################################################################ The Student Voice Issue 7, Number 1 4.11.1997 ################################################################ 421+ Readers - some agree, some disagree, others don't care ################################################################ The Voice - An attempt to improve, not to destroy. ################################################################ 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." ################################################################ Correction It has been brought to our attention by a PCC faculty member that PCC faculty and staff ARE permitted to read The Student Voice, and if we said or implied otherwise, we apologize for the mistake. The STUDENTS, however, are NOT permitted to read this newsletter. ################################################################ QUOTES OF THE WEEK "We only know what is on our mind, rarely what is in our mind." - Robert E. Ornstein "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social enviroment, most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein "Thou waitest for the spark from heaven! and we, Light half-believers in our casual creeds. . . Who hesitate and falter life away, And lose to-morrow the ground won to-day --- Ah, do not we, Wanderer, await it too?" - Matthew Arnold, from THE SCHOLAR-GIPSY "I thought God was bigger than Dr. Horton." -- Jim Schettler, Pastor of The Campus Church in a Senior Class Meeting ################################################################ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. I. Voice Announcements II. Request For An Additional Voice Writer III. Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due IV. Survey Results V. Essays A. "Is Dr. Mutsch Playing With Fire?" by Paul S. Perdue Page 2. B. "Another Look At PCC and Its Philosophy" Guest essay by Peter Gage (96) VI. Your Comments V!I. Does This Remind You of Someplace You Know Of? ################################################################ 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 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. REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL VOICE WRITER The Student Voice is looking to expand its "editorial staff" by adding ONE additional writer to contribute relevant articles and editorials on a regular monthly basis for The Voice. Here is what we are looking for: >>> Someone inside the PCC community to write general articles of student/alumni interest regarding life on campus. This person will cover the events and issues that occur inside the walls of PCC from an insider's perspective. PLEASE NOTE that ANY perspective is welcome. Anyone interested please contact us here at for more information. Unfortunately, we can only compensate you with a friendly smile and a hearty slap on the back. We do not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, looks, financial status, GPA or collegian membership, but we DO discriminate heavily on ideological position. Thank you. ################################################################ III. GIVING CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE The Student Voice would like to give a deserving hand to the PCC administration for their recent effort to support the local community. The Pensacola News Journal printed a letter in its April 1 edition by Eugene E. Roberts, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Northwest Florida Blood Center regarding PCC's campus-wide blood drive. On March 3, PCC organized its own blood drive to help those in desperate need of donations. "Pensacola Christian College, in its effort to support the community, chose a blood drive as the vehicle by which it could reach those in need," said Mr. Roberts. We just thought it would be appropriate to not only thank PCC for doing what Christians should be doing, but to acknowledge our support for them in this effort to help their own local community. Our hats are off. ################################################################ IV. SURVEY RESULTS We want to thank all of you who responded to our survey. Although not as many people answered as we would have liked, many did, and the results are interesting. Please keep in mind that this was NOT a formal survey with all of the procedural checks, but rather it was an informal questionnare to help us get a better idea of the pulse of those of you who read The Voice. Many of you also included comments with your answers to certain questions, and we have inserted many of those as well. These results are from just over 60% of the readers polled responding. ----------------------------- Question 1. My relation to PCC is: a. I graduated with a degree (any degree will suffice) b. I attended, but did not graduate c. I never attended, but have immediate relatives who attend or have attended d. I never attended A. 57.5% B. 25 C. 12.5 D. 5 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Question 2. Of the 21 issues, 1 transcript and 1 Introductory letter, I have read: a. Most or all of The Voice publications (20-23) b. Over half, but not most (12-19) c. Less than half, but quite a bit (5-11) d. Very few (0-4) A. 65% B. 15 C. 15 D. 5 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Question 3. I agree with the SUBSTANCE of The Voice (do not factor in your opinion of the METHOD, just the substance): a. All or most of the time b. Some of the time c. Very little or none of the time A. 77.5% B. 15 C. 5 No response. 2.5 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Question 4. I agree with the METHOD of The Voice (by "method," we mean an on-line newsletter that aggressively addresses certain controversial issues): a. Very much b. Yes, but only because there are no other methods c. Not at all d. No, but only because I think there are other methods A. 40% B. 47.5 C. 5 D. 5 No response. 2.5 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Question 5. a. I DO think there needs to be a significant change of policy at PCC b. I DO NOT think there needs to be a significant change of policy at PCC A. 92% B. 5 No response. 2.5 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Question 6. a. I AM willing, upon adequate persuasion, to change my views about the issues discussed b. I AM NOT willing to change my views about the issues discussed under any circumstances A. 97.5% B. 2.5 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Question 7. a. I DO think the current students should be permitted to read The Voice b. I DO NOT think the current students should be permitted to read The Voice A. 92.5% B. 7.5 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Question 8. a. I WOULD be willing to put my name on a list stating that PCC is in need of some significant change (this would be neutral of, and would indicate niether support nor non-support for, The Voice) b. I WOULD NOT be willing to put my name on such a list A. 62.5% B. 32.5 No response. 5 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Question 9. a. I HAVE seen the official Voice web page b. I HAVE NOT seen the official Voice web page A. 77.5% B. 22.5 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Question 10. I think the following groups should have a significant voice into the way policy is made on campus (check all that apply): a. PCC alumni b. Current PCC students c. Parents of current students d. Bible-believing churches (including The Campus Church) e. None (it is Dr. Horton's school, he should be able to do what he wants) A. 57.5% B. 70 C. 77.5 D. 62.5 E. 15 No response. 