##########################################################
          The Student Voice     Issue 2, No. 4     11.22.1996
##########################################################

WARNING: If you are a PCC student, BE CAREFUL.  Reading this newsletter does
not equal "active participation" in rebellion anymore than reading Nietzsche
makes you a participant in Nazi, post-modernism, or reading the Bible makes
you an active participant in Christianity.

##########################################################
       
          QUOTES OF THE WEEK

"To me the worst thing seems to be for a school principally to work with
methods of fear, force, and artificial authority.  Such treatment destroys
the sound sentiments, the sincerity, and the self-confidence of the pupil.
 It produces the submissive subject.  It is no wonder that such schools are
the rule in Germany and Russia.  I know that the schools in this country are
free from this worst evil.  This also is so
in Switzerland and probably in all democratically governed countries.  It is
comparatively simple to keep the school free from this worst of all evils.
Give unto the power of the teacher the fewest possible coercive measures, so
that the only source of the pupil's respect for the teacher is the human and
intellectual qualities of the latter."  
     - Albert Einstein 

"It is very difficult to persuade a great body of mankind to give up what
they have once learned. Time alone insensibly wears down old habits, and
produces small changes at long intervals, and to this process we must all
accommodate ourselves, and be content to follow those who will not follow us.
     -Thomas Jefferson

"The greatest gift that God in His bounty made in creation, and the most
conformable to His goodness, and that which He prizes the most, was the
freedom of the will, with which the creatures with intelligence, they all and
they alone, were and are endowed."  	
     - Dante Alighieri

"Students should not have their devotions in or outside the Commons [student
center]."
     - Dr. Horton, president and founder of Pensacola Christian College
          
##########################################################

          CORRECTIONS

>>> In last week's issue we estimated the cost of e-mail service at PCC to be
$25/month, and we have been informed that it is a one-time fee of #25.

>>> In last week's issue we quoted a former security guard as saying "I like
to consider myself an extension of the authority of the administration; it
was just a job."  It should have read, "I never liked to consider myself an
extension of the authority..."

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

          TABLE OF CONTENTS

     I.   Voice Announcements
     II.   Have You Heard the One About. . . ?
     III.   Essay
              A.   "After the Firestorm: The Voice Responds to Dr. Horton"  
                        - Leibniz (Mr. X)
     IV.   Some Advice From a Missionary/Alumni
     V.   The Reformers

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

          I.   VOICE ANNOUNCEMENTS

>>> We are seeking alumni and non-students to help us with the distribution
of The Voice.  We are in the process of organizing a group to help with a new
distribution method; those interested, please let us know, and we will give
you more information.

>>> 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.

>>> 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 and other information:

          The Student Voice Introductory Letter
          Transcript of Dr. Horton's comments made about The Student Voice
          Issue 1, Nos. 1 - 4
          Issue 2, Nos. 1 - 3

>>> This week's issue of The Student Voice will be going to over 200 readers.

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

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

I just wanted to write and tell you of an incident that just happened a
couple of weeks ago.  One of the guys that lives next door to me, was written
up and socialed [restricted from communicating in any way with someone of the
opposite sex - eds.] for standing too close to his girlfriend in the lunch
line. Not touching but standing too close. He went to DC and after pleading
his case, the man told him that he would have to go see the assistant dean of
men, because he could not do anything about it.  So after going to see ---,
Mr. --- told him that he would try and find the person that wrote him up and
talk to him about it.  But he was still socialed until he could talk to this
person that wrote him up.  The next day my friend called Mr. --- to see the
verdict and he had not talked to him, and he said he would call him back.  He
never did.  My friend kept calling Mr. --- never getting a returned phone
call.  Finally about 3 or 4 days later, he got to see Mr. --- and he said
that he had prayed about it and even asked his wife and that he was going to
unsocial him.  But wait there's more.  Not 2 days later, my friend was
scanning in at the desk, and Mr. --- was sitting there, he saw some writing
on my friend's hand which said, "I Love You", he preceded to ask who had
written it on his hand, and my friend replyed "my girlfriend," he then asked,
"What is her name, I am going to have to write you up for a social
infraction."

>>> "I do love nothing in the world so well as you: is not that strange?"  
- Shakespeare

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

          III.   ESSAY

"After the Firestrom: The Voice Responds to Dr. Horton"
- Leibniz (Mr. X)

