Christopher Peterman, founder of Do Right BJU, expelled 9 days before his BJU graduation.
Forum category
My name is Christopher Peterman and I was asked to share my story on SI. Since my expulsion on April 24, 2012 my story has been all of the world so this is basically just a rehash of everything you have probably already read.
One of my goals in sharing my stories is that I hope it can help BJU see the problems there and the overwhelming need for the grace of God to permeate that place. There is no grace at BJU. There is no love.
Probably my favorite song is Only Grace by Matthew West. I would love for the meaning of these words to effect the very core of BJU.
Matthew West’s Only Grace
There is no guilt here
There is no shame
No pointing fingers
There is no blame
What happened yesterday has disappeared
The dirt has washed away
And now its clear
There’s only grace. There’s only love
There’s only mercy and believe me its enough
Your sins are gone
Without a trace
And there’s nothing left now
There’s only grace
Your starting over now
Under the sun
Your stepping forward now
A new life has begun
Your new life has begun
And there’s only grace
There’s only love
There’s only mercy and believe me its enough
Your sins are gone
Without a trace
and there’s nothing left now
There’s only grace
And if you should fall again
Get back up, get back up
Reach out and take my hand
And get back up, get back up
Get back up again
Ooh get back up again
There’s only grace
There’s only love
There’s only mercy and believe me its enough, its enough
Your sins are gone without a trace
and there’s nothing left now
There’s only…there’s only grace
There’s only mercy and believe me its enough, its enough
Your sins are gone without a trace
And there’s nothing left now
There’s only grace….
So get back up, get back up again
Get back up, get back up, get back up again
––––––––––––––––––––––––—
My story
I grew up in Bradenton, Florida where I attended Community Baptist Church and Community Christian School my entire life. CBC is an independent, fundamental, Baptist church within the Bob Jones University network. So from a very young age I knew that I was going to attend BJU in Greenville, South Carolina. That was what was expected of me and that was my dream.
I graduated from high school in 2006 and was immediately accepted to BJU. I attended BJU from 2006 to 2009 and then, I stayed out of school working full time from 2009 through the first semester of 2010 to save enough money to return to school.
During the time I sat out of school I began to interact with people outside of the independent fundamental Baptist church. I realized that there were good Christian people outside of the IFB and I realized that being a Christian wasn’t about following the law; it was about loving others and loving God.
I returned the second semester of 2010 to Bob Jones University with a radically changed view of Christ and the power of grace and love in a Christian’s life. I now realized that because God loves, I am suppose to love everyone. This was a radical shift from my fundamentalist upbringing and from the views of Bob Jones University. But I still returned to BJU expecting to finish my degree in a year and a half and to then be done with BJU.
Little did I know my plans would soon be changed forever.
Before I went back to BJU for second semester 2010 my friend, Beth Murschell, called me and begged me not to go back to school. Even though my personal views had already radically shifted I still supported BJU and I told Beth that I wasn’t going to transfer anywhere else. She told me that there was so much that I didn’t know that she was just finding out and she pleaded with me to transfer.
I refused. I packed my bags, loaded the car, and headed up to BJU, but I continued to remember Beth’s warnings in the back of my head.
My first semester back at BJU was normal. I went to classes, made new friends, and I got no demerits the entire semester. No problems whatsoever … until I read about Tina Anderson.
The beginning of the end began the first semester of 2011. I came across some articles online about a scandal that was happening in Concord, New Hampshire at Trinity Baptist Church. I began to research what was happening and I soon discovered that there were significant issues with the former pastor.
Reverend Chuck Phelps was the pastor at Trinity Baptist Church when Ernest Willis, a 35-year-old man and member of the church, raped Tina Anderson, a 15-year-old member of the same church. This story attracted so much national media attention that http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/scarred-childhood-13334532: ABC’s 20/20 did an investigation on the abuse .
From my research I learned that Chuck Phelps was still on the Board of Trustees at Bob Jones University. It really troubled me that this man was being allowed to continue as a board member in good standing. I felt I had to speak out.
At first I posted links, articles, and even the 20/20 investigation link on my personal Facebook page, but I quickly was reported to the Dean of Men’s office. I was called into his office and the Dean of Men told me point blank that I had to stop talking about the Chuck Phelps situation on my personal Facebook or I would be expelled.
I left his office and immediately created a www.facebook.com/DoRightBJU: Facebook page called Do Right BJU where I wrote anonymously about the Chuck Phelps situation and organized a peaceful student protest. I called on students, faculty, staff and alumni to wear red in support of abuse victims. I also called on BJU to remove Chuck Phelps from the Board of Trustees and to begin educating the BJU students on abuse and signs of abuse.
The protest was held on December 12, 2011 — a handful of BJU students along with a group of alumni wore red that day. In solidarity, many people changed their profile photos to red, creating a virtual sea of red on Facebook.
BJU announced that there would be no consequences for those students organizing or involved with the protest. Chuck Phelps resigned and a committee was formed to investigate allegations of sexual abuse within BJU.
Everything was good, or so I thought. Our goals had been accomplished and the semester came to an end.
I came back for my final semester and that is when the problems began.
I was immediately required to have weekly meetings with the Dean of Men where it was implied that because I had questioned BJU’s authority and had gone against their wishes, I must have a deep spiritual problem that needed to be addressed and fixed. He required that I read an entire book of the Bible every day and write out my thoughts and devotions so I could talk to him about it.
As the semester progressed, the meetings changed from a spiritual focus to a focus on my social media activities. Also the frequency of the meetings increased, to the point where I was having midnight meetings.
Stacks of my Facebook and Twitter posts were printed out, highlighted, starred, and circled. I felt that I was being constantly watched, intimidated and harassed.
Surprisingly, only a year earlier, BJU had promised that they would not police students’ social media accounts when they unblocked them on the school networks, allowing us to use Facebook and some other social media sites on campus for the first time. Obviously, that had changed.
Around the final week of March I was called into the Dean of Men’s office for a tweet I had sent. This tweet was sent right before a required Bible Conference service, which is like a chapel service. According to BJU, students are allowed to use their phones up until the time the service actually begins. But I was given 25 demerits for “chapel misconduct” and that put me up to 55 demerits.
On April 12th I was called into the Dean of Men’s office again for allegations that I had been watching TV off campus. I was informed that I was receiving 50 demerits for watching the TV show Glee, but that I had the option to appeal these demerits in a Special Committee of the Discipline Committee. I pled my case that according to the Student Handbook of BJU it is not against the rules to watch TV off campus. There are no written rules about watching any shows while off campus.
The Special Committee heard my plea and then they deliberated on their verdict. They agreed with my assertion that it is not in the rule book that a BJU student can’t watch TV. But they still ruled against me, upholding the 50 demerits, because they said that the nature of Glee itself was so “morally reprehensible.” Specially, they disliked the cheerleader’s outfits, the music, the dancing and the homosexuality. I received 50 demerits for the content alone, even though there was no rule in the handbook about acceptable content.
That ruling put me at 105 demerits, much closer to the 150 limit than I had ever been. Two days later, on April 16th, I received 15 demerits for not shaving, putting me at 120. Now I was worried.
On April 24th I was called into the Dean of Men’s office at 11:00am for what became my final meeting. I was informed that I was receiving 50 demerits for posting lyrics to a Christian song, Matthew West’s “Only Grace,” on my Facebook. I was also informed that I was receiving 25 demerits for posting on Facebook during class.
These new demerits placed me at 195, well over the 150 limit. I was informed that I was expelled from Bob Jones University. I asked to appeal the ruling to the Special Committee and was told that the appeal would take place at 4:00 pm the same day.
Obviously, I was concerned. I had just been denied at my last appeal and the same people were going to be deciding whether or not I was able to remain in school.
I went back to my room and began preparing my defense. I researched information on TRACS, the national accrediting agency that BJU uses, and decided to contact them. I then called the Department of Education to see what my options were with them. I also called Congressman Buchanan (Florida), Senator Rubio (Florida), and Senator DeMint (South Carolina) to see if they could assist me in my predicament. Finally, I contacted the local news agencies that had covered the Do Right BJU story back in December. I informed them that BJU was planning to expel me and that I needed help. I was desperate.
The time for the Special Meeting quickly approached and I went into the meeting with almost full certainty that I was not going to come out of it a BJU student.
I pled my case to the Special Committee. I read the Student Handbook and showed that there were no rules about posting lyrics to songs on a student’s personal Facebook. I also informed them that because I stood to lose everything I had worked for I had contacted many agencies for help.
I left the room and waited for their decision. Once they deliberated and had come to a decision, I was brought back into the meeting and the Committee ruled that I would receive the demerits for posting a Facebook status in class and I would not receive the 50 demerits for the lyrics — bringing me up to 145 total demerits, five demerits shy of expulsion. I was shocked, overwhelmed and overjoyed. I even almost started to cry because I was so amazed. My prayers had been answered.
At this point all of the people on the Committee left the room except for the Dean of Men, the Dean of Students and myself. I assumed that they wanted to pray with me or that they wanted to clarify an issue. To my shock I was informed that I had tried to “intimidate” BJU by contacting outside agencies and that I was being expelled immediately. One moment I was safe and the next I was gone. A member of the Student Life staff followed me around campus until I had packed all of my bags packed and was completely off campus. It took a total of two hours.
Today I am barred from the campus of Bob Jones University, told that if I return I will be immediately arrested. I wasn’t expelled for breaking the rules, because most of my demerits are from arbitrary and capricious rulings. I believe I was expelled because I spoke out. I saw abuse happening and I talked about it. I didn’t back down when threatened. I didn’t give in when I felt stalked. I stood my ground and that, I believe, is why I was expelled just 9 days before my graduation.
One of my goals in sharing my stories is that I hope it can help BJU see the problems there and the overwhelming need for the grace of God to permeate that place. There is no grace at BJU. There is no love.
Probably my favorite song is Only Grace by Matthew West. I would love for the meaning of these words to effect the very core of BJU.
Matthew West’s Only Grace
There is no guilt here
There is no shame
No pointing fingers
There is no blame
What happened yesterday has disappeared
The dirt has washed away
And now its clear
There’s only grace. There’s only love
There’s only mercy and believe me its enough
Your sins are gone
Without a trace
And there’s nothing left now
There’s only grace
Your starting over now
Under the sun
Your stepping forward now
A new life has begun
Your new life has begun
And there’s only grace
There’s only love
There’s only mercy and believe me its enough
Your sins are gone
Without a trace
and there’s nothing left now
There’s only grace
And if you should fall again
Get back up, get back up
Reach out and take my hand
And get back up, get back up
Get back up again
Ooh get back up again
There’s only grace
There’s only love
There’s only mercy and believe me its enough, its enough
Your sins are gone without a trace
and there’s nothing left now
There’s only…there’s only grace
There’s only mercy and believe me its enough, its enough
Your sins are gone without a trace
And there’s nothing left now
There’s only grace….
So get back up, get back up again
Get back up, get back up, get back up again
––––––––––––––––––––––––—
My story
I grew up in Bradenton, Florida where I attended Community Baptist Church and Community Christian School my entire life. CBC is an independent, fundamental, Baptist church within the Bob Jones University network. So from a very young age I knew that I was going to attend BJU in Greenville, South Carolina. That was what was expected of me and that was my dream.
I graduated from high school in 2006 and was immediately accepted to BJU. I attended BJU from 2006 to 2009 and then, I stayed out of school working full time from 2009 through the first semester of 2010 to save enough money to return to school.
During the time I sat out of school I began to interact with people outside of the independent fundamental Baptist church. I realized that there were good Christian people outside of the IFB and I realized that being a Christian wasn’t about following the law; it was about loving others and loving God.
I returned the second semester of 2010 to Bob Jones University with a radically changed view of Christ and the power of grace and love in a Christian’s life. I now realized that because God loves, I am suppose to love everyone. This was a radical shift from my fundamentalist upbringing and from the views of Bob Jones University. But I still returned to BJU expecting to finish my degree in a year and a half and to then be done with BJU.
Little did I know my plans would soon be changed forever.
Before I went back to BJU for second semester 2010 my friend, Beth Murschell, called me and begged me not to go back to school. Even though my personal views had already radically shifted I still supported BJU and I told Beth that I wasn’t going to transfer anywhere else. She told me that there was so much that I didn’t know that she was just finding out and she pleaded with me to transfer.
