############################################################## The Student Voice Issue 6, Number 1 3.14.1997 ############################################################## 402+ Readers - some agree, some disagree, others don't care ############################################################## SPECIAL ISSUE!!! An open letter, the new Voice debates, and much, much more! We have changed the content a little bit this week to celebrate the coming of Spring. Actually, the two have nothing to do with each other whatsoever, but we thought that it was a good enough excuse anyway. We have included some things which have never before been published in The Voice. We trust you will find it enjoyable reading. ############################################################## Who We Are: The Student Voice is a bi-weekly, on-line commentary and editorial page about the problems that are prevalent at Pensacola Christian College. As an institution that considers itself at the pinnacle of true Christianity, PCC ought to be willing to defend its practices with Scripture and common sense, but unfortunately, when one compares the "system" and the "spirit" of PCC with true Christianity, PCC falls far short. Our purpose is three-fold: (1) To provide public exposure regarding the practices at PCC; (2) To compare PCC dogma with Scriptural principle, generally accepted societal behavior, and the law of reason; (3) By bringing about this exposure, to see PCC make some positive changes in the areas of discipline, communication with parents and students, church practice, ethical behavior, and educational philosophy. Acts 17:11 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." ############################################################## QUOTES OF THE WEEK "A stand can be made against invasion by an army; no stand can be made against invasion by an idea." - Victor Hugo, from HISTOIRE D'UN CRIME, LA CHUTE, X "The biggest threat to our well-being is the absence of moral clarity and purpose." - Rick Shuman, in TIME "Law is a bottomless pit." - Dr. Arbuthnot, from THE HISTORY OF JOHN BULL, ch. 24 "We need to get away from looking at people's mannerisms and start listening to their message." - Pastor Jim Schettler [of the Campus Church], Rejoice Telecast ############################################################## TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 I. Voice Announcements II. An Open Letter To Dr. Horton III. Classic Voice Dissenter Quips Page 2 IV. The Voice Debates Page 3 The Voice Debates (cont. . . .) V. Your Comments to "A Counter Response" in the Last Issue ############################################################## I. VOICE ANNOUNCEMENTS >>> We want to extend an invitation to anyone who wants to write an essay in opposition to anything The Voice has written, and if anyone is interested in a "point/counterpoint" type of debate with The Voice, contact us for more information. >>> If you would like any copies of back issues, please check out our web page at The Student Voice or http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7706 If you have trouble accessing this page, please let us know, and we will send you any information you need. >>> We want to apologize for our delay in putting the JPG of the billboard on our web page. We regret any confusion. >>> If you do not wish to receive The Student Voice, please drop us an e-mail and let us know. If you know of someone else who would be interested in receiving The Student Voice, let us know. ############################################################## II. AN OPEN LETTER TO DR. HORTON ------------------------------- March 14, 1997 Dr. Arlin Horton Pensacola Christian College P.O. Box 18000 Pensacola, Florida 32503 Dr. Horton, Let me start off by saying that I am not writing this letter in a spirit of animosity; rather, I am writing this in an attempt to rectify what are now strongly opposed and publicly discussed ideas. As a president of a college, ideas should be something of importance to you, although your recent actions regarding The Student Voice and your common practice of repressing discussion of any ideas which you deem unacceptable have indicated otherwise. Your refusal to address any substantive issues that have, not simply been raised by The Voice, but have been expressed for others (including your own students, faculty and staff) through the common voice of my newsletter (except for authority, in which case you clearly mischaracterized my views) has demonstrated the school's timidity in defending its own policies. If I am wrong, then you have all the means and minds at your disposal to demonstrate this to our ever-expanding audience. But if I am right, then you ought to be willing to acknowledge this and consider change. This is not about who should run the college. You have proven yourself quite capable of doing this; I have not. However, this does not preclude all who have never run a college from being capable of pointing out double standards, inconsistencies and just plain nonsense, just as you and I are equally capable of legitimately criticizing our government, even though neither of us have any experience running it. So, I have an idea. Why don't we set up a debate between me and anyone you choose, on YOUR terms? It would be academically worthwhile and intellectually stimulating; besides, when was the last time PCC sponsored a good debate? These are your policies, and you should be willing to defend and substantiate them, especially since you hold the college out to be a direct "idea that came from God." (page 1, "General Info" on PCC's official web site.) My only requests are these: 1.) The debate be about your policies, nothing else. 2.) It take place in a freely-accessible public forum, at a mutually convenient time, during the school year. 3.) Whatever rules apply to you also apply to me. This is not a publicity stunt on my behalf, for I never wanted the publicity in the first place. I am very serious, though, and for you to back down to this debate, if you so choose, will be duly noted to the hundreds and hundreds of people who read my newsletter and who browse our web page. Please remember that you have already publicly acknowledged The Student Voice, and so to choose to ignore it at this point and to pretend that it does not warrant your acknowledgment only indicates that you were unsuccessful in your first attempt to publicly denounce me and my newsletter. It is time to stop hiding behind walls and formalities and to stand up in defense of your own policies. Whether or not you choose to admit it, they are looked at with scorn by numerous people, independent of their knowledge, or lack thereof, of The Voice. Many people are requesting to hear your side of this "debate," and here is the perfect opportunity for you to back up your own policy of forbidding any student to read The Voice. The reason for this policy is because you believe that what I say is wrong. I am, therefore, now proposing an opportunity for you to explain PCC's policies and to answer The Voice. I sincerely hope you will accept this offer. Sincerely, /s/ Paul S. Perdue Paul S. Perdue The Student Voice 8227 Crackling Fire Dr. Gainesville, Va. 20155 703.754.7327 ############################################################## III. CLASSIC VOICE DISSENTER QUIPS [Get ready for some of the most incredible, humerous and just plain void of all common sense statements you have ever read in your life - those of you, that is, who did not actually make any of the following quips. These are actual statements made by actual people in an attempt to prove that The Student Voice is actually wrong. They are funny, yet they are sad, for they come from college educated people. We recognize that they do not necessarily represent the view of all who disagree with the ideas set forth in The Voice, but there are enough of