The Analytical Student

Pervasive Theology Taught in Rochester College

2007-04-12T13:30:00.000-07:00

Hakin

To Rochester College in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
Blessings, peace, and grace to you from your fellow bond servant in Christ Jesus our Lord. I write to you because of the concern that has grown in my heart for you since I have begun to attend my schooling here. This is my first year attending and it will not be my last. I know that God has sent me here for a reason; it is not only to learn but to teach a bit myself to the false teachers who run rampant in this school’s faculty. Last semester there was a series taught on the Emergent Church movement. A movement within the church that is trying to “contextualize” the Christian faith to a post-modern world view in hopes of bringing more people to Christ. Although I do share these people’s hearts and intents in the fact that I would like to see as many people come to Christ as humanely possible, I do not agree with their methodology. The Emergent Church believes it necessary to do away with all forms of authority and doctrine in the church. To “open” the lines of communication and allow for debate of classical theological standings so people can find their own truth. These practices are not only divisive, but they are lies directly from the pit of Hell itself. It is a Satanic ideology that must be obliterated before it leads anyone else down the “broad road” to destruction (Matthew 7:13-14). This abhorrent treatment of truth has been infecting the church ever since the beginning of the liberal movement in America. This country in and of itself has been abandoned by God for it’s idolatry of the human mind, and human freedoms (Romans 1:18-32). But now the “church” begins to follow in suit with the world. First of all it is very clear in scripture that the gospel message is not up for debate.
“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)
We have no right to debate gospel or biblical truth.
“For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in the book.” (Revelations 22:18-19). Wow how scary is that. And yet on a continual bases we feel the necessity to “tamper” with God’s word so it seems more “loving.” Paul actually tells us to discern is to love. In Philippians Paul says
“And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.” (Philippians 1:9-11)
Part of Christian life is to discern truth from error, to correct and rebuke (2 Timothy 4:1-5). The problem with this college is the lack of discernment. The college is not Word focused enough. Many people may read this and think “well you’re being so unloving and judgmental!” Paul tells us in 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 to test all things; holding fast to all that is good, and abstaining from every evil. I am calling for discernment in Rochester College to be able to discern truth from error and to distinguish those falsehoods. Many people will come back and say that every person in the faculty is a person of great Christian character. While that might be (although I highly doubt they are that good considering we are all humans) the Bible warns against such things. In 2 Corinthians 11:12-15 Paul talks about how false teachers will be as ministers of righteousness. It is hard to recognize God’s servants from the enemies because they look so similar. There are more people selling the wrong way than the true way in the church (Matthew 7:13-14). Paul also tells us in 2 Corinthians 10:3-6 to bring down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. We are called to the destruction of human philosophies like post-modernism, relativism, and pluralism not embrace them as our own. We are to be champions in Christ “rightly diving the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) for the furtherance of the Kingdom. Instead we want to follow and adapt an ideology that causes people to be “filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiter, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventor of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.” (Romans 1:29-32). Is that how Rochester College wants to be? I hope not or God has given me more then one person can correct on his own. I however am not the only person with these concerns and convictions. There are many other students who feel the same but are too afraid to step forward, fearful of the backlash that the college would ensue. So I write this in hopes of it lifting the darkness of Satan and revealing the light of Christ. Many will state that this is but one person’s interpretation, and that this is a wrong interpretation. I have been studying for something such as this for more than 3 years. God has been raising me up to deal with a situation such as this for a while, and I am finally ready to write about them and deal with these problems head on. We are in desperate need of discernment, and going back to the scriptures. I write this to correct those who are in falsehood, but I also write this to encourage the body of Christ, that their discernment and love for God and his word may abound more and more. I have been charged by God to preach his word, and so I do so (2 Timothy 4:1-5). I pray that whoever has read this will grow in Christ in both understanding, and spiritual blessing. Peace to you from your servant in Christ.
Hakin

The Perspective of an Outsider

2007-02-26T08:09:00.000-08:00

In a discussion with a non-Christian who has been at this college a while, I was struck when he said that Rochester was not Christian anymore. Somewhat surprised by the statement, I followed it up. "It's just not the same," he said. "the atmosphere, the environment... people's attitudes... I don't know,". While I would not go so far myself, I have to note that irony, as how many times it is the non-Christians who see through the pseudo-spiritual and pseudo-Christian fronts, and challenge us to be consistent to the message of the Cross and of Christ, and how perceptive they seem, especially when things are off course.