2.5 ****************************** "All stake-holders should have input. Anything contrary is no way to run a business." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Question 11. PCC should be accountable to (check all that apply): a. God b. Alumni c. Current students d. Churches e. Parents of students f. No one A. 97.5% B. 65 C. 82.5 D. 55 E. 87.5 F. 0 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Question 12. I think that: a. PCC SHOULD become accredited b. PCC SHOULD NOT become accredited c. Don't care either way A. 57.5% B. 10 C. 32.5 ****************************** "Not applicable--PCC is already accredited with the Florida Association of Christian Colleges; they should not seek to be accredited with a secular organizaion until it becomes necessary." ****************************** "But i doubt if their policies would survive the accredidation process. I can't imagine any national accreditation board approving of such dictator-like behavior. Any degree worth getting should be accredited." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Question 13. The best method for executing The Voice editors would be: a. Guillotine b. The rack c. Fed to an angry pack of anteaters d. Made to sit and watch the videos of every Vespers since the beginning of PCC A. 2.5% B. 5 C. 2.5 D. 32.5 (You are a very cruel readership. . . - eds.) No response. 25 (Except for this 25%. . . - eds.) ****************************** "[how about] making them take a course on critical thinking skills at PCC, followed by a course on creatively reaching the lost in the 21st century at BJU?" ****************************** "D. (I take it back. Nobody deserves that kind of punishment!)" ****************************** "(Note: I don't know for sure, but I think response d. would be the most painful. Unless, of course, you do what we usually did and fall asleep in the middle of it.) ****************************** "Keep exercising the 1st amendment right for those who can't" ****************************** "All of the above ;-)" ****************************** "None of the above, Mr. Chip-on-my-Shoulder" ****************************** "Do not appreciate this question." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [Questions 14 and 15 do not require a response; they are food for thought..] Question 14. On a typical Sunday, Pastor Schettler stands before the Campus Church and informs the congregation that God has told him and the rest of the Administration that all PCC students, faculty, and staff are to drink a purple Kool-Aid-like liquid (a la Jim Jones). What percentage actually drink, going right to their deaths? AVERAGE: 50.54% ****************************** "probably more than we would like to think" ****************************** "(A very small percentage less than 1%- in my experience most people understand the problems of the school and just don't talk about it. If you get them in your confidence and talk about it - they will tell what they really think.) " ****************************** "Dr Horton would get 20+%" ****************************** "In response to 14 and 15. I think there are a percentage of students there who will believe anything the administration tells them. Judging from when I was there (76-80) 10-25%. I guess that is not really a small percentage, is it? I had many friends who knew that they did have a brain that was useful occasionally to make judgements of their own even if they were contrary to the PCC gods. Many of my friends transferred and some were shipped. Many of us did endure and are actually capable of surviving in the "real world". When I got there, I was pretty much committed to graduating and that meant biting my tongue on many occasions and learning to be very careful about in whom I put my trust." ****************************** "depending on his presentation (rarely would he claim "God told him to"-- perhaps he could find a scripture to fit into his persuasion, which he often does anyway..) the percentage would start out small, say 10 - 15%, then, the good ol' pcc-pressure would spread its cancerous influence, and soon you've got a DH full of corpses. --end result: 87% participation. (note, the purple kool-aid liquid would be the easiest sell when observing communion..)" ****************************** "Depends on if they lied about what was in the drink.. knowing the truth 40%, not knowing the contents of the purple Kool-Aid: 100%" ****************************** "Don't be ridiculous." ****************************** "None. There is no way that would happen on a typical Sunday. Pastor Shettler would never do that. PCC has always stated that we should follow God rather than man." ****************************** "Don't appreciate this question." ****************************** "A comparable percentage to those who would eventually go on staff." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Question 15. In a typical Monday chapel service, Dr. Mutsch stands before the college community and reports that God has told the Administration that it is against God's will to seek modern medical attention. How many of the students go along with this? AVERAGE: 40% ****************************** "probably none since the wording "modern medical attention" would obviously not restrict their use of the Health Center" ****************************** "Only those who believe the Health Center should be contacted PRIOR to receiving necessary medical attention." ****************************** "Not too many -- no one listens to Dr. Mutsch" ****************************** "again, his argument would fail were it based on the claim that "God told them". i do not doubt, however, that he could probably stretch that conclusion from an OT figure.. like, say Korah, for instance... of the students, i'd speculate and agreeing percentage of close to 60%." ****************************** End of Survey. ################################################################ V. ESSAYS "Is Dr. Mutsch Playing With Fire?" By: Paul S. Perdue I. INTRODUCTION Let me warn you that you may find the following statement shocking - It appears as though the editor of The Student Voice has been recently dropped from the PCC Update mailing list. . . . (I can just sense your collective sigh of grief and pity at this terrible predicament I have been subjected to. .. . .) I am no longer capable of gleaning the immense wisdom expounded in the published articles, and I can no longer send my résumé for teaching positions since I have no alternative means (at least I have not independently chosen to exercise any other means) of learning about open faculty positions. (Yes, I am being sarcastic, and for those of you who are offended, I apologize. . . but lighten up.) Despite all of these predicaments, however, I did recently come into possession of the latest Update (Spring 1997 edition), and frankly, I am embarrassed. I am ashamed to admit that my undergraduate degree is from the same institution that published this Update, and I am humiliated that thousands and thousands of people have read this issue and will be reasonably capable of drawing the conclusion that the thought process involved in the topics discussed is typical of PCC students/faculty/alumni, etc. I am referring primarily to the short article titled, "What About