them to lend support to the assumption that these are not simply isolated lapses of reasoning, but are actually more generally held statements of philosophy than any of us would probably choose to admit. - eds.] -------------------------------- THE EDITORS. "You are so wrong!" -- 8/30/96 "You must have missed too many chapel sessions sleeping or having a bad attitude about what you thought as unfair rules." -- 8/30/96 "Obviously with your rotten attitude you were shipped." -- 8/30/96 [We were not - eds.] "It seems to me that you're bitter because you got caught disobeying the rules and got yourself kicked out." -- 12/23/96 [We were not - eds.] "[I]t saddens me to read your line of reasoning. I truly hope that there are not more like you." -- 9/1/96 "I know how much you're scared. . . ." -- 9/9/96 "Maybe if you found a way to say wjhat [sic] you were trying to say in a less argumentative fashion you might actually get someone to listen to you." -- 10/5/96 "If you want us to keep reading what you have to say, PLEASE -- STOP TALKING OVER OUR HEADS!" -- 11/6/96 "For some reason you remind me of Satan's angel." -- 12/21/96 "So bitter that you as our gutless hero are attempting from your measly little web of wonder to save us from the evil of a world with rules." -- 12/12/96 "I further hypothesize that you are a liberal natured, 'don't hold onto the Bible too tightly' spineless reprobate." -- 12/12/96 "Well, you need to be saved first so better start by working on that. (No, I'm not judging your heart. . . .)" -- 12/12/96 "Get a life. . . . I think you need a more constructive hobby. Perhaps take up knitting. This would certainly be more manly than your current one." -- 1/6/97 "You suck." -- 3/14/97 "You indicate you have a degree in Law-I would be hard pressed to come to you with a problem knowing that after it was all said and done you may blab it all over the internet." -- 1/21/97 "The only thing that you have managed to do is get the E-Mail service taken away from the students." -- 1/21/97 [and people say that we can't accomplish anything. . . . - eds.] "You should have done something more worthwhile than sitting in the corner of you [sic] collegian meeting having a twiddle-snivel. You should have gone on a date, played some sports,gotten [sic] a hobby or something - playing with grammar books on AOL pretending to be meaningful is no way to live a life." -- 1/27/97 "I hope that you can, by the Holy Spirit, learn to get along with God ordained authority." -- 1/22/97 "You claim to use Biblical principles in your back-up information, or so I've heard." -- 11/18/96 "You know, you must really have no life." -- 11/28/96 "If you do not reveal your identity then I guess you are not real, which means those that [sic] agree with you don't know reality." -- 12/11/96 "I am sorry for your soul." -- 12/10/96 "You must not have any rules/regulations on your job. . . ." -- 12/18/96 "What gives you the right to voice YOUR opinions[?]" -- 12/23/96 [um, how about the First Amendment, for starters. . . . - eds.] THEOLOGY. "Telling a student where to go to church while he is in school and telling him 'generally' how to live his life, is the school's responsibility before God." -- 8/30/96 "The truth is not something to be searched for and found, the truth is revealed to us, by God. When PCC starts getting in the business of searching for the truth then it is time to close the doors." -- 12/9/96 [nevermind the fact that PCC's college hymn is entitled "Searching for Wisdom" - eds.] "[W]e give up our rights when we accept salvation." -- 1/12/97 "[I]t is obvious that God's blessing is on the college. No other christian college campus can boast of the facilities that PCC enjoys. . . ." -- 2/15/97 "Reality is defined as that which is closest to truth." -- 12/3/96 [I guess error is not real. . . . - eds.] "[T]hat which is closest to the Word of God is reality, or the 'real world'." -- 12/3/96 "If you are truly saved and are in harmony with the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures, then you would be in harmony with PCC. . . ." -- 3/5/97 [Wow! - eds.] PCC'S RULES. "If you have ever paid attention, which I've doubt [sic] you have, you would know that the rules are guidlines [sic] while we are at school to give us ideas on how to help us once we graduate." -- 8/27/96 "I attended PCC and found the rules liberating!" -- 8/30/96 "It is Dr [sic] Hortons [sic] school and he can make whatever rules he wishes." -- 1/21/97 "I am thankful for all of the rules here on campus, for they are what makes [sic] PCC distinctive. If it were not for these rules here on campus, I would definitely not be here." -- 11/18/96 PCC'S RESPONSE TO CRITICISM. "It is not far-fetched to think that PCC would give ear to a grievance." -- 11/5/96 MISCELLANEOUS. "If I can not think for myself that [sic] how am I writing this letter?" -- 8/29/96 "If you went to a State College you could be taken to court by some other persoin [sic] for reading your Bible." -- 10/9/96 "PCC isn't forcing anything unbiblical down anyone's throat." -- 11/9/96 "A student who rebels does not have any value." -- 11/12/96 [maybe not to you, but to Christ he does. . . . - eds.] "I do not see any point in continuing our dialogue. By your own admission, you understand the points I am trying to make, and yet choose to pick apart my phraseology." -- 12/27/96 "Any further correspondance will be considered hostile. . . ." -- 1/10/97 "You thought you were helping students, but you not [sic]. Now hudreds [sic] of students who used e-mail to communicate with family memebers [sic] no longer can. So much for the good that you were doing. Once again Thanks A Lot, for nothng [sic] [.]" -- 1/11/97 "Please do not send any of your trash to our computer." -- 1/12/97 "[T]here are two kinds of people that read your work - those like me who read, laugh and say - what do you want to be when you grow up, Paul? Then there are those who are the mental infidels who blindly accept your hypocroeology [sic] and never read their own Bible." -- 1/28/97 "There are big and small problems with all colleges. I don't see you trying to put down those other colleges... why not?" -- 1/26/97 "My purpose for this letter is not for a debate, primarily because there is nothing to debate and also because you would probably win." -- 1/26/97 "Since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about in regards to PCC, please take my name off of your cute and silly little manifesto." -- 2/5/97 "I am writing this note to you requestin [sic] that I not be sent any more of you [sic] junk mail. The only reason that I requested to have your letter in the first place was so that I might let the administration know about it so that they might deal with this problem." -- 11/18/96 "Another assumption I have seen [in The Voice] is that the purpose of college (namely PCC) is to instruct. But this is not the purpose of PCC." -- 11/18/97 [well, that just might explain everything. . . . - eds.] "I do not even intend to use Scripture to disprove your faulty statements. . .. ." -- 11/18/96 "One thing that PCC stands for is excellence; not only in education, but in Christianity." -- 11/27/96 "I just wanted to say that I am appalled at the twisted humanistic philosophy that is prevalent throughout your 'Bitterness Chronicle'." -- 12/3/96 "[A] place where we can pillow our heads with a clear conscience is the real world." -- 12/3/96 "[R]emove me from you [sic] mailing list. I have more profitable things to do with my time. I'm going to bed now because its [sic] lights out time." -- 12/4/96 "I may disagree with some things, but that is not my place. . . ." -- 12/11/96 "I don't ever want to hear from you. I love it here at PCC. The administration is doing what the Lord wants them too [sic], and you have no place saying otherwise." -- 12/11/96 "My attendance at PCC forced me to grow