BJU grads seek removal of board member
BJU grads seek removal of board member Related blogroll posts: Bixby: Why I signed the petition Doran: A petition about petitions Bixby: Patronizing Petition Against Petitions Doran: Diatribe or Debate?
- 51 views
when I have a few more minutes to fully think this over, but let me interject with one reason, and some of this was touched on in Dr. Doran’s post.
The policy of SI is that people register with their real names. It’s a good policy that has saved us a lot of trouble, in my opinion, because we don’t allow “Haxx0r348” to post - you have to sign your name to what you write. Granted, we may not have a way to verify that people are who they say they are, but at least it makes life easier for everyone here, and it *should* remind people that they’re talking to real people, not just anonymous faces in the cyberether.
One of the biggest problems with online petitions of any kind is that there’s no way to verify the names on it, and there’s no way to verify that some person isn’t just making up names to add to the petition - to ‘stuff the ballot box’, so to speak. So when I read the BJU petition a few days ago and a lot of the names were ‘anonymous’, the petition lost credibility. When I read comments that indicated that the signer wasn’t a Christian (there weren’t a lot, but there were a few), much less a Christian that operates in the “Fundyverse” (whatever that is anymore), the petition lost credibility with me.
That, combined with the fact that Scripture tells us to approach our brothers directly when there are issues (Matthew 18:15, Luke 17:3, etc), and it commands us to approach others if we are aware of something held that they hold against us (Matthew 5:23-26). So I don’t see how putting my name on a collection of people who may not know anything about BJU other than what is available online (from whatever sources available, both official, unofficial, and poisoned), is at best problematic to me.
So while I sympathize with the desire to make sure BJU officials listen to the complains and criticism, I am not sure that petitions are the way to do it; that’s my position on online petitions of all kinds.
The policy of SI is that people register with their real names. It’s a good policy that has saved us a lot of trouble, in my opinion, because we don’t allow “Haxx0r348” to post - you have to sign your name to what you write. Granted, we may not have a way to verify that people are who they say they are, but at least it makes life easier for everyone here, and it *should* remind people that they’re talking to real people, not just anonymous faces in the cyberether.
One of the biggest problems with online petitions of any kind is that there’s no way to verify the names on it, and there’s no way to verify that some person isn’t just making up names to add to the petition - to ‘stuff the ballot box’, so to speak. So when I read the BJU petition a few days ago and a lot of the names were ‘anonymous’, the petition lost credibility. When I read comments that indicated that the signer wasn’t a Christian (there weren’t a lot, but there were a few), much less a Christian that operates in the “Fundyverse” (whatever that is anymore), the petition lost credibility with me.
That, combined with the fact that Scripture tells us to approach our brothers directly when there are issues (Matthew 18:15, Luke 17:3, etc), and it commands us to approach others if we are aware of something held that they hold against us (Matthew 5:23-26). So I don’t see how putting my name on a collection of people who may not know anything about BJU other than what is available online (from whatever sources available, both official, unofficial, and poisoned), is at best problematic to me.
So while I sympathize with the desire to make sure BJU officials listen to the complains and criticism, I am not sure that petitions are the way to do it; that’s my position on online petitions of all kinds.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Jay C.,
You keep saying “petitions of all kinds.” What if an online petition were organized differently than you describe? For example, non-alumni were not allow to sign the “Please Reconcile” race-related petition a few years ago. To the best of their ability, the organizers removed offensive or non-alumni names and comments. It wasn’t perfect, but a whole lot better. In fact, the comments section in an online petition is a method of being direct (in the sense that it’s a personalized letter to the institution) while signing a unified position statement.
Shaynus
You keep saying “petitions of all kinds.” What if an online petition were organized differently than you describe? For example, non-alumni were not allow to sign the “Please Reconcile” race-related petition a few years ago. To the best of their ability, the organizers removed offensive or non-alumni names and comments. It wasn’t perfect, but a whole lot better. In fact, the comments section in an online petition is a method of being direct (in the sense that it’s a personalized letter to the institution) while signing a unified position statement.
Shaynus
[Mike Durning]OK, been mulling this over. I don’t agree with point 2; it’s not valid. First, I don’t think people are trying to “coerce spiritual change.” They are simply asking:[Dave Doran’s blog] The three arguments are that online petitions designed to pressure a person or organization to act righteously: (1) are adopting a carnal, not biblical, methodology learned from the culture around us; (2) are trying to coerce spiritual change rather than appeal for it; and (3) seldom a display of biblical love.I have been troubled by this for days. It’s clear that we have a disagreement of Godly men. Bob Bixby thinks this petition was legitimate. He signed it. Dave Doran says these things are not right. Dave’s point 1 may be shaky (still trying to attach Scripture to it). His point 2 is completely valid. Point 3 has to be taken on a case by case basis.
[ipetition] Please add your signature in support of asking Bob Jones University to remove Chuck Phelps from the board.Now, I’m sure people, like myself, are hoping for change on other levels as well, but sure, that is the work of the Holy Spirit.