Cremation," written by Dr. Mutsch, PCC's Vice President for Administration. Before I address the article itself, understand that this is not an issue of PCC rules (to which most people incorrectly pigeonhole every idea of The Voice). It is not an issue of internal PCC policy, but it is an issue regarding a public statement of morality and Scriptural doctrine. This article was written by a PCC administrator in a PCC publication to the general public (or at least a specifically targeted segment of the general public), and as such, the public has a reasonable expectation to be able to comment on it, and as Christians who are part of the same family and who are engaged in a joint effort of demonstrating truth to the world, we have not only a reasonable expectation to comment, but a RESPONSIBILITY to check the erroneous conclusions of our brothers and sisters in Christ (Matt. 5:13; Gal. 2:14). The essence of Dr. Mutsch's article is that it is unbiblical and thereby sinful for a Christian to utilize cremation as a means to dispose of his or her body after death. This is based upon three propositions: (1) Fire frequently symbolizes judgment, and so it is therefore "inconsistent" for us to utilize this symbol of judgment to dispose of our bodies after death; (2) The New Testament pattern is burial, therefore burial is the only appropriate means of bodily disposal; (3) Ground burial is the only method that honors the body, God's temple. II. SOME ADDITIONAL HISTORY Cremation is neither an unusual practice, nor is it a new one. It has been used by virtually all civilizations in every recorded era of human history. Some literature records the first cremations to have been conducted by the Slavic tribes of the Dniester and Dnieper River valleys in modern day Russia. There is also extensive evidence to show that cremations took place during the Neolithic Era, as pottery vessels containing the remains of cremated bodies have been discovered in Neolithic graves in Bohemia, Moravia, central Germany, Hungary and Great Britain. Despite Dr. Mutsch's assertion that cremation is a practice with "pagan roots," experts seem to agree that no one knows for sure what reasons inspired this practice, or what "roots" it really does have. Some believe that it was to provide warmth for the deceased in the afterlife. Other archeologists and anthropologists believe it was originally used because the ancients understood that fire was a purifying agent, thereby reducing sanitary problems. Cremation was also used, say some experts, to alleviate the problem of bodies being dug up by beasts or by enemies. In fact, the Greeks began using cremation around the year 1000 B.C. to protect their war dead. Their enemies were known to dig up the remains of dead warriors and to ceremoniously desecrate them. The Greeks, after wising up to their enemies' tactics, began cremating the dead soldiers and then bringing them back to Greece to be entombed with great ceremony and honor. In many cultures cremation was only reserved for the wealthy and famous. The grave furniture found associated with cremations have almost always been much more elaborate than those connected with ground burials. This seems to have been true with the Romans as well, for Ovid states that both Remus, one of the mythological founders of Rome, as well as Julius Caesar were cremated. >From the invasion of the Danes in 787 A.D. to Harold the Saxon's defeat by William the Conqueror in the Battle of Hastings in 1066 A.D., cremation was the primary means of bodily disposal in England, after which the practice faded until the middle of the 19th century. People began to be concerned with the rapid urbanization of their society, and this spawned a renewed interest in the practice of cremation. Sir Henry Thompson formed the Cremation Society of England in 1874 and led the way to convincing the English Parliament to officially legalize cremation shortly after the turn of the century. Today cremation is the most popular means of disposing of the dead in England (as well as Japan). >From the third century's rapid spread of Christianity until the late 18th century, their was a strong opposition to cremation by the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches, and while Dr. Mutsch would lead us to believe that this opposition was due to the reasons stated in his article, the opposition was actually due simply to the Churches' belief in the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. (They no longer hold to this position.) Cremation is simply another form of final disposition. It merely "speeds the time from when a person dies until he or she returns to the earth in a natural state." In fact, the word "funeral" (a ceremony with pagan roots?) comes originally from a Sanskrit word of northern India which means "smoke." To characterize cremation as being primarily a pagan practice or having pagan roots is to ignore the historical facts. Do not confuse an activity that was used by pagans (as even burials were and are) with that which has pagan roots. III. SOME COMMENTS A. Context The first question I would ask, although not directly related to the substance of the article is, why is cremation even a topic in a PCC Update? It can be conceded that this is not an entirely uninteresting issue, but is it at all relevant? Understand the context - this is a topic about death and how to dispose of one's body sent to people who are primarily college or pre-college age. Is this something they think about often? It is doubtful. Is it something they think is important to their lives? Also doubtful. Are there not numerous other issues which are much more appropriate to discuss with the targeted audience than a process of bodily disposal after death? Of course. Or perhaps this is a serious issue confronting today's Church? I don't think so. To put it another way, of all the issues, struggles and burdens that teenagers and college-age students are dealing with in the 90's, and the questions they have in trying to decide on a college and a career, cremation is not one of them. This clearly demonstrates just how out of touch the PCC administration really is. B. Fire as a symbol of judgment It will certainly be conceded that fire was often used in the Bible as a symbol of judgment. However, this in no way states a principle that fire may not be used for other purposes, such as cremation by us as Christians. There are at least two faults with Dr. Mutsch's proposition. First, while fire symbolizes judgment, it both symbolizes and is used in the Bible for many other purposes. It was used to cook meals (Ex. 12:8). To be a guiding light and a symbol to follow (Ex. 13 & 14, Ex. 40:38, Ps. 78:14). To symbolize God's Holiness (Ex. 19:18, Is. 31:9), and His Glory (Ex. 24:17, Deut. 4:11,12) .. To offer sacrifices (Lev. 1 & 6, Gen. 22, I Chr. 21:26). To glorify God (I s. 24:15). As something we need (Prov. 26:20). As a sign or a message from God (Ez. 1:4, Acts 2:3, Jer. 6:1). As the protection of God (Zech. 2:5). As a purifier (Mal. 3:2, I Cor. 3:13). For warmth (Acts 28:2, Mark 14:54). Of beauty (Rev. 9:17). You see, although fire is often used to symbolize judgment, this does not state a principle that we may not use fire to dispose of our bodies after death. If this is the case, then what else may we not use fire for? Shall we ignore sanitary considerations, a shortage of land, convenience, or a host of other reasons