############################################################
          The Student Voice     Issue 2, No. 3     11.15.1996
############################################################

>>> WARNING:  The PCC administration does NOT want you to read this
newsletter.  It contains material of an adult nature, and since they believe
you are not capable of handling adult material, they wish for this newsletter
to be censored.  Therefore, if you are not an adult, please do not read the
rest of this newsletter.  Thank you.

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

          QUOTES OF THE WEEK

"Conditions on some campuses call to mind the tombstone in a rural
English churchyard, which contains the simple six-word epitaph: 'I told
you I was sick.' "
          - George F. Will

"Only the suppressed word is dangerous."  
          - Ludwig Borne

"Many occasionally stumble over the truth,
but most of them pick themselves up
and hurry off as if nothing had happened."  
          - Winston Churchill

"Don't be a dropout in the school of wisdom."
          - Charles Stanley

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

          TABLE OF CONTENTS

     I.   Voice Announcements
     II.   Have you heard the one about. . . ?
     III.   Some Words From a Deacon
     IV.   The Voice's Comments on the "drug bust"
     V.   Essays
              A.   "Christians Criticizing Christians"  - The Christian
Research Institute
              B.   "Some Comments, and A Potential Solution"  - Leibniz
              C.   "Ears For the Mind" - lupos
     VI.   Your Comments

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

          I.     Voice Announcements

>>> Thank you for the response to the Rules Compilation that we are putting
together for an addition to the Student Handbook.  It is becoming rather
bulky, but we still request that you send us any rules that you have seen put
into effect so that we may put together a list for future students.

>>> We have received rumors that PCC is attempting to block the transmission
of this newsletter to those on the PCC system (eagle.pcci.edu), and this
could be a reason why many of you on campus have not received some of our
issues.  The Student Voice is published weekly and is sent out sometime
between Friday and Sunday evenings, so if you do not receive it by Monday
morning or know of someone else who hasn't, please contact us immediately so
that we may get the issues out as quick as possible.

>>> If any "official" statement is made about The Voice, please let us know
right away.

>>> If you would like any copies of back issues, please let us know.  All
issues are now re-formatted.  However, we would ask that you limit your
request to 2 issues per request in order for us to be more efficient.  Once
you have received the two issues, then please feel free to request 2 more.
 Here is a list of Voice issues:

          The Student Voice Introductory Letter
          Issue 1, Nos. 1 - 4
          Issue 2, Nos. 1 - 2

>>> This week's edition of The Student Voice will be going to 196 readers.
 Please help us to reach 200 by Thanksgiving by letting others know of this
newsletter.

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

          II.     HAVE YOU HEARD THE ONE ABOUT. . . ?

>>> This is a story that was sent to us by a current student. - eds.

     A little more that halfway into my sophomore year I went over 75
demerits for the first time in my college career.  And in DC, for this
"special event" (being campused for the first time), the person (no longer
here) who read my offenses to me, showed me where to sign and then asked me,
"What's your major?"
     I just stared at him, trying to see what relevance his question had to
my being campused.
     "I said, what's your major?"
     Still trying to understand, I answered him with a quizzical tone of
voice, "Commercial Writing?"
     To which he replied, "I wouldn't hire you."
     I was even more confused.
     "Sir?"
     "If I were a newspaper editor and you came to me for a job, and I saw
how many demerits you had in college, I wouldn't hire you."
     That hurt.
     "I wouldn't hire someone who got as many demerits as you have right
now."
     Then he dismissed me, and for the remainder of my sophomore year, what
he said to me that day nearly gave me ulcers.  And during the entire time, I
never told anyone what he had said to me, and several times I almost decided
to drop out of school because of it.  The only thing I could think of was,
"Why should I even bother going to college when I'll never be able to get a
job after I graduate because of my demerit record?"
     Several months later, during the summer, I set out to find out if there
was any truth to what I was told in DC that day.
     I was able to speak to 3 people in the publishing industry -- one of
which was the chief editor of a local newspaper.  I asked each of them what
they took into consideration when hiring new employees.  I learned a great
deal as a result of those interviews, but the best response I got from them
was when I asked them what they thought about a "demerit record."  All 3 of
them laughed out-loud, one nearly spewing his coffee.  They said that demerit
records, to them, were a "joke" and that it was 
no business of theirs to probe into a student's personal life unless it was a
criminal offense (considered so by a court of law) they committed in college.
 They went on to say that they didn't think that college institutions had any
right to use demerits as a legitimate form of disciplinary action.
 Suspension or paying a fee, they agreed, was 
legitimate punishment -- if the offense was truly worthy of such action.  But
they all felt that a demerit system, for college students, was ludicrously
unnecessary.
     The best response by far was from the newspaper editor who told me that
if he saw a lot of demerits on my record, he would take that to mean that I
was a "risk-taker," and in the newspaper business, he said, "risk-takers are
the best d**n employees I can ever hope to hire."
     So was this particular staff member "just" in placing an entirely
unnecessary burden of guilt on my shoulders for me to bear alone for over 6
months?  I think not.  And it certainly wasn't something Christ would've done
either.  My grades even suffered drastically as a result.
     And I neglected to mention that he added "insult to injury" by asking me
for my car keys.  WHAT RIGHT DID THEY HAVE TO TAKE AWAY THE KEYS TO MY CAR?
 In most states, even ALCOHOLICS aren't forced to give up their right to
drive until the 2nd or 3rd offense!
     So I called the only TRUE parental authority in my life at that time --
my dad -- and informed him of the situation.  Like most parents, he, of
course, became angry because he owned the car and the college had no rights
over his private property.  So he called the Deans' Offices to complain, and
like most parents, he was put on hold or advised to call back later when the
Deans would be "more readily available." 
     And in the midst of all the hoopla, I guess they forgot to ask me again
to turn in my keys, so I carried them 'round with me proudly until the day my
"sentence" had ended.
     Still, there are employers I have later come across who do consider your
demerit record, even for "piddly things," to be reason enough not to hire
you.  But I do agree with your position on the matter -- an adult should not
have to explain to a prospective employer why they got demerits for wearing
"the wrong shoes," or for the vile offense of leaving a hat hanging on a
bedpost, of all things.
     But I don't want anyone else to have to go through the personal agony I
experienced as a result of how I was belittled in DC that day.  Should it
happen to you, "shake the dust off your feet" and go on living in the state
of Grace.  You're God's Child, and He won't allow you to suffer later in life
just because you may have had a lot of demerits in college.

