When I was 19, I enlisted in the Army and I was having the best time of my life. I was invited to go to church and when they came for me, I had been out late partying and I wasn’t even out of bed yet. As they waited for me and I turned to get dressed; I stopped and thought, “Who do you think you are kidding?” I turned to the girls and said, “Listen I like my sin, and I have no intentions of changing. So I’m not going to church with you.” Then when I became a Christian and read the Bible, I was shocked at how far off my understanding of God was, and that I had to include God into every aspect of my life.
All of this to conclude that as a sinner I knew that I was a sinner, and that I was the one to conform to the church, its schools and hospitals included, not the other way around. The Bible says that to believe in God is no big deal because the devil believes in God also. It also says that there is a time to tear down and a time to build up, a time of separating the goats from the sheep, and a time of separating the weeds from the wheat. As my daughter and I prayed about the situation at Shorter University, these words came to our minds, “Don’t be afraid or concerned with what is happening for this is a good thing.”
http://www.rn-t.com/view/full_story/19260885/article-Mayor--Shorter-have-‘misunderstanding’-about-university-board-membership?instance=home_most_popular
See if that works.
I've found recently that this site randomly cuts pieces of my own posts up. Since there's no pattern to it that I can see, I suspect it's a software issue, not human censoring.
I don't think the RN-T staff has the time to moderate these forums. They only seem to get involved when someone uses the "report abuse" link. I also doubt they really want to get in the middle of local disputes, either.
The RN-T has limited legal responsibility for others' comments until someone formally complains. For more info, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
Even when someone complains, if it doesn't involve clear libel or copyright violations, their legal obligation is limited.
The RN-T has turned off comments for articles involving people arrested for crimes but not yet convicted. This is consistent with my observations above:
1. RN-T staff don't have much time to get involved in policing these forums.
2. Their primary concern is clear-cut libel -- very negative comments about "non-public" people (folks that haven't chosen to be in the limelight -- non-politicians, non-celebrities) or intentionally false statements (not just negative opinions) about public people.
3. People are innocent until proven guilty and most people arrested around here aren't public figures. Negative comments about them are likely to be libelous.
Turning off commenting on arrest reports is a way of reducing work for RN-T staff and heading off lawsuits.
Almost_Anonymous has it mostly right - however left out one thing.
We didn't think it was right to open up people who hadn't been arrested but not convicted of a crime to what was turning into a public whipping post by anonymous commenters.
The public has a right to know, but we don't have to be the forum for people to recklessly abuse others under the cloak of anonymity.
This is not the first time I have posted on RN-T, nor am I unfamiliar with how posting works and the glitches that are a part of any online forum. As a matter of fact, I have read a number of your posts citing problems with incomplete posts.
Bearing in mind those issues, I attempted to make the same post on this thread. It did not take the post here either. In total frustration, I posted my comment above. I regret offending your sensibilities in using the word "censor". Quite frankly, given my experiences of the past two days, I had no reason to believe that the above post would appear either. I agree that the word "censor" was a bit strong.
I really didn't need a lecture on the rights and privileges of this paper in regard to allowing or not allowing comments on their boards. I am aware that posting here is a privilege, not a right.
The post that I intended was, in no way offensive or abusive of either party in the article above. It was simply a series of questions that I felt were unanswered. That seems reasonable, does it not?
My apologies to RN-T for using the word "censored", however when two separate threads will not allow the same post, when you know that you're not an abusive poster and when you are frustrated, sometimes "offensive" words like "censored" in a post that you have every reason to assume will NOT appear, it is, to say the least, annoying.
Ephesians 6:19 says, “Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel”. In my opinion, this is exactly what Shorter is doing; fearless proclaiming god's holy and infallible word and rejecting this world’s standard of what we are told should be accepted and tolerated.
As an alumni, I will say that the professors and staff I had the honor of knowing during my time at Shorter were/are some of the finest examples of Christians I have ever had the priviledge of knowing. And it was not because of their heavy handed, "beat you with the Bible until you think like I do" tactics (which being raised Southern/Georgia Baptist I'm all too familiar with), it was because of their genuine love of Christ came through in their caring of their students and our education.
As far as the name calling, we're all human and not one of us is perfect, and tempers get hot. I'm not saying that it gives anyone any right to do so, just saying when tempers start to flare, it's very easy to let your mouth take over before your heart and brain kick in. Personally, I've eaten enough crow in my lifetime to prove that point.
