############################################################
          The Student Voice     Issue 1, No. 1     10.4.1996
############################################################

     NEWSLETTER ANNOUNCEMENTS.

     FIRST, we want to announce for the record that the members of The
Student Voice ARE NOT students at PCC.  Each member is, however, part of the
family of PCC alumni.  As such, we have no connection to events that are
presently occuring on campus, and so we are asking you to let us know about
things that are happening and of anything that happens on campus that you
think is outrageous, funny or even good so that we can comment on it and pass
the stories along to everyone else on the mailing list.

     SECOND, here are the current mailing list statistics:

               Subscribers:  54
               Those who have asked to be removed from the
                    mailing list:  6

     THIRD, please feel free to print copies of this issue and send it to
others who may be interested or who may not have e-mail access.

############################################################

     ESSAY

     "An Analytical Framework Within Which to Analyze PCC Rules and
Regulations"
             - By Leibniz

     Consider these hypothetical scenerios:  
     Hypothetical #1.
     You are walking along in Cordova Mall minding your own business (in
proper PCC attire, of course. . .).  I come up to you out of nowhere and tell
you to go hang up my coat for me in the nearest coat room.  What is your
reaction?  

     Hypothetical #2.
     You need a ride back home from school, so I decide to give you a ride in
my car.  About an hour into the ride, I tell you to finish off my week-old
soda that has been sitting in the sun for days on top of the dashboard.  What
is your reaction?
     
     I imagine that your reaction to each of these hypotheticals would by
something like, "Take a hike, man!"  This would, in fact, be an appropriate
response, but why?  Why is it that you would not do what I told you to do?
 The answer is simple - in neither case did I have the authority to make you
do what I had told you to do.  But this again begs the question, why not?
 What are the principles upon which you base this answer?  What are the
principles that you used to determine, correctly, that I did not have the
authority to make you do either of these two acts I asked you to do?
     This essay will provide you with the tools you need to analyze any rule,
policy or regulation by any human entity, whether it be a government,
business, home or PCC.  The whole issue of authority is something that seems
to be either ignored or greatly misunderstood by many Christians, and this is
unfortunate.  This is particularly unfortunate because authority is
essentially a spiritual matter, and who should be the most aware of spiritual
matters?  Christians.  
     Many times Christians are afraid to recognize the fact that many
concepts are difficult to understand and to figure out sometimes.  This being
the case, we often try to make everything black or white, right or wrong, and
most things simply cannot be universally pigeon-holed into one or another of
these categories.  That is why God gave us minds, to figure things out for
ourselves.  When PCC adopts rule after rule after rule it is doing so because
it is easier for them to make things black and white, whether or not they are
so, instead of dealing with the more difficult issue of recognizing that
maybe many of these issues are personal matters and simply out of their
hands.
     God created us with a sense of responsibility toward each other, and
when we violate the bounds of authority we breach this responsibility to our
fellow man.
     So, let us address the analytical structure, a context within which any
problem of authority can be addressed.  Please bear in mind that many of
these points we have made many times before, they were just never tied in
with each other into one system.

     1.)     AUTHORITY MUST BE ACQUIRED FROM A LEGITIMATE SOURCE

     Authority means "privilege."  A privilege is something that is derived
from another source.  You or I cannot simply give ourselves authority.
 Consider Hypothetical #1.  The reason I cannot simply come up to you and
demand that you hang my coat up for me is because no one gave me the
authority over you.  No matter how much I may want that authority, I cannot
have it unless I acquire it from a legitimate source.  
     Now, do not confuse "power" with "authority."  It is possible for a
person to have both power and authority over you, but it is also possible
that a person could have only power and not authority, or the other way
around.  If in our hypothetical I weigh 250 pounds and you only weigh 110, I
possess the POWER to make you hang my coat up but not the right.  However, if
I am your 65 year old father who has one leg amputated from service in
Vietnam and you are a 250 pound young man, I may have the authority to make
you hang up my coat but not the power.  
     Consider these passages of Scripture:
          Mark 13:34                Master gave authority to his servants
          Luke 9:1                    Christ gave authority to disciples
          John 5:26, 27             God the Father gave God the Son authority
          Acts 9:13,14              Chief Priests gave Saul authority
          II Cor. 10:8                 God gave Paul authority
     So, the bottom line is that whenever anyone states a claim to authority
over you, they must have acquired that authority from a legitimate source.
 This, too, begs the question. What is a "legitimate source"?

     2.)     ALL AUTHORITY RESIDES IN GOD

     Since all of you are attending a Christian college, it is doubtful that
anyone would disagree with this statement of principle.  But just in case
there is any doubt, consider these passages of Scripture:
          Coll. 1:16,17
          Romans 13:1
     God created everything.  By His very nature, and by the very nature of
the relationship between a creator and its creation, God possesses all
authority over us, His creation.  He can simply tell us to do whatever He
wants, and it will be legitimate.  This point really needs no more
explanation, but keep it in mind, for it is the foundational element of this
whole discussion.
     