"He will not see the righteous suffer, nor His seed begging bread."**
 
############################################################

         III.     SOME WORDS FROM A DEACON

     I have not even finished reading your material yet and I am so enthused
that you are doing what needed to be done for a long, long time.  I have an
interesting PCC story to share:
     In the Fall of 19** my wife (then Fiance) and I were preparing to get
married over interterm.  We needed "permission" from the Dean of Student
Affairs, Dr. Goddard to remain students after getting married.  The rule at
the time (since changed I believe) was that you must have completed your
junior year and be over 21.  I fit the requirements but my wife did not (she
was a few credits short of becoming a junior).  Dr. Goddard proceeded to tell
us that we were out of God's will because God had led Dr. Horton to put that
rule in the rule book.  He further pronounced that if we went ahead my wife
(fiance) would get pregnant and NEVER finish college.  I let him go on and
did not argue with him, since apparently we were at his mercy with LOTS of
time and money invested in credits that would not transfer anywhere else.  I
asked if my wife could take classes at PJC and transfer them in thus becoming
a junior and fulfilling the requirements to finish.  He said he would check
with (I believe) academic council and let me know.  I did not recieve the
note I was expecting, instead I recieved a call slip to his office.  He
proceeded to give me yet another lecture on the fact that we were proceeding
out of God's will because God had led Dr. Horton to put the rule in the
rulebook, yada, yada, yada.  I had finally had enough and explained to him
that since my wife and I had both prayed about it and felt led of God to get
married, and both sets of parents felt the same way, the preponderance of the
evidence would lead me to believe that it was in fact Dr. Horton that was out
of God's will if there was a conflict.  He then (with hands visibly shaking
and trembling voice) asked me to leave his office.  We both finished college
at PCC as married town students, I got an MBA.  My wife worked as an
Elementary Teacher for several years and did not get pregnant as Dr. Goddard
threatened. (He also seemed to imply that his daughter, whose name escapes
me, was not planned so maybe HE was out of God's will at the time (his logic
not mine)).
     Our continuing problem with PCC is that they will not cooperate with
returning a form my wife needs to get state certified to teach where we
currently live.  They (PCC) merely state that they never intended for a
graduate to become a public school teacher (even though I explained it was to
facilitate home schooling in the future, not public school employment).  We
are not thwarted however, she will teach one more year here and get the form
filled out by her current employer.  I would not recommend anyone attend PCC
if they may need an accredited degree or certification in whatever field in
the future.  That is why I got an MBA before we moved from Pensacola (which
they would not run in the alumni news section of the UPDATE, apparently only
PCC staff members can have external degrees publicized).
     Thank you for providing the forum for this free and open discussion to
take place.  To refute your critics that your readers are just disgruntled
backsliders, let me point out that my wife and I both graduated from PCC and
I am currently a deacon in a local New Testament Baptist church, sing in the
choir, my wife teaches Sunday School, etc. ad nauseum.

>>> Well, we try to make it clear that many of our supporters are not
"disgruntled backsliders," but are in fact good Christians who simply want to
see the Cause of Christ be more than a nice campus with strict rules, but
unfortunately, this seems to be a difficult position to convince many people
of.

Without getting into too much detail right now, consider what we have said
about authority [Issue 1, No. 1], and think about whether a college has the
authority to tell someone when they can and can't get married, or perhaps
more accurately, that a person is unfit to attend college because they have
decided to get married. - eds.

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

          IV.     THE STUDENT VOICE'S COMMENTS REGARDING THE "DRUG BUST"

The Student Voice has received numerous reports of a drug incident on campus
this past week, and we plan on taking an official position once we know more
facts.  We are waiting on an official comment from the administration
regarding this matter, and once we hear from them (IF we hear from them), we
will set out our position in the next newsletter.  

If you KNOW anything about it, pleas let us know.  However, we do NOT want
rumors, we want FACTS.  Thank you for your cooperation. - eds.