to use fire to dispose of our bodies simply because fire was used as a symbol of judgment in Scripture? What is missing here, because it does not exist, is the element which links the premise to the conclusion. Second, Dr. Mutsch states that "It is INCONSISTENT for Bible believers who have been saved from the judgment of fire to use this method to dispose of their bodies at death." (Emphasis added). "Inconsistent" with what? To use fire for something other than judgment? Is it also "inconsistent" to use fire to dispose of our trash? Where is the inconsistency? There are two concepts here, judgment and disposing of one's body after death. According to Dr. Mutsch, there is some principle which makes the two acts "inconsistent" with each other, yet he never states what it is. The Scripture is silent on this point, and so the only inconsistency is something that Dr. Mutsch has made up himself. It would be as if I were to say that because a door is often used to symbolize Christ's means of salvation (a means for us to enter), it would then be "inconsistent," and thereby sinful, for me to prop a door on two saw horses in my garage and use it for a working table. C. New Testament pattern teaches burial as opposed to cremation The premise here is that since the New Testament does not teach cremation as an appropriate means of disposing of one's body, the conclusion may be drawn that cremation is wrong. Dr. Mutsch states that this is because (a) Christ was buried and we should follow His example, and (b) there are five recorded examples of burial recorded in the New Testament. There are at least four problems with this reasoning and interpretation. First, if it is true that because Christ was buried, we should be buried, then the inverse of this would also be true - since Christ was crucified, we should also be crucified. Since He was a "full time minister," we should forsake all "secular" occupations as well. In other words, we are not free to deviate from the literal actions that Christ engaged in. This simply cannot be supported by Scripture. Christ's life gave us a pattern to live by, and none of us would deny that, but to draw the conclusion that Dr. Mutsch does ignores reality and substitutes his own interpretation of Scripture for one that simply cannot be maintained. Second, not only does Dr. Mutsch give you five irrelevant examples to support his position (John the Baptist, Lazarus, the rich man, and Ananias and Sapphira), but he also fails to include examples which contradict his own assertions. In I Samuel 31, the Old Testament records the death of Saul and his sons. Do you know how the Israelites disposed of these bodies? That's right, they burned them. (See verses 11-13). Also, in II Samuel 5 it is recorded that David, after slaying the Philistines who came up to war with the new King, burned the bodies of the dead at Baal-perazim. See also II Kings 23:20. Third, the whole question of cremation is one of personal decision (at least this is the way Dr. Mutsch characterizes the issue). In other words, the issue is not cremation itself, but the decision to cremate. Therefore, for Dr. Mutsch's proposition to stand, it must be presupposed that the examples cited in the New Testament involved a personal decision to be buried. Other than the example of Christ, there is not one scintilla of evidence to suggest that the individuals cited made a decision to be buried. Perhaps they did, but most likely they did not. Either way, we do not know, and we cannot base a doctrine on what we do not know and upon something with no basis in Scripture. Fourth, there is an obvious causal relationship problem. Dr. Mutsch states that since Scripture does not explicitly condone cremation, it is therefore wrong. Do you think he would therefore agree with the proposition that since the New Testament did not specifically permit Christian colleges, PCC is a Scriptural violation? This is precisely the argument that was incorrectly used by Dr. Horton to disavow the article on authority in Issue 1, No. 1 of Th e Student Voice, and it is the typical intellectual quagmire PCC doesn't even realize it is often in. D. Ground burial as pattern to be followed There are at least two basic problems with this assertion. First, Dr. Mutsch contradicts himself when he states, "Since we do not own our bodies, we do not have the right to do as we choose" (the "Christians-have-no-rights" doctrine?). But yet his whole point is that we DO have the right to choose - we have not only the right to choose, but we have a responsibility to choose burial. To say that we do not have the right to choose burial presupposes that the choice has been made for us already, yet there is nothing to indicate that this is the case. So, do we have the right to choose, or do we not? Second, there is again the causal relationship problem. In other words, since burial is the only method of disposal mentioned in the New Testament (even though it is not the only one mentioned in the Old Testament), it is therefore the only permissible method to dispose of one's body after death. Do you suppose that Dr. Mutsch would also hold to the proposition that since the New Testament knows nothing of catching fish with anything but nets, it is therefore unscriptural to catch fish with a rod and reel? E. Other Considerations There is at least one other problem with accepting Dr. Mutsch's conclusions as stated in his article. As Christians, we know that "to be absent from the body [is] to be present with the Lord" (II Corinthians 5:8). We also know that our bodies are simply "temples" for our spirit (I Corinthians 6:19). Therefore, once we die, our bodies become only empty carcasses that once held a person. They are simply dust and ashes (Genesis 18:27, Job 13:12), and whether we dispose of them by burial or by cremation, they will ultimately settle back into the earth. Do our bodies retain some sort of moral relevance once our spirits exit them? Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't, but either way, there is no support for jumping from this premise to the conclusion that burial is the only way to dispose of an empty shell. IV. CONCLUSION This is a classic example, again, of PCC and fundamentalist thinking - since I think X should be a doctrine, and even though Scripture and history do not support X, I will still maintain X as a Scriptural doctrine and TEACH IT TO OTHERS AS GOD-ORDAINED. The frightening conclusion that can be drawn, and against that which The Student Voice is, for the most part, attempting to provide exposure, is that THIS is the "standard" by which PCC teaches its students "truth." When PCC advertises to you and your children that it has the standards needed for you or your child to "be able to pillow their heads at night with a clear conscience," this is what they are referring to. The problem is that there is no identifiable standard by which PCC operates other than its own wisdom and whims. In the real world, this is called "secular humanism." And as Christians we should be fighting to our last breath any organization which calls itself Christian yet operates upon this philosophy. It's none of our business? Think again. ################################################################ "Another Look At PCC and Its Philosophy" Guest essay by Peter Gage Reading the dialogue and hearing many of the stories revolving around PCC and the Student Voice never fails to