behind religion.
Nothing you can say will change that fact.
Rhuidean
i recommend you visit the APA website and read up on normal and abnormal behaviors.
In addition to learning something new you will be exposed to knowledge.
Come to think of it maybe the Shorter trustees could also visit the site and learn something.
Rhuidean
You Wrote:Sorry, your holy gayness. He was fired for not complying with Shorter's employment rules. He marked out part of the document and then signed it. All he had to was sign the thing and keep on working.
I reply: Wow....Reality must really be hard for you to acknowledge. The part of the contract he crossed out was the faith statement. Why? He could not sign it because he is Gay. Now he had served as Shorter's libriarian for years and had tenure. Yet he was fired because his internal brain chemistry was different than a straight persons.
I know it is really hard for you to understand but it's not about being gay...It's about equality and tolerance.
Watchingit,
I have never claimed to be happy with every decision President Obama has made.
That said I fully support and look forward to his reelection. As soon as he takes the oath of office i will be harranguing
him to address some the issues i have with his policies.
I am posting at KOS as Retired Navy Guy....I have been working on a new one that will hit this weekend.
It's all about the Shorter situation and bigotry of the Christian right.
I have been working on it for a couple of weeks and it will be well worth reading.
Now can any of you explain why Christians ignore the parts of the bible they do not agree with?
I thought not....
Rhuidean
You Wrote: There he goes back on his "gay" rant again making up stories to fit his narrative of being wronged in some way.
I reply: Do you even read the news? Shorter fired their tenured librarian Michael Wilson a few days ago.
My comments are historical fact.
The only group wronging anyone are fundamentalist Christians.
You go on and on accusing me of making up facts....so...
Please explain what facts I have gotten wrong.
I look forward to your keen intellect skewering me.
Rhuidean
Do either of you have anything to add to the conversation other than blathering on?
Yes I retired after 30 years of service and not once did my personal beliefs get in the way of performance.
AND....yes my CO was aware of my beliefs and frankly did not care.
All anyone i ever served with cared about was that we did our jobs and protected each other.
For the record...I do not despise religious people.....I simply point out their hypocrisy and bigotry.
You two act is if doing so it's a personal attack....
Sorry i hurt your tender feelings.
Oh....Wait...I thought faith was supposed to be strong enough to withstand challenges.
After all it's Christians that proclaim that gays would be penned up till they die, It's Christian's who just fired the librarian at Shorter because he was gay.
It is Christians who proclaim that the bible is the one true infallible word of god then ignore the parts of the bible they do not agree with.
Just saying.
Rhuidean
Jarnoldcr,
In response to my questions regarding why Christians think it's OK to pick and choose which bible verses to accept you posted a link.
It's:http://redeemer.com/news_and_events/newsletter/?aid=363
I read the linked article and still believe my remarks categorizing Christians as hypocrites to be accurate and germane.
My reasoning is that the article states:
" One way to respond to the charge of inconsistency may be to ask a counter-question—“Are you asking me to deny the very heart of my Christian beliefs?” If you are asked, “Why do you say that?” you could respond, “If I believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God, I can’t follow all the ‘clean laws’ of diet and practice, and I can’t offer animal sacrifices. All that would be to deny the power of Christ’s death on the cross. And so those who really believe in Christ must follow some Old Testament texts and not others.”
Okey...Dokey....Now
A Presbyterian minister as a talking point wrote the linked article on how to respond to us heathens...
It's just an opinion and certainly not what Southern Baptists believe or proclaim...
No they can and do quote Leviticus chapter and verse.
Southern Baptists and fundamental Christians proclaim that the ENTIRE bible is the actual infallible word of god....Period....
I am glad you agree that premise is nonsense....As your linked article clearly explains it's impossible to follow all the rules of the old testament.
So back to my original premise....If the bible is not the absolute true word of god....then why do Christians use it to justify hate and bigotry?
Why not choose the parts about loving thy neighbor or judge not lest ye be judged?
The answer is simple.....If the pastors and preachers did not have someone to demonize or paint as a villain how would they keep their sheep in line?
All religion is ultimately about power...
Shorter's statements of faith are just the latest manifestation of that power.