up." -- 12/23/96 "Leave PCC alone!" -- 12/23/96 "If I thought that the Mona Lisa needed a mole could I simply put it on or should I try my own art while respecting the art of anothers [sic]?" -- 12/26/96 "I am aware of this disrespectful and childish effort of rebellion against a God-honoring, God-blessed institution." -- 3/6/97 "The 'StudentVulcher' is a putrid work of nothing and represents its own views and a puny handful of cry-babies." -- 3/6/97 "PCC and the editor of the Voice have both gotten a little wacky." -- 3/10/97 [now this I might agree with! - eds.] ############################################################## IV. THE VOICE DEBATES [Many of our readers have commented that they wish to read the Editors' responses to the many letters posted in the "Your Comments" section of The Student Voice. We have chosen not to put these responses in the regular issues because it is our desire to provide all sides of the "issues" without our interference, thereby maintaining at least one haven of neutrality in each issue of The Voice (which is more than PCC can boast of). Please note that we will be including one or two of these a week on our web page. Enjoy!] ------------------------------------ Please be warned, this section is not for the faint of heart (or stomach). It contains some sarcasm, so if you do not wish to read confrontational and spirited "colloquies" then please proceed to the next section. Thank you. ------------------------------------ Also note that the text contained in << >> is from the letter we received, and all other text is ours. ------------------------------------ [This is from before I revealed my identity - eds.] P---, In a message dated 96-12-11 18:25:12 EST, you write: << Dear Student V: Even those who disagree with others in the world have the guts to reveal their identity. >> Except for people like, say, our founding fathers. . . . (Remember Publius and the Federalist Papers?) I guess they really didn't have guts, though, did they? If you can only grasp the concepts about which I write by knowing my identity, ask E---. Also, do you choose to ignore the book of Hebrews? I don't know whether or not it was written anonymously, but we do not know for sure who wrote it. Therefore, according to your reasoning, you would ignore the entire book, right? << Since you don't have that much integrity, your publication must have no integrity. >> Fine. It really is irrelevant whether you think I have integrity or not, but perhaps you would like to respond to the numerous Christian leaders, including at least six pastors, who support and agree with the efforts and ideas of The Voice. Are you really going to say that all of these people have no integrity, but of course, you do? << Since you have quoted the Apostle Paul, shouldn't you at least allow the same decency he had. >> What do you mean by "allow the same decency"? You can "have" decency. You can "exercise" decency. You can even be a "decent" person. However, I don't think it is possible for me to "allow" whatever decency Paul had. I am assuming what you mean is that I should "have" the same decency that Paul had. . . . Maybe when I am willing to be stoned, whipped and beheaded, then maybe I'll have the same "decency." << Many times in Scripture he was able to list his enemies. Come on, be as brave as you pretend to be. >> Why don't you just read my newsletter - you know? The one without any integrity? All of the "enemies" are listed in there. << But, I do not expect any response because that would indicate intelligent thought, which I could not discern throughout your newsletter. >> First, do you think someone who has taken on PCC would be unwilling to respond to you? Please, don't make me laugh. Second, there is plenty of intelligent thought in my newsletter, you just have to be intelligent to discern it. << BE MATURE! If you do not reveal your identity then I guess you are not real, which means those that agree with you don't know reality.>> A true intellectual statement and a magnificent piece of reasoning. . . . Well, P---, I AM very real, and I don't think "reality" is defined by your very simple perception, whatever that happens to be. You see, "reality" is determined by what "really" happens, what "actually" takes place. I don't know what issue of The Student Voice you read, but the things discussed in there are truly "real," we don't just pull them out of the sky somewhere. Now, if you want some "intelligent thought," let me demonstrate it by showing you why your little statement above indicates your lack of it. First, maturity is indicated by the level of understanding one possesses and the ability of that person to apply that understanding. It is based on time, experience and a person's growth in his particular environment. Whether or not a person reveals who he or she is has nothing to do with "maturity," even if remaining anonymous was the unpardonable sin. So, for you to tie the two together indicates a fairly severe lack of logical analysis. Second, you then draw the conclusion that I am not real from your premise that since I have not revealed my identity (to you), I therefore do not exist. Well, it is quite difficult for those who don't exist to write things that are read by hundreds of people. Third, from your first faulty conclusion, you further proceed to conclude your illogical syllogism (I realize that is an oxymoron, so you don't need to tell me.) From your conclusion that I am not real, you therefore proceed to contradict your first premise by saying that those who read what "I wrote" (difficult to accomplish that if I were not "real") must not understand reality. Whether or not I am real has no bearing on whether or not someone else understands reality. And how is it that simply because a person has a certain opinion, even if it is wrong, this means they don't understand reality? Again, your subjective opinion does not make something an objective fact. << PCC made a difference for me! >> That's my point. << P--- Class of '89 >> Leibniz ------------------------------------ P---, In a message dated 96-12-23 12:08:28 EST, you write: << As I respond to you, I hope I am not "casting my pearls before swine."--God forgive me if I am. 1) Please take me off your mailing list--let's put that readership number back to 250 instead of 251>> You have been removed from The Student Voice mailing list. However, this does not move the number back to 250 because since we sent out the last issue, we have received a half dozen MORE requests to be subscribed. Sorry. << (see Numbers 16:35). >> Numbers 16:35 is not applicable to this discussion. This is assuming an issue of rebellion which does not exist between myself and PCC. << Life is too short and too precious to be reading material that is considered "wood, hay, and stuble..." >> Exactly how do you determine what "reading material" is "wood, hay, and stuble..."