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

          V.     ESSAYS

"Christians Criticizing Christians: Can It Be Biblical?"
- Bob and Gretchen Passantino

[This article is being used with the permission of The Christian Research
Institue; Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute]
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Christians Criticizing Christians: Can It Be Biblical?" (an
article from the Viewpoint column of the Christian Research
Journal, Fall 1992, page 39) by Bob and Gretchen Passantino.
   The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.

-------------

    Mike Warnke, whose lucrative career careened through four marriages and
more than one affair, says God will judge Cornerstone magazine for printing a
report disproving his ex-satanic high priest "testimony" and exposing his
moral lapses.
Healing movement televangelist Benny Hinn says God will attack CRI president
Hank Hanegraaff and his family because he criticizes Hinn and his Faith
movement colleagues. Lauren Stratford's supporters charge Bob and Gretchen
Passantino as
agents of Satan because we published evidence that Stratford's best-selling
testimony of satanic ritual abuse was false.
    When it comes to Christians criticizing Christians, the battle lines are
drawn. But are the lines biblical? Is it wrong to publicly evaluate the
teachings of a Christian pastor, expose the immorality of a Christian leader,
or tell the truth about a popular Christian media figure?
    Evangelicals warn people about the false teachings and practices of the
cults, which claim compatibility with Christianity and yet deny cardinal
Christian doctrine. Our standard is truth and our judge is Scripture. Yet
when apologists turn to false teachings within the Christian church, some
evangelicals apply a different standard. Frequently heard objections include,
"Jesus said it's wrong to judge," and, "Criticism is unloving and divisive."
Christians who voice these protests fail their own test -- they criticize and
judge other Christians for criticizing and judging other Christians.
Furthermore, these critics fail to understand that without such scrutiny,
Christians are misled into heresy and duped by those whose public ministries
promote false teachings and/or hide private immoral behavior. Careful,
biblical criticism expresses
true Christian love and affords essential safeguards to faith.
    Good discernment and moral accountability should be practiced among
believers. The Old Testament establishes this pattern. Instructions
concerning false prophets in Deuteronomy 13:1-5 assume the prophet arises
from the congregation of Israel. People are admonished to banish idolatry
from their families: "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or
the wife you love, or your closest friend..." (v. 6). Deuteronomy 13
instructs the Israelites how to practice good discernment within their
communities: "You must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly." If the
community is idolatrous, it must be dealt with publicly (v. 14). Psalm 50:18
states that one who sees a crime and doesn't report it has moral culpability.
    The New Testament continues the theme of good discernment within the
believing community, most notably when the Bereans test Paul's teachings
(Acts 17:11) and the Thessalonians are commanded to test all things (1 Thess.
5:21-22). Judgment is
not excluded, but unrighteous judgment is. Jesus declared: "Stop judging by
mere appearances, and make a right judgment" (John 7:24).
    Jesus expelled the money changers from the temple, denounced the
Pharisees and scribes, and rebuked the teachers of the Law. He reprimanded
Peter in front of the other disciples (Matt.16:22-23). Paul followed Jesus'
example, naming false teachers in the church (2 Tim. 2:14-19) and openly
criticizing Peter (Gal. 2:11, 14).
    When immorality occurs in the church (Titus 1:15-16), the Bible says to
deal with it truthfully and constructively. The procedure for public leaders
caught in false teaching or immorality is for them to be rebuked publicly "so
that the others may take warning" (1 Tim. 5:20). A congregation member who
sins privately against another Christian is not to be exposed publicly unless
he (or she) persists in sin, in which case he is to be rebuked before the
church and we are to "treat him as you would a pagan or tax collector" (Matt.
18:15-17). Paul followed this procedure concerning the Christian who
persisted in sexual immorality (1 Cor. 5:3-12), and affirmed that judgment
belongs to the church.
    Christian leaders are accountable to God's people, whom the leaders
serve, and should be "above reproach," "respectable," and "able to teach" (1
Tim. 3:2). A Christian leader who is a false teacher or immoral should be
rebuked to encourage reform (Titus 1:13), and cannot separate his ministry
from his life, expecting God to bless his preaching while privately he sins;
he is "disqualified for every good work" (vv. 15-16).
    Telling the truth about false teaching or immorality in the church
corresponds with the ethics and truth which are to characterize the church.
The church is the "salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" (Matt.
5:13-14) only if characterized by truthfulness (v. 11) and righteousness (v.
16). The Christian leader has an obligation to "hold firmly the trustworthy
message as it has been taught, so that he can
encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it" (Titus
1:9). No Christian is happy when false teaching or immorality arises, but we
cannot neglect responsibility for doctrinal and moral accountability.
    Christians sometimes are uncomfortable with criticism within the church
because they assume that public criticism, since it is painful, is also
destructive. On the contrary, the "pain" of biblically conducted
confrontation produces individual growth (1
Tim. 4:16), encourages others to Christian maturity (1 Tim. 5:19-20),
promotes church strength (Eph. 4:15), and preserves the church's reputation
in the world (1 Pet. 2:12).