     3.)     FOUR DIRECT GRANTS OF AUTHORITY FROM GOD
   
     Since in God all authority resides, it would naturally follow that any
claim to authority must have been acquired from the ultimate legitimate
source, which is God.  If someone who is claiming authority can point to a
direct grant from God to do that which they claim to have the right to do,
then the issue is over.  That person may enforce that authority.  But how
often has God granted authority in a direct way?  Four human entities have
been given direct authority from God.
     FAMILY.   By the act of procreation we are creating a responsibility
over which God has not only given us the authority to exercise, but He has
given us a command to do so.  Consider the first part of Genesis 1:28.  Here
God has given us the direct right and command to produce families.  With this
right comes the authority to raise children according to the principles of
Scripture.  This is laid out in Ephesians 6:4 and Genesis 18:9, among others.
 Therefore, we have a right, or the authority, by a direct grant from God to
create and raise families according to Scriptural principles.
     Note that this grant of authority was NOT given to the state or the
church (or a college).  Just as the state/church does not have the authority
to cross over into the family's rights, so too the family does not have the
authority to cross over into that of other institutions which have received
direct grants from God.  (This is a qualified principle, however, which goes
beyond the scope of this discussion.)
     CHURCH.   The church has also been given a direct grant of authority
from God to do certain things.  Recognize, however, that this is a limited
grant.  It extends only to what has been prescribed in the New Testament.
 The church may remove certain members - I Corinthians 5:9-13.  The church
has the authority to settle disputes among its members - I Corinthians 6:1-8.
 You understand the point.  The church is an organization that has been given
certain authority to do certain things.
     Now, can it simply require its members to do whatever it wants by
imposing all kinds of rules and regulations, even if the purpose and ends are
good?  No!  It cannot cross the boundaries which have been set for it by God.
 However, if we use the logic of PCC, a church could do whatever it wanted to
its members because "they decided to go there and could leave at anytime."
 Well it should be obvious when looking at it within the context of a church
that the church cannot simply do anything it wants. 
     STATE.   This refers to human government.  The state, too, has been
given direct authority to do certain things, and like the church and family,
its authority is limited to what has been prescribed in Scripture.  It may
punish evildoers - I Peter 2:13,14.  It may encourage those who do good -
Romans 13:1-6.  It cannot violate God's laws - Acts 23:2,3; Leviticus 19:15.
     Much of our political debate hinges on what is the proper role and
authority of the government.  Our Constitution is based on the principle that
the government can only exercise "those powers SPECIFICALLY enumerated" to
it, and it is ironic that probably some of the biggest "conservatives" on
campus - those who advocate a limited government - are also the ones who
would criticize us the loudest for our advocacy of limited authority at PCC.
     We have often used the analogy of the government and how although we
decide whether or not we want to reside in a particular jurisdiction, this
does not give the government free reign to impose whatever kinds of
regulations it wants.  It is still subject to its "enumerated powers."  So,
too, PCC is subject to its enumerated powers.  Consider these three reasons
why it is important to understand the limitations placed on government, and
see if you can't relate them to PCC.
     First, man is created by God and is therefore subject to the sovereign
authority of his Creator.  Second, Man, having been created in the image of
God, is worthy of respect by those who govern him.  Third, man is a sinner
and therefore not to be trusted with unlimited authority.
     INDIVIDUAL.   The fourth category of human divisions that has been given
a direct grant of authority from God is the individual.  Please note at the
outset that like the family, church and state, individuals also have a
limited grant of authority - I Corinthians 7:37; Genesis 2:16.  That which is
commanded by God, we have the authority to do.  This should not be subject to
any debate.  If God tells us to do something, we obviously have a right to
complete it.
     The second aspect of the individual's authority is very complex.  This
is the authority over private property, or what is also known as the
"Dominion mandate" - Genesis 1:28.  We have been given the right to own
property and therefore the authority to do with it as we see fit, subject to
God's principles of course.
     Here is where many of the controversies will lie.  Consider Hypothetical
#2.  You are in my car, my property.  However, does this give me free reign?
 Of course not.  Then where is the line to be drawn.  Here it is, and
understand this important principle:  authority over personal property only
extends to prohibitive commands which affect the use of that property.  Note
that there are two aspects: prohibition, and the command must affect the
property.  In other words, when I told you to finish off that old, flat, warm
soda, this was not a prohibition and had nothing to do with an affect on my
property, namely my car.  Had I told you not to smoke in my car, this would
be perfectly legitimate because it fits both levels of the definition.  It is
a prohibiton which affects my property.  Even if drinking the soda would
somehow affect the car, say by making it smell better, since it was not
prohibitive (I'm making you do something affirmative), it doesn't qualify for
the property grant of authority.
     This can be fairly complicated and there may be other issues involved,
but if you understand these two principles, you can handle most any problem.
 Now, where does this definition come from?  It comes from volumes and
volumes of historical, social and philosophical beliefs that are consistent
with the purpose and understanding of the dominion mandate.  In other words,
it is too vast to go into here.
      