? I guess you don't read fiction? Or any parts of the newspaper that is not a "front-page" story? Or the comics? Or anything that is not directly related to the Bible? Sometimes, in order to broaden your mind and intellect and to learn things, you must read what you do not agree with and things that you may find offensive. Life is too precious and short to fail to read all that we can. << let alone subjecting one's mind to such "poison." >> Do you characterize everything you disagree with as "poison"? << "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is." I Corinthians 3:13 Do you honestly believe that, "If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward." I Corinthians 3:14 Rhetorically - yes or no?! >> How about literally? YES, I believe this. << If yes, what reward would you receive? >> For me to KNOW what reward I will receive for just about anything would be to know the mind of God. I don't claim any such knowledge. But your statement implies that you somehow know the will of God for my life better than I do, and I am just curious as to how you have become privy to this information? But to answer your question, if this helps one person or corrects one error, then yes, a reward is probable. << If no, wouldn't it be illogical to pursue something during your life that will someday amount to ashes both before God and others? Such a shame and waste of talent to be expending your efforts on something that will not make a difference for eternity's sake. >> And how do you know what difference this will or will not make? << 2) You recently emailed me [re: to Eph. 4:29] mentioning about your pursuit of "scriptural truths." >> That is correct. << Although in your latest issue, there are no references to "scriptural truths" other than your Luke 2:10,11 and Matthew 2 Christmas references. >> Are you saying this because you didn't read the whole essay, or because you didn't understand the whole essay? Simply because there are not specific cites to Scripture doesn't make a truth any less Scriptural. I am assuming a mature audience, perhaps I am wrong. I assume that basic fundamental truths will be known and accepted as Scritpural WITHOUT my having to cite every one of them. (1) Christ's birth represents good news, (2) Christianity is about others, (3) Christianity is about giving, (4) God's gift to us was the greatest gift mankind has ever received. . . . These are just a few of the Scriptural "truths" you missed in the essay. If you would like me to give you references to back them up, then please feel free to request them. This is sort of like someone saying that we have free speech in this country and then someone else asking for a reference. There are plenty of Scriptural truths in the latest issue, as well as all of the others (which I find your value judgments of them without having read them quite amusing), you just have to be discerning to find them. << Do you really believe what you're doing is scriptural? >> Yes, I do. If so, then why don't you list scripture to back up your points? >> Because most of the truths I talk about are so Scripturally obvious that there is no need for me to "back them up" with specific cites. We are not talking deep theology here. . . . << Since God's Word is eternal and man's efforts are trite at best, wouldn't it be more convincing to offer scriptural support for your points. >> Perhaps for those who can't see them, yes. << This definitely would be "edifying" to your readers >> I think most of the readers already know what the "truths" are. << and would accomplish much more in the process of "[being] conformed to the image of his Son..." Romans 8:29. >> (1) Being conformed to the image of his Son in this Romans passage is talking about the purpose of the gospel, particularly after salvation. This newsletter has little to do with the gospel specifically. (2) To be conformed to Christ's image is an issue for each of us individually, not for me to "conform" or help conform others, although since you apparently support PCC's notion of "collective conviction" and the "corporate Holy Spirit," I can see how you might get this confused. << [Oh yes, one reader referenced, "Come let us reason together saith the Lord..." Isaiah 1:18. Would it not be better to present scripture in context?] >> You mean, kind of like you didn't do with your Romans passage? First, I can't speak for what someone else writes. Just because someone may agree with the positions of The Student Voice does not mean that I can honestly verify every Scriptural specificity they try to make, just as I cannot do the same with PCC. Second, I don't think this is taken out of context necessarily. Isaiah is revealing the vision he was given by the Lord, and within this vision are several principles which are certainly applicable to us, including the principle that God welcomes us to come and reason together about His Word, and I think the reader had a very good point when they said that even though this is something God allows and welcomes, PCC doesn't. << But, you say, maybe much of what you mention has no scriptural reference [e.g., No lights out--chapter and verse?]. >> Partly, yes. . . . << Then would it not come down to preference? >> Sometimes, yes. << Then, whose preference may serve as a better measuring stick--Dr. Horton's (having over 40 years of ministry experience and over 20 years with running a college experience), or yours (having ? ministry experience and zero years with running a college experience)??? >> You are assuming (1) that everything we are talking about is simply a "preference." But you must remember that even if this were about preferences only, these preferences represent what PCC believes Christianity is all about - and that is part of the problem. You see, PCC maintains its moral superiority, yet it uses these, as you call them, "preferences" to impose adolescence on adults. Sure that is a preference, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it probably isn't all that conducive to proper learning to impose a strict paternalistic environment over adults, and I don't care how many years of "experience" a person has. In fact, I think what you call "experience" could also be called "shelter from the outside world," which while it contains many things that aren't worth the time of day, it does have some established ways of doing things. (2) We are not only talking about preferences, we are talking about legalism, questions of honesty, unscriptural practices, questionable ethical dealings, and so forth. As far as I can see, these are not qualities acceptable to God. Now, if you want to sanction them, then that is your business. << Are these the type of rules that would invoke, "...We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29 The only remote association that I think you could honestly make to this would be the "dating devotions" scenario. >> Again, you are missing the whole point. This is not about whose rules should govern, because that is hardly worth my time. But rules are not made in a vacuum, they are premised upon a philosophy; and when the philosophy is wrong, everything else that flows from that philosophy will invariably also be wrong. That's what The Voice is about. Now, the "dating devotions" thing should make you shudder. Not even state (humanistic) institutions would impose such a rule, so where does PCC get off thinking that it can and yet at the same time call itself "Christian"? And it's not simply the rule itself, but the philosophy behind the rule. The philosophy behind the rule is a classical twisting of a passage's context (something which you don't like) to suit PCC's purpose, whatever that is. You see, this is not just about rules, but the ideas behind the rules. << Let's apply this to the context of Acts 5--Did PCC (i.e., Dr. Horton) forbid the students to "not teach in His name?" [...or read their Bibles]. >> Well, yes he did. He said no devotions, and I presume that means reading a Bible, although the rule is completely vague. But again, it's not the rule, but the ideas (that PCC can somehow determine when you have devotions) that we find terribly disturbing. << Be honest! Is PCC against students reading their Bibles? Yes or No? >> Yes, in this context where it apparently hurts their image. << This whole issue only dealt with the place--this is not a positional truth. >> So what? An incorrect interpretation of Scripture by PCC is a serious problem, I don't care how you characterize it. << Please, be truthful with yourself and with God. >> Why don't you do the same? << From just reading your "Christmas" edition, there is not ONE "discrepancy of preference" that would fall under the Acts 5:29 principle. >> That's because we are not talking about the Acts 5:29 principle. << Again, I defer to your rational logical thinking--whose preference would be best? >> How about someone who has had children? << Don't worry, God will judge Dr. Horton for his actions as well as you and I for our actions. ["So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12 >> Right indeed. << 3) I must be careful as I write this since, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12 >> Of course, I am, what was it? "Satan's angel"? Very interesting analysis. << "The Student Voice has provided necessary encouragement to many students and faculty at PCC..."