I refused. I packed my bags, loaded the car, and headed up to BJU, but I continued to remember Beth’s warnings in the back of my head.
My first semester back at BJU was normal. I went to classes, made new friends, and I got no demerits the entire semester. No problems whatsoever … until I read about Tina Anderson.
The beginning of the end began the first semester of 2011. I came across some articles online about a scandal that was happening in Concord, New Hampshire at Trinity Baptist Church. I began to research what was happening and I soon discovered that there were significant issues with the former pastor.
Reverend Chuck Phelps was the pastor at Trinity Baptist Church when Ernest Willis, a 35-year-old man and member of the church, raped Tina Anderson, a 15-year-old member of the same church. This story attracted so much national media attention that http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/scarred-childhood-13334532: ABC’s 20/20 did an investigation on the abuse .
From my research I learned that Chuck Phelps was still on the Board of Trustees at Bob Jones University. It really troubled me that this man was being allowed to continue as a board member in good standing. I felt I had to speak out.
At first I posted links, articles, and even the 20/20 investigation link on my personal Facebook page, but I quickly was reported to the Dean of Men’s office. I was called into his office and the Dean of Men told me point blank that I had to stop talking about the Chuck Phelps situation on my personal Facebook or I would be expelled.
I left his office and immediately created a www.facebook.com/DoRightBJU: Facebook page called Do Right BJU where I wrote anonymously about the Chuck Phelps situation and organized a peaceful student protest. I called on students, faculty, staff and alumni to wear red in support of abuse victims. I also called on BJU to remove Chuck Phelps from the Board of Trustees and to begin educating the BJU students on abuse and signs of abuse.
The protest was held on December 12, 2011 — a handful of BJU students along with a group of alumni wore red that day. In solidarity, many people changed their profile photos to red, creating a virtual sea of red on Facebook.
BJU announced that there would be no consequences for those students organizing or involved with the protest. Chuck Phelps resigned and a committee was formed to investigate allegations of sexual abuse within BJU.
Everything was good, or so I thought. Our goals had been accomplished and the semester came to an end.
I came back for my final semester and that is when the problems began.
I was immediately required to have weekly meetings with the Dean of Men where it was implied that because I had questioned BJU’s authority and had gone against their wishes, I must have a deep spiritual problem that needed to be addressed and fixed. He required that I read an entire book of the Bible every day and write out my thoughts and devotions so I could talk to him about it.
As the semester progressed, the meetings changed from a spiritual focus to a focus on my social media activities. Also the frequency of the meetings increased, to the point where I was having midnight meetings.
Stacks of my Facebook and Twitter posts were printed out, highlighted, starred, and circled. I felt that I was being constantly watched, intimidated and harassed.
Surprisingly, only a year earlier, BJU had promised that they would not police students’ social media accounts when they unblocked them on the school networks, allowing us to use Facebook and some other social media sites on campus for the first time. Obviously, that had changed.
Around the final week of March I was called into the Dean of Men’s office for a tweet I had sent. This tweet was sent right before a required Bible Conference service, which is like a chapel service. According to BJU, students are allowed to use their phones up until the time the service actually begins. But I was given 25 demerits for “chapel misconduct” and that put me up to 55 demerits.
On April 12th I was called into the Dean of Men’s office again for allegations that I had been watching TV off campus. I was informed that I was receiving 50 demerits for watching the TV show Glee, but that I had the option to appeal these demerits in a Special Committee of the Discipline Committee. I pled my case that according to the Student Handbook of BJU it is not against the rules to watch TV off campus. There are no written rules about watching any shows while off campus.
The Special Committee heard my plea and then they deliberated on their verdict. They agreed with my assertion that it is not in the rule book that a BJU student can’t watch TV. But they still ruled against me, upholding the 50 demerits, because they said that the nature of Glee itself was so “morally reprehensible.” Specially, they disliked the cheerleader’s outfits, the music, the dancing and the homosexuality. I received 50 demerits for the content alone, even though there was no rule in the handbook about acceptable content.
That ruling put me at 105 demerits, much closer to the 150 limit than I had ever been. Two days later, on April 16th, I received 15 demerits for not shaving, putting me at 120. Now I was worried.
On April 24th I was called into the Dean of Men’s office at 11:00am for what became my final meeting. I was informed that I was receiving 50 demerits for posting lyrics to a Christian song, Matthew West’s “Only Grace,” on my Facebook. I was also informed that I was receiving 25 demerits for posting on Facebook during class.
These new demerits placed me at 195, well over the 150 limit. I was informed that I was expelled from Bob Jones University. I asked to appeal the ruling to the Special Committee and was told that the appeal would take place at 4:00 pm the same day.
Obviously, I was concerned. I had just been denied at my last appeal and the same people were going to be deciding whether or not I was able to remain in school.
I went back to my room and began preparing my defense. I researched information on TRACS, the national accrediting agency that BJU uses, and decided to contact them. I then called the Department of Education to see what my options were with them. I also called Congressman Buchanan (Florida), Senator Rubio (Florida), and Senator DeMint (South Carolina) to see if they could assist me in my predicament. Finally, I contacted the local news agencies that had covered the Do Right BJU story back in December. I informed them that BJU was planning to expel me and that I needed help. I was desperate.
The time for the Special Meeting quickly approached and I went into the meeting with almost full certainty that I was not going to come out of it a BJU student.
I pled my case to the Special Committee. I read the Student Handbook and showed that there were no rules about posting lyrics to songs on a student’s personal Facebook. I also informed them that because I stood to lose everything I had worked for I had contacted many agencies for help.
I left the room and waited for their decision. Once they deliberated and had come to a decision, I was brought back into the meeting and the Committee ruled that I would receive the demerits for posting a Facebook status in class and I would not receive the 50 demerits for the lyrics — bringing me up to 145 total demerits, five demerits shy of expulsion. I was shocked, overwhelmed and overjoyed. I even almost started to cry because I was so amazed. My prayers had been answered.
At this point all of the people on the Committee left the room except for the Dean of Men, the Dean of Students and myself. I assumed that they wanted to pray with me or that they wanted to clarify an issue. To my shock I was informed that I had tried to “intimidate” BJU by contacting outside agencies and that I was being expelled immediately. One moment I was safe and the next I was gone. A member of the Student Life staff followed me around campus until I had packed all of my bags packed and was completely off campus. It took a total of two hours.
Today I am barred from the campus of Bob Jones University, told that if I return I will be immediately arrested. I wasn’t expelled for breaking the rules, because most of my demerits are from arbitrary and capricious rulings. I believe I was expelled because I spoke out. I saw abuse happening and I talked about it. I didn’t back down when threatened. I didn’t give in when I felt stalked. I stood my ground and that, I believe, is why I was expelled just 9 days before my graduation.
- 214 views
honestly, what did you expect? did you really expect that there would be no blowback from whistleblowing? there are enough stories of whistleblowers facing consequences from other organizations, that only the naive would expect something different.
every time you complain about the rules, the organization has the perfect setup to say that you knew about the rules and still broke them. and everyone within and connected to the organization is set up to see you as a vengeful troublemaker and miss any value in your message about phelps.
also, the more you complain about the rules, the more every normal person wonders why in the world you even want any degree from that organization.
every time you complain about the rules, the organization has the perfect setup to say that you knew about the rules and still broke them. and everyone within and connected to the organization is set up to see you as a vengeful troublemaker and miss any value in your message about phelps.
also, the more you complain about the rules, the more every normal person wonders why in the world you even want any degree from that organization.
Questions for Chris:
- You said: “I left his office and immediately created a Facebook page called Do Right BJU”. Question. Were you the sole initiator of “Do right” or were there others (not asking you to name names!)? Were the others non-students? Former BJU students?
- If I understand the timeline correctly Phelps withdrew his name from Trustee before the Do right protest in December. Is that timeline correct? If he did withdraw before “Do right” day, did you consider wrapping up (in essense ceasing) the Do Right protest because you had accomplished its purpose?
- Standard question for all who go / went to BJU and are now not BJU-fans: Did you know about the rules going in? And why did you go back knowing what BJU is all about (the rules)?
- If have a sense (and I may be wrong) that you knowingly “pushed the envelope” of the rules. Do you feel you “pushed the envelope”?
- Since the Glee viewing was off-campus, how did the admin find out? Did someone who was with you “rat you out”? If someone told on you, is that one a student at BJU?
- I’m not quite clear on the number of demerits (is that what they are called?) to be expelled. I’ve read about demerits 51 to 150+. What caused demerits #1 to 50?
- What do you hope to accomplish by your media blitz?
- What are your future plans? Goals?
- What was your major?
- Have you looked into whether any of your credits will transfer to another school?
- Do you intend to go back to college in the Fall? If so where?
i went to the local state university and graduated with an engineering degree more than a decade ago. lots of my friends went to bju, but i chose not to.
edit: oops. i guess jim was asking the other chris.
edit: oops. i guess jim was asking the other chris.
I’m not being critical and I am not trying to pile on
But this comment
Back to my observation: Many many fine servants of God (some of whom are S/I members) look back fondly to BJU as their alma mater and attribute their time there as a great blessing.
The church where I am a member has scores of BJU grads. All fine servants of God.
Just to counter-balance your comment.
But this comment
There is no grace at BJU. There is no loveI’m not connected in any way with BJU … in fact never been there or even to Greenville. (My daugther recently went to Greenville on business. Her company has a plant there and she was involved with an audit. She says the town is beautiful and would be a great place for me to retire).
Back to my observation: Many many fine servants of God (some of whom are S/I members) look back fondly to BJU as their alma mater and attribute their time there as a great blessing.
The church where I am a member has scores of BJU grads. All fine servants of God.
Just to counter-balance your comment.
Title of thread:
Perhaps there is no connection between “Do Right BJU” and your expulsion.
If there are / were other BJU students who were associated with “Do Right” AND WERE NOT expelled; it would demonstrate that there is no link between the protest and your expulsion.
Prove me wrong: Would a more accurate title be “Christopher Peterman, rule-flaunter, expelled 9 days before his BJU graduation”?
I mean I saw someplace a list of the demerits. And frankly I am not a fan of the demerit system AND I did not attend schools who had such systems.
But as I recall you got dinged multiple times for texting or for not shaving. If that is true (the multiple dings for the same behavior), why did you continue to do the same thing? Doesn’t make sense to me. So help me out by explaining it!
Christopher Peterman, founder of Do Right BJU, expelled 9 days before his BJU graduation.The title kind of (or at least to me) connects “Do Right BJU” and being expelled.
Perhaps there is no connection between “Do Right BJU” and your expulsion.
If there are / were other BJU students who were associated with “Do Right” AND WERE NOT expelled; it would demonstrate that there is no link between the protest and your expulsion.
Prove me wrong: Would a more accurate title be “Christopher Peterman, rule-flaunter, expelled 9 days before his BJU graduation”?
I mean I saw someplace a list of the demerits. And frankly I am not a fan of the demerit system AND I did not attend schools who had such systems.
But as I recall you got dinged multiple times for texting or for not shaving. If that is true (the multiple dings for the same behavior), why did you continue to do the same thing? Doesn’t make sense to me. So help me out by explaining it!
I don’t know Mr. Peterman.
I had no involvement in “Do Right BJU.”
However, back in the late ’70s, I was a student at The University. I attended with students who observed similar shortcomings as Mr. Peterman delineated in his OP. However, my contemporaries recognized that the negative observations of students were always considered griping by the administrators, faculty and staff, while any observations made by GRADUATES (a source of financial support and future students) were carefully and respectfully considered. My contemporaries graduated, went on to successful careers, and shared their observations.
A LOT of things have changed since then. (“The interacial dating policy has never been a big thing to us.” Really? Do you think my memory is *that* feeble?) Still, there seems to be work to be done.
The application of the rules has always been subjective. A very minor example: one male student (not me) was sent to the dean’s office for having hair too long (commonly known as “hair check”). He was checked by the assistant dean of men, and given demerits for having his hair too long. So he went immediately to the dean of men, who told him his hair was fine, he did not need a haircut. The student got in trouble when he asked “Then why did (Asst. Dean) just give me demerits for long hair?”
I don’t know anything about how Mr. Peterman approached the administration in his last semester. But I can say from my time as a student that The University has never been pleased by those who knew the rules and stood up for themselves when the rules were subjectively applied.
I had no involvement in “Do Right BJU.”