(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in
the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)

************************************************************

"Some Comments, and a Potential Solution"
-Leibniz

     By far and away, The Student Voice receives more complaints regarding
the critical nature of our newsletter than about anything else.  This has not
been particularly surprising to the editors of The Voice; in fact, this is
something that was anticipated from the earliest stages of planning.  We are
not going to rehash the excellent article by the Christian Research
Institute, but we would like to make a few comments about why we think this
is the most sensitive, and perhaps to the administration the most frustrating
aspect of The Voice; and then we would like to offer a potential solution to
the problem of having a human institution insulate itself from criticism.
     At the very outset we should reiterate what we have said numerous times
before - NO HUMAN INSTITUTION IS ABOVE CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.  There is
somewhat of an exception for churches, we think, but (a) a church is not a
totally human institution, and (b) PCC is no church.  Therefore, if we accept
this as the major premise - that no human institution is above constructive
criticism - and if we accept the fact that PCC is a human institution, then
it would logically follow that PCC should not completely repress any and all
criticism.
     Now, we have received comments stating that criticism is, in fact,
permitted on campus; after all, all you have to do is go to an administrative
figure and express your problem, and they will listen and be fully
cooperative.  Really?  If this is true, we have never seen it, nor do we know
of anyone else who has.  It is our firm belief that the administration will
never change any policy simply because students complain, especially if this
complaint is in the form of criticism.  Let me give you a little personal
story to illustrate what I am saying. 
     I think it was my senior year, although I am not positive. . . .  At the
time we were REQUIRED to attend dinner - undoubtedly one of the most
ridiculous rules I have ever encountered anywhere in my entire life, and one
which I am glad to hear they've done away with.  Certain students were
required to be "hosts" and "hostesses" at each ASSIGNED table, and part of
the responsibility of a host and hostess was to stimulate conversation at the
table.
     For some reason, they made my best friend a host.  He had no desire to
be a host, and although he DISAGREED with the policy he SUBMITTED to the
authority and did the best job he could, actually enjoying it on occasion.
 One fine evening in which he found himself at an unusually boring table, he
tried to strike up a conversation by saying something like this: "Don't you
guys think it's a bit ironic that this school is always praising this country
and acting patriotic, yet many of the basic core values upon which this
country and our constitution were founded are applied completely opposite
here on campus?"
     Well, needless to say, the initial reaction he got was seven hollow
stares that seemed to beg for a more interesting conversational topic - say,
collegian meetings, or the nice job the grounds crew had done that morning
with the petunias out in front of the Commons. . . you know, important
topics.  Once the comments sunk in they all looked down at their plates, and
all he could hear was the clinking of silverware against porcelain plates and
the endless drone of conversation everywhere else in the cafeteria but at his
table.  After that, I don't recall how the rest of the conversation went.
     Anyhow, a day or two later my friend opened his mailbox to see a green
call slip requesting his presence at a meeting with one of the deans.  He
arrived at the dean's office at his appointed time and waited, at least what
was for us, the customary 30+ minutes after the scheduled time to see the
dean.  
     He called my friend in, and to his credit got right to the point.  The
dean asked him to explain the comments made at the dinner table.  He did.
 Then without ever addressing the substance of these statements, even after
my friend specifically asked him if he thought it was ironic, HE THREATENED
HIM WITH EXPULSION!!!  Yes, expulsion.  Not a few demerits, not a two-week
term of being "socialed," but expulsion.  To this day we have never figured
out exactly which portion of the Student Handbook he had violated, and
apparently this wasn't necessarily important.
     I think this dean was probably calling his bluff, but when you dangle
the threat of expulsion over a student's head, particularly a senior, the
student takes this threat very seriously, and rightfully so.  Was this an
isolated incident?  Even if it was, you cannot claim that a dean is an
aberration of the system.  Wether the administration likes it or not, deans
speak for the college; and when deans speak, students listen.  But is wasn't
isolated.  During the four years I was at PCC, I spoke to virtually every
single dorm supervisor and administrative figure about my concerns and
grievances, and not once did I get a straight answer - not once.  Now, in all
fairness, no one else threatened me with expulsion, but each time the answer
was the same - I needed to change my attitude. . . you know, the
"when-I-have-no-decent-answer-from-Scripture-or-reason" charge.
     Well, I am going to say it now directly to all of the administration who
is reading this, from all of the students who HAVE had a good attitude and
have still been refused an answer - YOU NEED TO CHECK YOUR ATTITUDE,
ADMINISTRATION.  PERIOD.  What are you so afraid of?  If you are right and we
are wrong, everyone will know it.  But if you are wrong, then you need to be
mature enough to accept criticism.  Not only that, but we think it is highly
inconsistent for you to be constantly "criticizing" students for their
behavior while at the same time crying "foul" any time someone speaks a word
against you.  We would be hard pressed to explain why this is not a classic
definition of hypocrisy.  In other words, you say, we will criticize you, but
DON'T criticize us; after all, we are PCC.
     Again, in all fairness to PCC, if there is now some system in place to
provide students with an EFFECTIVE means of expressing dissatisfaction, then
we would like to know what it is, and we will modify our comments
accordingly.