--quote from latest issue. You know just as well as I do that this is a gross overstatement. >> Not necessarily. << Webster defines "many" as, "Being one of a large, indefinite number, numerous." Please be truthful with your readers--"many" students [251 readers/approx. 5,000--student + faculty--is statistically insignificant] and "many" faculty would constitute at least a majority [say, over 50%?]. >> I think your conclusion of a "majority" is a stretch, even by your own interpretations. Actually, there is much you don't know. We have been in contact with close to 1,000 people, many who are students who do not receive T he Voice because Dr. Horton has prohibited it (they can read Kafka, Neitzshe, Hitler, Voltaire. . . but not The Voice. Curious, isn't it?) among the students. Otherwise, we would probably have over 1,000 readers. Not only that, but "251" was the number of addresses the issue was sent to, and this does not take into consideration that many of the addresses are used by families, mutliple users, and are forwarded to who knows how many people. You don't read the mail we get every day from people all over the country thanking us for what we are doing. There are more facts here than have met your eye. << The reality is [as defined by collective fact, not by individual deduction] that "many" of the students/faculty could care less about Student V and its proliferation upon Campus. >> No, many of the students have been instilled with the fear of expulsion for expressing any other view. I thought this was college? << If anything, it makes one's support stronger and dedication and loyalty to God and the ministry God has called one to deep-rooted and immovable [the world calls it reverse psychology]. >> Well, if I may paraphrase you - your subjective experience doesn't make it an objective fact. We read the mail, you don't. << My conscience is clear >> So is mine. << --I've voiced my opinion on the "P--- Voice." >> And how powerful is your "voice"? << And, as an encouragement?: God also has a "Heavenly Voice" where He is keeping track of our actions/works [saved--Judgement Seat of Christ--I Corinthians 3; unsaved--Great White Throne Judgement--Revelations 19] >> I don't think I would characterize this as a "voice," but nice effort. A voice expresses and puts forth; keeping track of our actions is an entirely different act performed by an entirely different physical function - say, "sight." << Praise the Lord for PCC--both my loyalty to God and to PCC (as my Alma Mater) have increased tenfold! Thank you! >> God does work in mysterious ways. Leibniz ------------------------------------ E---, In a message dated 97-02-24 00:50:21 EST, you write: << Dear Paul, I have read your newsletter for some time and in it find much with which I agree. Normally that with which I take issue is merely a subjective matter of opinion and not objective fact. Today, however, marks the first occasion where I have found an objective basis for disagreement with you. Perhaps more accurately stated, I find no support offered an accusation you level at the college.>> Fair enough. I appreciate your recognizing the distinction, it is a breath of fresh air. << In last weeks newsletter you criticized the college for what you called "PCC's own revisionist theory of history." To revise, as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary (note: my e-mail client does not allow for underlining), is to "change or modify." By stating the PCC practices revisionist history implies they alter historical fact to support their worldview considerations. >> That is correct. << Simply because more emphasis is placed on certain facts, mainly those directly relating to Fundamentalism, in contrast to other facts, American history in general, does not constitute a "revision". It is simply a matter of perspective. >> What better way is there to alter a historical worldview than to change the perspective? When you leave out certain facts (which virtually all - including over a half dozen history texts in my own personal library - agree are important to any serious discussion of world history), this has the same effect as adding certain facts which are not true. Perspective is simply how you frame the facts. To add OR SUBTRACT relevant facts says alot about one's perspective. When you leave out things like the American Revolution, which just happens to be one of the greatest, most significant events of human history (and which also happens to illustrate in graphic detail much of what is wrong with PCC's own philosophy) but talk about things that had virtually no impact on world history, then what else can you call it but revisionism. Remember, to earn a college degree, one must take a course in world history. It is only right and fair that students be taught world history. << One might argue concerning the validity of that perspective (providing of coarse the validity is not invisible to those that are rebellious, or unfit for their jobs ), but at least they were honest enough to state this on the front cover of the book. >> "Christian Perspective" does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean leaving out some of the most important events of the course which is supposedly being taught. What if I taught a course in Basic Math and left out fractions because I wanted a different perspective? Would that be ok? Of course not. Why? Because inherent in the idea of "basic math" is the concept of fractions, whether any of us like it or not. The same holds true for "world history." << A good example of true revisionist history is what has been done to the Mayflower Compact or George Washington's "Farewell Address" in modern texts. Here we have examples of individual's quotes being twisted, altered, and edited to make them conform to a certain idiotical viewpoint. >> I won't argue with that. Although I think a serious study of PCC's history text would indicate the same thing, although perhaps not to such an extreme or blatant degree. <> To leave out facts is to alter fact. Remember, perspective is one's view of the facts. << I have great appreciated the issues in the past you have caused many to ponder upon. I believe you have brought pressure upon the Administration to provide explanations for policy which is a good forward step, but lets not give them an objective basis to exploit. >> I appreciate your point, and I will do my best to keep it in mind. << E--- P.S. This was intended as a personal note, however you can use any for publication if you wish. I do request though that you withhold my name. I am not prepared at this time to deal with ex-communication. >> Sincerely, Paul S. Perdue The Student Voice http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7706 ------------------------------------ [The following is a series of three messages and responses from the same writer. - eds.] ***************** MESSAGE #1 ***************** D---, In a message dated 97-02-10 08:44:12 EST, you write: <> Well, of course. Or if perhaps PCC actually understood the concept of Christian love? <> Well, then I am just curious to know what your definition of "Christian love" is, because when I read the New Testament and then compare that to PCC's system, I see very few similarities. Perhaps you could point them out to me. << In any event, I'm glad YOU are not God>> What's the point? We should