However, back in the late ’70s, I was a student at The University. I attended with students who observed similar shortcomings as Mr. Peterman delineated in his OP. However, my contemporaries recognized that the negative observations of students were always considered griping by the administrators, faculty and staff, while any observations made by GRADUATES (a source of financial support and future students) were carefully and respectfully considered. My contemporaries graduated, went on to successful careers, and shared their observations.
A LOT of things have changed since then. (“The interacial dating policy has never been a big thing to us.” Really? Do you think my memory is *that* feeble?) Still, there seems to be work to be done.
The application of the rules has always been subjective. A very minor example: one male student (not me) was sent to the dean’s office for having hair too long (commonly known as “hair check”). He was checked by the assistant dean of men, and given demerits for having his hair too long. So he went immediately to the dean of men, who told him his hair was fine, he did not need a haircut. The student got in trouble when he asked “Then why did (Asst. Dean) just give me demerits for long hair?”
I don’t know anything about how Mr. Peterman approached the administration in his last semester. But I can say from my time as a student that The University has never been pleased by those who knew the rules and stood up for themselves when the rules were subjectively applied.
Since you agreed to submitt to the authority of BJU by going back, do you feel you approached the school in a Biblical way about Chuck Phelps? In humble Christlike submission to those in authority over you? In your story above you never mention approaching the leadership with your concerns, just researching and then posting on your facebook page. Scripture is pretty clear that if you have a problem with someone you go to them in private. While this is not a person but a collection of leaders (who are fellow believers), I think the same principle would still apply, go to them directly in private. Even if you did and they didn’t listen, I still don’t see anywhere in Scripture the principle or idea of airing your differences in a public manner such as facebook. Do you have Biblcial principles or examples that show the Biblical way to handle this difference was to go to the public and try to force BJU to see things your way? Do you think you reactions model the Christlike humility of Philipians 2?
What I know about the TV show “Glee” could fill a Fox news interview. I know that because that is the only place that I’ve heard of it.
Chris,You said you really like Glee. Do you want BJU to be like the school Glee takes place in?
Chris,You said you really like Glee. Do you want BJU to be like the school Glee takes place in?
- Never watched it … but it could be an age thing (I’m 62)
- It strikes me that 50 pts for watching a TV show is excessive
- Still curious how the administration found out about it if:
- It was off campus
- Presumably in a private residence (but not really sure of the details)
- Question is - who snitched? Snitching strikes me as basically rat-like!
- And if the snitchee was there too … did he also get demerits
- It was off campus
Chris,
What do you have to say in response to what is being posted about http://thehidalgograincompany.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/christopher-pete… this article at Hidalgo Grain Company’s blog?
I’m especially interested in answers to two of the questions he posed:
1. The question about the “presence of other founders”. He asks:
What do you have to say in response to what is being posted about http://thehidalgograincompany.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/christopher-pete… this article at Hidalgo Grain Company’s blog?
I’m especially interested in answers to two of the questions he posed:
1. The question about the “presence of other founders”. He asks:
Notice the plurals – “founding members” – “other admins” – a legitimate question would be: Who are these other people if Chris was alone in the founding of this anti-BJU page? And if these other “founding members” and “admins” are students, why aren’t they being expelled?2. I’m also interested in finding out where the FB post that he links to is from - Did you indeed make the FB post on April 22 or 24th? If so, why did you remove it? If you did make and remove it, isn’t it possible that referring to the CEO as an [expletive] might have given BJU cause to dismiss you? If you didn’t remove it, is there some reason why Hidalgo would make it up and post it on their blog?
"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
Blaine and Kurt discuss their decision to postpone sex. Sebastian Smythe makes a play for Blaine, intercut with Santana and Rachel singing “A Boy Like That” from the musical. They later meet at a coffee shop, and Kurt arrives as Blaine is telling Sebastian that he already has a boyfriend. Sebastian convinces them to go with him to the local gay bar and supplies fake IDs. While Blaine and Sebastian are dancing, Kurt is surprised to see Dave Karofsky, who has transferred to another school. When Blaine and Kurt leave, Blaine is drunk and aroused, and urges Kurt to have sex with him in the back seat of the car; Kurt refuses, and Blaine walks home.from Wikipedia - slightly edited for brevity
Rachel lets Finn know that she is interested in having sex with him, but he balks when she admits her reason is to be a better Maria. Later, she asks advice from the other girls in the show. While Santana and Quinn both urge her not to have sex with Finn, Tina reveals that she and Mike had sex over the summer and says how wonderful it was with the boy she loved—her words are intercut with Rachel and Santana singing “I Have a Love” in rehearsal.
On opening night, Artie is assailed by self-doubt, but he is thanked by the cast for his leadership, and he thanks them for trusting him. They perform “America”, which gets a standing ovation. Blaine and Rachel, waiting to go on and still virgins, are afraid they will not convey the necessary emotion, but Rachel reminds Blaine that they both have found their soulmates in Finn and Kurt, just like Maria and Tony had with each other. As they sing “One Hand, One Heart” on stage, they are also shown in scenes involving their first sexual encounters with their true soulmates.
Each episode of Glee is similarly saturated with sex- kids with kids, students with teachers, adults having affairs ad nauseum, boys with boys, girls with girls…
While 50 demerits for watching a tv show with objectionable material sounds excessive, enjoying such a show reveals a serious moral crevasse, and I can understand that there would concerns about that from the admin of a strict Christian college.
Chris,
I’ve debated typing something about this for awhile – even before SI put your article up. Please forgive the disorganized nature of this open letter, but I am passionate on this issue and am having trouble finding my logic. It was here someplace just awhile ago, I’m sure.
You’ve received a lot of criticism, or at least questions here. And concerning much of this, only you and a few others who were actually present can know the truth.
Let me salute you for having the courage to do…something. Without starting up the debate again over Pastor Phelps, his actions, and whether he should be exonerated, forgiven, or castigated, I completely appreciate your sense of outrage that he was still in that position. I myself wanted answers – so much so that I made a few phone calls myself. Leaving aside the questions raised by others about timing, involvement of others, how long it extended, etc., I think Do Right BJU was a courageous thing to do. I’m not sure it was the optimal strategy, but the topic was something that demanded an answer.
It has always been my contention that large movements take on an inbred arrogance all their own. I have condemned Fundamentalism for being at times spiritually abusive. While I don’t believe they are unique in this among movements, it is reprehensible for those who claim a special corner on the truth to act in such a manner as Fundy leaders sometimes do. There is a long history of this (think of J. Frank Norris, for example).
In the case of BJU and a few other “big players” in the movement, there used to be an air of untouchability. Prior to the age of blogs and discussion forums, and social networking, it was difficult for “the little guys” to question what they were doing. Only large church pastors and college officials could be heard. Think of how difficult it was for any negatives about the ministry of Jack Hyles (admittedly, nothing at all like BJU) to penetrate his followers’ consciousness.
Now, the internet has given us all a voice. This is wonderful, and terrifying, all at once.
I think it is a wonderful thing that all institutions must tremble at the blogs of the little people. That means accountability between brethren at all levels.
What is terrible is that neither our culture nor the Fundy sub-culture has yet worked through what it means when every outraged person is suddenly some form of journalist. My post here will probably be read by between 10 and 100 people. But even that gives it so much more weight than my complaints to a friend used to have. We should remember, by the way, that the cry of the journalist (“The people have a right to know”) is a curiosity of modern life, but is only dimly seen in a few passages when poorly exegeted.
I’m bothered by this situation. As an alumnus who was cooperative but a conscientious objector about some things at BJU, I want to applaud and offer you a job at my church this week (sadly, we have no openings and cannot pay you anything). As a more cautious observer, I wonder, along with some others here, how much youthful impetuousness and provocative attitudes came into play. One thing I can say for sure: the burden of proof has shifted. If this were 1968, nobody would believe you were innocent in this matter. Today…well, the idea that BJU pushed too hard is believable (though by no means proven). The Glee thing will be a hard sell to the Fundy audience, by the way. Never saw the show myself. Just tell them it’s kind of like Vespers, with unbelievers instead of believers.
I hope that you will never lose your passion for truth in the face of outrageous behavior by others. I hope you will learn to persuade more than apply political pressure as the years go on. I trust you have already learned that we all fall short, and in a few years, as you begin to hit up against issues in your own life that seem a bit intractable, that you will find some of the outrage about the wrongs of others leaks out. There will always be outrages. We do not always get to be outraged at them. Sometimes, we have to remember our own shortcomings as well. If we do not, we can become a caricature of what we were trying to stand against. I know many anti-Fundamentalists who sound just like the worst kind of Fundamentalists over entirely different issues.
When I was at BJU, I remember a guest speaker in chapel saying something about “those of you who are truly leaders instead of just ‘yes men’ find yourself really bothered by some things here. That’s OK. That just means you are a leader.” I remember distinctly the administrators in the front slinking down in their chairs, frowning, and looking bothered at the remark (Dr. Wood whispered angrily to someone beside him). But the guest speaker was right. I’m glad you’re not a ‘yes man’ for a movement. So long as you are a ‘yes man’ for Christ, it will be enough.
I gather you have already determined not to let your institution get in the way of your education. That was a wise choice (in fact, especially now that you were expelled). History is replete with examples of great Christians who weren’t willing to blindly accept the affirmations of religious leaders of their time: Martin Luther comes to mind. Of course, it is also full of people who didn’t blindly accept of whom we know nothing. They have vanished in the dustbin of history because they were wrong, or sometimes, because their disagreement arose out of a character flaw rather than out of deep-seated conviction, or because they were ahead of their time.
Chris, this is not the end of you. I wasn’t there. I can’t say whether you drew the ire of the powers that be at BJU rightfully or wrongfully. But you now carry the weight of your whole conviction set on your own back. If you become consumed by bitterness and wander from Christ, everyone will look at your actions of the past few years and say “See, he’s shown his true colors!” But if you walk with Christ, stand for truth as you find it in God’s Word, and act in grace on this manner, you will give your initial cause greater credibility.
My prayers are with you, with Tina Anderson, with Chuck Phelps, and with BJU (great education, guys, thanks – even though I still have weird dreams about demerits once in awhile. I probably will tonight too).
I’ve debated typing something about this for awhile – even before SI put your article up. Please forgive the disorganized nature of this open letter, but I am passionate on this issue and am having trouble finding my logic. It was here someplace just awhile ago, I’m sure.
You’ve received a lot of criticism, or at least questions here. And concerning much of this, only you and a few others who were actually present can know the truth.
Let me salute you for having the courage to do…something. Without starting up the debate again over Pastor Phelps, his actions, and whether he should be exonerated, forgiven, or castigated, I completely appreciate your sense of outrage that he was still in that position. I myself wanted answers – so much so that I made a few phone calls myself. Leaving aside the questions raised by others about timing, involvement of others, how long it extended, etc., I think Do Right BJU was a courageous thing to do. I’m not sure it was the optimal strategy, but the topic was something that demanded an answer.
It has always been my contention that large movements take on an inbred arrogance all their own. I have condemned Fundamentalism for being at times spiritually abusive. While I don’t believe they are unique in this among movements, it is reprehensible for those who claim a special corner on the truth to act in such a manner as Fundy leaders sometimes do. There is a long history of this (think of J. Frank Norris, for example).
In the case of BJU and a few other “big players” in the movement, there used to be an air of untouchability. Prior to the age of blogs and discussion forums, and social networking, it was difficult for “the little guys” to question what they were doing. Only large church pastors and college officials could be heard. Think of how difficult it was for any negatives about the ministry of Jack Hyles (admittedly, nothing at all like BJU) to penetrate his followers’ consciousness.
Now, the internet has given us all a voice. This is wonderful, and terrifying, all at once.
I think it is a wonderful thing that all institutions must tremble at the blogs of the little people. That means accountability between brethren at all levels.
What is terrible is that neither our culture nor the Fundy sub-culture has yet worked through what it means when every outraged person is suddenly some form of journalist. My post here will probably be read by between 10 and 100 people. But even that gives it so much more weight than my complaints to a friend used to have. We should remember, by the way, that the cry of the journalist (“The people have a right to know”) is a curiosity of modern life, but is only dimly seen in a few passages when poorly exegeted.