     For those of you who are not tuned in to the day-to-day activities of
the "community" at PCC, some significant events occurred this past week in
the ever-expanding public debate between The Student Voice and the PCC
philosophy.  In Monday's chapel (11/19), at which most of the faculty were
present, Dr. Horton spoke for 15 minutes criticizing and judging The Student
Voice for "piously promot[ing] rebellion against the policies of the college"
and for our "twisted, pious approach to nullify [all] authority. . . at PCC."
 After that, Dr. Mutsch delivered a message on rebellion that went 20 or so
minutes past the scheduled ending time.  With all due respect, these comments
were a horrendous mischaracterization of not only what The Voice has said,
but also what The Voice believes and is all about.
     Just in case there are any questions as to accuracy, let it be noted
that by Wednesday morning, a cassette tape of Dr. Horton's and Dr. Mutsch's
statements was on my desk.  Therefore, I will be quoting them often, and
these quotes are not simply paraphrases that have been sent by someone else.
 I wanted to include the entire transcript here in this issue, but due to
both its length and the fact that all of the students have already heard the
statements, we will make the transcript available to anyone who wants it, and
we encourage you to request it so that you may fairly weigh the evidence
presented by both sides to come to a reasoned and intelligent conclusion.
 Dr. Mutsch's statements are not ready yet, and due to the Thanksgiving
holiday this week, they probably will not be ready until after the next issue
is sent out.  However, we do have Dr. Horton's statements ready in a verbatim
transcript, and since these are really the statements that matter, we
encourage you to request them.  We will also make the transcripts and/or this
issue available by U.S. mail if that would be preferable, or if there are
others who do not have e-mail access, but would be interested in the
dialogue.  If you are a student, we can send it to your box in a manner so as
not to draw any attention to the contents inside - receiving a letter does
NOT involve "actively participating in" rebellion.  This will be discussed
and developed later in this essay. 

[We should note to the administration that tampering with, or removing the
U.S. mail with the intention of prying into its contents is a CRIMINAL
OFFENSE under the U.S. Code, Title 18, section 1702.]

     By the way, we would like to note for the record that while PCC feels it
is ok to criticize us openly, they have never addressed us personally as they
often complain about us not doing.  Granted, we are anonymous, but we do have
fairly well-known e-mail address. . . . 
     We want to now address several very important areas in which there seems
to be some misunderstanding.  We are going to try to keep this discussion
focussed specifically on the comments and ideas discussed by Dr. Horton.  Let
us preface these remarks with a couple of comments.  First, for the
administration to take the drastic measures that have been taken is an
indication that, regardless of whether or not we are right, we have touched a
very sensitive spot.  Second, we believe that Dr. Horton and Dr. Mutsch are
men of high reputation and a true love for God; this is not a personal
matter, but an ideological one.  Third, we have no intention of stopping The
Student Voice; in fact, we are in the process of working on ways to expand
this into a larger, nation-wide publication, and despite the numerous
attempts of PCC to shut us down, we have done nothing but expand from day
one, and this past week's events have actually helped us to gain more members
of the PCC community, as well as people from other Christian and secular
colleges who are taking an interest into this fascinating realm of
Christianity.
     Perhaps what we should have done from the very beginning was to lay out
our basic core values and beliefs in everything that we should have, and
could have anticipated as being controversial.  We have tried to do this in a
more intellectual way, but it seems many of the concepts are not getting
through.  If the president of PCC does not understand what was probably our
most straightforward issue, then who knows what other confusion is present
among the readers.  Therefore, in this issue we will discuss the following
seven topics, paying particularly close attention to what was said by Dr.
Horton on Monday, November 19th: 

Anonymity
Authority
Identity
Methods
Motives
Rebellion
Sanctions

     ANONYMITY.
     We recognize that being anonymous is rather difficult to swallow,
perhaps, but there are very specific reasons why we wish to remain anonymous.
 First, we feel that since the sentiments we discuss are not simply our own,
but rather are those held by other students, faculty, alumni, Christian
school administrators, Christian school teachers, church leaders and pastors,
our identities are at best a moot point.  The fact is that if PCC were to
announce to the world tomorrow who Leibniz and lupos are, we would still
continue to put out The Voice in exactly the same manner as we have done so
far.
     Secondly, due to the connections that PCC has throughout the country in
fundamentalist circles, as compared to our relative anonymity - no pun
intended - we do not wish to be "blackballed" within the fundamentalist
community at this point in time.  Perhaps once we have retained an audience
sufficient to counter the audience of PCC, then perhaps at that time we may
divulge our identities.
     Third, Dr. Horton stated that "If the person doesn't have the courage to
sign his name, then he has a problem, and what he has to say is probably
worthless, twisted or a lie."  We would not necessarily disagree with this
general principle, but since a principle is not static, it must be applied
specifically to each situation.  Courage is not an issue.  Confronting PCC
should allay any thoughts that we lack courage.  This is two people with few
resources, except the power of our ideas versus a multi-million dollar,
nationally known organization - we lack courage?  As for a problem - yes, we
do have a problem with PCC's arrogance and repression, and that is precisely
what The Voice is all about.  We will continue to discuss our problems, as
well as those of others until we see some reform, or a reason not to reform
besides the school's normal idiosyncratic reasons.  Is what we say
"worthless"?  If it is, then we hardly think Dr. Horton would have devoted 15
minutes to our writings.  Is what we say "twisted"?  Read it along with the
Scripture, and determine that for yourself, not because someone else says it
is.  Is what we say "a lie."  No.
     Despite the clamoring for us to reveal our identities, we do not feel it
would be appropriate or wise at this time.