all be glad that none of us are God. So what? << --your idea of Love is so superficial and certainly not of any lasting value. >> Do you even know what my "idea of Love" is? I doubt it. You might want to be careful about basing conclusions on premises of which your inability to know are quite obvious. << E---, Alumni >> Sincerely, Paul S. Perdue The Student Voice Alumni ***************** MESSAGE #2 ***************** D, In a message dated 97-02-10 08:38:26 EST, you write: <> "Obviously"? Let's think about this. I am shining a light on some very unChristian behavior (your definition of a "gripe") at PCC that simply needs to be changed. Now, what is the problem. And how is it "obvious"? You have the same problem that many people in your philosophical shoes have - you have no problem making an accusation, but you have a difficult time showing why it holds any water. Accusations are no good without facts to show why they are correct. I'm just curious. << I'll just keep on with the Lord's work (my mission), and if you wish to do the same, we'll have some common ground. >> The last time I checked the Scripture, being the SALT and light was still the "Lord's work." Sincerely, Paul S. Perdue The Student Voice ***************** MESSAGE #3 ***************** D--, In a message dated 97-02-17 09:20:43 EST, you write: <> I believe you're mistaken. Christ never qualified His "context." He told us to be salt to the entire "earth," and I don't think He intended that we salt the earth only on those parts that are non-Christian. Being the salt of the earth simply means that we preserve righteousness and all that is good, regardless of where that righteousness is needed. If a Christian organization was involved in, say, immorality, would you say that we have no responsibility to say anything simply because that organization calls itself "Christian"? Of course not. Why is that? The reason is obvious - it is not the name that we must focus on but the actions that the organization is involved in. << As for your behavior, PCC staff is salting their soup just fine for me--there's an old addage about what too many chefs can do. >> I see the point of your little analogy, but I think it is simply a case of semantics that ignores reality. Obviously you have not read too much of The Voice, because there are plenty of examples of PCC doing anything but "salting their soup." << My reaction is the same as if I had a restaurant and you came in every day to "warn" my customers about how bad their food tastes, etc. I say that my customers can make that judgement on their own, and you can go eat somewhere else--my guess, however, is that no matter where you went, you would feel the same compulsion because you are more interested in the criticism than finding what is "right"--i.e. what is right to you.>> Well, there are some fundamental differences between PCC and a restaraunt. (1) If you discover a bad product at a restaraunt, you are out what? $10? $20? $50? If you discover a bad product at PCC, you are often out thousands of dollars plus years of your life. (2) You would not prohibit your customers from discussing among themselves whether or not they like the food over their dinners. (3) The whole purpose of a restaraunt is not to expand the mind. (4) And I could go on and on. . . . And I'm not sure what your basis is besides your own narrow, subjective opinion to substantiate your claim that my intention is to simply criticize rather than to find what is right. I would be curious to know what you base that on. << As for light, it should be shown in the world's path, not glared into its eyes (the result of Christians carrying with other Christians the way you are)--light misapplied is of no use for God's purposes. >> Well, when the light has a big bushel of neo-legalism and internal pettiness covering it, to attempt to remove this bushel so that the light can be much more effective is a legitimate effort. << Get a life (in Christ), He won't hold you accountable in eternity for failing to keep everyone else's house clean. >> But He will hold me and you accountable for the truth He has given us. He will also hold us accountable if we fail to point out error in His family. << He will ask you about your own house, however, and the time you spent on so much strife as opposed to spending it more wisely on His Harvest. >> Well, what one man calls "strife," God calls the truth. Like you said, you don't need to worry about it - after all, I will be the one to answer to God for my actions, not you. You know, I find it very hypocritical when people like yourself will tell me to shut my mouth because Dr. Horton will answer for his actions yet you open yours in spite of the fact that based on your own reasoning I am responsible for my actions, not you. << Please don't even begin to tell me that you are carrying out the Lord's work in what you are doing. Even if you think it, don't dare tell me. >> I won't, because I need neither your approval nor your sanction. Remember, I don't answer to you. << In Christ. D--- >> Sincerely, Paul S. Perdue The Student Voice http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7706 ------------------------------------ ************ MESSAGE #4 ************ S---, In a message dated 96-12-28 22:18:28 EST, you write: << I've been wanting to send you an e-mail since Dr. Horton spoke about your obnoxious activities in chapel. Why are you wasting your time fighting against what is obviously a work of God? >> What do you mean, "obviously"? Is legalism, deception and false doctrine a "work of God"? There are a lot of people who would disagree with you on this. I am assuming that you are basing this statement on the fact that the Lord does, in fact, work at PCC (which He can and does anywhere). If this is the premise upon which you base your statement that PCC is "obviously a work of God," then why does PCC ban such things as "Christian conservative music," "Calvinist" thinking, and individual thought (just to name a few) by which God works as well? I am curious to know upon what foundation you base that statement. << No doubt you have a great amount of intelligence and ability: it is always nice to run across someone who does. >> I appreciate the kind words. << But why waste it in this way? >> I'll tell you why - because every year, PCC sends out thousands of preachers, school teachers, school administrators, etc. who have been taught and fed the lies of legalism, or quasi-legalism. And when these thousands and thousands of people go out into the world and preach the same false message of Christianity, they influence thousands and thousands more. Second, because PCC does a conveniently poor job of letting students and parents know what REALLY goes on inside the walls of PCC. Why not be up front about everything? If they won't, I will. << All of the itme and effort you have expended is directed toward tearing down a fine Christian institution. >> Wrong. I am not trying to tear down anything, but rather, I am trying to replace error with truth. It may never happen, but then again, it might. << The internet is a wonderful tool: why not use it to do something constructive? >> I feel that I am. << For example: Madonna is having a baby out of wedlock: why not run a newsletter about how wrong fornication is and how illegitimacy is against God, His Word, and is destroying America? >> Because there are plenty of others who are already doing it and who do it much more eloquently than I could. Not only that, but if I started that, then someone like yourself would come along and say, why are you wasting your time on that, you should be spending it on the problems in China, or the humanistic philosophy in the public schools. No, we must all find our little niche, and we must then fill it. I can't fill that which has been given to others to fill. Besides, Madonna hasn't given