I’m bothered by this situation. As an alumnus who was cooperative but a conscientious objector about some things at BJU, I want to applaud and offer you a job at my church this week (sadly, we have no openings and cannot pay you anything). As a more cautious observer, I wonder, along with some others here, how much youthful impetuousness and provocative attitudes came into play. One thing I can say for sure: the burden of proof has shifted. If this were 1968, nobody would believe you were innocent in this matter. Today…well, the idea that BJU pushed too hard is believable (though by no means proven). The Glee thing will be a hard sell to the Fundy audience, by the way. Never saw the show myself. Just tell them it’s kind of like Vespers, with unbelievers instead of believers.
I hope that you will never lose your passion for truth in the face of outrageous behavior by others. I hope you will learn to persuade more than apply political pressure as the years go on. I trust you have already learned that we all fall short, and in a few years, as you begin to hit up against issues in your own life that seem a bit intractable, that you will find some of the outrage about the wrongs of others leaks out. There will always be outrages. We do not always get to be outraged at them. Sometimes, we have to remember our own shortcomings as well. If we do not, we can become a caricature of what we were trying to stand against. I know many anti-Fundamentalists who sound just like the worst kind of Fundamentalists over entirely different issues.
When I was at BJU, I remember a guest speaker in chapel saying something about “those of you who are truly leaders instead of just ‘yes men’ find yourself really bothered by some things here. That’s OK. That just means you are a leader.” I remember distinctly the administrators in the front slinking down in their chairs, frowning, and looking bothered at the remark (Dr. Wood whispered angrily to someone beside him). But the guest speaker was right. I’m glad you’re not a ‘yes man’ for a movement. So long as you are a ‘yes man’ for Christ, it will be enough.
I gather you have already determined not to let your institution get in the way of your education. That was a wise choice (in fact, especially now that you were expelled). History is replete with examples of great Christians who weren’t willing to blindly accept the affirmations of religious leaders of their time: Martin Luther comes to mind. Of course, it is also full of people who didn’t blindly accept of whom we know nothing. They have vanished in the dustbin of history because they were wrong, or sometimes, because their disagreement arose out of a character flaw rather than out of deep-seated conviction, or because they were ahead of their time.
Chris, this is not the end of you. I wasn’t there. I can’t say whether you drew the ire of the powers that be at BJU rightfully or wrongfully. But you now carry the weight of your whole conviction set on your own back. If you become consumed by bitterness and wander from Christ, everyone will look at your actions of the past few years and say “See, he’s shown his true colors!” But if you walk with Christ, stand for truth as you find it in God’s Word, and act in grace on this manner, you will give your initial cause greater credibility.
My prayers are with you, with Tina Anderson, with Chuck Phelps, and with BJU (great education, guys, thanks – even though I still have weird dreams about demerits once in awhile. I probably will tonight too).
[Mike Durning] The Glee thing will be a hard sell to the Fundy audience, by the way. Never saw the show myself. Just tell them it’s kind of like Vespers, with unbelievers instead of believers.Either I don’t understand Vespers or you don’t understand Glee. :)
(Still think 50 pts is a lot plus still have unanswered questions (Chris P are you there?) about the Glee incident!)
Chris, you said:
BJU announced that there would be no consequences for those students organizing or involved with the protest. Chuck Phelps resigned and a committee was formed to investigate allegations of sexual abuse within BJU.Are you accusing Bob Jones of deliberately covering up and/or aiding criminal sexual contact by staff and faculty? How prepared are you to document that if they sued you for libel and slander as a result of this allegation?
Everything was good, or so I thought. Our goals had been accomplished and the semester came to an end.
"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
[Jim Peet]Jim, I was joking. And I don’t understand Glee and many times did not understand Vespers. For more details, see my next post.[Mike Durning] The Glee thing will be a hard sell to the Fundy audience, by the way. Never saw the show myself. Just tell them it’s kind of like Vespers, with unbelievers instead of believers.Either I don’t understand Vespers or you don’t understand Glee. :)
(Still think 50 pts is a lot plus still have unanswered questions (Chris P are you there?) about the Glee incident!)
Dear friends,
I have been pushed back and challenged by some regarding my open letter to Chris Peterman. This is why I was so hesitant about posting. I knew it was a “no-win” situation.
Giving special emphasis to the most cogent of these push-backs, let me deal with the issues one by one:
1). I seem to be viewing Chris Peterman as some kind of “heroic martyr” for standing up to BJU, when the evidence suggests he was rightfully expelled.
The issues here are complex. I have little doubt that Chris and those most virulently opposed to BJU and like institutions view Chris as a martyr. There are several issues:
a). Was the initial question that Chris asked (RE Pastor Phelps being on a board of BJU) a legitimate question that needed to be asked and answered in some fashion by BJU? I would argue certainly. Even if BJU believed that they were entirely right to have Pastor Phelps on that board, they needed to explain why they thought they were justified in doing so. This was only right and proper, given the firestorm brewing around him and his ministry. That’s connected with issues that BJU addresses constantly, like separation and testimony. If Chris’s efforts through Do Right BJU were part of helping them recognize that they needed to answer that question, then he was helpful to them in some fashion, though perhaps not with the best methodology.
b). If BJU recognized the necessity of answering the question (as they clearly did), then their proper role would be to instruct him in how he mishandled the situation (if they feel he did). They may have done so, for all I know.
c). If BJU subsequently watched him more carefully after the events of Do Right BJU, held him to standards beyond their own written codes and to which they hold no other students, and penalized him in ways they do not regularly penalize students, then they were perhaps taking vengeance. Of course, most of us (myself included) are so far removed from BJU’s current rules structure that we have no way of knowing. Again, this is something that only Chris and BJU and our Lord can answer. At this point, multiple possibilities arise, including Chris viewing himself as a martyr when he was the sole trouble-maker, lower-level powers at BJU acting in certain ways without the influence of higher-ups there, all the way to the conspiracy theorists’ view that they deliberately dangled Chris at the precipice until the bitter end until expulsion. Again, we have no way of knowing which, if any of these scenarios is true.
d). There has been a perception by many BJU alumni that at times in the past BJU has used their rule system to effect changes in the lives of troubled individuals that could be better produced by other means. BJU has at times refuted this interpretation, and at others seemed to tacitly acknowledge it by a flurry of rule-changes. While it is clear that the new president there has begun to implement some great changes, BJU is a BIG ship, and it takes a long time to turn it, even from the president’s seat. This is what makes it so easy for some to consider the possibility that BJU might have been acting in a vengeful manner. And the most bitter opponents of BJU will, of course, be driven to this conclusion no matter what evidence is given.
In short, I have no idea what happened, but I chose to speak to Chris as a well-meaning person who reacted with outrage and revulsion to what he believed (and I agree) was an intolerable situation at BJU. I addressed the uncertainty as to who was in the right, but wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, to show concern for him as an individual rather than get into the morass of who did what when at BJU. And I wanted to give him some long-term perspective on this matter. Time will tell.
2). Some have said I was too flippant about “Glee”. I apologize. As I said, I have not seen the show. There are two issues here:
a). Immediately at issue was whether Chris was singled out for punishment in a way other students have not been. If this was a non-standard punishment, then why was Chris singled out? The problem with producing a demerit system is exactly this. If you unevenly apply it, you are open to criticism, even if you are trying to pile on demerits because you have discerned someone is troubled and want to get their attention.
b). About Glee and off-campus TV viewing. What does the rule-book say? Do students go to off-campus housing and watch the show and talk about it? Was Chris watching it out of curiosity, a desire to evaluate it, concern for a friend who regularly watches it, or out of a hunger for a little evil in his life? I have no answers for these. Some of these, only Chris can answer. Perhaps he did answer them to BJU, and the demerits were appropriate.
c). My point in saying it would be a hard-sell to Fundies is that our view of worldliness and how we engage it differs greatly within the movement. I doubt I would ever watch the show, like most of you. But a lot of that is cultural – it doesn’t connect to our interests in any way, evil content or not. But when something has depictions of evil, the same rules that are applied at BJU to discerning literature and its value have to apply to television, do they not? In literature classes, we were taught to analyze such things. The presence of a sinful act in a work does not necessarily taint the entire work, otherwise, we could not read our Bibles. How the work is depicted and what the work does with that evil is important. I’m not sure where Glee falls on that scale. Others might know better. Chris felt he was justified to watch an episode. We don’t know which one. We don’t know why. We don’t know any more.
I have been pushed back and challenged by some regarding my open letter to Chris Peterman. This is why I was so hesitant about posting. I knew it was a “no-win” situation.
Giving special emphasis to the most cogent of these push-backs, let me deal with the issues one by one:
1). I seem to be viewing Chris Peterman as some kind of “heroic martyr” for standing up to BJU, when the evidence suggests he was rightfully expelled.
The issues here are complex. I have little doubt that Chris and those most virulently opposed to BJU and like institutions view Chris as a martyr. There are several issues:
a). Was the initial question that Chris asked (RE Pastor Phelps being on a board of BJU) a legitimate question that needed to be asked and answered in some fashion by BJU? I would argue certainly. Even if BJU believed that they were entirely right to have Pastor Phelps on that board, they needed to explain why they thought they were justified in doing so. This was only right and proper, given the firestorm brewing around him and his ministry. That’s connected with issues that BJU addresses constantly, like separation and testimony. If Chris’s efforts through Do Right BJU were part of helping them recognize that they needed to answer that question, then he was helpful to them in some fashion, though perhaps not with the best methodology.
b). If BJU recognized the necessity of answering the question (as they clearly did), then their proper role would be to instruct him in how he mishandled the situation (if they feel he did). They may have done so, for all I know.
c). If BJU subsequently watched him more carefully after the events of Do Right BJU, held him to standards beyond their own written codes and to which they hold no other students, and penalized him in ways they do not regularly penalize students, then they were perhaps taking vengeance. Of course, most of us (myself included) are so far removed from BJU’s current rules structure that we have no way of knowing. Again, this is something that only Chris and BJU and our Lord can answer. At this point, multiple possibilities arise, including Chris viewing himself as a martyr when he was the sole trouble-maker, lower-level powers at BJU acting in certain ways without the influence of higher-ups there, all the way to the conspiracy theorists’ view that they deliberately dangled Chris at the precipice until the bitter end until expulsion. Again, we have no way of knowing which, if any of these scenarios is true.
d). There has been a perception by many BJU alumni that at times in the past BJU has used their rule system to effect changes in the lives of troubled individuals that could be better produced by other means. BJU has at times refuted this interpretation, and at others seemed to tacitly acknowledge it by a flurry of rule-changes. While it is clear that the new president there has begun to implement some great changes, BJU is a BIG ship, and it takes a long time to turn it, even from the president’s seat. This is what makes it so easy for some to consider the possibility that BJU might have been acting in a vengeful manner. And the most bitter opponents of BJU will, of course, be driven to this conclusion no matter what evidence is given.
In short, I have no idea what happened, but I chose to speak to Chris as a well-meaning person who reacted with outrage and revulsion to what he believed (and I agree) was an intolerable situation at BJU. I addressed the uncertainty as to who was in the right, but wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, to show concern for him as an individual rather than get into the morass of who did what when at BJU. And I wanted to give him some long-term perspective on this matter. Time will tell.
2). Some have said I was too flippant about “Glee”. I apologize. As I said, I have not seen the show. There are two issues here:
a). Immediately at issue was whether Chris was singled out for punishment in a way other students have not been. If this was a non-standard punishment, then why was Chris singled out? The problem with producing a demerit system is exactly this. If you unevenly apply it, you are open to criticism, even if you are trying to pile on demerits because you have discerned someone is troubled and want to get their attention.
b). About Glee and off-campus TV viewing. What does the rule-book say? Do students go to off-campus housing and watch the show and talk about it? Was Chris watching it out of curiosity, a desire to evaluate it, concern for a friend who regularly watches it, or out of a hunger for a little evil in his life? I have no answers for these. Some of these, only Chris can answer. Perhaps he did answer them to BJU, and the demerits were appropriate.
c). My point in saying it would be a hard-sell to Fundies is that our view of worldliness and how we engage it differs greatly within the movement. I doubt I would ever watch the show, like most of you. But a lot of that is cultural – it doesn’t connect to our interests in any way, evil content or not. But when something has depictions of evil, the same rules that are applied at BJU to discerning literature and its value have to apply to television, do they not? In literature classes, we were taught to analyze such things. The presence of a sinful act in a work does not necessarily taint the entire work, otherwise, we could not read our Bibles. How the work is depicted and what the work does with that evil is important. I’m not sure where Glee falls on that scale. Others might know better. Chris felt he was justified to watch an episode. We don’t know which one. We don’t know why. We don’t know any more.