Aquinas

2007-01-16T12:17:00.000-08:00

Part II: Criticisms of the Emerging Church

Whether it is in its attempt to become "relevant to the culture" or if it is solely done in the name of tolerance and unity, the Emerging Church makes many 'concessions' in its regards to Christianity. Many of these 'concessions' tear at the very heart of the Gospel itself and the implications of which, despite their importance, are rarely discussed. It is thus our duty to expose these implications.

The Emerging Church and Propositional Truth

Although Emerging speakers often hint at the Emerging Church's stance on "propositional truths," they rarely explain the full implications of Emergent thought regarding these truths. One recurring problem with audiences who are not familiar with Emerging jargon is that they often do not understand what "propostional truths" are. So, what exactly are "propositional truths"? In the context of Christianity, propositional truths make claims dealing with Biblical issues that are objectively agreed upon. In other words, propositional truth for Christians is not merely a matter of opinion or "feeling," it is foundational. For example, the deity of Christ is a biblically-based propositional truth, yet the Emerging Church discounts the necessity of propositional truth to Christianity. An individual cannot simply discard the deity of Christ and still claim to genuinely follow Him. To do so would be like chasing a phantom or grasping at shadows. Truths like the deity of Christ or the Resurrection, being central to the gospel itself, are among the first casualties of this movement's ambiguous and "inclusive" contentions. The Emergent movement claims to be missions-oriented, but what is the point of missions with a dead or false Christ? Is the Gospel truly only a humanistic, deeds-based enterprise?

The Apostle Paul says, "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Paul continues, "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Corinthians 15:13-14). Therefore the Gospel Paul lays out is founded upon propositional truths - the Resurrection of Jesus is undeniably a foundational propositional truth. Without it, there is no "gospel" at all. Faith without propositional truth is "useless," as Paul says.
What hope do we have to offer a lost and dying world if not the Gospel? A materialistic hope of earthly fulfillment? A consumerist utopia? motional satisfaction? Intellectual enlightenment? None of these offer true and lasting hope. If Christ's claims are not true, there is no hope for any of us. Christianity, once holding the power of the Gospel, becomes only a hollow shell and its life-changing Word is replaced with a "life-changing discussion." Unity is fabricated because the Cross, the great equalizer, becomes just another story in an ancient book that can be taken and distorted to fit any reader's opinion of what it should say.

Emerging Church: Unity or Tolerance?

One of the major themes of the Emerging Church is an emphasis on "unity." The call is for all denominations and sects to put aside their differences and come together in "unity." Too often, however, their idea of unity is intercepted by another gospel - the gospel of tolerance. The foundation of Christian unity is based upon the Gospel, not tolerance. Denying propositional truth in the name of tolerance essentially creates a pick-and-choose Christianity, a "theological buffet." Whatever strikes one's fancy - even evil itself - becomes merely a unique perspective on the truth. Consequently, accountability cannot exist; there is no basis on which to hold another Christian accountable. What's right becomes "what's right for you" and moral relativism erodes away at biblical principles. The concept of unity becomes a mask concealing the tensions that really exist underneath.

If we offer up the heart of Christianity on the altar of tolerance, then the hope we once had is lost for the sake of "cultural relevance." Not even the bones of the Gospel remain. Embracing tolerance while forsaking accountability creates a superficial unity where people greet each other with plastic smiles and one arm behind their backs grasping the dagger of deception - wounds fester and serious issues are not resolved for fear of offending one another. Christians who make any attempt at holding one another accountable are labeled "divisive" and destructive of this superficial unity.

Although this allegiance to tolerance has created problems when discussing different denominations and sects that claim to be part of Christianity, some Emergent thinkers and sympathetic theologians have taken religious "tolerance" to a greater extreme. Lee Camp, a theologian at Libscomb University, recently commented about tolerance during an interfaith gathering at the university:

"The most basic Christian commitment … is that we say we believe in the Lordship of Jesus. But, if we claim that, how can a Muslim or Jew trust us, if we say Jesus is the Lord of all Lords?"