draw a mental response or provoke some memory of my time at PCC. At the risk of alienating myself from my Alma mater, I feel the following essay of enough value to submit it for the readers of the Student Voice One constant sentiment of those who oppose the Voice is that it is wasting valuable time which could be spent on visitation or writing tracts or dressing as a clown and telling children about hell. They think this (enormous) talent could be better spent on proselytizing the masses, and true, we are called to be witnesses, but part of the great commission was to disciple the nations. No, not get them "saved," but to build mature Believers who understand the scriptures, the heart of God, and what true holiness is. A huge part of discipling is to confront our brothers when they are in sin. To date, no one besides the Voice has been willing to do this in regard to the things which go on at PCC. So, it's true, I'm writing this instead of attending a tent meeting, but think of all that time the PCC professors waste teaching classes, and some of them aren't even on the Bible! I propose that if the Student Voice is pointing out error within the body of Christ it is doing a valuable work. It also should be obvious that if the administrators had hearts which were at all sensitive to correction, regardless of the source, such measures would never be necessary, but as has been explained, they answer to no one. It is frightening that that doesn't concern so many of you. Consider the last time you saw anyone in the administration go forward at the end of a church service. I was there two years and never saw it. Are you telling me that none of the messages Schettler ever preached touched on an area of weakness in any of their lives? Our leaders should lead on their knees, modeling repentance. Only pride would tell you there is shame in admitting your faults and accepting forgiveness. Two oft abused terms that keep popping up are "biblical standards" and "legalism"; perhaps it is simply a problem of semantics and the definitions of our Christian buzzwords. I recall the chapel in which one of the administrators clearly explained that PCC was not legalistic, and gave the following reason: they believed in salvation through faith. Under THEIR definition of legalism they certainly are not; however, the rest of Christendom, or at least a large part, holds a completely different meaning for legalism. Roughly, it is the practice of attaching a list of "do's" and "don'ts" which aren't found in the Bible as a means of achieving God's favor, or remaining in His good standing, and an individual's adherence to these "standards" as the measurement of his spirituality. It is NOT a salvation issue. My guess is that even under this definition PCC would claim to not be legalistic, but I think actions speak louder than words, and PCC has dozens of standards which they think are necessary for Christian living. It would be one thing for a school to have regulations just as the Army, but this school is also a church (in name) and teach these legalistic beliefs along with salvation by faith. Colossians 2 has some important words about legalism. Paul says starting in verse 20: "Wherefore if you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (touch not; taste not; handle not; which are all to perish with the using); after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh." The New American version states verse 23 much clearer: "these matters have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence," "Standards" are so strongly held at PCC, but simply are not scriptural. They are the additions of men. Sure, not going to movies looks more spiritual, (to some), but a truer picture would be what movies do you go to, or why you go? That is Freedom in Christ. Let us not confuse standards with what is actually immoral according to scripture. PCC does its followers a disservice by not clearly distinguishing the two. Now to clarify, as that seems to be eternally necessary, I am not talking about bed times or scanning out, or the like, but I am talking their stand on music, dress and appearance, art, free thinking, and numerous other issues. PCC so confuses their standards with biblical standards that they insure we miss the true Spirit which we are to catch. Take for instance their stand on no touching between the sexes. I Corinthians 7:1 says, "it is good for a man not to touch a woman." Now, without getting into an extensive commentary on this verse, I hope we can all agree it is not saying literally for men and women never to touch. It can be interpreted to mean something akin to "don't kindle the fire" or loosely, don't turn her (or him) on. There is an incredibly important spiritual principle for how God wants his children to act toward each other which is COMPLETELY LOST within the awkward, impractical, and counter-productive PCC policy of no physical touching whatsoever among the sexes. This policy, which is a PCC standard, not a biblical one, drowns out the Bible and puts the students under man's law, not God's. Anyone who has been under these unnatural stipulations knows that the policy only serves to artificially heighten one's preoccupation with the slightest touch. To use the "don't kindle the fire" analogy, you are essentially drying the wood so it will burn easier, a result completely opposite of what is intended, but which is to be expected when man imposes his own clumsy laws. PCC thinks that our time is better spent learning to obey draconian rules and being berated for imagined evils in segregated chapels, rather than to instill in their charges an appreciation for romance as God sees it and how we can honor Him and our friends, as well as build the deepest relationships if we follow the spiritual truths He has created. The fact is this isn't a college's job, but if they are going to take it upon themselves, they might as well do it right. If PCC wanted to see how superficial their rules are, perhaps they might ask the student body if they can give any reason for not holding a girl's hand beyond the fact that they will get in trouble for it. Most students will not be able to give a reason, which shows the complete bankruptcy of these standards in instilling any form of heart change or true learning. This is but one example of the dozens of extra-biblical morals they enforce. Schettler sums up their philosophy in the statement, "we would rather have a fence at the top of the hill rather than an ambulance at the bottom." Lest you think this a purely figurative statement, you will all note that the barbed wire on the fence surrounding the college points INWARD, designed to keep people in, not out. Their practice is not to care for the fallen (sinners), but to somehow keep everyone from sinning in the first place. Remarkable that God didn't just roll out the chain link around the Tree in the Garden of Eden. Would've saved everybody some trouble, but evidently He saw value in allowing for mistakes. Even if this fence of rules was effective, which it is not, it is completely temporary (a few years of college); so, if it was the only thing keeping us from disaster, our fall is inevitable. Perhaps PCC's true concern is that it simply not happen while we're under their watch, which points toward there ultimately self-centered concerns of image, a point made quite clear in the Voice previously. I cannot imagine that anyone could