3). Some have encouraged me to look at the Do Right BJU page and other related pages and look at the pattern. My friends, let’s remember how social networking works. One of the reasons I hate social networking is because you have no control over content under your name or your organization’s name. When I said Chris may not have chosen an optimal strategy to express his concerns, the fact that it was a Facebook page was almost at the top of my list of concerns.
Last night, I checked my Facebook page briefly (like always). My friends list includes believers, some young adults I am trying to reach for Christ, some friends who are unbelievers, some former attenders of our church who have long since rejected Christ, some former foster children of ours who are Christian, some former foster children who are not Christians. Get the picture? My Facebook page, as of last night, would have been horrifying – and would not have checked at BJU. And since I check Facebook as seldom and as quickly as possible, I’m sure that happens a lot.
Such is the case with DoRight BJU. I’m sure it took on a life of its own, and I’m sure the most radical opponents, who believe in a direct and intentional effort by “the Fundamentalist Church” to cover up for child molesters, loved the page, and posted more frequently than anyone else. If they did so, the worst thing we can accuse Chris of doing is choosing a path to address his concerns that got him in over his head, and perhaps disagree with him on his judgment about keeping the page open (if, in fact, the decision was his).
Having said that, it’s important for all of us to remember that there HAVE been such conspiracies among Fundamentalists (think of Hyles-Anderson College and FBC Hammond), and the conspiracy theorists have been right in some isolated instances. I know. We can hardly blame them for smelling another conspiracy. I’m sure all conservative believers smell the same to them.
In any case, with these explanations, I hope I have answered the principle concerns of my critics. We must remember that, like so many other situations these days, the internet throws us into information overload. We think we know far more than we know. And much of our judgments on matters turn into speculations. Speculations make crucifixions easier. Let’s be careful about assumptions for or against Chris or BJU in this matter. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which we will get enough answers to know what really is going on.
Last night, I checked my Facebook page briefly (like always). My friends list includes believers, some young adults I am trying to reach for Christ, some friends who are unbelievers, some former attenders of our church who have long since rejected Christ, some former foster children of ours who are Christian, some former foster children who are not Christians. Get the picture? My Facebook page, as of last night, would have been horrifying – and would not have checked at BJU. And since I check Facebook as seldom and as quickly as possible, I’m sure that happens a lot.
Such is the case with DoRight BJU. I’m sure it took on a life of its own, and I’m sure the most radical opponents, who believe in a direct and intentional effort by “the Fundamentalist Church” to cover up for child molesters, loved the page, and posted more frequently than anyone else. If they did so, the worst thing we can accuse Chris of doing is choosing a path to address his concerns that got him in over his head, and perhaps disagree with him on his judgment about keeping the page open (if, in fact, the decision was his).
Having said that, it’s important for all of us to remember that there HAVE been such conspiracies among Fundamentalists (think of Hyles-Anderson College and FBC Hammond), and the conspiracy theorists have been right in some isolated instances. I know. We can hardly blame them for smelling another conspiracy. I’m sure all conservative believers smell the same to them.
In any case, with these explanations, I hope I have answered the principle concerns of my critics. We must remember that, like so many other situations these days, the internet throws us into information overload. We think we know far more than we know. And much of our judgments on matters turn into speculations. Speculations make crucifixions easier. Let’s be careful about assumptions for or against Chris or BJU in this matter. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which we will get enough answers to know what really is going on.
You were supposed to say: “Don’t call me Shirley” :)
Let me say right off, everything I know about the situation as come from Chris himself either via his facebook site, various blogs, and the local news.
I am embarrassed by this and keep hoping that no one in the community asks me about it. I make it no secret that I am a graduate of BJ and that my parents retired from there. I also try to live a life before my bosses, peers, and acquaintances that reflects Christ (I’m not perfect by any means, but that is what I strive for). I have lived in Greenville for most of my life and started working in the Greenville business community in 1996.
That said…
Based on detailed accounts that Chris has written, he does not tell the full story except for when it is convenient. If you watched the news here, you would think he was a great guy who was shipped for watching a single episode of Glee. His own writing indicates otherwise. He watches/ed the show on a regular basis. I can tell you the show if filthy. We’ve seen commercials and an occasional (used to be on right before the 10 pm news here) small part of the show and can tell you that it is anything but godly. It is filled with everything that God hates.
Chris admits that BJU reversed the amount of demerits, but then expelled him for trying to intimidate them by calling in the news, Tracs, and various government officials. This, too, is in direct disobedience to scripture. According to Chris, he did this prior to the appeals meeting regarding his watching Glee. Most employers would have fired this guy for his disobedience to policies and for going to the news media, etc because he didn’t like something. My husband, who was never affiliated with BJ prior to our family, commented the other day about how does this guy think they would give him a degree or welcome him back after all this.
We must remember, Chris chose to be a part of BJU and he agreed to obey all the rules. He (again per his own writing) had trouble obeying rules—like shaving, making his bed, not texting during class and chapel. He obviously lacks the submissive and obedient spirit that the Bible commands us all to have. God never gives us a choice about which authorities to obey or which of His or man’s rules we obey. We are to obey it all as long as it is not in direct conflict to one of his commands and so far Chris has not given any indication that BJU asked him to do anything contrary to the Word of God.
From what I can tell, this anti-BJU group of former grads, etc are out to destroy BJU and the Church totally all while claiming to be obeying scripture. None of what they have done has been Christlike. They are doing more to destroy the Church then they are doing to help anyone . Unfortunately sex abuse scandals exist, but remember they are often a he said/she said thing. And supposed victims have been known to lie. Remember the recent case of Birnie Fine—one of the supposed victims lied because he was mad about something he didn’t get that he wanted. I think we must be extremely careful before we go accusing or siding with anyone unless there is proven evidence. I don’t have a clue who is right in the Tina Anderson case and must leave that up to God.
In closing, let me ask — how is the cause of Christ better for what Chris Peterman has done and also for the airing of the conflict over Tina Anderson? I’m sure that it turns off many more than it ever draws to Christ and it certainly isn’t edifying the body of Christ.
I am embarrassed by this and keep hoping that no one in the community asks me about it. I make it no secret that I am a graduate of BJ and that my parents retired from there. I also try to live a life before my bosses, peers, and acquaintances that reflects Christ (I’m not perfect by any means, but that is what I strive for). I have lived in Greenville for most of my life and started working in the Greenville business community in 1996.
That said…
Based on detailed accounts that Chris has written, he does not tell the full story except for when it is convenient. If you watched the news here, you would think he was a great guy who was shipped for watching a single episode of Glee. His own writing indicates otherwise. He watches/ed the show on a regular basis. I can tell you the show if filthy. We’ve seen commercials and an occasional (used to be on right before the 10 pm news here) small part of the show and can tell you that it is anything but godly. It is filled with everything that God hates.
Chris admits that BJU reversed the amount of demerits, but then expelled him for trying to intimidate them by calling in the news, Tracs, and various government officials. This, too, is in direct disobedience to scripture. According to Chris, he did this prior to the appeals meeting regarding his watching Glee. Most employers would have fired this guy for his disobedience to policies and for going to the news media, etc because he didn’t like something. My husband, who was never affiliated with BJ prior to our family, commented the other day about how does this guy think they would give him a degree or welcome him back after all this.
We must remember, Chris chose to be a part of BJU and he agreed to obey all the rules. He (again per his own writing) had trouble obeying rules—like shaving, making his bed, not texting during class and chapel. He obviously lacks the submissive and obedient spirit that the Bible commands us all to have. God never gives us a choice about which authorities to obey or which of His or man’s rules we obey. We are to obey it all as long as it is not in direct conflict to one of his commands and so far Chris has not given any indication that BJU asked him to do anything contrary to the Word of God.
From what I can tell, this anti-BJU group of former grads, etc are out to destroy BJU and the Church totally all while claiming to be obeying scripture. None of what they have done has been Christlike. They are doing more to destroy the Church then they are doing to help anyone . Unfortunately sex abuse scandals exist, but remember they are often a he said/she said thing. And supposed victims have been known to lie. Remember the recent case of Birnie Fine—one of the supposed victims lied because he was mad about something he didn’t get that he wanted. I think we must be extremely careful before we go accusing or siding with anyone unless there is proven evidence. I don’t have a clue who is right in the Tina Anderson case and must leave that up to God.
In closing, let me ask — how is the cause of Christ better for what Chris Peterman has done and also for the airing of the conflict over Tina Anderson? I’m sure that it turns off many more than it ever draws to Christ and it certainly isn’t edifying the body of Christ.
Michelle Shuman
Michelle, your post is great background info, and I appreciate it. I would really like to hear Chris’ reply to your statements directly from him. Are you out there Chris?
Most troubling is that the media was consulted before the final verdict. Bringing the media in, to me, seems like a violation of I Cor. 6’s intent. While it is not taking someone before the law, it is clearly airing the dirty laundry of believers before the world. This methodology is flawed. I would much rather have seen Chris recruit a team of credible pastors to talk to BJU.
What we’re dealing with are two conflicting views of BJU:
1). BJU disciplinary policies and procedures are proper and always followed, and students who get in trouble at BJU are always and entirely at fault themselves. Thus, Chris must be a rebel unfit to graduate from BJU.
2). BJU policies are improper, usually legalistic, and are applied unevenly based on favoritism. They function like a totalitarian regime, unaccountable, and slapped Chris down as soon as they thought nobody was watching – like all totalitarian regimes do [word for word from a friend of mine].
Both of these views are foolishly one-sided and un-nuanced. Everybody should understand that either extreme is too extreme. The truth is that policies are implemented and enforced by people who are sinners, who have feelings, who have bad days, and who make bad decisions. They are also followed or disobeyed by equally sinful humans.
There is no doubt Chris erred in some things.
And very likely somewhere, somebody at BJU erred in handling the situation with Chris at some point. Errors, failures, and sin is what we fallen humans do. We have no idea whether BJU’s errors were major or minor, as sinister as some want to believe, or not. We don’t know if Chris’ interpretation of BJU’s actions is unbiased. We’re pretty sure we know BJU’s interpretation of Chris’ actions, though they’ve said nothing.
The question is, what do we do now? What can we all learn from this?
What can Chris handle better next time?
What can BJU do next time that will salvage such a situation before someone becomes yet another college shipwreck?
All attacks on BJU are not ill intentioned. Constructive criticism is possible.
Attacks on BJU do not equal attacks on Fundamentalism and thus on Christianity itself.
Doubtless some wish to destroy BJU.
And some wish to reform BJU.
And some wish to protect little ones from what they view as a movement that cares more about protecting its own reputation than it does solving the problems that leave children under-protected – an attitude that clearly exists in some cases among some Fundamentalists, as it does in all religious groups.
Those who think BJU has erred in some cases and wish to make it better do push sometimes for reform. Think of the petition to cancel the interracial dating and marriage policy, and how BJU responded. Those people were not trying to destroy BJU. They cared about it.
Even those who attack it as part of some “child-molester cover-up crew” are trying to help Christianity. They just imagine a cohesion among Fundamentalists that certainly over-simplifies the movement.
At issue here is whether Do Right BJU doomed Chris from the start, making the BJU promise of no recriminations less than sincere, or whether Chris dug his own grave by subsequent actions. It’s clear that Chris believes they were out to get him after the Do Right BJU thing. The reason some are inclined to believe this is that humans and their institutions can be vindictive. In some points and places in Fundamentalist history, it was almost par for the course. On the other hand, it can easily be imagined that BJU wanted to know whether Chris was a well-intentioned fiery crusader or a trouble-maker. So they watched, and pondered. And talked to him in many meetings. And then, with his calling of the press, they drew their conclusion.
Institutions will realize that their choices will be scrutinized. This can only encourage caution, careful analysis, introspection, and promote credibility where once there was too much room for action on impulse.
Churches will surely have a better strategy for dealing with child abuse after the Tina Anderson affair.
As such, it can be very edifying.
We must remember that the light of truth is inherently good. If the truth does not become us, what does it say about us?
Anyway, even here, now, I have hope that there could be rapprochement instead of reproach. But, I’m an optimist.
[Michelle Shuman] Chris admits that BJU reversed the amount of demerits, but then expelled him for trying to intimidate them by calling in the news, Tracs, and various government officials. This, too, is in direct disobedience to scripture. According to Chris, he did this prior to the appeals meeting regarding his watching Glee.Michelle, this is the most problematic thing that Chris did, and a careful reading of Chris’ story above does not disagree with what you say.