If we compromise on our most basic Christian commitments to earn the trust of other religions, we have made our own meaningless and futile. Why are the tenets of Christianity to be sacrificed and those of Judaism and Islam preserved? Do they not contain statements of exclusivity as well? Didn't Jesus say "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"? If we sacrifice the Gospel to gain a platform to speak out to other religions, we will have nothing of value to say once we gain it!

Christianity and Cultural Relevance

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." Colossians 2:8

The Emerging Church claims it seeks to be "relevant" to a culture they see as postmodern. The question we must ask as Christians, though, is this: "Is the Gospel itself not relevant to all cultural settings?" We should note that there is a difference between using contemporary knowledge to communicate the Gospel rather than actually changing what scripture says. Jesus used parables with contemporary language in His time, and there is nothing wrong with us doing the same. Distorting principles and propositional truths, however, goes far beyond just being "relelvant." Scripture itself cannot be changed; the Gospel is relevant for all times, it cannot be obsolete.

To Be Continued: Part III - Criticisms of the Emerging Church by Tacitus and Aquinas

2007-01-16T10:59:00.000-08:00

Part I: Contributions of the Emerging Church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After presenting our introduction to the Emerging Church, we'd like to examine the positive contributions that the Emerging Church offers to Christianity. Admittedly, it should be noted that not all of these contributions are unique to the Emerging Church, but it does put special emphasis on these issues and ideas.

The Emerging Church and Social Justice

The Emerging Church's focus on social justice has alot to offer some traditional Christian churches. The Emerging Church places great importance on helping the poor in their current situations and showing them love. Followers of the Emerging Church warn Christians against alienating themselves from the poor, encouraging Christians to step out of their comfort zones. "Solidarity with the poor" is a recurring theme among Emergent thinkers. Like Jesus, we have a responsibility to minister to the poor in words and in deeds. Jesus said in Luke 4:18-19: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." And, in Luke 14:13-14, Jeus implores his audience: "But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." Obviously, Jesus also held social justice as a vital ministry as well.

The Emerging Church and Action-Oriented Ministry

Another popular focus of the Emerging Church is the call for active participation in Christianity instead of simply passively observing religious rites. Emergent groups often attempt to draw people into active communities where spiritual issues are discussed regularly. If we remember the Parable of the Talents, Jesus admonishes us to use our abilities to further the cause of Christ. In general, the Emerging Church attempts to get Christians involved in ministry and worship more actively.

Many Christians today are focused solely on their small social circles and are apathetic about issues in the world at large. As Christians, Christ calls us to be concerned about more than merely our immediate friends and family. He calls us to more than a worldly pursuit of material goods and comfortable living; our lives should be characterized by service, not selfishness. This emphasis on action and changing the world is refreshing as complacency seems to be the norm in our society. Truly practicing Christ's teaching demands we rise above this mediocrity and reach a lost world.

The Emerging Church and Legalism

The Emerging Church is particularly cautious of legalistic practices within Christian churches. One distinguishing characteristic of most Emergent thinkers is that they guard themselves against caving into irrelevant or less important congregational differences. For example, an Emergent group would be unlikely to have a fierce schism over the order of worship services or the design of the church building.

To Be Continued: Part II - Criticisms of The Emerging Church by Tacitus and Aquinas

Introduction: The Emerging Church

2006-12-05T14:17:00.000-08:00

What is the Emerging Church?

Wikipedia gives a fairly comprehensive, yet concise definition:

The emerging church or emergent church is a diverse movement within Christianity that arose in the late 20th century as a reaction to the influence of modernism in Western Christianity. The movement is usually called a "conversation" by its proponents to emphasize its diffuse nature with contributions from many people and no explicitly defined leadership or direction. The emerging church seeks to deconstruct and reconstruct Christianity as its mainly Western members live in a postmodern culture.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Rochester College's Assembly Presentations on the Emerging Church

From October 17th to November 28th, faculty members of Rochester College and other guest speakers gave a series of assembly presentations on the "Emerging Church." Here is the basic outline of the assemblies:

October 17th - Dr. Keith Huey: History of the Emerging Church

October 24th - Dr. Rubel Shelly: The Emerging Church as a Holistic Movement

October 31st - Chris Lindsey: The Emerging Church and Worship as a Lifestyle

November 7th - Josh Graves: Authentic Discipleship and the Emerging Church

November 14th - Klint Pleasant: Mission and Hospitality with the Emerging Church

November 21st - Todd and Kara Tipton: Missionizing and the Emerging Church Globally

November 28th - Eric Magnusson: Scripture as Story and Conclusion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quick Summaries

Dr. Keith Huey's presentation sought to give a balanced view of the Emerging Church from a historical perspective. He noted the movement's stance against focusing on propositional truths and doctrines traditionally studied by Christian churches. He also gave importance to the idea of the Emerging Church as a "conversation" and mentioned the movement's connection to Post-Modernism and Post-Modernist culture. On other beliefs of the Emerging Church, Dr. Huey presented the popular Emergent idea that Christians and the Bible "do(es) not have a monopoly on truth."

Dr. Rubel Shelly's presentation discussed the Emerging Church as a holistic movement. "Christian Holism" can often be described as the opposite of Reductionism. In other words, as it relates to Christianity and the Emerging Church, "holism" is the rejection of the view that there are two separate worlds - the "Spiritual World" and the "Secular World." The Emerging Church, as Shelly explains it, stresses experience over theological doctrines and objects to the idea of propositional truths and creeds being deduced from scripture.

Chris Lindsey's presentation discussed the idea of worship in the Emerging Church. Lindsey practiced several ancient Catholic worship activities during the assembly, including the Lectio Divina. In addition to the Lectio Divina, he commented favorably on the practice of Taize. Lindsey supported the idea of "worship as lifestyle" and describing worship as an experience. Explaining a criticism of the traditional view of Bible study (I.E. a Christian reading and meditating on scriptures), Lindsey offered the analogy of a Baseball card and a Professional Baseball player; one can collect the player's sports cards and memorize his statistics, but that does not mean the person actually knows the player.

Josh Graves's presentation featured his take on the Emerging Church, including criticisms. The assembly also presented an "Emerging" group that showcased their unconventional style of Emergent ministry, including a Christian coffee shop and tattoo parlor. "Bar Twelve," a musical band, performed for the student audience.

Klint Pleasant's presentation discussed the need for churches and Christians to be accepting of all people, regardless of their current situation or issues. He recalled the story of a young student that had problems with drugs, looked rough, and behaved strangely. Pleasant admitted that he was wary about the course of action he would take with the student, but Pleasant eventually decided that accepting the young man and helping him get involved in the school's basketball program was the right thing to do.

Todd and Kara Tipton's presentation displayed the missional side of the Emerging Church. Kara Tipton talked about some of her experiences on the mission field. Above all, she urged Christians to be united.

Eric Magnusson's presentation highlighted his call for students to read the Bible as "story" instead of studying it and finding doctrines and propositional truths. Echoing the sentiments of Dr. Rubel Shelly, Magnusson argued for a more holistic interpretation of the Bible. Magnusson expressed a desire for Christians to read the Bible similar to how they did when they were children.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We hope this introductory article has made it easier for interested students to find convienent information about the Emerging Church and Rochester College's presentations on it. Here are some more helpful and relevant links on the Emerging Church:

The Emerging Village: www.emergentvillage.com

More Information on the Emerging Church: http://emergingchurch.info

An Emerging Site With Focus on Progressive Culture: www.theooze.com

Thanks for reading,

Tacitus

Mark Paul Responds to Grave Misrepresentation

2006-11-21T06:19:00.000-08:00

The Article written by Mark Paul in response to Josh Grave's assembly speech:

Since there is no need to hide my annonimity because well frankly, everyone knows that I, Mark Paul, created the Caucasian Support Group.

Lets start off in the beginning. Back in assembly on October 20, J.C. Thomas told the student body that they had created an African-American Support Group on campus. He stated that the group was not racist, rather was like any other support group that could exist whether it be a male or female support group, alcohol, drugs, etc.