     AUTHORITY.
     Although we have written on a variety of topics, Dr. Horton dealt almost
exclusively with the issue of authority.  His analysis of our writings on
this issue (particularly, Issue 1, No. 1) was completely off-base.  In fact,
I couldn't believe it when I heard it.  I obviously can't say for sure, but
it sounded to me as if Dr. Horton never actually read the entire essay, but
perhaps had someone else give him an excerpt or two and perhaps a quick
summary - a bad one at that.
     Dr. Horton's analysis and conclusion of our belief regarding authority
was essentially that we believe PCC has NO authority to do anything it does.
 This is a terrible reading of The Voice.  He also disagreed with our
Scriptural basis for authority by stating that our position was that if
authority is not specifically enumerated in the Bible, then it is
illegitimate.  This is even a worse reading of The Voice.  So, let's explore
these ideas. . . .

     1.)  Scriptural Basis.  Our fundamental belief is that all authority
comes from God.  Period.  Therefore, any use of authority must be traceable
back to God through PRINCIPLES He has given to us in Scripture - not grants
specifically enumerated in the Bible.  Romans 13:1 states, in part, that
"there is no power [authority] but of God: the powers that be are ordained of
God."  Now, this does not mean that because there is no recorded mention of
authority being given to private colleges, they therefore have no authority.
 One of the principles that we laid out very specifically was that one of the
grants of authority given by God is that which is vested in us as individuals
- remember the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness?  We have the authority to give up our rights and authorities to
other individuals for their rights and authorities in exchange.  This is
called a covenant or a contract.  There is a contract between PCC and the
student whereby the student gives up some (many) of his rights in exchange
for an education and the privileges that come with that.  PCC's authority
comes from the individual's bargaining in exchange for certain things. This
is as Biblical as can be, yet Dr. Horton accuses us of teaching a "twisted
doctrine of authority."  If our doctrine is "twisted," then talk to the One
who devised the system - God.
     Dr. Horton used the analogy of a sports organization to illustrate why
our reasoning was faulty.  He said, "Let's look at Mr. X's concept of
authority in an example situation of life: since it is not recorded in
Scripture that God gave authority to sports organizations, thus any authority
in the area of sports, according to Mr. X, is illegitimate and invalid.
 Therefore, no one really has to obey game rules and regulations because God
never gave authority to athletic organizations.  Now, wouldn't that be
something?"
     Well, yes, that would be something.  However, this is based on an
incorrect reading of our essay on authority.  In fact, this is probably one
of the EASIEST situations to demonstrate the principle of our authority to
exchange rights.  Let's say I am an NFL quarterback (don't I wish. . . .).  I
may hate the rule against intentional grounding, and when I play in my
backyard with my two sons, we NEVER follow this rule.  Why?  Because we have
the authority as individuals to play the game by ourselves however we want
to.  Now, when I put on my uniform and take the field for the NFL team, I
have contractually given up my right to play the game without the intentional
grounding rule in exchange for the benefits of playing in the NFL.  Since I
receive a paycheck from the NFL, I MUST ABIDE BY ITS RULES.  This is
completely Biblical (refer to the examples given in the essay).  Just because
the NFL was not specifically given authority in Scripture does not mean it is
without authority, because our authority as individuals to bargain and devise
the sport and business of professional football was.  This is ridiculous and
a terrible reading of the clearly enunciated principles laid out in the
essay.  Now, no one would accuse me of rebelling against the system if all I
did was voice my opposition against the intentional grounding rule.  In fact,
in secure organizations, they welcome this.  You and I have every right to
disagree with a rule at PCC.  Unfortunately, most of the people on the
administration do not seem to be able to grasp the concept that disagreement
is different than disobeying.  But we'll keep trying. . . .
     Now, we think that PCC has the right to make just about every rule it
has made, and in fact, has the legitimate authority to do so.  Please let
this be clear.  Also, let me quote from the Introductory Letter what is #6 of
our basic position: "If a rule, regulation or policy is invalid or
illegitimate, this does not mean it can be disregarded if the student has
agreed to abide by it."