me a diploma. << Something like that would serve some Godly purpose and also alert those who have no discernment in this area, saved and unsased. >> Although I would like to, I can't do everything. Why don't you do this? If it is such a burden, then go to it; I'll be your biggest supporter. << Or how about this: I have been engaged in a creation/evolution debate with someone through e-mail. My ultimate purpose is to try to win him to Christ. >> I have often done the same thing, although with other topics. I usually get into a chat room and find out if anyone is interested in talking about God, which there invariably always is at least one. This has opened up numerous avenues for witnessing. <> No, I am shooting at a false theology and an abuse of authority. I see these as philosophical/ideological "enemies," not personal ones. << Why not point your intellectual arsenal in the correct direction and shoot at the devil and His crowd, rather at Christ's followers. >> Legalism IS part of the devil's crowd. << It may dissapoint you to know this, but I haven't read your newsletter and will not do so. >> Then how in the world can you make judgments about The Voice? I am always amazed at how much people who have not read the newsletter know about what the newsletter says. I really wish I had such an ability. Yes, you are right - this does disappoint me. These are important issues that we discuss each week, and you don't have to be in agreement to read it and to help form the ideas that I think will be debated over the next few years at PCC. You are an intelligent man, and I see no reason why you shouldn't wish to contribute. << You may continue sending it, however. Each time you do I will e-mail you a note somewhat like this, asking you to straighten up and get with the program. >> Well, if you don't want it, I won't send it. That's fair enough. But if you do keep sending me notes like this, I will continue to respond in the same manner. << In fact, I may e-mail you the letters in my creation debate to show you some of what you ought to be doing. >> Thanks, but no thanks. I have my niche, you have yours. <> Thank you. I will continue to try to do that. << One last thing: it is obvious you think you know how to run a Christian college. >> You seem to like to use the word, "obvious" a lot. How is that obvious? No one has ever accused me of thinking I know how to run the country when I criticize U.S. policy or President Clinton's policy. This has nothing to do with running a college, and I find it amusing that you would try to draw the conclusion. I have ideas whether you or anyone else likes it; that has nothing to do with me running the college, but everything to do with someone besides Dr. Horton knowing a thing or two. <> Have I ever expressed a desire to run PCC? Have I ever said that Dr. Horton can't do it, or shouldn't do it? By your logic, you or I could never criticize anything that we couldn't master, run or control. You don't have to be able to run a college to have a good idea, or to be able to point out nonesense at one. << Since you can't run PCC, >> Upon what are you basing this assumption? This may be true, but then again, it may not be. You have no idea whether or not I could run PCC. I think I could, and I think I know me better than anyone, including yourself. << rather than try to tear it down, why not start your own school? >> If that's what God wants me to do, then that's what I will do. But until then, I'll stay in God's will. << Then you could spend your time building a God-honoring institution as you think it should be done rather than trying to tear down such an institution that is run as the Lord has shown others to run their institution. >> Uh-huh. << If you really care about the Lord's work, I think you really need to change your recent StudentV activites and refocus on something constructive. >> Well, I appreciate your thoughts, but I must continue doing what I am doing. << S--- >> THE STUDENT VOICE, by Paul Perdue ########################################################### V. YOUR COMMENTS REGARDING "A COUNTER RESPONSE" IN THE LAST ISSUE [It is interesting to note that I had a chance to converse with the author of "A Counter Response," and he, in affect, recanted the views articulated in "A Counter Response" and instead expressed a general agreement with those set forth by The Voice. - eds.] ------------------------- [This is a response from my brother, Phil, who was unecessarily brought into this by the author of "A Counter Response." -- eds.] A Response from "Little Brother" The last issue of The Voice published a prize letter. Those of you who read it, I am sure, remember it well. The guy was definitely doing some overdue venting. I just think it's interesting to notice how all of the readers who accuse Paul of being so bitter and so angry are the ones who say things like, "Maturity is one very important aspect I learned during my days at PCC. Maybe you should re-enroll?" ...and... "I assume you probably did not enjoy your time at school. ....you have not understood anything. You are bitter against PCC because you probably got alot of demerits, you probably were socialed or even campused several times - you still didn't get it. You missed so much during your time at PCC." ....and... " I have an idea. Since your letters are going to bi-monthly instead of weekly, why don't you spend your fisrt week praying during all the time you normally work on your news letter. I imagine it is to make up all of that lost sleep as I mentioned. Why don't you also Try it." (whatever that means...) ....and... "Now you nit-pick about every rule you come across......Maybe you should be in charge. Maybe you need to make the rules, and maybe you should be your own god. Just keep in mind the last guy who tried to be like the Most High God, he's gonna have a miserable time in the years to come." I think you get the point. What caught my attention in his letter was, well, a direct reference to me. In fact, it seemed to be one of his opening jabs... "Do you really have a cause? Or do you do this for kicks? Or are you trying to fight your brother's battle for you. Phil did get kicked out didn't he? So is this BIG BROTHER to the rescue?" --Hey, great point, fella. You may just have something here. Yeah, that's it, Paul is fighting my "battle" for me. He's coming to my rescue. And you wouldn't believe how good things are looking for my re-enrollment. It's all starting to pay off... I'm assuming this guy winged that comment from the top of his head --from where all of the other grapevine information is stored. Nonetheless, since it has been brought it up, I guess this is as good an opportunity as ever to address this issue. ...that being me and my involvement with The Student Voice, and my dismissal from PCC, and their supposed correlation, for those of you who may be interested. It would be a good story, no doubt: "Phil gets kicked out of PCC because he's doing big brother's dirty work under cover. The all-knowing, ever-seeing administration catches on and purges themselves of the traitor, never considering the ghastly repercussions: Paul's New Vengeance!" Unfortunately for those of us who enjoy such stories, such is not the case. Really. To be quite frank, I really have very little to do with The Student Voice, be it editorial or inspirational. I had little to do with it while I was at PCC. Well, I did read it; and I did know who Mr. X was. If that counts. ...so, was I guilty of "active participation", or did I fall short of maintaining PCC's popular tattle-tale rule when I didn't tell all after Dr. Horton's Diatribe? Your guess, in fact, is every bit as good as mine is. The truth is that no one on our side of the administrative conference room knows why I was dismissed from PCC. I've asked. And I've asked some more. I'm sure by now I'm becoming quite