A group that outwardly distinguishes race as its main component is simply promoting racism, whether that's the groups intention ornot. So I knew I had to do something to make my voice heard. I thought at first about just going to certain faculty responsible for the group and simply stating my opinion, but let's be honest, I wouldn't have been heard. We all know I would have been blown off as quick as possible. One voice, generally does not make a difference on its own.

Therefore, I decided that I would use what ability I had to make my voice bigger. So I created the facebook group called the Caucasian Support Group. In no way is the group racist and I basically set the mission statement exactly worded as Thomas did in assembly. Before long there was over 100 people in the group.Obviously some people had a problem with the African-American Support Group as well. I knew that it would not be long after that I would face a group of pissed off people telling me that I'm racist.

First, I was talked to by the President of the Student Action Diversity Council. We talked for about half an hour and ultimately in a nutshell what I was told was that what I did was subversively racist and that if the group was not removed then Claude Huddleston and J.C. Thomas would be contacting me. I was told,"You don't want to have to sit through 4 hours of sensitivity training." said the President of SADC. Ultimately, I was threatened saying to take my group down or sit through hours of meetings where I'd be trained to no longer be a racist.

Now lets get one thing straight, I am no racist. I say neither support groups are positive, however, if one can exist, certainly the other can as well. My reason for creating the group was simply to draw awareness to how wrong the African-American group is. I then decided to call their bluff. I knew I wasn't doing anything wrong, and that I was just exercising my rights of free speech.

A few weeks later I was approached by Josh Graves to set up a meeting. We met Thursday before Friday's assembly and had a great chat. He basically said he wanted my side of the story and I gave it to him. In return he said that his talk would be very objective, approaching the issue from both sides. Does anyone else find it ironic that the word "objective" has turned into such a subjective word?

In the assembly Josh Graves quoted me as saying that I knew my group was wrong, it wasn't positive, and I was just doing it as a knee jerk reaction to the Black Support Group. Total misquote!

What I said was "I don't think either of the support groups are right. I didn't think what I did was positive but it was the only way I knew that I could draw attention to how ridiculous their group was."

Took a lot out of context didn't he! Shortly after he decided that it would be the "objective" thing to do in publicly saying that I was immature for making such a group. Wow, thank you objectivity! I think someone is confusing objectivity with the word,
O-P-I-N-I-O-N.

A lot of the talk had an underlying tone that, "Well they (refering to other members in the group and myself) were wrong for what they did and there was no point to this disgraceful act so if you're a good Christian then you'll get out."

Basically, the school did nothing to address this issue. The only thing that happened was people were verbally flogged for being in this group.

Cheers!

Mark

This Blog is an Open Forum

2006-11-05T10:17:00.000-08:00

...for anyone and everyone who wants to post a topic or comment on a current topic.

Students and employees of Rochester College from all perspectives are welcome to comment, and anyone can make a new topic. This blog endeavors to give students the opportunity to voice their opinions (even if they are unpopular on the RC campus), so feel free to post anonymously if you wish. To have your topic posted here, send it to rochesters7uden7@yahoo.com to be reviewed and then published. If accepted, a poster's work will NOT be edited.

Posts need not be pages and pages in length; content will be the criteria.
For more on this blog's purpose see the first post here.

~ Your Friendly Neighborhood Administrator

What was Swept Under the Rug Months ago

2006-11-01T19:28:00.000-08:00

Back in February, during Black History Month, a speaker was allowed to speak in assembly as a special guest of J.C. Thomas. The guest, Mr. McClain, gave a speech that even a number of non-Caucasian students experienced as an "angry attack on white people."

The real problem with the speech however, is when the "facts" in McClain's "inventor's section" was backtracked, it was found to be not only full of innaccuracies and even blatant lies, but the entire "A World Without Black People" section was plagiarized word for word from an anonymous internet email chain letter!