     2.)  The rule against devotions.  One of the rules enacted at PCC is
that students may not have "devotions" in or outside the Commons.  This is
supposedly based on Matthew 6:5,6 where Christ is teaching the "Sermon on the
Mount," and He speaks of the hypocrites who pray in the public places to be
seen of men.  Christ says that we should go to our closet and pray in secret.
 Therefore, based on this, PCC - a Christian college - has banned "devotions"
in certain public areas (image?).  However, Dr. Horton says that it is ok to
read your Bible and "discuss Bible verses" in these areas, because "there is
quite a difference" between just reading your Bible and having devotions.
     Now, I have several problems with not only this reading of the passage,
but also its application by Dr. Horton.  First, the passage never refers to
"devotions," but rather speaks only of "prayer."  The Greek word for prayer,
for all of you Bible scholars, is "proseuchomai," which simply means to pray
or wish for, as we commonly think of it.  Devotions is not the same thing as
prayer, although devotions should include prayer.  This is a classic "PCC
interpretation" - one that fits its own interests, but not the clear meaning
of Scripture.  Before that, Christ spoke of giving alms, and we could not
properly conclude that this also meant anything other than "giving alms."  If
Christ had meant to include devotions, He would have said so.
     This reading of Scripture would also ban "prayer groups."  Prayer groups
involve corporate "devotions" and public prayer, and this seems to be
contrary to Dr. Horton's notion of "closet prayer."  The question I have is
how does the administration determine when it is ok to pray "outside" the
closet and when it is ok to pray "inside" the closet?  Are there any
standards for a student to determine this?  Or is it simply another poorly
thought, badly interpreted, non-existent principle of Scripture that the
school has simply "twisted" to meet its own agenda?  
     The second problem I have is with its application.  The rule seems to be
that it is ok to read the Bible, but once it changes from simply "reading" to
"devotions," it becomes a sanctionable offense.  When does "reading" the
Bible become "devotions"?  What is the magical event that transforms one into
the other?  Prayer?  Dr. Horton says that the two are clearly different, but
upon what standards are the students to judge the difference?  And how is
someone who intends to enforce the rule to know whether the person sitting
outside the Commons is simply "reading" or actually having "devotions"?  This
is the type of absurdity that we want to see done away with.  The only
practical affect this will have is to discourage students from reading their
Bible in public at all, and is this the testimony PCC wants?  In order to
avoid the potential liability, students will simply choose not to read their
Bible at all in these public places.  This sort of reminds me of the former
Soviet Union's constitutional "religious freedom" clause.  It supposedly
allowed for religious freedom, but this was simply "religious freedom on the
government's terms." 
     Another problem with its application is the apparent contradiction in
Dr. Horton's statements regarding "mixed" couples.  He said that "couples who
want to have devotions should go to the social hall where there is a
semi-private atmosphere."  Wait a minute. . . .  Dr. Horton just got through
stating that devotions were to be done "in the closet" - in private.  A
"semi-private" atmosphere is NOT a closet; although "semi-private," it is
still public.  Which is it, Dr. Horton?  The closet?  Or the semi-private
atmosphere?  You can't have it both ways.  If the "principle" is that we must
have our devotions in the "closet," then you have no right or authority to
say that it is ok to do it in public, even if it is "semi-private."  Yet if
you say that it is ok to have them in public under certain circumstances,
then upon what principles do you define the "circumstances" - the difference
between the social hall and the commons?  Christ didn't make the distinction
between "somewhat public" and "very public," so why do you?  
     What PCC is doing is treading on very dangerous grounds here.  It has
gotten so caught up in itself and its ability to dictate to everyone else
what the Bible says, that it has forgotten to actually consider what the
Bible says.  It has taken a principle of Scripture and made it mean something
different than what it clearly means in order to make it fit PCC's own
agenda.  This is so contradictory it is almost embarrassing to think that it
came from people who are to be teaching students "higher thought."
     We are still of the belief that because of the reasons stated, and
because no one has the authority to limit where, on your own time, you can
and cannot read your Bible and pray, this rule is a blatant abuse of
authority.  HOWEVER, since the president of PCC has misread our writings, it
is therefore quite possible to assume that a student could also misread our
encouragement to disregard this rule by taking it much farther than he has a
right to do.  Therefore, TO MAINTAIN A PEACEFUL ENVIRONMENT ON CAMPUS, WE ARE
RETRACTING OUR REQUEST THAT THIS RULE BE VIOLATED.  STUDENTS - PLEASE ABIDE
BY THIS RULE.
     And to the administration - consider what we have said.  The best thing
for you to do is to also retract this rule, and let the "hypocritical
student" answer to God himself.  It is not for you to be imposing sanctions
for "devotions."  Think about that. . . .

     IDENTITY.
     Another indication that Dr. Horton had never read our newsletter is
indicated by this statement: "I was given a copy of his e-mail, called
"StudentV. . . ."  Well, as anyone knows who has read The Voice, our e-mail
is not called "StudentV;" rather, the two primary writers are Leibniz and
lupos, and the e-mail is called "The Student Voice" or "The Voice."  This, of
course, is not an extremely important matter, but we do not refer to
ourselves as "StudentV."  This is simply the screen name I chose when I set
up the account with America On Line.
     Also, the title, "Mr. X" is quite interesting.  In fact, it almost
raises us to mythical proportions, and we see no need for this.  While we
have been called many names so far, and we anticipate being called many other
ones in the future, we would appreciate it if you would refer to us by our
established names.

     METHODS.
     Another sticky aspect about The Student Voice is the fact that we put
out an "underground newsletter."  But think about it - if PCC had an adequate
system of addressing concerns (I'm sorry, but going to a dean or residence
manager is not an ADEQUATE system of addressing concerns; I am talking about
a check on the fallibility of a human administration), then there would be no
need for The Voice.  The policies of the school have made this one of only a
few methods of disseminating ideas, at least it is a method that results in
little exposure to the outside world.
     However, as long as PCC continues to push us out of the school, we will
be forced to take it to the outside world.  Remember, PCC believes it stands
for "truth and righteousness," and if this is true, then we don't see what
the problem is of letting the rest of the world know about what goes on
inside the gates of PCC.  But it's none of their business, you might say.
 When an institution is influencing millions of people around the world, it
is the world's business.  Besides, the truth is always everyone's business. .
.. .
     Another aspect that makes us relevant is that PCC has no student-run
campus newspaper.  What other school doesn't have a newspaper?  Oh yeah, "PCC
does not have to be like other colleges or organizations."  This is true, but
where are we going to draw the line?  This line seems to be running further
and further away from reasonableness each year.  Of course PCC should be
different, but PCC should be different because it produces a superior
product, not because it has more restrictions than anywhere else on the
planet (except maybe China).  A student-run newspaper is another thing that
would render The Voice moot.  We also would be content to distribute this
newsletter to only the PCC community, but as long as PCC is going to do
everything they can to keep us out, we will resort to other methods.