a nuiscance. The best answer I've received concerning why I was "asked not to return" can be found in the front leaf of the PCC college catalogue. Look it up. Something about "the spirit of the ministry". That was my crime, I guess--being "out of harmony". Hmm. OUT OF HARMONY. Define that. Anyways... Maybe the administration knew I was Mr. X's brother. If so, then why was the situation not handled by the rulebook, like Dr. Horton said it would be? Why were every one of my closest friends asked not to return as well? ..without being given a reason, either... For the record, the administration never mentioned The Student Voice to me. But whatever their reason, it was substantiated, in their minds, by the simple fact that PCC TRUSTS ITS OWN JUDGEMENT. They didn't even ask me one question about anything. They just felt "I was out of harmony with the institution". (By the way, anyone who can formulate anything more vague than this will receive public praise in the next issue..) So, they told me (and my friends) to pack it up and don't come back. Kind of funny how the ones constantly telling us students not to trust our "own understanding" are the same ones who find theirs rarely wrong.... Let me just say quickly that I was very glad to leave. I felt a burden had been lifted. Say, thanks, PCC. So, no. This is not big brother to the rescue. Little brother is doing just fine. I just love it when I read letters like the one mentioned above. If I were a supporter of PCC, i would be embarassed, and thoroughly ashamed to admit that the guy who wrote the letter very beautifully represents a product of PCC. He does. You all should elect him your spokesman. He has all of the worn-out, weak, finger-pointing arguments down pat. Notice that not one issue was raised. ..except for his bright idea that my dismissal from PCC is fueling this whole thing. .... Still. A lot of people are still just not getting it. Having moved peppilly on with life minus PCC, Phil Perdue. Filperdue@aol.com ------------------------- �Something to Think About� a response to �A Counter-Response To The Voice� by D. Stafford For all the talk about maturity the author of �A Counter-Response To The Voice� sure does take a lot of cheap shots at Paul Purdue. I was introduced to the Student Voice through my brother who, only a semester ago, was a student at PCC. While in the second to last semester of his senior year he was informed by the administration that he would not be welcome back for completion of his final year. The informant did not disclose why he was being forced to leave. He was only told to read the purpose statement of the PCC handbook. It seems as though in some way, my brother did not fit into the mold. You may choose to believe that he must have done something to merit being �kicked-out�. On the other hand the reality may be that PCC has an administration that, in an attempt to entertain themselves as the ultimate authority, removed a number of individuals from the student body. None of whom received any more explanation than did my brother. I chuckled when I read this statement by the anonymous author of �A Counter-Response To The Voice�, �It is obvious that youe (sic) entire intent on using the internet and America Online is for the purpose of trashing PCC. The name alone �StudentV� suggests that.� First of all, this is entirely untrue. Here is somebody that is pleading with you to use your brain. Paul has made a point of telling it like it is. The extraordinary things that he publishes are things that really, truly do happen on the campus of PCC. I do not believe that Paul�s mission in life is to trash PCC. How fruitless an effort that would be. I believe Paul is attempting to expose some of the injustices, prejudices, wrong doings, hardships and injuries that PCC has created for many of its students. Secondly, how exactly does the name �Student Voice� suggest defamation? It simply means that you have a right to assert yourself. It is not wrong to question authority. I�m not talking about the questioning you did as an adolescent when your parents asked you to take the garbage out or clean your room and you asked why. This is an incredibly poor analogy of asking why for the purpose of instruction in righteousness. Don�t be duped into believing that you are going to college to further your education and sit there for 4 years sharpening your �maturity skills� by doing everything you�re told to do. One of the problems here is that all of the author�s analogies come from the experience of their parents or somebody at PCC telling them what to do. They then make the assumption that their boss is some tyrant that goes around telling them what to do with no respect to their schedule, family or personal life. The author understands PCC to be �...one of the VERY few Bible believing colleges in the world?� Perhaps it�s one of the very few that attempts to dictate everything it�s students will and will not do during their stay. They also continually lay guilt on them by adding that, it is such a privilege to attend that you should never question any move or decision that is made by the administration. Such a vast majority of things that are done on the campus of PCC are based on guilt and distrust. The author needs to continue their research on Evangelical, Bible believing and teaching colleges and institutions in the US alone. There is one statement that I must agree whole-heartedly with. The author writes, �Every year, hundreds of parents for the first time have to say goodbye to their kids. Parents letting go to their kids for four years is scary.� Ah, how true it is. I am so thankful that my parents instilled in me a love of my Lord and a heart that longed to serve him. It is a true test of a parent to send their children away and watch them develop a life that is a manifestation of what has been invested in them. It is not the responsibility of a school to continue that for a parent. It is only the obligation of one�s self to become more like Christ. Following rules and submitting to authority are not incredibly brilliant things to have learned. Lets face it, by the time you�re 3 years old you�ve figured out that there are many things that you can�t do because they�ll hurt and that there are many things that you need to do because if you don�t you�ll get yourself into trouble. God has established rules in his Word to give us freedom. I would hardly call what PCC has done by creating it�s �Guidelines� (and I use the term loosely) giving freedom to their students. Sin still happens behind closed doors and under stair wells. Every man made rule on the earth cannot prevent that. PCC must concentrate on growing up students to minister to the world around them. So far, they�ve only succeeded in building walls around their "little city". Congratulations to PCC. They're keeping their students hidden in a bushel of safety and the world out in all of its sin! The world that I know here in the inner city of Chicago is full of homosexuality, divorce, thievery, incest and violence. Although, the Christians remain as living proof that there is hope beyond sin. There is life after death. There is love beyond deceit. PCC needs to stop trying to shield their followers from the realities of the world. Dressing modestly, speaking kindly, knowing the Bible and working hard isn�t enough. You have to develop relationships with people. You have to invest in their lives. You have to try to understand their struggles. Jesus Christ did and he died because of it. ########################################################### The Student Voice is: Paul S. Perdue, Newsletter Editor lupos, Web Page Editor Web Page Please feel free to voice your thoughts, stories, and opinions. Thank you for reading The Voice! ########################################################### THE STUDENT VOICE, PCC's alternative newsletter