Rhuidean
You Wrote:So, if I might summarize your comments...you are not particularly concerned if your comments are demeaning and insulting to broad swaths of evangelical Christians, so long as your intended target (Shorter) is caught in your dragnet of condemnation
I reply: insulting and demeaning?? Ok lets examine the situation.
Shorter claims a signing statement is needed to work at their college.
The personal faith statement says:
1. "I reject as acceptable all sexual activity not in agreement with the Bible, including, but not limited to, premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality"
2."I will not use alcoholic beverages in the presence of students, and I will abstain from serving, from using, and from advocating the use of alcoholic beverages in public (e.g. in locations that are open to use by the general public, including as some examples restaurants, concert venues, stadiums, and sports facilities) and in settings in which students are present or are likely to be present. I will not attend any University sponsored event in which I have consumed alcohol within the last six hours. Neither will I promote or encourage the use of alcohol."
You think evangelicals are not hypocrites? Then please explain how?
The bible advocates slavery...Incest, Murder, Rape and Death....Yet Shorter and their defenders simply ignore those parts of the bible.
Is Shorter keeping slaves? No.....I think not....
Is Shorter stoning to death those who work on the sabbath?
No...I think not...
Are the Shorter trustees selling their daughters into Slavery? No I think not....
Is shorter calling divorced members of their faculty out as adulterers and stoning them? No I think not.
However the personal faith statement makes no reference to those parts of scripture. In fact by having divorced staff members they are in violation of biblical direction.
So please explain how it's Ok for Evangelicals to only use the parts of the bible they agree with.
Southern Baptists used that same bible to justify slavery and commit gross acts throughout history.
Evangelical Christians are hypocrites and act in bigoted ways then hide behind the bible.
Your entire argument seems to stem from your insistence that no one should have the right to criticize your beliefs.
OK....God Luck with that...But Insulting and demeaning?
Please.......
Rhuidean
June 2012
by Tim Keller
http://redeemer.com/news_and_events/newsletter/?aid=363
You Wrote:ell over a hundred faith-based colleges and universities, both domestic and abroad, representing dozens of theological traditions, many of whom rank similarly to Shorter in terms of academic rigor, require faculty and staff to sign similar faith statements
I reply: I do not care about hundreds of institutions. My comments are specifically about Shorter. Now I stand by my characterization that this policy is driven by bigotry and hypocrisy.
Labeling???? Hardly....No I think i am representing the facts pretty accurately.
Aren't Christians supposed to believe in judge not lest ye be judged.
Shorter is judging on a grand scale.
So Hypocrisy and Bigotry are accurate.
Rhuidean
Do you have a link to a list of these schools and their statements? How many of this 100 are in the U.S.?
Thanks!
The Council for Christian Colleges and Universities website (www.cccu.org/members_and_affiliates)is a good place to start. You can view their member schools, and organize them by geography (filtering domestic or international) and faith tradition. You may be able to find general employment policies on their human resource pages, but you may need to sift deeper, looking at things like mission statements, educational philosophies, etc. You'll likely find that Shorter is not very dissimilar to many other respectable, highly ranked evangelical colleges and universities, representing all sorts of faith traditions.
You Wrote:The silent majority of Christians are behind you and Shorter College.
I reply: So a majority of Christians agree with forced statements of faith? Bigotry? Intolerance?
I am betting that while you may with it so that it's only the fringe right wingers who agree and they are certainly not silent.
Rhuidean
How do you presume to speak for "the silent majority of Christians"??
As I read your posts, I see a lack of substance in the nature of this dialogue. Whether or not I have the moral authority or right, I would like to rehash some of the events that have shaped this debacle.