     MOTIVES.
     Dr. Horton stated, "My guess is Mr. X is not interested in building
anything, but rather his interest is tearing down and destroying what God has
built."  Hmmm.  Is that why we have offered HELPFUL suggestions on how to
make things BETTER?  We in no way want to "destroy" PCC; we simply think that
PCC is not as effective for Christ as it can be.  We want to see the
administration lighten up a little and let students be mature adults.  When
students are treated like mature adults, they will start thinking like mature
adults and will have a greater impact on our world (remember, I was a student
too. . .).  It is a spiritual battleground out there, and the forces arrayed
against us are very complex.  When Christians spend most of their time
worrying over pettiness and every possible restriction that could be brought
to bear on a student body for the benefit of the school's image, this takes
up precious energy and time from being used to really prepare men and women
for God's work.  PCC should be a center of superior Christian research and
intellectual publications.  A Beka Books is a good step, but our society
needs more than this, and PCC has the ability to be able to provide the world
with top-notch speakers and writers - professors respected around the world.
 Why can't people look to PCC and instead of saying, "Oh yeah, that's the
place with the pink and blue sidewalks," say, "Oh yeah, I read a book by one
of their professors about this or that. . ."?  That's what we are talking
about.  "Destroying"?  We don't think so. . . .  Remember, alumni have been
there and have seen the system as well as what's beyond the system.  Those in
the administration have not seen the "outside" in a long time, if at all.  We
are not as ignorant or as full of bad ideas as you might think. . . .
     As long as PCC restricts the minds of its students from reaching their
fullest potential, how can we expect the cause of Christ to reach its fullest
potential?


     REBELLION.
     Dr. Horton stated, "In doing so, he piously promotes rebellion against
the policies of the college, and he twists the truth to put PCC in a bad
light, to stir up discord on campus."  PCC's main problem with us, we
believe, besides our threat to their tidy image, is that we are rebellious
and want others to rebel.  This is completely false.
     First, let me deal with the issue of "sowing discord."  The "discord"
that is present on campus is not due to us simply vocalizing some very
un-original sentiments.  The ideas we express are already present, they just
haven't had a way of being coordinated.  We believe that the primary source
of "discord" on campus is the system that pits student against student.  You
don't think when some sophomore hot-shot comes up to a senior and tells him
to go put a belt on, and is encouraged by the administration to do so, he is
not "stirring up discord"?  Well, he is just following the rules set by the
college, you might say.  Exactly.  The rules are the source of much of the
discord.  I have never seen more discord between people anywhere than I did
during my four years at PCC.  It was natural.  I was always protective and
defensive, no matter how hard I tried not to be. 
     PCC's system sets up a breeding ground for discord.  I also see the same
thing in many Christian schools, particularly ones influenced by PCC's
ideology.  If a student acts as a blind sheep and merely follows along with
the pack mentality, then that student will be fine.  But when a student
wishes to explore and ask the forbidden question - Why? - he is naturally
hurled into a system that is, of its very essence, one of discord.  So, don't
talk to us about "sowing discord" until the system is changed to PREVENT
discord among the brethren instead of encouraging it.

     Second is the issue of pure rebellion.  Other than our position on the
rule against devotions (which we have retracted), we have strongly urged
students to OBEY the rules at PCC.  As a student, regardless of how
ridiculous a rule is, as long as it doesn't cause you to violate a directive
of Scripture, then you must comply.  This raises the issue of morality,
though.  Many at PCC have stated that the system of demerits is not based on
"morality" - i.e., what is "right" and what it "wrong."  We disagree.  But if
this is true, then violating a rule will not necessarily implicate moral
liability.  For instance, if the rule against studying after lights out (this
is college, isn't it???) has nothing to do with morality, then a student may
break the rule if he or she needs the extra time to study more than he or she
doesn't need the demerits.  Well, we hope you see the dilemma.  
     The rules are all about morality - not necessarily that each rule is
what is right or wrong in and of itself, but that following it or not does
implicate moral responsibilities.  Therefore, a student may not refuse to
follow them.  We have made this clear numerous time (as stated in the
"Authority" section).  We fail to see how this makes us "rebellious."  We
think it is an indication that those who judge us of rebellion do not really
understand rebellion.
     We have tried and tried to demonstrate that DISAGREEING with something
does not equal REBELLION, yet this is the logical inference that Dr. Horton
and the PCC administration have drawn.  We encourage students to think and to
discuss the rules and policies, NOT to break them.  There is a clear
difference between the two.  
     Take the NFL example again. . . .  No one would accuse me of being
"rebellious" if I simply disagreed with the intentional grounding rule, but
followed it in the games.  Even if I was an ardent supporter of revising the
rules to do away with intentional grounding, no one could accuse me of
rebelling against it until I refused to follow it (and got myself killed by a
300 lb. lineman. . .).  You see, you can't just accept the black-and-white
analysis of PCC's social structure.  You must understand that PCC is
extremely vague in many of its directives, and this will require you to think
about the underlying concepts.  That The Student Voice is rebellious is what
is told you by PCC, but wait a minute - what does "rebellion" entail?  Well,
it involves disregarding the rules set up by the college.  Is that what we
are advocating?  Not at all.  Therefore, The Student Voice is NOT rebellious,
and Dr. Horton is mistaken.