My understanding is that, prior to these documents, faculty and staff did not sign a statement of faith. Rather, they submited a personal statement upon hiring. It is not unusual for Christian colleges and universities to require such documents. It is not unreasonable for a Baptist college to maintain a labor pool that is distinctly Baptist, or distinctly Reformed, or Anabaptist, and so on. Compare the statement of faith at Shorter to similar institutions and you'll find that the document is broadly evangelical and hardly narrow. The difference between Shorter and these other institutions, as I see it, is that these other institutions clarified their missions and authored their documents long ago, in a much different cultural mileau. I don't believe that faculty and staff have left because of distaste for the documents themselves. After all...the principles they contain are also held by most other evangelical traditions, but rather because of the cultural distaste for asking anyone to believe anything other than what they themselves affirm to be true.
http://rn-t.com/view/full_story/19250246/article-North-Georgia-school-raises-more-than--44-million?instance=home_news_lead_story#cb_post_comment_19250246
That's private money donated to a small state school -- why can't Shorter do as well? Why not even better?
There are 3600 GBC churches in Georgia. Several million GBC members.
Why on earth should Shorter be in a financial crisis? Why should sister GBC college, Brewton-Parker, be on accreditation probation for (among many problems) financial instability?
Where's the stewardship? Where's the leadership?
The GBC struggled mightily to wrest control of Shorter from it previous donors and board -- are they now just going to let it twist slowly in the wind?
WE know far better than anyone the loving, open Christian atmosphere that once embraced the school.
This entire debacle has to do with the Georgia Baptist Convention and those in control and their quest for power. Everything else is just a shiny distraction for everyone to follow, while they continue their quest for power and domination.
In some places such differences result in death, at Shorter it's merely their jobs which are sacrificed. But either way it's a dispicable tactic by those who engage in it, especially those who have a sufficient lack of integrity to call themselves Christians while conducting themselves in a glaring un-Christian manner.
How about "fundamentalist purge"?
Ah, once again you and I are going to agree to disagree.
I would include the letters and the comments that have been publically written. Why? Because they are a good indication into how the public is receiving the message that is being communicated from the top of the Hill. That was one of the points in my previous comment.
The message the administration and the GBC are communicating is that "Shorter is now back on the right path." The use of the word "back" or even dropping the word "back" and saying "Shorter is now on the right path", would make people who had never attended Shorter or who only had one side of this mess to look at - think that Shorter was on the wrong path all along - and that's not true. When Robert White said in his speech at the Nov. 2011 GBC convention(he was also referencing the new presidents of Truett McConnell and Brewton Parker) that, "When I think of the long days in court...of the long nominating committee meetings...and know I have now been gifted by three Godly men who love Jesus Christ, it thrills my soul...."
Those words being spoken or read would lead someone to believe that Shorter had been run by men who were NOT Godly. I venture to say that there are MANY Romans and countless alumni would would back me up when I say that to imply that the presidents who came before Dowless were anything other than Godly men who loved Jesus Christ is an outright lie.
I have to back Mirage up on his point about religious cleansing. Religious cleansing is religious cleansing. The difference in the incidence of Shorter is that instead of bombs and guns, the powers now ruling Shorter have used the weapons of takeover, deception, intolerance and coercion, all wrapped in the guise of being on a "good Christian mission." It has been an unwanted, insulting, and totally unnecessary cleansing.
Felieca
"Comparing a university that enacts policies that may prompt some to find other employment to a political regime that massacres innocent men, women, and children is not responsible discourse."
Go back and read my post Josh. I didn't compare the entities responsible, I compared the principle involved in their actions, that of undertaking a policy of religious cleansing. My precise statement...
"It's apt in regards to the principle involved, that of getting rid of those who don't believe exactly as you believe."
My statement wasn't malicious in the slightest. It was quite accurate, you just don't like it when the actions of Shorter (based on religious beliefs) share the same principle as the actions of those who engage in mass murder (based on religious beliefs). As I noted before, religious cleansing is religious cleansing. The only difference is the distance the respective parties have gone in conducting such cleansing.
Don't like the comparison? Don't engage in the principle. Otherwise own up to the fact that what's going on at Shorter is in fact religious cleansing.
"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
MLKJ wisely recognized the significant difference between those who simply disagreed with his opinions and those who would hang him for them. Comparing a university that enacts policies that may prompt some to find other employment to a political regime that massacres innocent men, women, and children is not responsible discourse. It is malicious sensationalism.