"Dean Cain,
On February 15, in Assembly, the speaker introduced by J.C. Thomas gave a speech in honor of Black History month. Normally assemblies have a spiritual message relevant to all who attend, but in this case it was exactly the opposite. The message had nothing spiritually relevant about it. The section of the speech that is particularly in question is the speaker’s summary of African-American inventions in his “A World without Black People” mini-speech. To be sure, we admire his basic argument: African-Americans have made America a better place to live in for all. However, the “A World without Black People” section of his speech betrays his motives in the most critical way. The original source of this fellow’s information was not his own work, but in fact an anonymous internet e-mail chain letter that has been circulating around the net for years. This letter is riddled with half truths and blatant lies, and much of what our assembly’s speaker said for that section was plagiarized word for word from the letter! Please see Snopes.com here for a critical analysis of his letter, as well as a later variant that has also been floating around the
internet you can find at this address: www.snopes.com/business/origins/blackinv.asp
The speaker in assembly, rather than seeking to create unity, apparently focused his attention only on what divided us as a people, instead of the Gospel that unites us. It seemed almost as if there were some political agenda behind his words. While this aspect of the speech is certainly troubling to us, the fact that a speaker and speech of such low credibility and intellectual honesty was allowed to be presented to us in an academic institution is even more distressing. As students of Rochester College, we are taught to question what we are told and critically analyze messages that are presented to us. Unfortunately, the speaker’s message wholly failed to pass this test. Imagine if we presented an anonymous internet e-mail chain letter as an academic source to our professors! Why then should an assembly speaker, speaking in front of the entire student body, be held to a lesser standard? While the contents of this letter are of grave importance to us, we hope it is understood that this letter has been written not because of hatred or antagonism towards the college, but rather that we are concerned for the direction in which this college is headed. We strongly believe that Rochester College should put academic integrity and intellectual honesty among its highest priorities. With that said, due to the respect we have for this college, we feel that it is only right for the college to apologize to its student body and seek some redressing of these concerns.
Sincerely,
Concerned Students of Rochester College"

This letter was sent to Dean Cain pointing out these difficulties, asking for the student body to be informed and apologized to. Dean Cain, however, responded by saying it was a policy "not to respond to anonymous communication" and any percieved reasons for anonymity were based upon faulty reasoning. That response has been discussed in detail here, and here.

Meanwhile, Calvin Moore had been discussing this situation (to a degree) with Tacitus and I, and gave us his assurance that the issues raised on this blog would not be as he said let off the hook.

Needless to say, it was let off the hook. There was, however an article written in the Shield about the issue, but this article profoundly misrepresented the situation, made blatant evasions, and glossed over the truth. It essentially praised McClain, ignoring the fact that McClain plagiarized the piece without giving any credit at all.

Aquinas

Diversity Police Threaten Support Group

2006-10-31T13:22:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, at 2:25 am, Mark Paul, Head of the online facebook Caucasian Support Group, wrote in a message:

First off, let me tell you that the creation of this group had no racist intents. Second off, Calvin Moore, student at RC and the President of the student action diversity council, e-mailed me and wanted to chat about the "Caucasian Support Group." I was told, in essence, that the African-American Support Group was created for the reasons that AA students have a retention rate of 20% at RC and they wanted to be able to help them with grades and just becoming asymalated into a predominantly white culture. However, he then said that this group was subversively racist, which is absolutely untrue. To put a long story short, I was told that if I didn't disband the group that Claude Huddleston and JC Thomas would be getting in contact with me... Funny how in the beginning this group was made to say, "Hey if you can have one, we can." But its become a little more then that when we're bombarded by hypocritical statements saying that African Americans can have a support group, but caucasians cannot.

The Rochester College Administration and Student Action Diversity Committee earlier criticized the writers of this blog for their use of anonymity, (during the Black History Month plagiarism case) claiming that it was unnecessary and a mistake. The actions against the "Caucasian Support Group," however, make it unequivocally clear that the hollow guarantees of fair treatment are nothing more than a shallow mask - a double standard. Dr. Barton earlier stated:

What makes our liberal arts environment Christian is the opportunity for people to take part in even difficult discussions in an atmosphere where truthfullness is sought, and humility, forgiveness, respect, grace, and trust are offerred in other-worldy measure.

Dr. Barton's comment on our use of anonymity:

"let me comment briefly on the use of anonymity. While I do think anonymity has its place (e.g. there have been many authors in history who have used it in order to say something important in what they considered a hostile environment), anonymity can also create an atmosphere where writers are not as careful with their words and critiques as they would have been if their name had been attached."