     SANCTIONS.
     We would like to quickly discuss Dr. Horton's remarks regarding the
sanctions for "actively participating" in The Student Voice.  Consider what
he said: "I am instructing the dean's and their staff to be highly sensitive,
especially regarding participating or involvement in the underground
‘StudentV,' which is a means of protest against PCC.  Those actively
participating and involved in the underground ‘StudentV' will be dealt with
according to the Student Handbook, page 36, and I quote, ‘participating in
unauthorized petition, demonstration, protest or riot - 150 demerits.'"
     Now, put aside the substantive issues for a moment - this is exactly the
type of thing that needs to be changed.  What in the world does "actively
participating" and "involved" mean?  Does it mean talking about it?  Does it
mean writing us and expressing ideas?  Does it mean simply reading it?  PCC
does a horrible job of letting the students know what is prohibited and what
is not.  It's just like the "devotions" versus "reading" question - there are
no standards to judge what is acceptable and what is not.  For an institution
that prides itself on its "high standards," it does a poor job of making
these standards very clear.  We think that the administration owes the
student body an explanation regarding what is "active participation" so that
it may know what it is that is prohibited.  For those of you who may have
never attended PCC, this is the way the system works - there is an extremely
vague "standard" on the books, and when a student does something that he
thinks is ok, someone else may not think it is ok, and so the student gets
sanctioned for it.  Pretty fair, huh?
     This is precisely the type of thing that we want to see changed in the
PCC system.  Does this mean we want to see PCC become like "other colleges"?
 Not at all.  Does this mean that we want PCC to move away from its
"Christian separation"?  Of course not.  What it means is that there are some
obvious improvements that need to be made, but yet the administration is, for
some reason, reluctant to make them.  Therefore, we will continue to point
out these problems and hope that soon, PCC realizes that we are here to help,
not hurt.

     CONCLUSION.
     We greatly respect Dr. Horton.  He has brought up a great work.
 However, the system that has been created is one in which power and
arrogance feeds internally upon itself.  It is obvious to most people, yet
when a human institution insulates itself from any checks or balances, it
will naturally fall into decay.  It will naturally lose its fundamental
purpose and reason for existence.  We want to be that check, and we want to
see some much sought after change take place at PCC.  It may take time, but
we have plenty of it.  It may take ideas, but we are full of them.  And it
may take cooperation, but there are plenty of students, faculty and alumni
who can see through the facade of PCC and who are eager to help us.
     Dr. Horton, we ask that if you are going to characterize us in a certain
way, that you do it by reading our writings yourself, and not by getting
someone else's synopsis.  Besides, the synopsis was so off and so misplaced,
that whoever gave it to you ought to be reprimanded for giving you false
information and being incapable of comprehending some basic ideas.  This is
not meant to be mean, but there needs to be some standard of reputability. .
.. and we all want high standards, don't we???

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

          IV.   SOME ADVICE FROM A MISSIONARY/ALUMNI

Dear Student Voice,
     As a recent subscriber to the "Voice" (even though I didn't actually
subscribe myself; rather, you "subscribed" me), I'd like to join in the
discussion with my "two cents."  This letter is divided into two sections: 
1. Some observation regarding "The Student Voice," and, 
2. Some observations regarding my alma mater, PCC.  
     As with any analysis of another person or institution, we can only see
actions, not motives.  1 Samuel 16:7: " . . . for man looketh on the outward
appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart."  On a more personal basis, it
is difficult to understand objectively one's own motives.  Jeremiah 17:9-10:
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can
know it?  I the LORD search the 
heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and
according to the fruit of his doings."  In the light of these passages, some
of my observations may not be 100% accurate since I (and every other human
being) may think to know someone's motives while, in reality, I may be
misjudging that person (or institution) partially or entirely.