Most troubling is that the media was consulted before the final verdict. Bringing the media in, to me, seems like a violation of I Cor. 6’s intent. While it is not taking someone before the law, it is clearly airing the dirty laundry of believers before the world. This methodology is flawed. I would much rather have seen Chris recruit a team of credible pastors to talk to BJU.
[Michelle Shuman] We must remember, Chris chose to be a part of BJU and he agreed to obey all the rules. He (again per his own writing) had trouble obeying rules—like shaving, making his bed, not texting during class and chapel. He obviously lacks the submissive and obedient spirit that the Bible commands us all to have.I’m not sure we can make all the claims you are making from his statements. I suspect Chris has a lot of the rebel in him, like most guys do at that age. And that is a big problem – but one that BJU has been dealing with for years. However, he indicates, for instance, that his tweet went out prior to the start of the service and thus, was within the rules as normally applied. I think it is safe to say that if BJU officials were holding someone to a higher standard after the DoRight BJU thing started, the points would rack up pretty quickly for nearly anybody. The question is, is that what they were doing, or was this merely a perception on Chris’ part?
What we’re dealing with are two conflicting views of BJU:
1). BJU disciplinary policies and procedures are proper and always followed, and students who get in trouble at BJU are always and entirely at fault themselves. Thus, Chris must be a rebel unfit to graduate from BJU.
2). BJU policies are improper, usually legalistic, and are applied unevenly based on favoritism. They function like a totalitarian regime, unaccountable, and slapped Chris down as soon as they thought nobody was watching – like all totalitarian regimes do [word for word from a friend of mine].
Both of these views are foolishly one-sided and un-nuanced. Everybody should understand that either extreme is too extreme. The truth is that policies are implemented and enforced by people who are sinners, who have feelings, who have bad days, and who make bad decisions. They are also followed or disobeyed by equally sinful humans.
There is no doubt Chris erred in some things.
And very likely somewhere, somebody at BJU erred in handling the situation with Chris at some point. Errors, failures, and sin is what we fallen humans do. We have no idea whether BJU’s errors were major or minor, as sinister as some want to believe, or not. We don’t know if Chris’ interpretation of BJU’s actions is unbiased. We’re pretty sure we know BJU’s interpretation of Chris’ actions, though they’ve said nothing.
The question is, what do we do now? What can we all learn from this?
What can Chris handle better next time?
What can BJU do next time that will salvage such a situation before someone becomes yet another college shipwreck?
[Michelle Shuman] From what I can tell, this anti-BJU group of former grads, etc are out to destroy BJU and the Church totally all while claiming to be obeying scripture. None of what they have done has been Christlike. They are doing more to destroy the Church then they are doing to help anyone .There are some implicit assumptions we must not fall into.
All attacks on BJU are not ill intentioned. Constructive criticism is possible.
Attacks on BJU do not equal attacks on Fundamentalism and thus on Christianity itself.
Doubtless some wish to destroy BJU.
And some wish to reform BJU.
And some wish to protect little ones from what they view as a movement that cares more about protecting its own reputation than it does solving the problems that leave children under-protected – an attitude that clearly exists in some cases among some Fundamentalists, as it does in all religious groups.
Those who think BJU has erred in some cases and wish to make it better do push sometimes for reform. Think of the petition to cancel the interracial dating and marriage policy, and how BJU responded. Those people were not trying to destroy BJU. They cared about it.
Even those who attack it as part of some “child-molester cover-up crew” are trying to help Christianity. They just imagine a cohesion among Fundamentalists that certainly over-simplifies the movement.
At issue here is whether Do Right BJU doomed Chris from the start, making the BJU promise of no recriminations less than sincere, or whether Chris dug his own grave by subsequent actions. It’s clear that Chris believes they were out to get him after the Do Right BJU thing. The reason some are inclined to believe this is that humans and their institutions can be vindictive. In some points and places in Fundamentalist history, it was almost par for the course. On the other hand, it can easily be imagined that BJU wanted to know whether Chris was a well-intentioned fiery crusader or a trouble-maker. So they watched, and pondered. And talked to him in many meetings. And then, with his calling of the press, they drew their conclusion.
[Michelle Shuman] In closing, let me ask — how is the cause of Christ better for what Chris Peterman has done and also for the airing of the conflict over Tina Anderson? I’m sure that it turns off many more than it ever draws to Christ and it certainly isn’t edifying the body of Christ.Answer: It could be vastly improved by these. Take a long view.
Institutions will realize that their choices will be scrutinized. This can only encourage caution, careful analysis, introspection, and promote credibility where once there was too much room for action on impulse.
Churches will surely have a better strategy for dealing with child abuse after the Tina Anderson affair.
As such, it can be very edifying.
We must remember that the light of truth is inherently good. If the truth does not become us, what does it say about us?
Anyway, even here, now, I have hope that there could be rapprochement instead of reproach. But, I’m an optimist.
I don’t have the time to blog like I used to. But i was one that was very vocal on the Chuck Phelps issue. I did hit like on the Do Right BJU page for a couple of reasons. One of them was because I believed my alma matter was very wrong for bringing Dr. Phelps back on the board. I felt as a grad, I was obligated to (just as I did when I signed the open letter considering the inter-racial marriage issue). We all signed saying if the school was in error, we would stand against it. I have not gone to the page much lately, so I cannot comment on to what it has morphed into.
Michelle,
From what I have read, Chris whas given demerits for not shaving at midnight, most men would probably not pass at midnight. But I would like to hear the University’s side. Also, from what I have been told, in the handbook, a student is told they can appeal to TRACS. I don’t like that he contacted the media either, BTW. But if he was harrassed, then that is something that was inevitible.
As to your last comment, let me ask you this. How is God glorified by the mishandling of sexual abuse? BTW, another story appeared in Concord, of another former Trinity member arrested for sexual assault against a minor.
Michelle,
From what I have read, Chris whas given demerits for not shaving at midnight, most men would probably not pass at midnight. But I would like to hear the University’s side. Also, from what I have been told, in the handbook, a student is told they can appeal to TRACS. I don’t like that he contacted the media either, BTW. But if he was harrassed, then that is something that was inevitible.
As to your last comment, let me ask you this. How is God glorified by the mishandling of sexual abuse? BTW, another story appeared in Concord, of another former Trinity member arrested for sexual assault against a minor.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Hello Mr. Peterman,
Do you have a Pastor to whom you can go for counsel? Sit down with him and share what happened. If he feels you were wronged, then I would urge him to arrange and attend a visit with you and the BJU administrators. The goal of such a meeting would be to make sure things are resolved and that there are no wrong feelings between you and the school or the school and you.
I am just not sure that having a bunch of people reading on the internet and choosing sides is ever going to resolve anything. I can’t think of one internet campaign involving BJU or any place else that has actually resolved anything. BJU has definitely reacted to several internet campaigns, but even when they have made decisions reflecting the requests of their petitioners, the petitioners still don’t seem to be satisfied. So, there’s got to be a better way. I believe it begins with qualified spiritual leadership and I would go to your pastor of the church where you are hopefully committed, serving, and growing.
Let us all here at SI know how that works.
Do you have a Pastor to whom you can go for counsel? Sit down with him and share what happened. If he feels you were wronged, then I would urge him to arrange and attend a visit with you and the BJU administrators. The goal of such a meeting would be to make sure things are resolved and that there are no wrong feelings between you and the school or the school and you.
I am just not sure that having a bunch of people reading on the internet and choosing sides is ever going to resolve anything. I can’t think of one internet campaign involving BJU or any place else that has actually resolved anything. BJU has definitely reacted to several internet campaigns, but even when they have made decisions reflecting the requests of their petitioners, the petitioners still don’t seem to be satisfied. So, there’s got to be a better way. I believe it begins with qualified spiritual leadership and I would go to your pastor of the church where you are hopefully committed, serving, and growing.
Let us all here at SI know how that works.
2). Some have said I was too flippant about “Glee”. I apologize. As I said, I have not seen the show…I posted a link to a Wikipedia synopsis of a typical Glee episode, so that should answer your questions about how sinful acts are depicted. I agree that we can have legitimate reasons for watching/reading/listening to something- I have done reviews for sites like Common Sense Media and my own blogs, and have viewed an episode or two of shows that contained morally objectionable content. That was not the case for Mr. Peterman.
b). About Glee and off-campus TV viewing. What does the rule-book say? Do students go to off-campus housing and watch the show and talk about it? Was Chris watching it out of curiosity, a desire to evaluate it, concern for a friend who regularly watches it, or out of a hunger for a little evil in his life? I have no answers for these.
c). My point in saying it would be a hard-sell to Fundies is that our view of worldliness and how we engage it differs greatly within the movement. I doubt I would ever watch the show, like most of you. But a lot of that is cultural – it doesn’t connect to our interests in any way, evil content or not. But when something has depictions of evil, the same rules that are applied at BJU to discerning literature and its value have to apply to television, do they not? In literature classes, we were taught to analyze such things. The presence of a sinful act in a work does not necessarily taint the entire work, otherwise, we could not read our Bibles. How the work is depicted and what the work does with that evil is important. I’m not sure where Glee falls on that scale. Others might know better. Chris felt he was justified to watch an episode.
http://www.advocate.com/society/religion/2012/04/26/sc-man-i-was-kicked…] a fellow student saw him watching Glee on his computer while at a Starbucks.
http://www.edgeboston.com/news/religion/news//132489/bob_jones_universi…] “I love Glee. I’ve watched it from the beginning,” Peterman said.
From the BJU handbook- “Students are to avoid any types of entertainment that could be considered immodest or that contain profanity, scatological realism, sexual perversion, erotic realism, lurid violence, occultism and false philosophical or religious assumptions.”
I have a very hard time taking Peterman seriously. Here’s a guy who supposedly got all up in arms over the victimization of Tina Anderson, and yet he himself enjoys watching high school girls and boys in sexual situations. Are you kidding me? In my opinion, pleasure- vicarious or otherwise - experienced while watching actors portraying underage kids engaged in various sexual situations smacks of pedophilia. Sorry, his ‘moral outrage’ not only doesn’t fly, it just sits on the runway like a box of dog hair.
We know from Scripture that it is appropriate to pick the mote, or the beam, out of a brother’s eye. But Peterman needs to get the Brooklyn Bridge out of his before he deals with issues at BJU.
[Susan R] I have a very hard time taking Peterman seriously. Here’s a guy who supposedly got all up in arms over the victimization of Tina Anderson, and yet he himself enjoys watching high school girls and boys in sexual situations. Are you kidding me? In my opinion, pleasure- vicarious or otherwise - experienced while watching actors portraying underage kids engaged in various sexual situations smacks of pedophilia. Sorry, his ‘moral outrage’ not only doesn’t flyThanks.
What episode of Glee was it that you watched and that got you shipped anyway? I’d like to read or post the episode synopsis from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Glee_episodes] the list on Wikipedia .
"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 didn’t make my judgement call lightly. I’ve seen Chris on tv, facebook, watched some of his videos, and read his own writing. He admits that he thinks 60 demerits were legitimate. That was just off the top of his head on one of the news casts. He admits to not shaving—nothing said about it being midnight. As for the posting during a Bible Conference service, he claims he sent it a minute or two before the service. The post has been removed so there is no way to verify it now. What was so important that he had to be posting something online at the time he was supposed to be preparing for the preaching of the Word of God?
I based my opinion about his attitude because of what I’ve observed and read.
As for the group that I referred to that are trying to destroy the University. I’m not talking about pastors, etc that are still friends and are making some observations and suggestions. I am referring to a group that includes several homosexuals, former students, graduates, and former faculty who will say anything they think the world wants to hear. This group isn’t about righting wrongs that have been done against sexual abuse victims. Last year one of them told a bold-faced lie about the retirees’ situation. Totally uncalled for and I now for a fact that it was a bold-faced lie. I grew up with one of these and have read some of his writings—again totally ungodly in what he has written and said. There is a lot of bitterness and anger in this group. Also one of them who is very influential openly supported Obama in the last election. These have become tools in Satan’s hands and it is obvious.
The cause of Christ has been hurt greatly by the sex abuse scandals. I believe we need to take of the problems as a church. But some of these are claiming abuse on the part of BJ faculty and others, but fail to name names, give facts, or go to the police. It has to make me wonder if some of these claims are real. I know for a fact that there has been abuse and I could name a name, but since the law has already taken care of this individual and the family is rebuilding their lives without this person, I will respect their privacy.