1) I believe that the GBC, the board of trustees, and the Dowless administration (of which you are a proud part) are trying to have their cake and eat it too. You are hijacking a conservative Christian college and turning it into a fundamentalist Georgia Baptist institution. This is all being done under the banner of being “Christ-centered” when it is in actuality, Georgia Baptist-centered. As Jesus taught us in Matthew 6:21, no man can serve two masters. While this teaching was specifically referring to God and money, I think that it can just as easily apply to loyalty to God or denomination. According to the GBC/Dowless/Price definition, a Christian is a church-going, teetotalling, drug-free and sexually abstinent or married heterosexual with sworn loyalty to the GBC. If the purpose of this statement is to define ourselves as an institution dedicated to the propagation of Georgia Baptist dogma, then the definition works nicely. If, however, the purpose of this statement is to define ourselves as a Christ-centered institution, it almost utterly misses the mark. Jesus' teachings are remarkably devoid of references to church, drugs, alcohol, and sex.
2) Don Dowless' talking points continually reiterate how that the purpose of these statements is so that “we” can define ourselves as an institution that is Christ-centered. Faculty, staff, alums, and students are concerned about this for a number of reasons. To whom does “we” refer? “We” the faculty and staff were never consulted. In fact, in an unofficial survey conducted of all full time Rome faculty, 89% found this not to be an accurate reflection of our Christian identity. “We” the alumni were not consulted. The alumni that I know are categorically outraged at their exclusion from dialogues concerning the future of their treasured Alma Mater. “We” the students were to my knowledge equally left out of the equation. During the presidential search, faculty, staff, alumni, and students were kept completely in the dark. Search committee members were instructed to maintain absolute silence. No candidate campus visits and interviews. No token involvement whatsoever. Who then is “we”? The papal “we”? “We” Don Dowless? “We” the board of trustees? “We” the GBC? Other Christian institutions undergoing such processes of self-reflection and self-definition have spent months or years conducting focus groups of students, faculty, staff, alums, and community. With the president's leadership and guidance, WE could have done the same. WE could have asked ourselves, “What does it mean to be a Christ-centered institution with a Baptist affiliation?” “How can WE come together and articulate our conservative beliefs in a humble manner that reflects the teachings of Jesus?” “How can WE uphold standards that honor God and set us apart from the world?” At the end of such a process, WE would have had a document that united us in the essential elements of conservative Christian brotherhood.
3) Instead, I and many of my colleagues of both conservative and moderate theological bent are leaving. Why?
1. As a protestant evangelical, I am married to the idea that Jesus is our high priest and that we come to the Father through him alone. I am unwilling to publicly submit a statement of faith that was written for me by someone else. As a condition of my employment, I submitted a personal faith-statement that reflected my conservative beliefs. I was delighted to be employed by a Christian institution that had missions similar to Oklahoma Baptist University and Baylor University where I had received my degrees.
2. As one who leans towards the right, politically, I value a form of governance that is local, transparent, and representative.
The local element at Shorter has been disappearing for years. No longer do we have a faculty senate. No longer do we have faculty elected representation on the board of trustees. Our president has no history with Shorter and he shows no interest in familiarizing himself with or honoring our history. The board of trustees is made up mostly of individuals lacking any significant Shorter connection. In fact the current chairman of the board admitted that he had little knowledge of the institution when he was asked by Nelson Price to serve.
When Nelson Price became chairman of the Board he exhorted the board that “what we do as a board of trustees will not be sub rosa and will be reflected in the public arena.” As I mentioned above, the presidential search was completely lacking in transparency. My understanding is that applications were vetted by Nelson Price before being passed along to the rest of the search committee. It would seem that he basically picked his man single-handedly. Further, faculty and staff were informed of the possibility of faith and lifestyle statements one day before the board passed them. Three days later the president called faculty and staff together to inform us about them. The only part that he revealed was that drug use and distribution would not be tolerated. He then refused to field any further questions, instructing us instead to come visit him individually if we had questions or concerns. This is only one “small” example of the lack of transparency on the board. My contacts on the board say that there is a great deal strong-arming that goes on. As far as I know, there are no meeting minutes available to the public. We do however see the board awarding honorary doctorates to it's own members (Bob White and Nelson Price) and voting Nelson Price chairman emeritus and presidential adviser. My understanding of term limits is that they are there to keep a governing organizing from becoming self perpetuating and unaccountable. This seems to be what has happened to our board of trustees, though.