develop the system in place at PCC while keeping in mind the example of the way Christ taught His disciples. Would that PCC knew the gentle power of the Holy Spirit to perform His good work in molding all of us so that they could let go of their vise grip which is crushing the very ones they wish to build up. Can anyone name a modern institution, which in the name of God, has caused more heartache, anger, pain, tears, disillusionment, and sadness for the people who have been associated with it than PCC? When Ohman kicks out a student this week, he effectively washes his hands of the student. He is no longer their concern unless he should happen back on campus, and then he's an "enemy of PCC." What madness is this? If PCC is going to set themselves up as the spiritual authority, the church, and teacher, then they have the responsibility to restore that student, if not to the school, at least to the church, if the student is repentant (of course, outside of the school, most of the things which will get you kicked out aren't even sin.) The argument is constantly made, "but PCC was the happiest time of my life, or PCC does a lot of good, or all places have their problems." To use another PCC favorite term, this is complete secular humanism. The good outweighs the bad: where is that in the Bible as some form of justification? If even the minutest error is pointed out it should cause PCC to stop and change if it was at all in tune with the Holy Spirit. Let me also add that Dr. Horton's philosophy of rejecting any anonymous criticism effectively limits the ways in which God could ever speak to him, and is a dangerous, if not simply an unthinking thing to do. And for students and faculty to turn a blind eye to the problems they see suggests that either they think the ends justify the means (secular humanism) or they fear man more than God (secular humanism). Easy for me to say, writing with impunity (except I may make it on the PCC "enemies" list), but I strongly encourage staff and faculty to be honest with yourselves about what you are supporting with your presence and participation. If nothing else consider that you are forced to go to a church which will excommunicate you the second you make the slightest mistake (to say nothing of losing your job). If you think for one second that part of Christianity is keeping people in fear of losing their jobs or college education for speaking up about godly concerns then you are following the wrong god, to say nothing of the people who are responsible for actually implementing and enforcing this nonsense. Regarding the myriad of logistical rules (e.g. bedtimes, phone rules, "off limits," etc.), it has been suggested that many of them are based upon someone, sometime, doing something stupid, and thus a new rule is created. I completely agree: most of these nuisance rules are completely reactionary, and only serve to restrict the masses because of the excesses of the few, and serve no purpose in teaching maturity. The idea that giving a student hundreds of rules is the best way to teach him responsibility is ridiculous. When those rules are gone what has he learned? My last year I attended a Junior Sunday School class where the boys in the back were snickering and joking throughout. Is this how PCC's upperclassmen behave when "unchaperoned." Evidently, and if immature activity is common I suggest creating a rule only deals with the symptom, rather than the root. Don't you teach responsibility by giving it? We would hardly advocate eliminating firearm ownership from private citizens because criminals use them unlawfully, yet this parallels the PCC rational. To impose any sort of law on another person should be done with extreme care, and at least should entail a consideration of the necessity and the overall ramifications. I fear the administration has become too comfortable with control, as well intentioned as it may be. As Benjamin Franklin said, let's not exchange liberty for security. In writing this, it is discouraging to know that the men whom I feel in most need of reading it are either unwilling to take the time, or at worst, unable to even open their mind's to this rationale. I have seen many lemming-like responses in support of PCC and would admonish anyone who is or aspires to be a thinking person to try to look objectively at the method and the results of PCC, regardless of what the STATED method and results are, as they are in no way the same. Again, I can think of no other institution, Christian or not, which has left such a swathe of hurt, anger, pain, and disillusionment, in their pious wake as PCC. Hundreds of people entrust themselves or their children to this college each year and for far too many it turns into an emotional and mental nightmare, trying to reconcile what they know of Christianity with the treatment they receive there. Is the Student Voice trying to "tear down" the school? It seems to me its only point is to make the truth known; let the chips fall where they may. For myself, I transferred to PCC with no preconceptions, but was stunned by the unnecessary treatment received by myself and my friends, disappointed by the lack of serious discussion and learning, and offended by the constant self-serving Bible teaching, aimed only at manufacturing a mindless Christian in the image of PCC. I don't believe these are the sentiments of an embittered, rebellious man. I hope they come across as rational, thought out, and as far as I have observed, completely truthful. It is not difficult for me to become animated or even angry when discussing what goes on at PCC, and if that is something that God wants out of my life, so be it, but for now, I hope this essay will be of use in articulating the unspoken feelings of many and facilitating useful dialogue and change among the administration. Peter Gage Class of '96 ############################################################## VI. YOUR COMMENTS The opinions, ideas, and facts stated in this section do not necessarily represent those of The Student Voice. We make our best efforts to be fair and to verify factual statements. -------------------- To whom it may concern: It sounds like whoever wrote about the school is bitter and may have been a student who got kicked out or something like that. I am a Christian and have no problem with a school setting up the rules. The rules are set up and each student is expected to abide by them. I have been and seen many Christian schools and colleges and it is the student who is usually the one who bucks the rules and causes the problems. All you have to do is leave the school if you do not agree. I think you are an intelligent individual who usually always has a cause to fight against and thinks things should be the way you see it. Not all things are going to be your way. You seek to create rebellion and discension and I see no good to what you are doing. You sure have a lot of bitterness. I think you ought to put your energies into telling the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who are lost and dying in their sins and help others instead of trying to tear down people and institutions which you may not agree with. Again, it sounds like you went to this school or live close to this school or have some close ties to it. You problably do not even know anyone who goes to this school. Who knows. You sure have spent a lot of time and energy in what you are trying to do. I