     SOME OBSERVATIONS REGARDING "THE STUDENT VOICE"
     From the first time I read the "Voice" I sensed pride and a
condescending 
attitude toward those disagreeing with it.  (Yes, here comes the attitude
issue again!)  I quote from the 11/3/96 issue: "Instead, those who disagree
with us want to focus on the tangential issues - motives, methods, names and
attitudes.  It's so stale, and it's so irrelevant. . . ."  Also notice this
quote from the 11/11/96 issue: "Get off of the anonymity and attitude.  They
are so irrelevant.  Think a little."
     Well, it might be good for the "Voice" to "think a little."  A
Christian's attitude is never irrelevant; as you yourself have mentioned, "it
is all a heart condition" (11/11/96).  If our heart contains pride, incorrect
attitudes, etc., it will affect our lifestyle.  Your attitude and motives for
publishing the "Voice" are more important than the information contained in
the "Voice" itself.  Your readers need to know that you have a genuine
interest in the expansion of the Kingdom of God here on this earth and are
not just waging a personal vendetta against PCC.  I heartily agree with 
"Ransom" (11/11/96), especially when he warns of "the possibility of the
Voice falling to the wayside in one area."  Proverbs 23:7: "For as he
thinketh in his heart, so is he. . . ."  Proverbs 4:23: "Keep thy heart with
all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." Matthew 12:34-37: " . .
.. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.  A good man out
of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man
out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.  But I say 
unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account
thereof in the day of judgment.  For by thy words thou shalt be justified,
and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
     In the 11/3/96 issue "pseudo-intellectuals" were discussed.  One
sentence 
declared: "They are usually people who take particular pleasure in hearing
the sound of their own voice."  The first time I read the "Voice" I got that
exact impression--that the editor(s) enjoy hearing his/her/their own voice(s)
or seeing his/her/their compositions on paper.  I can picture you pushing
back from your computer after writing an essay or answering a reader's letter
and thinking, "Wow, but did I outdo myself that time!"  (If I'm judging you
wrongly, I apologize and ask your forgiveness.)  Proverbs 10:19: "In the
multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that 
refraineth his lips is wise."  Romans 12:3: "For I say, through the grace
given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more
highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath
dealt to every man the measure of faith."
     The quotes you include in the "Voice" are interesting, but be careful in
that area.  I realize that all truth is God's truth; however, the people you
quote are imperfect, fallible humans just like us.  For instance, what U2's
Bono thinks about a particular topic does not necessarily impress or sway me.
 Our theology doesn't come from men; it comes from the only infallible Source
of truth: God.  As you know, of course, God has revealed Himself through His
Word, the Bible.  John 17:17: "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is
truth."
     Your deduction (11/3/96) that 1. since Nicodemus came to Jesus secretly,

and 2. since you've also chosen to remain anonymous, therefore, your
situation and Nicodemus' are somewhat analogous, is a "faulty syllogism."  I
certainly trust that your situation is not comparable to that of an unsaved
Pharisee who placed more importance on the opinion of his peers than on
identifying publicly with the Messiah.  (It's a source of some sadness to me
that he waited until Jesus' death to take a public stand as a disciple.)  By
coming out publicly and stating who you are your credibility rating
definitely will rise.  Don't fear the opinion of man. Proverbs 28:1: "The 
wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a
lion."Proverbs 29:25: "The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth
his trust in the LORD shall be safe."  1 John 4:18: "There is no fear in
love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.  He that
feareth is not made perfect in love."  You can't control PCC's reaction to
the criticism (both negative and positive) that it's receiving, but you can
control your reaction to the input you receive.  Whether or not PCC does the
right thing is irrelevant to whether or not you do the right thing.  When 
fighting wrong be careful not to be in the wrong yourself.
     I believe the "Voice" has great potential to effect some positive
changes, and I agree with much of what you say.  Stay humble.  Do what's
right.  Walk with God.

