Researcher compares assets and enrollment of major fundamentalist educational institutions

I have to say - there's certainly a number of bloggers out there who are doing their best to "uncover" Bob Jones University ... (read uncover as discredit). I have to wonder how in the world there can be so much bitterness ... It's said I think. I read these blogs and think to my time there. One in particular is interesting as the blogger was there when I was .. tho' he was a few years behind me. His take .. memories and mine are SO different.

Don't have much to comment on the particular one .. finances have for me always been a muddle .. BUT when I see in his news feed other blogs that are SO NASTY .. I have to wonder as to the intent of this one..

I'll bet my friends in Ankeny (who tend to fly under the fundy radar) are happy to be ignored on this list of "major fundamentalist institutions."

I agree with Dave D--my personal preference is toward complete transparency among institutions (after ally, they're church- and parent- funded). But we have yet to reach full disclosure. This is more like a selective outing.

I wonder where our schools stand on the matter of ECFA membership?

I can't read the chart well, but it looks like BJU has assets of 131m and Pensacola of 311m while Liberty has assets in the 400'sm. I have been on the campuses of both schools, and I can't see where Pensacola's physical assets are more than double BJU. I wonder if valuing such assets isn't a big guessing game, some may be conservative and others rather generous in assessing the value of buildings. But, maybe Pensacola has 100m+ in the bank.

First of all, if you look carefully at the graphs, you'll see that they are misleading. It's like the East Anglia and the hockey stick graph. Basically, to evaluate these numbers fairly, you've got to punch them into Excel for yourself and do the graph function in order to get the right perspective. That's something I'm working on when I get the time this week.

Secondly, if you look at the point of the endowment and investing data, it's clear that he's trying to make a point. That's the problem. If he just gave us the data, then I wouldn't even feel the need to have a point to the data.

I might be wrong but I only saw Cornerstone, Crossroads Bible, Baptist Bible College of PA, and Calvary Bible College and Seminary of KC. on their web page that have fundamentalist ties. Of course Cornerstone is more conservative evangelical, but they still are connected with alot of West Michigan GARBC churches.....

Obviously, from the postings linked to these charts and financial figures, the "researcher" has a bone to pick with Bob Jones University for something that happened to him close to 30 years ago.

Proverbs 22:24-25 leads me to suspect anything he posts.

Dan, I agree. This is "angry data" (to coin a phrase). I would refuse to "learn his ways lest it snare my soul," except I feel someone needs to redo the graphs. We can take the data and spin it the other way around, because it's all just facts that need to be reinterpreted. If you go and punch in all the figures into Excel, you can make the graphs look entirely different. You might be quicker at getting the graphs uploaded than I, and if you beat me to it, that would be fine. But as Dr. Doran pointed out above, the whole thing with the East Anglia University graphs on global warming is suspiciously similar.

One thing I don't know is what happened to Karl 30 years ago. I would be interested in hearing that, since I don't know anything more about Karl. For all I know, "being born" was the bad thing that happened 30 years ago . I think we would all benefit from hearing more of your perspective on Karl's interactions with you and/or BJU. This is information I could use, to be sure.

That is very ugly stuff. All of it. I think this proves the point.

[I'm trying to edit here ] Wait a minute, which one is the guy you knew at BJU? The Hidalgo guy or Karl Nashorn?

As an accountant, I agree with Dr. Doran on the numbers. You cannot run income statements side by side and make adequate pronouncements. You would have to examine whether the investments (at cost) were similar from year to year to make a true comparison. For all we know, they sold out of most of these investments and lost money on a small investment pool rather than losing over 6 million dollars in investments. All we can tell from the post is that investment revenue made up a smaller (acutally negative) percentage of the total revenue pie.

In addition, US tax-exempt investors do not have to file on income that is earned in off-shore investments. A hedge fund I worked on previously had several billion dollars of investments from tax-exempt universities in its off-shore fund. Does this post account for this?

Also, revenue alone does not tell the whole picture. A better analysis would be cash flows and cost analysis. These actually tell whether there is a true problem.

Now I have only glanced over the financials he posted, but unless I missed something, I think many of the pronouncements are premature.

Just to push my point, confirmed and shared by others here, a little farther...