3. As an adult American, I am accustomed to the idea that I am innocent until proven otherwise. Don Dowless has chosen a style of “leadership” that trusts no one. He has to examine and scrutinize every detail of your program. He weighs in and makes judgment calls with out knowledge of that which he is controlling. He bullies middle-level administrators into making decisions for fear of their jobs. At the end of the day, Don Dowless is unwilling to take responsibility for any of his mandates, however. It is always the board's decision or the deans decision or the only “Biblical” choice. Life as a faculty member at Shorter was beginning to feel like an elementary school field trip with supervisors constantly looking over your shoulder and evaluating your every step. Since my teenage years I have been used to being expected to make mature and honorable decisions. I have also been used to the idea that I will be responsible when I make bad decisions. As a 34-year old professional, I would like to be afforded that same trust now.
4. A recent letter to the editor appropriately discussed I Corinthians 13. Whether the theology is sound or not can be debated until the cows come home. But without a spirit of love, all of the best theology in the world is nothing more than resounding gongs and clanging cymbals. While we all like to hear that we are loved, actions do indeed speak much louder. The current administration led by Nelson Price and Don Dowless has been devoid of any sort of love excepting the rhetorical sort. The cries of the constituents fall on deaf ears. More than one professional mediator has offered their services. The administration's response was that there is nothing to mediate. The tears of the deans have been ignored and now four of them have resigned. The pleading of the faculty for a voice and an opportunity for dialogue has been met with presidential responses such as, “Nothing that you say will change anything” and “I really don't care what you think.” The clambering of concerned alumni has been met with a deaf ear by Don Dowless and prayers, platitudes and unsolicited hugs by Bert Epting. The attempts of students to speak out have been stalled and diffused by the administration. During all of this, the board of trustees has been kept as insulated as possible.
Why do I weep and rage over this situation? I weep for my dear colleagues who is battling cancer and must for the sake of health insurance go against his conscience and sign the documents if he can not find a job within the 6-8 months that he has before his contract runs out. I weep for my colleague who has served Shorter for 40 years and is not being allowed a voice in the future of the institution which he helped build. I weep for my colleague who's ailing mother in Rome fears that he will lose his job or move away and leave her without care. I weep for my first year colleagues who moved here to teach in an academically vigorous Christian environment, only to find that they were being told how to teach their discipline before school had even commenced. I weep for the students who came for one Shorter only to find that that Shorter no longer exists. I weep for the alumni who are seeing brutally violated that institution that they attended, supported, and fell in love with. I weep for the university family that I gave my heart to and must now leave.
God patiently took forty years to bring the children of Israel from Egypt to the promised land. He allowed them nearly two thousand year to prepare for the coming of the Messiah. Even Brewton-Parker College allowed an extra year for its employees to look for other jobs if they were not comfortable signing their documents. When a wise pastor takes over the leadership of a congregation, he recognizes that change either takes time or rips the church apart. Is it too much to have asked of our leadership that if this transition were inevitable, we could at least have some time to make this major transition?
I believe that there is much religiosity at play in the Shorter leadership and little true religion. If our leadership lead us in doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly before God, I would not be leaving. I would not be feeling survivor's guilt over those that I am leaving behind, and I would not be pitying those who have fallen for wolves in sheep's clothing.
Mrs. Hoffman has hit the nail on the head. It used to be like a big family. There was love and common respect for personal differences and ideals.
It appears there is a new race among us. It is a race of Weak Minded people, who feel like they need to lock those out who don't follow the strict beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention. I was raised Baptist, and thank God for the experience, however, over the years, I have seen they miss the mark as to what Christianity is all about.
My disgust led me on another journey of being without a church. Later it led me to RCIA classes. For over a year I have been Catholic, and through that process, I found understanding as to what God wants for my life.
The Southern Baptists have this rigid message that doesn't always connect, while through RCIA, the things that I didn't understand about The Bible, finally made sense. For every question there was an answer. There was even sense made of things that seemed to contradict other things throughout the passages. It was like a never ending linking of rings of truth.
Like a wedding ring symbolizes the never ending committment of love, there are never ending circles of knowledge that the Catholic Church has seemed to make sense of.
With that said, it appears that Shorter College..excuse me, "University" is concentrating on the holes, and not the never ending rings of knowledge that God has placed in the scriptures.