     SOME OBSERVATIONS REGARDING MY ALMA MATER, PCC
     PCC has been on my heart for some time now.  I've considered writing a
letter, etc., to voice my concerns for some problems that I observed while
connected with PCC.  To give a little background: at one time or another
during my four years as a student at PCC I was a campus kid of the Hortons; a
floorleader for two years; a member of Tour Choir; a collegian, class, and
Mission Prayer Band officer; a Campus Church intern, among other activities.
My senior year I received the "Who's Who" and "Christian Leadership" awards.
 After graduation I also traveled two years as a College Representative.  The
purpose for my including some of my background is not to bore you but to lend
credibility to what I'm going to say.
     During my years as a student, PCC basically was heaven on earth to me,
even 
though I noticed some things that weren't as they should be.  As a
floorleader, I had a reputation as being tough . . . and I liked it.  I'm
sure that, although I was well-liked by a great deal of people, I'm also
remembered with anger and bitterness by some . . . and I regret that.
 Looking back, I'm sure that some of those people (some of whom lived on my
floor and some of whom didn't) that I judged so harshly actually were more
spiritual and Christ-like than I was.
     At times, though, the rigidity of the rules did bother me.  I remember
on one occasion, after discussing a particular student with an assistant dean
(who is no longer at PCC), I made a comment to the effect that the rules
seemed to be more important than the people themselves.  I don't remember his
exact response, but I have the impression that he agreed with me, to a
certain extent, but there was little he could do about it.
     It was during my staff years as a College Representative that my
disillusionment with PCC began to develop; however, I was good at hiding it.
 I was able to defend PCC's policies to pastors, Christian school principals,
my ensemble members, and even my wife.  The thing was that, even though I was
disagreeing with them outwardly, on many occasions I was agreeing with them
inwardly.
     I once expressed to my superior at the College that it seemed as though
PCC 
would do anything to get someone to become a student, but once that person
actually was a student he/she wasn't treated as he/she should be.  Needless
to say, that opinion wasn't received very well.
     On the road, many or most of the schools my wife and I presented the
College in used A BEKA BOOK materials.  As well as hearing many praises for
the College and A BEKA BOOK, I sometimes had Christian school leaders
complain to me about the way they were treated by their A BEKA BOOK
creditors.  Of course, I would, as expected, take the position of defending
PCC.  Allowing the possibility that the institution might actually be wrong
was unthinkable.
     I also came to know of cases where staff members, who once were
considered 
useful to the College, were treated in a most un-Christian way when they
voiced differences of opinions.  They were expendable.
     After observing all of these perturbing circumstances, I arrived at some
conclusions: 1.  A BEKA BOOK is a business.  Now, I have nothing against
business and I have nothing against A BEKA BOOK making a lot of money.  What
I do have a problem with is a Christian institution (business) being run the
way companies are run in the world: profit is the bottom line, even if it
means taking advantage of your employees and your customers.  A Christian
institution should be Christian in more than name.  2.  PCC expects
unswerving, unquestioning loyalty.  The "ministry" is all-important . . .
more important than your personal life more important than your family, etc.
 I've wondered if the fact that the Hortons never had children has had an
influence on the way things are done at the College.  The "ministry" is
everything to them, and they don't mind dedicating all their time and energy
to it; therefore, they seem to have a hard time comprehending why others 
would feel differently, why others might have other interests.  It's sad to
see the pressure put on new mothers to put their children in daycare so that
the mom can go back to work for the "ministry"; it's sad to see couples whose
marriages have fallen completely apart and others who only have the
appearance of a home--they live under the same roof, because of pressure to
produce for the "ministry."
     PCC is afflicted with a disease common in Christianity today: legalism.
 Please don't get me wrong.  As a missionary on a foreign field I believe in
Christian standards; if you converse with those who know me, I'm sure many or
most of them will inform you that I'm pretty strict in a lot of areas.  The
problem arises when keeping a set of man-made rules becomes synonymous with
spirituality.  It's easier to look good on the outside than to actually be
right with God on the inside; therefore, it's a common occurrence to create a
set of regulations that help keep the facade in place.  A visiting preacher
during my PCC years said: "You could remove the Holy Spirit, and 90% of what
goes on in the average church would continue."  Many people have walked away
from everything they think is related to Christianity; in reality, what they
have rejected is not Biblical Christianity, rather, a distorted, deformed
man-made version that at times bears little resemblance to the genuine
product.  Let's be careful about what we teach--it's easy to place personal
opinions on the same level as Bible doctrine.  After a short time of doing
this, one becomes confused as to which is which.  Let's be as conservative as
the Bible and as liberal as the Bible. Matthew 15:3, 6-9: "But he answered
and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your
tradition?  . . . Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by
your tradition.  Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with
their lips; but their heart is far from me.  But in vain they do worship me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
     I do want to say that I learned many good things during my years of
affiliation with PCC.  I learned professionalism, the importance of
self-discipline, among other things.  I sat under teachers that I know loved
the Lord.  My wish is that PCC may be open to analyze and adjust in certain
areas.  No person nor institution is perfect, and we always must be willing
to acknowledge when we're wrong and act accordingly.
     I realize this letter has turned into an "epistle," but these things are
on my heart.  If you could publish it in its entirety, I would appreciate it,
even if you have to do it in two parts.

In Christ,
Phil Rogers
Missionary to Chile

>>> This is excellent advice, and we will do our part to improve where we are
weak.  Pride has no place in this discussion, and often we demonstrate too
much of it.  For this, we apoligize to our readers.  Let our aggressiveness
not be confused with arrogance, however, for we admit that we are not perfect
and are quite capable of making mistakes and will often find ourselves
needing to make some changes.  Let's just hope that everyone involved can
agree to this. - The Voice

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

          V.   THE REFORMERS

>>> This is an excerpt taken from the Encyclopedia of Education, on student
reformers:

"An increasingly influential number of students, both graduate and
undergraduate, have been insisting that teaching and learning be drastically
redefined.  Some have merely aspired to be treated as junior colleagues in a
process of shared inquiry rather than as ignorant and passive vessels to be
filled with facts and skills.  But a potentially powerful voice among
students has also been questioning the whole cognitive orientation of
academic learning - that is, the assumption that higher learning is
necessarily intellectual, conceptual, and abstract.  For these students,
knowledge as an external object is a false goal.  The proper end of learning
for them is knowledge as a part of the free and integrated individual, not a
collection of facts and ideas artificially separate from personal values,
actions, and emotions.  This view has posed quite basic challenges to the
prevailing tradition of academic learning, which concentrates on timeless,
verified conclusions.  The implied challenge to professors' intellectual
authority can have dramatic consequences for the social and legal relations
between teacher and students in the classroom."

>>> Let us not be rebellious in our attempt to see change, but let us be
"reformers" in the ever-present struggle to influence thought.  For if we do
not have intellectual freedom, what do we have? - The Voice

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

The Student Voice can be reached at   studentv@aol.com

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