Religious cleansing is religious cleansing. The only difference between Shorter and Srebrenica is how far those doing the cleansing took the matter. At Shorter stripping employees (including good Christians) of their livelihood was sufficient while in Bosnia the people were stripped of their lives.
The comparison isn't ludicrous. It's apt in regards to the principle involved, that of getting rid of those who don't believe exactly as you believe. That's insensitive and irresponsible on the part of Shorter, all the more because it's supposedly being done in the name of Christ and following his Word. THAT'S ludicrous.
Clearly, our ideological divide is far too wide to ever bridge. I would suggest that before you use ludicrous characterizations like "religious cleansing," try considering the families of the 520 Srebrenica-born Bosnians who were buried today. Hyperboles such as yours are not only unhelpful, but insensitive and irresponsible.
To clarify, I would not include letters to the editor or comments by concerned citizens who mean well but are largely unfamiliar with such institutions and practices as part of the body of literature that informs intentionally Christian higher education. Rather, I'm referring to scholarly articles and books written by seasoned researchers, distinguished faculty members, and accomplished college and university presidents, encompassing a wide variety of diverse institutions that have made substantial contributions to the field of Christian higher education.
While I can appreciate your comment about maintaining distinctiveness, as opposed to following what other colleges and universities are doing, I would gently suggest that such a comment cuts both ways. While Shorter's policies are not all-together different from their peers, they are quite distinct compared to most other institutions of higher education. Much of the criticism is simply a demand to conform to the cultural norms and expectations that govern most of academia. Additionally, might I suggest that pursuing best practices, as evidenced in the aforementioned body of literature, is generally regarded as a good thing.
You and I have both read the countless letters and comments on this subject. One of the running themes that supporters rally around is, "Shorter is finally getting back to its Christian roots." One of the points from the administration is, "we're putting the school back on the right path." It is from these continued comments that one can infer that Shorter had become a very wayward school and the new sheriff had been brought in to run off the evil doers. That's called "spin." You and and I both know that.
There is something else that has been nagging at me as well, and it finally dawned on me this morning what it was. You suggest
"that if you compare the previous ethos of the college to the large body of literature available on distinctly Christian institutions of higher education, you would discover stark differences. I'm pleased that the university is pursuing these distinctives with renewed vigor." What finally dawned on me this morning, is why should the administration and the GBC be working towards making Shorter like every other Christian institution? To quote my mother, "just because everyone else is jumping off a bridge, doesn't mean you have to do the same." There was nothing wrong with Shorter the way it was. I don't doubt a few things could have been tweaked here and there, that's true of any business. So, just because a system in place is different from other institutions and it works...why suddenly the need for conformity?
I don't think it would be fair or accurate for anyone to suggest that Shorter has not enjoyed a long tradition of faculty and staff members who love Christ and pursue excellence within their respective field or discipline, even at times allowing one to inform the other. I'm not sure if critics of the "old guard" have even suggested this to be the case. I would suggest, however, that if you compare the previous ethos of the college to the large body of literature available on distinctly Christian institutions of higher education, you would discover stark differences. I'm pleased that the university is pursuing these distinctives with renewed vigor.
Can you explain this a little more? Anybody in particular?
Thanks for clarifying.
My apologies for spelling your lovely name incorrectly this whole time! Glad I finally caught my error! Thank you for being gracious with me.
In the club party rock, lookin' for your girl,
She on my jock (huh) non stop when we in the spot
Booty move weight like she owns the block
Where I drank I gots to know
Tight jeans, tattoos cause I'm rock and roll
Half black half white, domino
Gain the money Opa! doh!
Yo!
I'm running through these hoes like Drano
I got that devilish flow rock and roll no halo
We party rock yea!
That's the crew that I'm repping
On a rise to the top no Led in our Zeppelin
Hey!
Party rock is in the house tonight
Everybody just have a good time
Now, tell me again where THAT is in the Bible? Go Hawks!
"It reminded me of when the Protestants challenged the Catholic Church to conform to the Bible and the persecution that came against the Christians because of it."
My question: are you saying that Protestants are Christians but Catholics aren't? Or vice versa?
Thanks for clarifying.
I was trying to figure out if the letter-writer saw just one group as Christian.
I'm glad they all get along much better now. There's too much Important Work that needs urgent doing to squabble over details.