Researcher compares assets and enrollment of major fundamentalist educational institutions

Now my question: Does that organization have a responsibility to account for the use of those funds?

What do you say Dave?

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.

As a team the SI mods and admins have struggled long and often to establish clear criteria for what posts in Filings and what doesn’t. So far, nothing really clear has emerged—at least nothing clear enough to prevent the occasional very-controversial-post.
We’ve tried to be clear that we’re not endorsing what we link to.
But we also understand that linking to it does—in some cases—give it more attention than it might otherwise have gotten.
However, thanks to the discussion thread here, the Hidalgo Grain Company (which we chose not to link to) has gotten more attention that it would have otherwise.
…so you see the difficulty?

We can’t even talk about these things without increasing awareness to some extent.

And what does “newsworthy” mean? If you’re interested, it’s newsworthy to you and if you’re not interested, it isn’t. Why is “man bites dog” newsworthy? Does it matter who the man is? Who the dog is? What the man’s agenda is?
Being facetious. The point: journalism is a completely foreign thing to me.

Anyway, all that to say it remains something of an ambition of mine (just a “dream’?) to get the boundaries of what we link to and don’t link to in Filings really super clear, black and white and a mile wide (the border crossing between Jordan and Israel comes to mind!). So if there are journalism experts out there who would like to help, I’d be very interested in putting together a—what is it that the President calls these?—study group.

If you’re interested in participating or know someone who might be, use the http://sharperiron.org/contact] contact form and it’ll get to me.

I’m noting http://bjunumbers.blogspot.com/2011/03/100-bible-conference-challenge.h…] 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!

[TDavis] Okay, Mr. Blumer; if Jeremy has a legitimate claim to his view based on his interpretation of the BJU Numbers blog, then we “Truthers,” as he calls us, have voiced legitimate claims to BJU regarding what is (and has) been going on there. But, we Alumni are judged as bitter for the points we make and summarily ignored or shut out of any discussion.

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.

Ministry leadership IS accountable both before God and before those being led—unless leadership is taking advantage and lording it over God’s people to make merchandise of them. God seemed particularly harsh to His OT prophets and priests for what they did and how they treated God’s people under their leadership authority, as well as specifically stating that such leadership was *not to be so*(lording their authority over God’s people) in the NT church.

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.

Mr. Moran does leave his comments open as questions, but to make the charges he does based more upon his own interpretations than any actual evidence is dishonest. I am not particularly surprised that you are condoning his behavior. To even allege a “homosexual” agenda against the other link he shared is *completely* unwarranted, to say nothing of slanderous.

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] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused002.gif

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.

One thing I’ve noticed regarding “former members” of some legitimate groups (churches/universities.. whatever) .. Every so often there appears an onslaught of people who “want to get out the truth” .. They are more than willing to “name names” and hand out “facts” (which indeed may be “facts” presented in their viewpoint)

A few years ago I watched a step by step attempt to discredit a person and church via the blogosphere .. ( can’t say I AGREED with the person and church ..) The “MO” so to speak was so like what’s going on with BJU right now .. It’s hard not to get defensive when it’s a place where I got the FOUNDATIONS for what I believe .. Especially ironic when I probably fall more on the “evangelical” side of the spectrum (with those “fundamental” cornerstones.. :bigsmile:)

The point is - I think there’s a blueprint for “taking someone down” via the WWW … and that’s what we’re seeing here at work . .. The numbers guy is posting POSSIBLY legitimate numbers - yet links to obviously bitter folks .. that’s how the web works … click here .. click there … check it out. We have to be SO CAREFUL reading blogs (in my opinion) .. OFTEN you don’t know WHO is posting .. and what their agenda is..

Then there are those who freely admit who they are .. and ARE bitter .. it is so sad .. I want to grab ‘em and tell them COWBOY UP .. get on with their life..

Susan I agree - it’s amazing that two people at the same place at the same time can have such DIFFERENT experiences isn’t it?