I couldn’t agree more with Susan. The evidence given here in Greenville gives me absolutely no reason to give Chris the benefit of the doubt.
Only eternity will sort out the whole sordid mess.
I based my opinion about his attitude because of what I’ve observed and read.
As for the group that I referred to that are trying to destroy the University. I’m not talking about pastors, etc that are still friends and are making some observations and suggestions. I am referring to a group that includes several homosexuals, former students, graduates, and former faculty who will say anything they think the world wants to hear. This group isn’t about righting wrongs that have been done against sexual abuse victims. Last year one of them told a bold-faced lie about the retirees’ situation. Totally uncalled for and I now for a fact that it was a bold-faced lie. I grew up with one of these and have read some of his writings—again totally ungodly in what he has written and said. There is a lot of bitterness and anger in this group. Also one of them who is very influential openly supported Obama in the last election. These have become tools in Satan’s hands and it is obvious.
The cause of Christ has been hurt greatly by the sex abuse scandals. I believe we need to take of the problems as a church. But some of these are claiming abuse on the part of BJ faculty and others, but fail to name names, give facts, or go to the police. It has to make me wonder if some of these claims are real. I know for a fact that there has been abuse and I could name a name, but since the law has already taken care of this individual and the family is rebuilding their lives without this person, I will respect their privacy.
I couldn’t agree more with Susan. The evidence given here in Greenville gives me absolutely no reason to give Chris the benefit of the doubt.
Only eternity will sort out the whole sordid mess.
Michelle Shuman
[Susan R]Susan, thanks for the better info. It helps to know that he was a regular watcher, since it answers one of the questions I raised.2). Some have said I was too flippant about “Glee”. I apologize. As I said, I have not seen the show…I posted a link to a Wikipedia synopsis of a typical Glee episode, so that should answer your questions about how sinful acts are depicted. I agree that we can have legitimate reasons for watching/reading/listening to something- I have done reviews for sites like Common Sense Media and my own blogs, and have viewed an episode or two of shows that contained morally objectionable content. That was not the case for Mr. Peterman.
b). About Glee and off-campus TV viewing. What does the rule-book say? Do students go to off-campus housing and watch the show and talk about it? Was Chris watching it out of curiosity, a desire to evaluate it, concern for a friend who regularly watches it, or out of a hunger for a little evil in his life? I have no answers for these.
c). My point in saying it would be a hard-sell to Fundies is that our view of worldliness and how we engage it differs greatly within the movement. I doubt I would ever watch the show, like most of you. But a lot of that is cultural – it doesn’t connect to our interests in any way, evil content or not. But when something has depictions of evil, the same rules that are applied at BJU to discerning literature and its value have to apply to television, do they not? In literature classes, we were taught to analyze such things. The presence of a sinful act in a work does not necessarily taint the entire work, otherwise, we could not read our Bibles. How the work is depicted and what the work does with that evil is important. I’m not sure where Glee falls on that scale. Others might know better. Chris felt he was justified to watch an episode.
http://www.advocate.com/society/religion/2012/04/26/sc-man-i-was-kicked…] a fellow student saw him watching Glee on his computer while at a Starbucks.
http://www.edgeboston.com/news/religion/news//132489/bob_jones_universi…] “I love Glee. I’ve watched it from the beginning,” Peterman said.
From the BJU handbook- “Students are to avoid any types of entertainment that could be considered immodest or that contain profanity, scatological realism, sexual perversion, erotic realism, lurid violence, occultism and false philosophical or religious assumptions.”
I have a very hard time taking Peterman seriously. Here’s a guy who supposedly got all up in arms over the victimization of Tina Anderson, and yet he himself enjoys watching high school girls and boys in sexual situations. Are you kidding me? In my opinion, pleasure- vicarious or otherwise - experienced while watching actors portraying underage kids engaged in various sexual situations smacks of pedophilia. Sorry, his ‘moral outrage’ not only doesn’t fly, it just sits on the runway like a box of dog hair.
We know from Scripture that it is appropriate to pick the mote, or the beam, out of a brother’s eye. But Peterman needs to get the Brooklyn Bridge out of his before he deals with issues at BJU.
Let me say clearly that my purposes have not been to paint Chris (whom I have never met) as a hero. I think at one point he did a courageous thing that needed to be done — raised a question in a way that it could not be ignored. Like all heroes, the more we dig, the more human we find them to be. Time will tell if he is a passionate defender of his beliefs or a crank who loves tweaking authority.
By way of comparison, very few here would sit comfortably under the ministry of Martin Luther (were he suddenly transported to our time and enabled to speak English), but we still consider him a hero for heroic things he did in the name of truth, or at least, to draw attention to error. But he was over-the-top many times, imprudent and impudent. His stand on alcohol would deeply bother all except for the neo-Calvinists with home breweries in their basements, and let’s not even contemplate the results of his rant on the Jews appearing on YouTube — though many careful readers think he was using them metaphorically. I’m not saying Chris is a Martin Luther. I’m saying people who do heroic things can also do stupid things. And people who stand for truth also commit sins.
My appeal is to Chris, to stand for Christ and not be driven into bitterness and wrath. His next crusade could be more damaging to him than to BJU.
My appeal is to us, to remember that our institutions need to be held accountable and are not always flawless in their execution of their own ideals. And that some of these ideals need to be examined. I do believe demerit systems are a carnal means of sanctification, and thus, will fail. But we don’t have to open that old debate again here. Someone can resurrect my article on Legalism and the Christian School Movement and do a late post there if they wish.
My appeal to our institutions is to recognize that their actions are no longer shrouded, but open to all, and to misrepresentation, and misinterpretation. I hope they will carefully consider their strategies for dealing with this new reality. There are probably no half-measures. Our Fundamentalist institutions have been run like closed states. The world is peering in now. Glassnost and Perestroika will not do. Some mechanism for complete openness and transparency must be cobbled together.
[Chris Peterman] At first I posted links, articles, and even the 20/20 investigation link on my personal Facebook page, but I quickly was reported to the Dean of Men’s office. I was called into his office and the Dean of Men told me point blank that I had to stop talking about the Chuck Phelps situation on my personal Facebook or I would be expelled.This is exactly the kind of thing that has to stop. Answer the question, sir! If you keep trying to silence the questioner, this kind of unpredictable result will occur more often than not!
In that sense, this whole situation is the fault of BJU. They ought to be able to adjust to the new reality and find a way to use it to spread their ideas to other believers. Sure, they won’t play well before the world, but they never do.
_______________________
Minor point:
I also want to comment about the BJU policy on forms of entertainment. That policy is not necessarily consistent with what BJU teaches in their Literature department on how to evaluate the appropriateness of media — nor could it be. By the most strict reading, there are Bible portions that should not be read. Obviously, it is open to some interpretation.
Having said that, the episode of Glee you noted has no redeeming value whatsoever, and would be in violation. I’m not sure it’s a “typical episode”. I know I heard reverbrations about it on radio and saw some comments in the newspapers. It might have been “a very special episode.” I will say that it’s hard to think of a more damaging idea to be put in a high-school drama actor’s head than “You can’t be convincing in your role if you’re still a virgin.” I can picture a drama teacher at a public school saying it.
Michelle,
I wish I could see some of the materials you have access to. Thanks for the perspective.
Mike
I wish I could see some of the materials you have access to. Thanks for the perspective.
[Michelle Shuman] He admits to not shaving—nothing said about it being midnight.I think this is coming from a copy of an official demerit record posted at various places on-line. It shows something like 00.00am for the time. I noted it, but now knowing how the system works, I question the midnight theory. It’s possible that this is a default time that shows if nobody writes in a time on the demerit form.
Mike
My conclusions. Probably judgmental. And I may not be right
- First of all I pray for Chris that he is not bitter and moves on. I sent him a message via Facebook expressing this. I told him that the Lord never disappoints.
- I’ve looked at quite a bit of the available materials on the Internet that includes local reporting, Chris’s own statements, and those taking his side. I’ve also viewed material that is critical of Chris and includes timeline information, screen snapshots, etc
- I do not blame Bob Jones at all. Chris basically earned the demerits. He’s not new to that system and and he basically earned every one of them.
- No Christian should be watching Glee. It is simply trash television. Chris .. find better use of your time.
- About Chris:
- His unwillingness to come back to this site and answer some simple questions is telling.
- I’ve heard different reasons why he was booted. It started with “BJU boots a guy 9 days before graduation for posting CCM lyrics (lyrics only …. not the music) on his Facebook wall). Well that made me angry. “What a nasty legalistic place BJU is” flashed in my brain. But I stepped back and said this just does not make sense. I want more facts! Chris has about 5 different reasons why he was booted: “Do Right Founder”; “Glee watcher”; “CCM Fan”.
- The public media blitz to tell his side of the story is nauseating. Chris: just own up to it. It was not one thing. It really wasn’t “Do Right” at all.
- There are BJU haters (and obviously not every critic of BJU is a “hater”) that will do anything and everything to discredit the school. Many of them are alumni. To you: Get over it. Move on. You’ve graduated. I am dispassionate about my 3 alma maters. I got in … got an education … got out … got a job … and lived a life. I advise you to do the same.
- To Chris: If I am wrong tell me. But I suspect you are one of the privileged few who had someone(s) pay for a majority of your education. I have three kids and each of them scraped, and saved,and earned and sacrificed to pay for their own educations. One served in Iraq with the USMC to get college $$. You owe someone an apology for wasting their hard earned $$.
- To Chris: Your 15 minutes of fame is about over. Must be fun to be able to put “Chris Peterman BJU” in Google search and see all the links. Well you’ve been a unwitting patsy for others who vicariously used you for their nefarious objectives.
- His unwillingness to come back to this site and answer some simple questions is telling.
[Mike Durning] Having said that, the episode of Glee you noted has no redeeming value whatsoever, and would be in violation. I’m not sure it’s a “typical episode”. I know I heard reverbrations about it on radio and saw some comments in the newspapers. It might have been “a very special episode.” I will say that it’s hard to think of a more damaging idea to be put in a high-school drama actor’s head than “You can’t be convincing in your role if you’re still a virgin.” I can picture a drama teacher at a public school saying it.First, let me say that this is a typical episode. There are synopses of each episode available on several websites, including Wikipedia. Many of the main characters are homosexual, lesbian, and bi-sexual. One boy is openly flamboyant (think stereotypical gay complete with effeminate wardrobe and gestures) and proud of his sexuality, and one girl recently ‘came out’ (previously she was ashamed that she was gay, and hid her lesbian desires by being the school tramp). This announcement was accompanied by all the girls in the Glee Club singing a rousing rendition of the song by Katy Perry “I Kissed a Girl”.
For those still unconvinced that this is a serious issue, http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/katyperry/ikissedagirl.html here are the lyrics to “I Kissed a Girl” -
This was never the way I planned, not my intention.
I got so brave, drink in hand, lost my discretion
It’s not what I’m used to, just wanna try you on.
I’m curious for you, caught my attention.
[Chorus:]
I kissed a girl and I liked it,
the taste of her cherry chapstick.
I kissed a girl just to try it,
I hope my boyfriend don’t mind it.
It felt so wrong,
it felt so right.
Don’t mean I’m in love tonight.
I kissed a girl and I liked it (I liked it).
No, I don’t even know your name, it doesn’t matter.
You’re my experimental game, just human nature.
It’s not what good girls do, not how they should behave.
My head gets so confused, hard to obey.
[Chorus]
Us girls we are so magical,
Soft skin, red lips, so kissable.
Hard to resist, so touchable.
Too good to deny it.
Ain’t no big deal, it’s innocent.
Second, while I agree that all heroes have feet of clay, the feet of some who wish to be seen as heroes are more like meadow muffins. Moral outrage at sexual impropriety while being entertained by sexual impropriety raises serious questions about his motives.
The first thing many kids do when their back is against the wall for their own misdeeds is to redirect everyone’s attention by slinging mud on someone else. Phelps is an easy target- it doesn’t even matter if he painted the bull’s eye on his own forehead- I think the evidence I’ve read online points to a kid who chose the Anderson situation as his own version of a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
I agree with many things you said in your post about demerit systems and policies regarding entertainment, and the imprudent choice of Phelps on the board at BJU, but the reality is that no person with an IQ over 80 is going to think that Glee doesn’t violate the school’s stated policy, which, I understand, one must agree to before attending? Strike 4, or maybe that’s five, because signing an agreement to abide by certain standards, then violating those standards, then complaining and causing a scandal over reaping the consequences for violating those standards is patently dishonest IMO.