think you would do better at working and doing something more constructive. See you later, from Kentucky B--- -------------------- I found your site accurate and most likely in the heart of many students past and present. At the end of Dr. H's Diatribe, he once again instills the "Thou shalt narc on thy neighbor" in reference to your pages (which seem to only reflect typical rules and announcements). Your site has been bookmarked! Thank God for the First Amendment and the freedom of accessibility to the Internet! I--- -------------------- Are you bringing glory to Jesus when you drag out the small, and sometimes, significant transgressions at PCC? You have fostered a questioning mindset with your converts, and those at PCC, the alumni, and prospective students that you influence. PCC is not perfect, including its leaders. I do not agree with all of their rules, and standards. I am not going to make a crusade against these small differences. The time at PCC was the most influential years in my life, and God richly blessed, and developed me. Jesus did tell us to be the salt of the earth towards the world, and not put out total effort towards other Christian ministries. Prayer for God to direct, and change the leadership at PCC would be best because God would make the changes which would be real. Let us all remember that God is the judge of our hearts and its intents. I struggle with this problem of doing God' s job which allows the devil to win the war even though I feel my battle is right, and important. Satan caused Adam and Eve to question authority, the God Almighty, in the Garden of Eden. The world has never been the same because of his motive to undermine God, take his place, and add many followers to his cause. He makes it look good to us. Satan will distract us by judging other christians, ministries, and he has victory because you and I forget the lost, and those who need to know the Saviour that we trust, and need. M--- --------------------- StudentVoice, I would like to take a moment to respond to a former student who commented on PCC's discipline methods -shadowing, in particular, and TRIED to make them relevant using Scripture. I think that the writer of this statement clearly represents the main tenet of the "justice system" at PCC in StudentV Issue 6, Page 2: <<< As someone who married a floorleader, I also have a fairly good grasp on shadowing. My wife only had to shadow two girls the entire time that she was a floorleader. Both of the girls that were shadowed were expelled, and were shadowed for under 24 hours before their departure. But why do they shadow students? Part of the reason is to cut down on the number or rumors flying around campus. Part of it is to make sure that an attitude is not going to infect everyone that that person comes in contact with. It is also a Biblical principle. Didn't know that? Read I Cornithians chapter 5. The sinner is removed from fellowship for a time for that person's own good. I personally know five people that were expelled and later came back to graduate -- without any hard feelings toward the school. As a teacher at a Christian high school, we do basically the same thing to students that are expelled -- they are sent to the office, and there they sit until their parents come to pick them up. Why? To cut down on the negative influence that that particular person could exhert on the high school. Do we accept them back? Yes, but not that school year. >>> Let's examine this for a moment. 1.) " The sinner is removed from fellowship for a time for that person's own good." This is a very accurate description of how a student is treated during the "disciplinary process." Yes, we are sinners, but this is a clear reference to the "sinner" as the one having committed the crime. Pensacola Christian College makes a big deal about truth, but they do little to verify it in the disciplinary process. As a student for almost 3-1/2 years, I visited the dean's offices many times. Each time, I was given the same treatment. I was treated as a GUILTY PARTY who had to somehow prove my innocence. I had to do this by refuting false reports of violations I had allegedly committed. At no time was the accuser required to verify his or her statements about my conduct in my presence. I have many friends who were "asked not to return" to PCC (that's a fancy way of saying that the administration waited until the end of the semester [in their boundless mercy] to kick the students out because they had no hard evidence and wanted no incident to arise around the occasion [bad PR]). These students never learned of why they had been removed from PCC. I guess justice leaves her victims blind. Oh wait!! Is that right? Hmmmm. 2.) "It is also a Biblical principle. Didn't know that? Read I Corinthians chapter 5." I guess this writer is referring to the incestual relations going on at PCC. Boy, I hadn't heard about this, but I guess it could've happened. Let's get serious. If this writer wants to deal with PCC students using church discipline, first of all, that's NOT scriptural, and second, please don't try to tell me that this is the method PCC uses. Granted, if they followed the methods of church discipline outlined in the Bible, their disciplinary system would be a lot more effective. As I recall--and as this reader would realize if he DID read his Bible more thoroughly--the church discipline outlined in the Bible places a tremendous amount of emphasis on restoration. I guess PCC missed the boat on that one, too. 3.) "My wife only had to shadow two girls the entire time that she was a floorleader. Both of the girls that were shadowed were expelled, and were shadowed for under 24 hours before their departure." Well, your wife is batting .1000, I guess. Congrats. It is very true that most students who are shadowed are kicked out. This is good? I forget. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that PCC is NEVER justified in expelling a student. But I've been through the system. I have friends who've been through the system. For many of you, that statement alone is my discreditor. You assume that since I was expelled [asked to leave...whatever--it's all semantics], I am automatically in the wrong. This is what I was talking about earlier. The "main tenet of PCC's system" which I referred to earlier, is that all students accused are guilty until they are able to convince the administration that they are innocent. I am glad that our national justice system is based on the opposite premise: "Innocent until proven guilty." It makes it a lot easier for me to live a peaceable life knowing that I won't be arrested if someone has a whim to turn me in on the basis of some erroneous charge. Many of you who respond to the StudentV say things like, "PCC has rules, and their rules are their business." I guess none of you have the right to complain about abortion laws, or any other laws for that matter. The rules are there, and the rules are none of your business. "That's ridiculous!" you're quick to say--and rightly so. Why? Because you live here. You have the right to express your opinions because you pay your Congressman to represent you. Would PCC be a school without students? That's a no-brainer. Would the United States be a nation without citizens? Another easy one. To put it simply, PCC's rules ARE NOT just THEIR BUSINESS. When a policy affects the students, guess what....it just became the