     4.)     INDIRECT GRANTS OF AUTHORITY

     We have seen that four distinct groups have been given authority by God,
but what about everything else, i.e., business, college, employment, etc.?
 There is still one more level of analysis left.  This, too, can be fairly
complicated, but the basic priciples are clear.  
     We have the authority to contract with each other to give up our rights
and authority in exchange for another's rights and/or authorities.  This is
commonly referred to as THE RIGHT TO DELEGATE.  We are free to make binding
agreements - Genesis 9:12; Joshua 24:25; Genesis 21:27.  One of these
agreements may be to give up some of our authority - Luke 20:1-8.  But note
these two principles:  First, we can only delegate that which we have.
 Second, it cannot violate the laws of God.
     Therefore, when I accept a job, I am delegating some of my authority to
the employer in exchange for his right over a certain amount of the proceeds
he/she receives from selling a product or service that I produce by means of
a contractual arrangement.  But again we must address the question of whether
or not the employer therefore has free reign to impose whatever rule he/she
wants to over you.  Again, of course not.  Here is the principle: the rules
must be consistent with the purpose and effect of the agreement.  An
employer, in most circumstances, cannot tell you what to do when you go to
your own home.  Why?  Because this doesn't have anything to do with the
purpose or effect of the contractual agreement.  If, however, what you do at
home does affect the purpose or effect of the agreement - say, a no smoking
policy for professional atheletes - this would be legitimate because it deals
with the purpose and effect of the agreement.

     5.)     PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

     A.     We can exercise any authority that has been directly granted by
God.
     B.     We can exercise any authority that has been delegated from a
direct grant from God.
     C.     Therefore, any rule/regulation/law/policy must be traceable back
to God through this analysis; if it cannot be, then it is illegitimate.

     6.)     SOME EXAMPLES

     Ok, that's all well and good, you may be saying, but how about
translating this into real life.  How can a rule be analyzed through this
analysis?  Good question.  Let's see if we can't try it out. . . .
     Consider the rule that requires students to not chew gum in buildings.
 The authority for this must have been acquired from a legitimate source.
 Was it acquired directly from God?  No.  Does the college have a subsidiary
direct grant of authority from God through one of the four specified groups
to prohibit gum in its buildings?  Sort of.  While it is not a family, church
or state, it does qualify for some individual authority under the dominion
mandate principle.  The buildings are its property, so let's see if the rule
meets the definition of authority over personal property.  Remember, it must
meet two elements: (1) a prohibition that (2) affects the property.  A rule
prohibiting the chewing of gum is, obviously, a prohibition.  The reason for
this rule is so that the property is "protected."  Therefore, this rule is a
valid use of authority.
     How about the rule that requires you to leave the Pensacola area after
the semester is out?  Again, the authority for this must have been acquired
from a legitimate source.  Did it come directly from God?  No.  Does it fall
into one of the four subsidiary direct grants from God?  It does not fall
under the family, church or state categories because a college is not one of
these institutions.  Within the individual category, the rule does not seek
to carry out one of God's directives, so this doesn't apply.  It has nothing
to do with personal property so the dominion mandate doesn't apply.  Even if
we said it somehow did, and while it could properly be defined as
"prohibitive," it does not in any way affect the property itself.
     Does it fall under the contractual, delegation of authority principle,
because this is the only category left?  It will be an easy temptation for
the administration to try to group everything that cannot be grouped anywhere
else into this category.  However, it must be remembered that the rule must
have something to do with the purpose or effect of the agreement.  The
purpose of the agreement between the student and the school is essentially
that the student will pay a certain amount of money for a Christian
education, and the agreement only extends from the beginning of the semester
to the end. Even with a very liberal interpretation of "Christian education,"
this rule cannot be said to further this purpose, neither does it fall within
the applicable time frame.
     It has nothing to do with education.  It has nothing to do with the type
of environment you live in.  It has nothing to do with the essential reason
that you attended PCC.  It is a rule that has been invoked solely on the
basis that PCC feels it needs that extra little bit of control over your
life.  This is not a valid use of authority, and based on the framework of
analysis, not a legitimate rule.
     Now, consider one more.  How about the rule that says when two people of
the opposite sex are sitting outside (or in the commons?) together, they may
not open their Bible together?  If this is not a correct interpretation of
the rule, or if it has been changed, please let us know.  But if this is, in
fact, a rule, we don't even need to do an analysis because this rule causes
you to violate a clear Scriptural command - to study God's word on your own
free time (this is awfully close to what happened to Daniel in the Old
Testament).  When any rule violates God's law, it is automatically
illegitimate.  No one has the right to tell you when you can and cannot open
your Bible!  This is not Cuba!
     In fact, this is one of the instances that spurred us on to create The
Student Voice.  This is the most blatant abuse of authority that we have seen
anywhere in a long time.  Not even a public college would prohibit this.  In
fact, this is so bogus and blatantly offensive to the very essence of
Christianity, that if it is still the rule, we encourage all of you to pair
up with someone of the opposite sex and open your Bible in defiance of this
blatantly tyrannical rule.  Well, what about the idea that even if a rule is
wrong you still have to obey because you agreed?  You cannot rightfully agree
to disobey God's law.  It's that simple.