Just Google the terms “student expelled for watching Glee” and see how many hits you get. Very few are reporting that he was expelled for standing against Phelps/BJU. That is how the media is playing this out after interviewing Mr. Peterman.
Chris has been allowed to give his side to this situation on SI. It’s high time for him to come back and answer some legitimate, reasonable questions.
[Susan R]All right, all right! I submit. Glee is evil. I was just poking to see how much we really knew about it. I talked to a teenager from our church about it — public school, drama and music guy — in short, the target audience of the show. He says he gave up on it after the first season. His comments also helped me see.[Mike Durning] Having said that, the episode of Glee you noted has no redeeming value whatsoever, and would be in violation. I’m not sure it’s a “typical episode”. I know I heard reverbrations about it on radio and saw some comments in the newspapers. It might have been “a very special episode.” I will say that it’s hard to think of a more damaging idea to be put in a high-school drama actor’s head than “You can’t be convincing in your role if you’re still a virgin.” I can picture a drama teacher at a public school saying it.First, let me say that this is a typical episode. There are synopses of each episode available on several websites, including Wikipedia. Many of the main characters are homosexual, lesbian, and bi-sexual. One boy is openly flamboyant (think stereotypical gay complete with effeminate wardrobe and gestures) and proud of his sexuality, and one girl recently ‘came out’ (previously she was ashamed that she was gay, and hid her lesbian desires by being the school tramp). This announcement was accompanied by all the girls in the Glee Club singing a rousing rendition of the song by Katy Perry “I Kissed a Girl”.
And I will also admit that, pending further explanation from Chris, that this may very well speak to character. I wish he were here responding.
Do you hear me Chris? I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Say something.
[Mike Durning]And it’s a good thing too- I was getting everything ready for some Chinese Water Torture.
All right, all right! I submit.
[Susan R]Haha! At least nobody will accuse me of rushing to judgment or jumping to conclusions this week (unlike some weeks).[Mike Durning]And it’s a good thing too- I was getting everything ready for some Chinese Water Torture.
All right, all right! I submit.
These last few posts are what I really love about Sharper Iron. Mike During gave us some things to think about, but then other posters gave Mike some things to think about that he had not yet considered or even been aware of. In the end we all became better informed and were encouraged by one another. Too bad that didn’t happen every time there were conflicts between believers. If it had, the subject that started this thread would be irrelevant.
(this is not from Jim Peet!) :)
I’ve been following this situation since the founding of Do Right BJU. I’ve never met Chris Peterman but I do know several other people who were on the ground in Greenville and in close contact with him and others in the group.
When I heard about this, the first thing I remembered was the predictions of many who were involved in the Do Right BJU movement. Several of them told Chris how the situation would play out. They told him that BJU would make threats and apply intimidating pressure, but would not take overt action against him as long as the media spotlight was on them. They counseled him not to return to BJU after the Christmas break, since they would target him for disciplinary action, put him in counseling, and end up expelling him just before the end of the school year. (Apparently, BJU is known for shipping students just before graduation.)
Now, I was struck by the fact that these predictions were right on every count. Chris was targeted for disciplinary action: he had an RA placed in his room, had people follow him around and off campus to report on his activities, and had his online communications monitored. He was forced to attend counseling sessions, not because he broke too many rules but because of his involvement in Do Right BJU. And, he was expelled just before graduation. By the way, I have friends in Greenville who have confirmed that all of these things did in fact happen. I am not dependent only on Chris’ word. So, either these evil, biased, BJU-hating critics got really lucky, or they actually know BJU’s methods pretty well. (Maybe they don’t like BJU because they know their methods all too well.)
Another thought I have is that no one needs to choose between the idea that Chris earned his demerits with the idea that Christ was unfairly targeted. Both are compatible. The rules at BJU are so numerous and so ambiguous that, if the administration did decide to get rid of you, it would be nearly impossible not to earn some demerits. When you’re being watched all the time, when your actions are being construed in the worst possible light, and when ambiguity in the rulebook benefits the prosecution rather than the defense, it’s a no-win situation. All the power is on one side. I think Chris knew he was being targeted, suspected that expulsion was likely to come, and panicked at the end. That’s why he contacted the media and other organizations. Media involvement is what saved him from expulsion during the Do Right BJU situation.
So, Chris’ character may be open to question, but I don’t think it’s the central question. Even if he did contribute to his expulsion in various ways, I think there are 2 points just about everybody can agree on. 1) He was targeted in a way that most students are not, and 2) this targeting was directly caused by his involvement with Do Right BJU. It’s hard not to construe this as a revenge expulsion for Chris’ involvement in airing BJU’s dirty laundry. And this makes me sad, because it indicates that BJU is not serious about instituting the kinds of changes that would protect future victims at the expense of the school’s reputation.
Finally, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to hold Chris accountable for how various media outlets headline their stories. They’re trying to attract attention. He has a video in which he explains quite straightforwardly what demerits he received, when, and for what. He’s not hiding anything.
When I heard about this, the first thing I remembered was the predictions of many who were involved in the Do Right BJU movement. Several of them told Chris how the situation would play out. They told him that BJU would make threats and apply intimidating pressure, but would not take overt action against him as long as the media spotlight was on them. They counseled him not to return to BJU after the Christmas break, since they would target him for disciplinary action, put him in counseling, and end up expelling him just before the end of the school year. (Apparently, BJU is known for shipping students just before graduation.)
Now, I was struck by the fact that these predictions were right on every count. Chris was targeted for disciplinary action: he had an RA placed in his room, had people follow him around and off campus to report on his activities, and had his online communications monitored. He was forced to attend counseling sessions, not because he broke too many rules but because of his involvement in Do Right BJU. And, he was expelled just before graduation. By the way, I have friends in Greenville who have confirmed that all of these things did in fact happen. I am not dependent only on Chris’ word. So, either these evil, biased, BJU-hating critics got really lucky, or they actually know BJU’s methods pretty well. (Maybe they don’t like BJU because they know their methods all too well.)
Another thought I have is that no one needs to choose between the idea that Chris earned his demerits with the idea that Christ was unfairly targeted. Both are compatible. The rules at BJU are so numerous and so ambiguous that, if the administration did decide to get rid of you, it would be nearly impossible not to earn some demerits. When you’re being watched all the time, when your actions are being construed in the worst possible light, and when ambiguity in the rulebook benefits the prosecution rather than the defense, it’s a no-win situation. All the power is on one side. I think Chris knew he was being targeted, suspected that expulsion was likely to come, and panicked at the end. That’s why he contacted the media and other organizations. Media involvement is what saved him from expulsion during the Do Right BJU situation.
So, Chris’ character may be open to question, but I don’t think it’s the central question. Even if he did contribute to his expulsion in various ways, I think there are 2 points just about everybody can agree on. 1) He was targeted in a way that most students are not, and 2) this targeting was directly caused by his involvement with Do Right BJU. It’s hard not to construe this as a revenge expulsion for Chris’ involvement in airing BJU’s dirty laundry. And this makes me sad, because it indicates that BJU is not serious about instituting the kinds of changes that would protect future victims at the expense of the school’s reputation.
Finally, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to hold Chris accountable for how various media outlets headline their stories. They’re trying to attract attention. He has a video in which he explains quite straightforwardly what demerits he received, when, and for what. He’s not hiding anything.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] I’ve been following this situation since the founding of Do Right BJU. I’ve never met Chris Peterman but I do know several other people who were on the ground in Greenville and in close contact with him and others in the group.You put a period where I was tentatively offering a question-mark. I was asking whether this could be what happened. You are saying you believe it did.
When I heard about this, the first thing I remembered was the predictions of many who were involved in the Do Right BJU movement. Several of them told Chris how the situation would play out. They told him that BJU would make threats and apply intimidating pressure, but would not take overt action against him as long as the media spotlight was on them. They counseled him not to return to BJU after the Christmas break, since they would target him for disciplinary action, put him in counseling, and end up expelling him just before the end of the school year. (Apparently, BJU is known for shipping students just before graduation.)
Now, I was struck by the fact that these predictions were right on every count. Chris was targeted for disciplinary action: he had an RA placed in his room, had people follow him around and off campus to report on his activities, and had his online communications monitored. He was forced to attend counseling sessions, not because he broke too many rules but because of his involvement in Do Right BJU. And, he was expelled just before graduation. By the way, I have friends in Greenville who have confirmed that all of these things did in fact happen. I am not dependent only on Chris’ word. So, either these evil, biased, BJU-hating critics got really lucky, or they actually know BJU’s methods pretty well. (Maybe they don’t like BJU because they know their methods all too well.)
Another thought I have is that no one needs to choose between the idea that Chris earned his demerits with the idea that Christ was unfairly targeted. Both are compatible. The rules at BJU are so numerous and so ambiguous that, if the administration did decide to get rid of you, it would be nearly impossible not to earn some demerits. When you’re being watched all the time, when your actions are being construed in the worst possible light, and when ambiguity in the rulebook benefits the prosecution rather than the defense, it’s a no-win situation. All the power is on one side. I think Chris knew he was being targeted, suspected that expulsion was likely to come, and panicked at the end. That’s why he contacted the media and other organizations. Media involvement is what saved him from expulsion during the Do Right BJU situation.
So, Chris’ character may be open to question, but I don’t think it’s the central question. Even if he did contribute to his expulsion in various ways, I think there are 2 points just about everybody can agree on. 1) He was targeted in a way that most students are not, and 2) this targeting was directly caused by his involvement with Do Right BJU. It’s hard not to construe this as a revenge expulsion for Chris’ involvement in airing BJU’s dirty laundry. And this makes me sad, because it indicates that BJU is not serious about instituting the kinds of changes that would protect future victims at the expense of the school’s reputation.
Finally, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to hold Chris accountable for how various media outlets headline their stories. They’re trying to attract attention. He has a video in which he explains quite straightforwardly what demerits he received, when, and for what. He’s not hiding anything.
Within those limits, Charlie, thank you for saying what I was trying to say, and saying it so well. I still don’t know, but I do fear that this is what happened.
[Charlie] (Apparently, BJU is known for shipping students just before graduation.)If demerits are accumulated from the beginning of the year, one is more likely to approach the limit as the 2nd semester proceeds.
I asked Chris (who has chosen NOT to respond) about how he arrived at the first 50
If he knew he was approaching the limit, why did he continue to repeat his simple mistakes (like texting at inappropriate times - I mean I can text but I manage NOT to do it at church, in business meetings, etc)
Jim, just to clear up a few things. BJU starts the demerits over every semester. But, I get your point about demerits accumulating as the semester progresses. Honestly, my comment about BJU shipping people right before graduation comes from some situations I knew about when I was a student and from comments other alumni have made. I wasn’t really close to any of the situations, so I don’t know details, but the general idea is not that people slowly accumulated demerits, but that they were blindsided with big demerit penalties right before graduation.
Something like this happened to Chris. I don’t know if all the tallies of demerits are the same, with all the appeals and whatnot, but according to this screenshot (http://chucklestravels.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/i-didnt-lie-cheat-plagi…), on April 1 Chris had only 55 demerits. That’s hardly in the danger zone, and 10 of them are for the highly subjective “failure to obey instruction.” 100 demerits came in 2 chunks, the Glee episode and the disrespect/insubordination charge. So, to reiterate a previous point, when you can get 50 demerits at a pop for a bad TV, movie, music, or internet choice, and tack on more for their attitude, it’s not difficult for BJU to find grounds to get rid of people.
Something like this happened to Chris. I don’t know if all the tallies of demerits are the same, with all the appeals and whatnot, but according to this screenshot (http://chucklestravels.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/i-didnt-lie-cheat-plagi…), on April 1 Chris had only 55 demerits. That’s hardly in the danger zone, and 10 of them are for the highly subjective “failure to obey instruction.” 100 demerits came in 2 chunks, the Glee episode and the disrespect/insubordination charge. So, to reiterate a previous point, when you can get 50 demerits at a pop for a bad TV, movie, music, or internet choice, and tack on more for their attitude, it’s not difficult for BJU to find grounds to get rid of people.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Discussion