In terms of telling what that site is about, the selection of information and the way in which that information is being framed are more significant than the numbers themselves. Why those numbers? Why frame them as he has? Why does he think this is important at this particular time? Add the fact that he has made a deliberate effort to draw attention to two agenda-driven sites does not suggest a neutral quest for and dissemination of information.

If this guy wants to spend his time doing this, so be it. If people read it and think it is some kind of objective, neutral zone of information, that's sad. That this was chosen as newsworthy and something to be brought to the attention of people, that's disappointing.

It seems that I have been mistaken about the identity of the author of the BJU Numbers blog. I am wrong. I'm sorry. Really, I am, Jim.

It is not my intention to misrepresent Karl Nashorn or anyone else. I don't think I know Karl or the CEO of the Hidalgo Grain Company. I don't really even have a dog in this fight. No bitterness on my part, Jeremy.

Karl did post a link to The Hidalgo Grain Company without a disclaimer. I honestly was led to believe that he is one and the same guy.

When he admits that he is not officially representing BJU or their "lackeys" he leads me to believe that he has a subversive agenda. If he's not The Hidalgo Grain Company CEO, he leads me to believe that he is of the same mindset.

I agree with Dave Doran that his findings are in no way "objective" or "neutral." This is not newsworthy stuff.

How many of us would like to have our financial records or enrollment figures posted publicly for all the world to see? How does this help the cause of Christ?

That's an evangelical organization, and as I see it, they have no stock in fundamentalism.

JeremyM, for clarification, how do you identify these crazy "Truthers" on witch hunts? Do they make statements like this?

"I will eventually discredit him. This might not be the way, but I know there's got to be something wrong with the data."

I agree that not everything out there is newsworthy, but I know many Joe Sixpacks and Suzy Homemakers that will probably get a forwarded email or see a post on Facebook linking to this information. It looks official, and how many of us know the ins and outs of accounting? Good night nurse- most people can't balance their checkbooks, and when they see millions of dollars involved, their brains explode.

But when we bring our SI readers attention to it so that other perspectives (especially from experts) can be brought to bear on the quality and sources and methods used to weigh these numbers, people can learn how to evaluate, how to answer. It doesn't really matter all that much, IMO, what the motives of the author are if the information is accurate. And maybe the information is correct, but was selected to encourage readers to draw unfavorable conclusions.

If so, learning how this is done is important. This kind of stuff is all over the blogosphere and social networks and message boards, and it's no use pretending that it might go away if we close our eyes and ears. Sometimes we need to shine an even brighter light so that errors, regardless of whose errors they are, can be dealt with properly. Next time it might be our church, our college, our charitable organization, our mission board...

I've found the accounting information brought out here fascinating. Makes me want to turn on the radio and listen to Clark Howard.

Sorry about misspelling the acronym. I was referring to the same organization that Jim raised in a comment a few before mine.

BJU is under no obligation to respond to anything that site puts up. Just like I think SI shouldn't have dignified it by pointing it out, they shouldn't dignify it by responding to it. If someone has questions about the numbers from looking at the source documents, they can contact the institution and ask for answers. The operator of that site isn't looking for answers. He's making statements and offering opinions. And he's skillfully done it so that others now have questions and seem to think BJU is somehow withholding information that it shouldn't be.

Bravo for him. He's played his hand well. In fact, I now run the risk of drawing more attention to him by complaining about you drawing attention to him, so I'll stop.

Not sure how these number are worth much of anything. It just compares Christian colleges. Why not provide some additional perspective and include the top 'x' number of other private colleges. Perhaps Harvard, Yale, etc. That would provide some degree of perspective to these numbers.

Of course, but you do realize the elasticity in your own question--what does "account for the use of those funds" mean? Have appropriate records? Publish a detailed account of all costs related to the project?

I don't think anybody in this thread who has questioned Mr. Numbers is questioning accountability. They have: (1) raised concern about the false impressions being given by the data chosen; (2) stated concern about the actual lack of enough info to make a proper judgment; and (3) (one person I believe) stated a general concern about organizations getting their info spread across the web. Even that third isn't really a complaint against accountability, but against the idea that someone has the right to just start posting info with regard for the personal elements (e.g., salaries).