There are at least two reasons, we think, why PCC is reluctant to allow
criticism by the students:

     1.)  Overemphasis on Image.  The process of discovering what is right
and what is best is often an ugly process.  It is not always pretty to see
two opposing sets of ideas clashing head on and seeing two groups of people
fight out issues of policy.  This, however, provides us with one of the
interesting paradoxes of human social interaction - out of an unpleasant
clash of ideas emerges the beauty of a refined doctrine, and a doctrine that
has been refined by the fire of debate is always better than that which has
been guarded against the checks and balances of true inquiry.
     Consider this within the context of the United States.  Do you think our
society would be better or worse off if our government adopted the same
approach to criticism as PCC has?  But PCC is not a government, someone might
say.  Oh, yes it is.  It is a government because it is the structure that has
been put in place to control a "community," as the administration is so fond
of referring itself.
     This all gets back to IMAGE [see "Exploitation Theology" in Issue 2, No.
2].  An effective means of criticism is a threat to the image that PCC has
created for itself, an image that says to everyone outside, "We have no
problems.  Look at us, we are all part of a perfectly harmonious family who
all agree in a very strict set of rules and regulations to govern our lives.
 We can be recognized by our long skirts, khakis and funky ties."  Well, PCC
is not a perfectly harmonious family, nor will it ever be as long as it
strives to achieve what an institution of higher learning is supposed to
achieve - higher thought.  PCC's notions of a harmonious family are ok in a
perfect world, but I have news for you - this ain't no perfect world.
 Students who have questions and disagreements with policies should not be
precluded from discussing these disagreements, EVEN AT THE EXPENSE OF
TARNISHING THE PCC IMAGE.  Which is more important?  The image or the
individual?

     2.)  PCC has actually begun to believe its own lie.  PCC has been
insulated for so long and has thus heard so little criticism that it actually
appears to believe that there is nothing for which anyone can criticize.
 Consider The Voice.  Faculty members have actually gone so far as to
question our salvation.  This is not necessarily inappropriate, but the
reasoning behind the assertion is.  What?  Speaking out against the
inconsistencies of PCC to hopefully make it a better place is tantamount to
heathenism?  Give me a break!  That's the assumption, though, and it is this
kind of reasoning that leads me to believe that many within the PCC community
actually believe that PCC cannot be wrong.  Heaven help us when we start
actually thinking this.  One of the reasons we here at The Voice desire
comments from those who disagree with us is so that we may have a check on
our inevitable human ways - error.  We are not so misguided as to believe
that we may not occasionally be wrong.  We very well may be.  But that is a
difference between our understanding of ourselves and the administration's
understanding of itself - we recognize our infallibility and need for a
check; PCC does not, and therefore sees no need for a check.
     One of the comments we received was from a professor who disagreed with
some conclusions we had made in a particular essay.  We wrote back, pointing
out that her points were excellent.  However, for various reasons, we came to
a different conclusion, and we pointed these reasons out explicitly.  Instead
of writing back and explaining why our reasons were faulty, this professor
basically concluded that because we disagreed with her conclusion (which had
nothing to do with PCC directly), we were not right with God.  She said, "If
at some point you realize that you have not acted in the best interest of the
Lord [because we came to a different conclusion regarding a non-PCC and
non-Biblical issue, eds.], I would be happy to hear from you again. . . . I
will be praying that the Lord gives you the spiritual wisdom that you need."
 Well, we certainly need Spiritual wisdom, but don't we all?  Are some of us
more "spiritually wise" simply because we agree with the policies of PCC?
 Whether or not we are acting "in the best interest of the Lord" has nothing
to do with whether or not we agree with a position that a PCC faculty member
takes, particularly when the position is not even a Scriptural one.
     So, while we are willing to entertain notions to the contrary, it seems
to us that one of the reasons PCC represses criticism is because they
honestly do not believe that there is any out there to be made.  Shame on
them. . . shame on them.

     A SOLUTION.
     We would like to offer a suggestion of how this problem could be, at
least in part, solved.  This program would allow the students to express
their questions and disagreements in a controlled atmosphere, so that
everyone's interests would be maintained.  What we propose is the
establishment of "town meetings."  Town meetings would be set times when
students could question the administration publicly regarding their problems.
 Here are the procedures we suggest:

     1.)  Make sure the meetings are scheduled in advance and that there is
plenty of notice given so that the students may be fully prepared to ask the
difficult questions.  A reasonable idea, we think, would be to use the
collegian meetings for this purpose (perhaps something useful could come out
of this time after all. . .).

     2.)  Make sure there is a recorded transcript made of all of these
meetings so that there will never be any conflicts - i.e., one answer given
in one meeting by one person, while another answer is given in another
meeting by another person.  Also, this could serve the purpose of providing a
basis for more questions, and therefore, more answers and a better
understanding.

     3.)  Allow students to speak their minds freely.  If a student wants to
get up and make a statement that would normally result in sanctions for "bad
attitude," allow this to be a time when the students could speak their minds
without reprisal.

     4.)  Encourage this to be a forum for ideas on how to make things
better, how to change policy.  Don't be afraid to admit that maybe some of
the administration's policies are not wise, are too overbearing and really
should be modified. 

     5.)  Don't be afraid to officially say the words, "We are sorry for
being too repressive."  We guarantee you that this statement, if made in an
official way with a genuine change in policy would give the college more
respect than anything they have done so far.