I wasn’t going to sign the petition b/c I have so many close connections there, but then I read what Bixby wrote, and I had to ask myself if I was really just being afraid of speaking up for what is really a problem that needs to be addressed generally at BJ, or am I willing to put my courage where my heart is. And I did consider signing anonymously, but then I threw that idea out the window.
You know, I’m not all gung-ho about the attitudes of people who signed that petition. But it’s not something I can control either. I can sign my name and state my own concerns. If I’d written a personal letter, it would’ve been taken worse, I am fairly sure.
[Shaynus] Jay C.,
You keep saying “petitions of all kinds.” What if an online petition were organized differently than you describe? For example, non-alumni were not allow to sign the “Please Reconcile” race-related petition a few years ago. To the best of their ability, the organizers removed offensive or non-alumni names and comments. It wasn’t perfect, but a whole lot better. In fact, the comments section in an online petition is a method of being direct (in the sense that it’s a personalized letter to the institution) while signing a unified position statement.
Shaynus
If there was an online petition where names of alumni were kept on and all others were removed, then I might be inclined to sign; I *think* I did sign the BJU Reconcile petition that you brought up. It all depends on what it is, how it’s set up, and what the issue is.
My biggest issue is that 99% of the time, the person/org. petitioned has no idea who I am or why I care. That makes it a lot easier to disregard the petition; as others have said, I’m not sure that demanding change via a petition is a Scripturally correct method of asking for change or reconciliation. I read a book on communication this weekend that talked about avoiding ultimatums, and a lot of times, that is exactly what petitions are about - “you change this or we’ll __________________”.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I would suggest the following:
1). The language should be structured without threats. It should be a plea to brothers in Christ, based upon well-thought out reasons and well-applied Scripture.
2). The language should avoid listing disputed facts or circumstances.
3). It should be advertised only by mentioning on Christian blogs and forums, not by press releases or other mass-media involvement.
4). It should have check-boxes to indicate the “connection”. “I am signing because I am a). a alumnus b). a financial supporter c). a concerned brother/sister in Christ d). Other (please explain in message).”
5). It should be moderated, so that signatures that do not provide a connection or that include rude messages are removed.
6). If the person signs as “anonymous”, they must express a valid reason for remaining anonymous, such as “I am a current employee.”
7). It should be unchangeable after the first signatures are given. It may be withdrawn if information causes the creator to question the validity of the process later, but not edited.
8). A space might be given for an institution to post their responses, though I’m not sure that this is workable.
9). Upon receiving a favorable response to the petition, the news should be posted at the original petition site, with humble thanksgiving for brothers in Christ who listened to a Biblical plea from their fellow-believers. No press releases should be made.
Within the limits of possible abuse flying under the radar with a faked signature or two, I find it hard to imagine what could be objected to in this format. Thoughts, everyone?
1). The language should be structured without threats. It should be a plea to brothers in Christ, based upon well-thought out reasons and well-applied Scripture.
2). The language should avoid listing disputed facts or circumstances.
3). It should be advertised only by mentioning on Christian blogs and forums, not by press releases or other mass-media involvement.
4). It should have check-boxes to indicate the “connection”. “I am signing because I am a). a alumnus b). a financial supporter c). a concerned brother/sister in Christ d). Other (please explain in message).”
5). It should be moderated, so that signatures that do not provide a connection or that include rude messages are removed.
6). If the person signs as “anonymous”, they must express a valid reason for remaining anonymous, such as “I am a current employee.”
7). It should be unchangeable after the first signatures are given. It may be withdrawn if information causes the creator to question the validity of the process later, but not edited.
8). A space might be given for an institution to post their responses, though I’m not sure that this is workable.
9). Upon receiving a favorable response to the petition, the news should be posted at the original petition site, with humble thanksgiving for brothers in Christ who listened to a Biblical plea from their fellow-believers. No press releases should be made.
Within the limits of possible abuse flying under the radar with a faked signature or two, I find it hard to imagine what could be objected to in this format. Thoughts, everyone?
With regard to personal vs. public appeals to change…
One of the examples I was thinking about was in Galatians 2, where Paul confronts Peter. Peter is, by his actions and associations, looking as though he espouses a particular position.*
Paul confronts him publicly, because the message his actions send is confusing the church there.
I’m not saying this example overrules the teaching of Matthew 18, but it may be indicative that leaders and messages sent by their actions may be dealt with a little differently (I Tim. 5:19-20).
I also realize that none of the situations we are talking about here directly garbled the gospel message itself.
Just something I’m thinking through. Ideas?
*I’m surprised more Fundamentalists don’t use this as a separation text.
One of the examples I was thinking about was in Galatians 2, where Paul confronts Peter. Peter is, by his actions and associations, looking as though he espouses a particular position.*
Paul confronts him publicly, because the message his actions send is confusing the church there.
I’m not saying this example overrules the teaching of Matthew 18, but it may be indicative that leaders and messages sent by their actions may be dealt with a little differently (I Tim. 5:19-20).
I also realize that none of the situations we are talking about here directly garbled the gospel message itself.
Just something I’m thinking through. Ideas?
*I’m surprised more Fundamentalists don’t use this as a separation text.
Discussion