I teach a seminary course called Ministry Management which naturally includes aspects of church finances. Last year I decided to ask a number of churches if they would let me have a copy of their financial statements so that I could give samples of reports to the students in my class. Some folks were hesitant to do that because of the personal info that would immediately be exposed to a wider audience than their own church. Some sent me reports that were scrubbed of that info. Should I conclude from this that these churches don't want accountability because they don't want their financial info freely distributed outside the proper bounds of their own organization? Absolutely not. They make the proper reports to the people who actually hold them accountable, and that's good enough.

Let me push it one step farther. Some of the larger churches that responded to my request sent info, but the categories were broad and big enough that no one could figure out specific personal information on things like salaries. It would be possible, though, for me to have fun with the numbers in a way that wouldn't be helpful to that organization. E.g., I could take the total salary number and divide it by the number of employees to get an average salary. I call it fun with numbers because I am playing games unless I supply more specific info about the kind of employee (e.g., a minimum wage worker versus the executive pastor) or recognize any distinction in length of employment (a first year staff member just out of school versus someone who has served for 30 years). The average salary number doesn't really tell me much of anything, but could be used to create a false impression in either direction.

My complaint about the OP doesn't have anything to do with accountability. That site is not providing accountability. Accountability doesn't happen through the use of cherry picked data that services an editorial opinion.

I'm noting http://bjunumbers.blogspot.com/2011/03/100-bible-conference-challenge.ht... ]the most recent post .

First the tone of the blog has definitely changed. I.e. He calls the building project a "boondoggle." The usual complaining and jaundice. I don't think anyone is surprised by where the tone has gone.

Secondly, the whole thing has turned into a plea for money. You read right. There's a story about someone being "harassed" for owing money (a principle found in Proverbs 22:7). He's pleading with readers to give him money, which he claims will be given to someone with a fake name on some other page with a Paypal button.

Does this seem to be a scam - was it a scam all along? Does this warrant removing the link from Sharperiron?

This seems highly unusual and suspicious, at least to me.

TDavis... note the question marks. And the evidence. He raises a legitimate question.
It's a bit odd to so quickly characterize something as slander when he is doing precisely the same thing sites do that gather numbers then offer a negative interpretation... only in this case, we're talking about a negative interpretation of a blog vs. a negative interpretation of the leadership of a ministry.

As for the link, I'm weary of repeating it, but we do not endorse what we link to. We've linked to several stories on the Huffington Post, for example!

I don't see anyone here stopping you from asking questions. And I am quite sure that with as many people as are involved with BJU, there have been some who've had bad experiences. Same thing happened where I went to college. For some it was the best years of their lives, for others, like me, it was, shall we say, less than pleasant. It is funny how two people can go to the same school, and even attend the same years, and have completely different experiences. It's no wonder that there is such a disconnect at times.

Are we talking about Bob Jones University or a church? I think there is a major difference between the purpose and functions of a university and those of a church body. I'm not a believer in a university as a 'ministry', but I would agree that if it is going to call itself 'Christian', it should abide by Biblical principles of honesty and integrity. If there are unethical and immoral practices going on, we do have legal and Biblical recourse. I see nothing wrong in pursuing those avenues if one has supportive evidence.

Here's where I'm confused- I thought the questions raised were legitimate, if they are about raising money for someone who chooses to remain anonymous. Doesn't sound on the up-and-up to me either. I also don't know what 'behavior' you think Aaron is condoning. You lost me at the "alleging a homosexual agenda", though- I haven't seen anything like that in this thread. Are you referring to comments on another blog maybe?

Thanks for pointing out that post. You are right- I don't see any homosexual agenda on the FB info page.

I don't know if you are familiar with how a forum works, but the few volunteers who moderate here do not read every single post, or track down and verify the information posted. The community is free to pursue and verify and refute, which you've done. Or you can flag a post that looks problematic, and we can pursue it. Simply not enough hours in the day to police the internet.

I don't know why you keep using the terms 'condoning' and 'endorsing'. That creeps me out. I don't know Mr. Moran from Mr. Magoo. I've never seen his blog. I simply noted that the question posted here about asking for money for someone who wishes to remain anonymous does seem questionable. Agreeing with him on one point does not mean I wish to have his name tattooed on my forearm or something. And I've agreed with you now- does this mean we have to get married? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php ][img ]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused002.gif[/img ]

You are free to leave SI if you wish, but we don't delete accounts. Your profile will be marked as 'former member' and your posts will remain. That's SOP.