     These are just some structural ideas that we think should be
implemented.  If those of you on the administration would like more
information and a more thorough planning approach, please let us here at The
Student Voice know.  Besides, if you incorporate our plan, you may very well
render The Voice irrelevant and moot.  How about that for an incentive?
     Criticism is not bad.  It may not always be pretty, but neither is
truth.  Let us always be willing to admit our fallibility, and let us always
look to the truth of Scripture.  PCC has a wonderful potential to be great,
but as long as there is the cancer of repression and ideological fascism, PCC
will always be mediocre.

************************************************************
"Ears For The Mind"
- lupos

     When I was first applying to attend PCC, I asked a friend and current
student about the rules concerning music. They basically limit you to a very
conservative selection of Christian and classical music, he told me. I
believed that they wanted to "err on the side of caution" and thought they
simply set the standard so tight to avoid any controversy. My friend
explained that they truly believed that music outside of their standards was,
in fact, ungodly. I thought this was quite odd, and as I was soon to learn,
they only created controversy by picking and choosing measure by measure
through songs to decide whether they "passed."
     We've received a few comments from readers noting that the school draws
a vague distinction between which of their rules are actual sins and which
are simply their "way" at PCC. From the vehement chapel messages I would
gather they feel quite stongly that their music standards should be the
universal standard within Christendom. It is here which I have a bit of
difficulty. Their broad denuciation of "Contemporary Christian Music" (CCM: a
regretable label, but adequate for this discussion) as well as modern
Twentieth Century styles, such as blues and jazz, is simply too much to
biblicaly justify. Would they have us believe that absolutely
everyone involved in CCM is out of God's will? I know of no single case of a
musician, singer or producer leaving modern Christian music because God had
laid that on their heart or because they felt guilt (which the Holy Spirit
promises to bring to convict us of wrong). It seems quite improbable that the
witnesses of thousands of honest believers is invalid (which the PCC standard
would require). In fact, the only guilt I know of from listening to CCM is
that which is heaped on you by people with the mind-set of PCC.
     To that I say there is great danger in forcing your personal convictions
on others. It is also ludicrous to go through a song measure by measure and
suggest that when the drum-beat kicks in the artist has evidentally become a
servant of Satan, which is effectively the argument of PCC. 
     There is the perception that because the music style is new, that is to
say, less than 100 years old, it is almost by default bad. This has
absolutely nothing to do with the Bible and more to do with the tastes of the
people making the rules. I would venture to say that among the
administration, every music style they enjoy passes and every style they
dislike does not pass. The music performed at PCC seems at times to be
strictly for the personal enjoyment of the older generations, but more
on that later.
     A great contention of PCC is that music is not neutral. Granted, but I
think the mistake is made by then presuming it is therefore good or evil. Not
so. You could no more draw that distinction with a gun. The object has power,
but it is how it is used and the user which determine morality. Music of all
styles induces EMOTION, but that should not to be confused with morality.  
     Before I go on, let me first clarify that I am not discussing lyrics.
 Obviously, lyrics can be godly, ungodly or neutral (e.g."Take me out to the
ballgame"). I make no argument that Christians must be aware of what they put
into their minds, but that certainly wouldn't exclude CCM or instrumental
jazz.
     To return to the point, a song written in a minor key may suggest
sadness or even pain, but that is simply using the music to communicate.
Negative emotions don't instantly invalidate a song. A song may depress you
or get you "up," but that is no different than an illustration used by Pastor
Shettler every time he speaks. Music is communicating and trying to stir a
reaction. Of course, we shouldn't allow ourselves to be manipulated by it any
more than we should blindly follow a speaker. Now, what about "upbeat" music,
the type which PCC quickly disqualifies from our lives?
     I am no music scholar, but I believe a contention of "conservatives" is
that older "passable" styles are melody driven while newer styles have a more
prominent rhythm. This may mean it is poorer music (although not
necessarily), but it hardly makes it sinful. God created rhythm just as
surely as melody, and since He proscribed no songwriting rules, we are simply
using the different things He gave us. A driving beat or repetitive rhythm is
no more or less ordained than an organ solo. I will say this, though - our
ASSOCIATIONS with a style of music may be ungodly, based upon what we've
experienced or seen. It may very well be that because of
your past you need to avoid certain styles of music, regardless of lyrics, to
keep your mind clean; but the mistake is made when you force your own
weakness on a brother. Let me also add that the volume and the rate of music
is completely subjective and certainly is not a sin issue.
     I am reminded of the story, which most of you have probably heard,
concerning the missionary kids who were playing Christian rock in the jungle,
and the redeemed native commented to the father about how it was the same
style they used to call up demons. Well, this may or may not be true (it IS
doubtful), but it only illustrates the principle of the weaker brother. The
kids were hardly in danger of accidentally conjuring up some demon. As with
any tool, it must be used wisely and appropriately.
     Another common perception is that "rock" or "blues" styles are worldy,
and thus unclean for any Christian. Unfortunately, this is a mind set that
has caused the Christians of today to be artistically mediocre and culturally
irrelevant. Simply because a style of music was not originated by Christians
does not eliminate it from being a tool we can use. We can't shrink back from
the creativity of the world. We should be the ones leading in the arts for we
are children of the Creator Of All. We think that because the world does
something they have "claimed" it. Not so. What
if homosexuals became known for painting nature scenes? Could Christians then
not? Or if Atheists all wore yellow? Throw out that color! That's ludicrous!
 All music needs to be captured for Christ's use and we are negligent to
ignore any of it.
     From a solely educational standpoint, for PCC to offer any sort of
general music degree, it would be negligent to not insist on teaching about
the blues and jazz styles. They have made of profound impact on music and
they explore areas untouched by classical music. That a student should be
restricted from learning about and listening to these forms in ANY liberal
arts degree suggests a deficiency in our overall education.