students' business. It's the same with government, and it's the same with any legitimate business. You don't just pack up all your belongings and catch the next ship to some other continent if you don't like what's going on in government. If you're a good citizen, you become involved, and you try to change what is wrong. THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDENT VOICE. And for those of you who write, saying that Paul and lupos should get on with their lives, maybe you should consider the fact that a my of Paul's essays were written while he was a student at PCC, but there was no forum which would allow him to make those opinions public (unless you want to call martyrdom a forum). He has a lot of lost time to make up for. :-) I know. You have an answer for this, too. "If they don't like it, they can leave." That's a great solution. I did just that, and it's not unlike immigrating from a third world country to the United States. You leave oppression behind, but you have to start fresh with next to nothing. It's not easy finding a school who will accept credits for transfer from ANY non-accredited college. Somehow, despite all of the rhetoric that I heard at PCC, there were not hundreds of schools begging me to let them accept PCC's credits. This meant two extra years of school for me. And, of course, you have one last thing to say. I know....I've talked to hundreds like you. "Get a life." I'd love to stay and listen to more of your "logic", but the last time I pulled that string sticking out of your back, it broke. Jeremy Piontek destin414@earthlink.net --------------------- FOR: Mr. Perdue, Student V and any other rebels involved in defaming PCC. You are rebels with the wrong cause. Please understand the following: 1. The leaders of educational institutions make and enforce the rules. 2. The students follow and adhere to the rules. If Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, then you need to plead HIS blood, repent of your wicked ways and serve HIM. If you are not saved, you need to immediately acknowledge that you are a sinner and trust Christ as your savior. In either case, you can begin with a clean slate and with the Holy Spirit in charge, your thinking will become Christ-like. THEN GO SOUL WINNING! That should be your cause. Lest Judgment should fall, I urge you bring this nonsense to an end immediately. You are playing into Satan's field and wasting huge amounts of time of godly people who want to do God's will not listen to the cry of the rebel. --------------------- Dear Student Voice, I have visited two Christian Colleges in searching for a new college to transfer to and as I have been on the campuses a many things stand out that I noticed, but I just wanted to mention a few. It was definately different being on the other side of the fence (as a college days visitor-that is), when I was used to having the guests in my room at PCC. One of the major things I noticed was how happy and carefree the students were. I am not saying PCC students are not happy people, but these students were definately glowing with Christian fellowship. I asked the student I was staying with what really the student body was like and he commented, " students here just really love Jesus.." These students I noticed didn't have to dress to stand out to show by their demeanor something "different" about them. The other thing I noticed was that students were more involved in Christian activities. The students wanted to make a difference without necessarily being told that they should. It was shocking at first almost at the amount of freedom that the students were given, but then I realized it was that I was used to the restrictions of PCC. I noticed that despite the fact that the college's gate closed curfew was 2am that the vast majority of the students were on campus by their own choice. Students had the freedom to go where they wanted, socialize in mixed couples off campus if they preferred, but yet their behavior was not comprimisable. The point I am trying to make is that even though there were a few exceptions, students when given the opportunity to make decions or actions on their own made the right ones. At PCC, that is not an option because the administration stated that "because of a few in the past now this rule has been established.." and also stated, "Frankly, we don't trust you..". Yet students were always looking for loopholes in the "security" system of rules at PCC. The more the administration pulled back on the Palm tree, the harder it would snap back. --------------------- I'm getting kicked out cause of you. remove me from your list! --------------------- [This comment is in response to the Voice survey. - eds.] I have wanted to respond to your garbage many times, but there were too many things that needed to be said. Thank you for narrowing the topic for me. I realize that nothing I say will have any effect on you. You say this is all about truth, but you continually bear false witness against the administration, about the faculty/staff body, about situations that I have personal knowledge regarding, etc. You say that PCC has set itself up as a pinnacle of Christianity. You say you encourage an open dialogue concerning issues. Over and over, though, your message betrays you. You are not interested in truth. Whenever anyone dares to offer an opposing opinion, you attack not only what they say with sarcastic remarks, but also attack the person. I notice that when "your followers" write, you don't draw attention to their faulty logic, or their horrendous spelling and grammar, but if someone who differs with you makes an error, you are quick to point it out. (I notice that your own writings are full of faulty logic and horrendous spelling/grammar.) ("Spelchekurs ar cheep.") --------------------- ############################################################## VII. DOES THIS REMIND YOU OF SOMEPLACE YOU KNOW OF? "If I am owned by an ideology, I am going to favor its defense as if I we re being defended, because that's what will be happening. The free mind can open its fingers and let fall ill-favored fruit. Other ideas are always welcome. "Ken Saro-Wiwa commented on his country's condition but referred to us all: 'The men who ordain and supervise this show of shame, this tragic charade, are frightened by the word, the power of ideas, the power of the pen; by the demands of social justice and the rights of man.' "In short, the question is: Do I own my beliefs, or do they own me? If they own me, then the institutions that formulate and guard and sanctify these notions own me. "Because so many dogmas are obvious fictions, they can be maintained only by means of patient and repeated indoctrination, through promises of punishment and prompt retaliation for any lapse. One can identify falsehoods by finding the facts that tattle on them, but an equally good signal is the security that surrounds their insecurity: the walls and towers and radio stations, the pulsing pulpits, the political pronouncements, historical myths, martyred heroes, infallibles, and invincibilities upon whose shields the enemy's missiles must harmlessly ring and clatter to a holy ground." --William Gass ############################################################## The Student Voice is: Paul S. Perdue: Newsletter Editor lupos: Web Page Editor The Brain Trust: 8 advisors to the editors 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