The Southern Baptist Convension's desire to dictate morality appears to have gotten under the skin of Dr. Dowless, and the power of running this fine institution of higher learning has become a pulpit of dictation instead of the initial intent by Col. Alfred Shorter to be a learning institution that was centered around the love of Christ.
The thing about Rome, Georgia is, that it is a very opinionated City, and if they don't like what is going on, there is a lack of support that is like a Hoover vaccuum cleaner, and will suck you out of town as fast as you came in.
Thank you for this classy letter!
---------
Pretty classy there, Josh. Do Don and Nelson approve of your snarky mouth? Is that a "Christ centered" comment consistent with the new sheriff in town? No wonder the students feel about you as they do.
But I suppose Mr. Arnold and Shorter have to fight with what they have, and since they've lost the moral and ethical highground with these new policies the legal argument is the only one they have left.
The Shorter Articles of Incorporation as they exist now are a product of the October 2005 Superior Court of Dekalb County consent order that followed the Ga Supreme Court decision earlier that year.
They affirm that the GBC has total power to select trustees. The same consent order also approved the by-laws. Those by-laws also state:
section 3.1.d: Best Interests of College: No Undue Influence. Trustees serving on the Board of Trustees shall serve the best interests of the College, and the Board of Trustees shall be free from undue influence from political, religious, or other external bodies, and shall protect the Corporation from such influence.
section 8.2: No Undue Influence from Outside Organizations. No Trustees or officer of the College or the Board of Trustees shall be subject to undue influence from political, religious or other external bodes, and the Board of Trustees shall protect the College from any such influence. Should any Trustee or officer have reason to believe that undue influence from any external bodies has occurred, such person shall report the facts of the matter to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees who shall review the matter. If the Chairman determines there is a factual basis of such undue influence, then the Chairman shall report the findings to the Executive Committee for appropriate action to prevent further incidents of undue influence and to protect the Board of Trustees and the College from such undue influence.
So, this is court-approved language. GBC has unlimited right to appoint Trustees, but once appointed, the Trustees are obligated only to meet the needs of the University, not the GBC. This may seem contradictory, but it wasn't done as a thoughtless afterthought by the court.
The higher courts also noted the accreditation issue as a potential problem and overturned the "old Trustees" based on the technicalities surrounding dissolution of nonprofits.
In other words, the court and the parties signing the Consent Order did not exempt the GBC from the "No Undue Influence from Outside Organizations" clause -- probably to mollify SACS.
This material is available on the Georgia Secretary of State’s web site.
section 8.4 System of Periodic Reviews. The Board of Trustees must conduct periodic reviews of their activities to ensure that the Corporation is operating in a manner consistent with accomplishing the Corporation’s charitable purposes, that its operations do not result in private inurement or impermissible benefit to private interests or could otherwsie jeopardize its status as an organization exempt from federal income tax and that the Board of Trustees and the College is not subject to undue influence from political, religious or external bodies.
Does anyone know anything about these reviews or their results?
This would be anything other than the GBC exercising its right to appoint Shorter's Trustees.
If not, the Trustees are acting within their legal rights. If so, that needs to be reported.
Anonymous,
I think this is an excellent question. I've heard a lot of grandstanding...but have seen no evidence to support such claims of undue influence.
There may still remain many issues of fairness, mission, kindness, stakeholders, openness, religious rights, institutional rights, tolerance, etc. for folks to discuss back and forth but the legal stuff seems pretty straightforward.
I'm sorry...I don't think I've quite figured out the rhythm of the comment threads...my comment about "snarkiness" was intended for ShorterProf.
"There may still remain many issues of fairness, mission, kindness, stakeholders, openness, religious rights, institutional rights, tolerance, etc. for folks to discuss back and forth but the legal stuff seems pretty straightforward."
Spot on, friend. I think these are all worthy issues that can be discussed.
Your attempts to marginalize and exclude from the conversation those who haven't paid local property taxes as long as you only reveals your intolerance for the opinions of others.
Respectfully, I'm not sure how your comments could have been interpreted differently. And for someone who believes that everyone's opinion is equally valid and valuable, you sure are critical of those you disagree with.