"And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many
shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the Lord." Psalm 40:3

     I would also like to comment on the oft abused "new song" phrase used
throughout the Psalms. Supposedly this suggest that as a Christian we should
have separate music from the world, thus the hymns and ensemble music (of
which the world certainly wants no part!). I propose that this complete
butchery of these verses is a poignant example of wanting so bad to find a
scripture to fit your beliefs that you are willing to ignore anything you
know about common sense and hermeneutics. What I would assume to be a clear
meaning of the "new song" phrase is the condition of our heart. God gives us
a "new song" spiritually, or a renewal, and as
suggested by David, it happens more than once, and in this case well after he
was "saved." It should be an evidence to unbeleivers that we are a different
person. It has nothing to do with what style of music to listen to.  Even to
take this idea literally would suggest that the Lord would be constantly
giving us new music to sing to worship Him, which would contradict the fact
that PCC revels in music that was written before any of us were born. The
Lord should be inspiring creativity and "new songs" as we explore music and
our desire to worship Him.

Other references to "new song" in Psalms: 33:3, 96:1, 98:1, 144:9, 149:1.

     I would also like to mention what can only be considered my personal
opinion - the music at PCC is completely lame. The idea that because
something is old or a hymn we should sing it is ridiculous. As with any style
of music, there are far more bad hymns than good ones, and unfortunately when
that's all you sing, it's inevitable that you get your fair share of dogs.
Don't get me wrong; hymns are fine - but not all the time. Second, the
ensemble music is at best trite and immature. The little tic-toc or "animals
on the ark" songs seem designed for the under 10 crowd.
     And while I am no song writing expert, it seems like poor writing when a
listener can continually guess the next line because it is assuredly another
Christian cliche which rhymes with the last. The tunes are in no way original
and seem to be the first thing the writer plunked out on the old country
piano. Good "specials" are usually just contemporary Christian songs
instrumentally watered down. Is this the "new song"?
     And that opera voice the women sing with? Come on. It may be classical
or "proper" but it is intelligible and at times painful. A women's NATURAL
voice sounds so nice - why not use it. Unfortunately, PCC has backed
themselves into such a corner by their misguided standards that they have
effectively eliminated so much good Christian music (and secular music, as
well). Their students (and themselves) miss out on so much of what God is
doing today. 
     In closing, I would like to be clear on one thing. While attending PCC,
you have given your word to obey their rules, and I am in no way suggesting
that it is okay for you to disobey their music standards. I think very
strongly that their music standards are WRONG, but, as it is not sin to obey,
you must. This essay was written to hopefully show the wrong thinking in the
PCC policy and to assist in positive change. It may also (by God's grace)
free many of you from the irrational burden placed on you by the PCC
"morality standard" when you are free to choose what you listen to, although
let me reiterate that the "weaker brother" principle is not an insult, and
all of us should be wary of what we put into our minds. 

UnderTheMercy,

lupos

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

          VI.     YOUR COMMENTS

********************
The Student Voice does not necessarily condone or agree with the comments
made in this section, nor are we vouching for the facts, stories or incidents
made herein.
********************

>>> COMMENT from a student concerned with the quality of PCC's e-mail
service.

Dear student V,

I have read your last newsletter and found it an enjoyable escape where we
can sit back and laugh at ourselves and our problems.  I ask that you send me
the monthly newsletter.  What I have read so far has shaken me to the
realization that my problems are shared by others at PCC.  I would also ask
that you address their 
e-mail and computer policies in general.  I realize the need to blockout some
areas of the internet, but blocking out all websites except for those that
they themselves create is out of control.  Also at the beginning of the year,
I signed up for their new e-mail program, a great idea.  However, It does not
work all the time, they shut down the server during certain parts of the day
and some saturdays all together.  When the server is up though, my e-mail
does not go through.  I have sent my girlfreind in ---- at least a dozen
e-mails since thursday.  It is now monday and she hasn't recieved any of
them, nor have I got them back saying that they were undeliverable (which
happens when the server is down).  How do they get away with charging me to
use a service that half of the time doesn't work?  
                         With hopes of this getting to you,
                          R-------    

>>> The fact that PCC blocks the Internet from its students is no surprise to
anyone associated with the school. The following is their disclaimer found on
their web page:

"Pensacola Christian College does not necessarily endorse all of the contents
of these websites.  It is understood that to meet certain academic standards
and to provide material in various fields of research and contents, Pensacola
Christian College must of necessity have many different resources.  The
position of Pensacola Christian College is well understood to be in strict
adherence to the doctrines and principles taught in the Holy Scriptures..."

"...to meet certain standards"?  No thought of exceeding them?  "...must of
necessity"? They obviously wouldn't even provide what they do if the didn't
HAVE TO. This is completely congruous with their paternalistic philosophy of
control. As if you could "surf porn" in the computer lab! As for the e-mail
system, again, PCC is true to form. I would assume you are aware that PCC is
constantly turning your phone lines on and off, controlling when and who you
may call. Why did you expect different with the e-mail system? Control of
communication is essential to control of thought.