     7.)   CONCLUSION

     Problems are easy to spot and to criticize.  Solutions to solve these
problems, however, are not quite as easy to develop.  This framework of
analysis is a solution to our own criticism. This can be applied to any rule
adopted by any human organization.  Remember, the principles are the same no
matter what kind of organization you are dealing with.  They don't change
simply because a college is the object of inquiry, and they don't diminish in
relevance simply because a student "decides to go there."  Remember, a
student cannot give up any authority that he or she doesn't have in the first
place.
     We welcome any criticism of this system or the underlying philosophy
that guides it. We also recognize that this has been more of an overview than
an in-depth study, so we also welcome any questions regarding something we
talked about but maybe didn't make as clear as you would have liked.

############################################################

     COMMENTS 

     Comment #1
     << Due to the lack of backbone shown by the authors of the Student
Voice, I am asking you to please dicontinue writing me.  Thank you for
sending me your views.  Have a nice day. >>

     Response
     So, let us get this straight - you don't wish to hear anything you
disagree with?  This is sort of like the child who hides his face when he
doesn't want to be seen by anyone, in the mistaken belief that not looking at
someone will make them go away.  But this is typical PCC thinking. . . .

     Comment #2
     << Hi.. I've been looking at your page, and have found that basically I
agree 
with your position... it has always been strange that the college is so 
afraid of students thinking for themselves and voicing their opinions.

Something I find odd is that generally people who are defending the 
college refer to you as immature and foolish.  In any other scenario in 
the USA we call what you are doing "defending your rights".  In fact, 
these same people who ridicule you, undoubtly cheered the students in 
China when they took over Tienamen (sp?) Square; when the wall came 
down; when Romania was freed... It's the same basic principle that we 
are discussing, people's desire to be able to say what they believe 
without fear of being punished for doing so.  Why is the college treated 
as if it can do no wrong, and anyone who suggests otherwise is labeled a 
heritic?  Why do these people take one position when it comes to 
governments (who by the way, also get their authority from God), but an 
entirely different one when it comes to PCC?

I also find it interesting that these people also assume that since you 
and I believe the above, we must therefore hate that college.  Where on 
earth does that logic come from?  In fact, I am proud of my four years at 
PCC and hope that my children will attend someday, and I want it to be 
even better for them then it was for me.  Back to the government thing... 
does it automatically follow that if we publicly voice our disagreement 
with our government that we must therefore hate the United States?  NO!  
Does anyone suggest that we leave the country and go somewhere else?  
NO! Does the government kick us out of the country and send us to 
Russia? NO!  In fact, public voicing of opinion is what makes our 
country so great.... it doesn't hurt the cause of the USA, it actually 
furthers the cause.  Why can't PCC understand that? >>

     Comment from August 29 regarding original web site
     << Thanks for telling me about this site!  I am a proud graduate of PCC,
but
yes, there are some things about the school that I am not proud of,
particularly the Work Assistance Program.  I highly encourage local
high school students to attend PCC, but I always tell them to go off campus
to
look for a job.  PCC makes it clear that it is a student's "privilege"  to
work for them because of the help they provide.  The problem is that they
sure don't make anyone feel too privileged to work there.  Even the good
workers can be given tons of grief.  I had a pretty bad experience my senior
year when I worked ***.  Even after being jerked all over the
Administration Building from one office to another for my supposedly poor job
performance, nobody I talked to felt I deserved what happened.  In fact that
was my only mistake: talking to others about what was going on.
Yes, I'm proud of PCC and what they have accomplished, but they need a lot of
help when it comes to love and being in touch with how a student really
feels. >>

############################################################
THE STUDENT VOICE, PCC's alternative newsletter