The "distinction" you speak of being demonstrated at Shorter is that of prejudice, intolerance, and bigotry. Those are hardly admirable characteristics, especially given the Christian background of the school.
The right of an institution to carve out it's own path? No problem. But when that path is built on a foundation of intolerance, injustice and suppression of all voices and opinions but one, that institution shouldn't expect to be given a free pass just because it claims it's a Christian organization.
Yes, Shorter has every right to be as bigoted and intolerant as The Dowless and the GBC want to make it. But as with so many other things in life, just because you have the right to do something doesn't inherently mean that it's the right thing to do.
Ethical behavior is about more than merely what you have the right to do.
Catholic universities certainly follow a different model than their evangelical counterparts. I'm grateful for my Catholic friends and their contributions to higher education, particularly the leadership they have shown recently on issues pertaining to the sanctity of life and religious freedom. Evangelical colleges and universities seldom only attract or recruit students that share their ideologies. There is much research to suggest that they have been among the most successful at encouraging spiritual growth among their students. See Christian Smith, one of the leading researchers on issues pertaining to faith and American youth, for more details.
I'm grateful for friends who can enjoy spirited debate with one another! Thanks for the question...it's a good one! I arrived at Shorter around the mid-point between the settling of the lawsuit and recent administrative changes, respectively. When I arrived at Shorter, I found it to be a warm, hospitable place with faculty and staff who shared a deep, abiding personal commitment to Christ and brought this to bear on their work in a variety of ways. Despite language in the strategic plan that suggested Shorter integrated faith into the whole educational process, I could not identify many systemic, coherent efforts to infuse faith acrossed all academic disciplines and co-curricular activities. Not every church-related college chooses to operate this way. Certainly evangelical colleges tend to do this more intentionally than many of their peer institutions. I was pleased when Shorter began to take steps in this direction. I understand that not everyone shares this sentiment. I think its perfectly fine to disagree, and to voice concerns publicly. I think the accountability is good. However...at the end of the day...if one truly believes that all opinions need to be equally respected, that includes Shorter's opinion as well. That doesn't seem to characterize the public discourse.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/865086471.html?dids=865086471:865086471&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jul 10, 2005&author=Reviewed by Hanna Rosin&pub=The Washington Post&desc=It's the Deity, Dude&pqatl=google
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20003
(see the section about 2/3 of the page down that starts with "'MISSIONARY GENERATION' DRAWS ATTENTION"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1D61638F935A25752C0A9639C8B63
http://islamicamagazine.com/?p=448
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4632189
http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-312-33045-3
From that last review, here's an interesting comment: "She argues that if 'religious college leaders can navigate between the dangers of secularization and isolation, these schools can more effectively transmit their ideas to a larger American audience' and help build bridges between 'red" and 'blue' America."
My concern is that Shorter may be selling its mission short by steering too close to isolation. What do they have to lose by "risking" greater engagement?
I would invite you to inspect your own intolerance and bigotry, but I think it would be a fruitless effort. You're content to lodge such charges against any opinion to which you disagree without any self-examination.
I have Riley's book on my shelf. As a good journalist, her observations of evangelical colleges are generous at times and scrutinizing at others. That's fair. As far as isolationalism is concerned...the charge doesn't seem to play out among some of Christian higher education's fastest growing institutions. I've had to change my mind before because the research didn't support my conclusions. This is an area where I think the public would be well-served by considering the possibility that Shorter's policies may not be the great evil they've been maligned as...especially given the breadth of research to the contrary.
The question of who should control Shorter is an interesting one, and certainly hotly contested. I would have thought that the Georgia Supreme Court was the final authority on the question. I was mistaken...apparently it is you.
There is no bigotry in my posts or attitude. I'm not holding myself or my personal beliefs to be more Christian than anyone elses. I'm not demanding that other believe as I believe or find another place of employment. I'm not dictating what others have to believe in order to keep their jobs. I'm not intolerant of other religious beliefs, I just have a problem when religious beliefs are forced onto others.