Quick breakdown of communication costs:

                        "Real Life"     PCC
Phone service:
Monthly Charge           ~$15.00       $30.00*
Local Calls              FREE          $.25
Hours W/O restricted
service per week         168             102
Options 
Available                Fax             None
                         Cordless
                         Voice Mail
                         Call Waiting
                         etc.

Internet service:
Monthly Charge           $10-$20        Not Allowed
Hours of use             90-unlmtd          
Time of use              
Browsing                 24 hrs.             
limitations              None               

*assumes room of 4 @ $7.50 per student
- The Voice

**************************************************
>>> COMMENT regarding our assertion in Issue 1, No. 1 that the rule requiring
students to leave the Pensacola area when a semester is over is an
illegitimate (ab)use of authority.

I happen know a little bit about this reason of this rule. Back in the 
late '70s, I think, this rule did not exist. Students checked out. Went 
to the beach and basically did not behave in the manner approprate to a 
Christian. The behavior of the students reflected very poorly on PCC. 
Also parents called the college wanting to know where their kids where 
and the college said they had checked out for the semester. Parent's were 
upset because the school did not know where they went. So what happened? 
A rule was made so that PCC could protect itself locally and with 
parents. So is this rule just to control students lives'? No I really 
don't think so.

>>> Well, it is probably a bit unfair to address this in a short response
instead of an essay, but let us just point out a few problems with the
reasoning.  First, if a student goes to the beach in Southern California
right after the semester is over and acts in a "manner not appropriate for a
Christian," would the school be able to say that no student may go to
Southern California when the semester is out?  Of course not.  Why is
Pensacola any different?  Does PCC own Pensacola?  I realize that it may
THINK it does, but the fact remains that PCC does NOT own Pensacola, and as
Jon Voigt said to Robert De Niro in Heat, "It's a free country, man."
     Once the semester is over, the authority stops.  If a student wanted to
go down to Sam's and smoke a cigarette, PCC would have no authority to stop
him.  We think what you are saying is that PCC is afraid that its IMAGE would
be hurt if its students are not forced to leave the area.  If this isn't an
insult to the students, we don't know what is!  Leave the area?  Says who?
 PCC HAS NO RIGHT TO TELL A STUDENT WHERE TO GO ONCE THE SEMESTER IS OVER.
     As for your assertion that PCC is fulfilling their responsibility to the
parents - if a student cannot be trusted to come home when he or she is
"supposed" to, then that student shouldn't be away at college.  They should
still be at home with mommy and daddy.  And if PCC is fulfilling some kind of
parental authority, then why is it that if a parent says it's ok for the
student to stay around and do whatever, including behaving in "manner not
appropriate for a Christian," PCC thinks it can over-step this REAL
authority?  Does the word "image" come back into mind????? - The Voice.

************************************************************

>>> COMMENT from alumni.

Dear StudentV,
First of all I would like to thank you for the work that goes into
keeping the Voice loud and strong.  In the past Students have written
letters and even left PCC for reasons of conscience.  At times I have
felt that these past "martyrs"  and their withdrawl as a sign of
conviction have become just stories that are sometimes remembered in
brief.  Almost as if their  "sacrifice" has gone with out any affect. 
The Student Voice, I feel is sort of their monument to the decision they
felt God led them to make.  At the time their voice fell on mostly deaf
ears, but today the Student voice is proclaiming the oppions of for all
to read 
   One of the most frustrating things that is often commented on in
StudentV is the collar of control that the administration has over its
students.  I used to wonder how the administration was able to keep the
rules so far fetched and yet students still  wanted to attend here.  I
personally feel that many students and their families like myself have
financial difficulties and paying for a college tuition may literally
cost all a family has.  When a school like PCC waves to the world its
price tag of education, many families see this as a ray of financial
hope.  Unfortunantely, many students are forced to stay here under the
submission of the unrational rule sytem and constantly fear their own
roomates of turning them in to gain a step on the PCC ladder.   The
point is: Students cannot afford to leave an financial offer as one that
PCC gives, and because administration knows this they can create and
maintain the "world" inside the walls of 250 Brent Ln.  Which is why I
believe many of the rules that are enforced are looked at in disbelief,
but yet they maintain space in the Official Student Handbook as well as
a verbal spot in the Freshmen Surprise Student HandBook.  I think one of
the most funny events to watch is a new freshmen realize that there are
alot more rules in the handbook than those they read about the summer
before flying out to PCC.

***************************************************

>>> COMMENT from a former security guard regarding last week's issue.

I noticed that in your last newsletter, there were several references to
security guards threatening students and writing them up.  Having been on
Security at PCC, I do know that there were a few who enjoyed the authority a
bit too much; but in most cases of this kind, we were being asked to do
something we did not prefer to do.  I was a guard that occasionally had to
chase folks down and get their name and ID because some staff person didn't
like what they were doing, and believe me, it was never easy--and it was
never my choice.  I like to consider myself an extension of the authority of
the administration; it was just a job.

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

>>> The Student Voice may be reached at  studentv@aol.com

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