My accusations aren't merely charges, they are the bald truth. When you can look at the policies at Shorter and objectively state that they aren't intolerant or bigoted (by definition), please feel free to explain why the terms don't fit the situation there.
http://www.shorter.edu/about/news/2011/06_29_11_josh_arnold.htm
Nice.
I appreciate your feedback. I've always found you to be one of the most reasonable and fairminded among the active voices on R-NT. I would invite you to browse some of the available literature on evangelical Christian colleges...particularly members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Throughout the nineties, when admissions was flat at most HE institutions, CCCU colleges were enjoying record growth...the highest growth was among the most conversative (all of whom share similar faith statements and policies). Research has consistently shown that Christian colleges with distinct, well-defined missions enjoy the most enrollment growth, attract highly qualified faculty, and subsequently produce the most economic growth for their respective communities. Indiana Wesleyan University, a school far more conservative (or fundamental, as critics would describe) than Shorter, is the largest private school in Indiana, and the fastest growing with 32 satellite campuses across the midwest. Love 'em or leave 'em, no one can argue with the contributions that Liberty makes to its local economy. A good starting point to the conversation may be "God on the Quad," by Naomi Riley. A Harvard-educated journalist who was one of the first to identify the sensational growth among such schools.
Yes, if you want your student body to study and learn that there is only the baptist/catholic/non-religious way of thinking. That's the beauty of a liberal arts education, you are taught to learn and think for yourself, to question, to research, thereby becoming a well rounded individual. Having the ability to approach a problem from many angles always provides a smarter solution.
How do you think students who study only one path will fare in corporate life. I can answer, not well. You have to be able to adapt and accept that your way is not always the only/right way.
Brigham-Young, William and Mary, Notre Dame, Reinhardt and others all have religous affiliations, but offer more academic freedom than is being currently offered to the faculty at Shorter U. Think about it!
So your dogmatic insistence that Shorter conform to your own moral vision is something other than prejudice, intolerance, and bigotry...right?
How do proponents of a liberal education prepare citizens for participation in a pluralistic society by demanding that every institution conform to a same, homogeneous vision of morality? Perhaps critics of Shorter's path would be well-served by heeding your advice..."you have to accept that your way is not the only/right way."
If that is truly what you want Shorter to aspire to, that's fine. But don't complain when in doing do Shorter has to own the labels such policies earn.
Exactly! That is precisely how you prepare students for existence in a pluralistic society. If you do not expose them and teach them that there are other viewpoints, then you foster the very atmosphere of intolerance that causes society to fracture. We all have to coexist, we all make up the Body of Christ.
I earned my liberal arts degree from Shorter College, not the University...academic freedom and individuality of thought were encouraged.
I see that once again you and I are going to respectfully agree to disagree.
Not having met at any Shorter functions, since I used to be a very active alumni, I'm going to step out on a limb and say that you might be a relative newcomer to Shorter and to the Rome community. If you are, I do hope that you can find it to appreciate that you might be speaking out against an enviroment that you were unfortunate not to have experienced. An environment in which people could opening agree to disagree on the details, but come together as one in Christ.
So here we find ourselves in quite a quandry about the details. The thousands of alumni who have walked Shorter's campus, who have received an excellent liberal arts education in an open, loving environment, one where we were challenged to think for ourselves - are watching as our school is being turned into something short of an Bible bootcamp.
If you did get to experience Shorter in the environment that Deanne speaks of, and that the others of us have experienced - where did it fall lacking for you? Just a question.
I don't see the benefit to Shorter, its students or its mission to circle wagons and cut itself off from others that don't share its beliefs.
Doesn't it give up a lot of opportunities for evangelism doing this?
What's it got to lose by bringing in non-Baptist faculty and staff if the overall community remains very Baptist in flavor? You're fairly new to Rome but I think you've seen a lot of comments by now that Shorter has always been very Baptist in spite of the non-Baptists in its midst.
If it becomes just Baptists preaching to Baptists, where's the evangelism? Who's getting converted?
Shorter certainly has the right to take its current approach
http://saveobu.blogspot.com/2012/05/comparing-catholic-and-evangelical.html
From my own encounters with Catholic schools, I'd say this is a very insightful analysis.
Catholic institutions have used their universities and colleges as a powerful tool for evangelism and outreach.