Dean Cain's comment on our use anonymity:

If indeed you all are fearful of retribution - I would say that this thinking is faulty... I believe we would all be concerned and incensed but maybe you don't know the admin or staff well enough to know we are attempting not only to serve Christ but uphold the law in the midst of helping each of our students learn to think and speak for themselves.

The disrespectful behavior of the Student Action Diversity Committee, Claude Huddleston, and J.C. Thomas obviously falls short of Dr. Barton's standard for a "Christian liberal arts environment." Instead of grace and openness, the support group is met with threats and venomous slander as being "subversively racist."

~Aquinas and Tacitus

The Barton Principle

2006-09-28T11:20:00.000-07:00

Dr. Barton wrote:

What makes our liberal arts environment Christian is the opportunity for
people to take part in even difficult discussions in an atmosphere where
truthfullness is sought, and humility, forgiveness, respect, grace, and trust
are offerred in other-worldy measure.

Coming from Dr. Barton, this is a very authoritative statement. It is also a very important one. Is Dr. Barton right? Is the idea that we are able to carry on difficult discussions nicely what makes our liberal arts environment Christian?

Apathy?

2006-08-28T09:02:00.000-07:00

There have been a lot of good articles on the blog so far, but I would like to present a quesion here that has been posed by students and faculty alike.

Why do so many students on campus seem apathetic?

The Ethics of Anonymity

2006-07-26T04:57:00.000-07:00

After the publishing of the May 2006 The Shield article “McClain’s Speech Prompts Healthy Discussions,” it has become painfully obvious that Dr. Barton and certain members of the Rochester College administration have failed to adequately address the objections we raised concerning Mr. McClain’s Black History Month speech that was delivered on February 15, 2006. The article supposedly overlooks our factual arguments because of our anonymity. In the May 2006 issue of The Shield, Dr. Barton faults us for our use of anonymity while leaving a loophole for historical cases in which the use of anonymity not only occurred, but was necessary: “While I do think anonymity has its place (e.g. there have been many authors in history who have used it in order to say something important in what they considered a hostile environment), anonymity can also create an atmosphere where writers are not as careful as they would have been if their name had been attached.”

Dr. Barton continues, “…Such tendencies are evident as several of the student writers, for example, make indicting claims about Mr. McClain’s motives, his “political agenda,” and his “lack of spirituality.” This is where Dr. Barton’s analysis truly goes astray. He claims that the student writers (us) made indicting claims about McClain’s “lack of spirituality.” This is simply not true. Several writers did indeed express dissatisfaction with McClain’s speech, but they most certainly did not make unsubstantiated accusations against Mr. McClain himself. Dr. Barton has essentially put words into our mouths; he offers no direct quotes from our article (other than the three-words-total of “spirituality” and “political agenda,” both quoted in other places in his article and neither pertinent to this accusation) to support his accusation that we have personally attacked McClain for his “lack of spirituality.” As for the claim that we have accused Mr. McClain of having a “political agenda,” Dr. Barton misrepresents our statement here once again. The actual statement we made was, “It seemed almost as if there were some political agenda behind his words.” The qualifiers “seemed almost as if” make it clear that the writers were speaking of how they experienced the speech, not how they knew Mr. McClain had a political agenda behind the speech beyond any doubt. These tenative observations were not made upon conjecture about McClain’s personal life, but upon the fact that he had plagiarised the “A World without Black People” from an anonymous e-mail chain letter.

Another problematic element of Dr. Barton’s analysis, as mentioned above, is where he acknowledges the proper place (in his opinion, that is) of anonymity: “there have been many authors in history who have used it in order to say something important in what they considered a hostile environment.” Dr. Barton implies by this that what we have said in this blog is neither important nor is it in what we consider a hostile environment. On the first claim, we argue that what has been published in this blog is indeed important. The Rochester Code of Academic Integrity defines plagiarism as “Presenting the ideas, words, or product of another as one’s own. It is using someone else’s work or ideas without giving that person appropriate credit. Whether the information used is read or heard, the one using it must document the source.” As proven by the contents of this blog, McClain’s “A World without Black People” sub-speech was clearly not his own work and he never cited the original source of the story (riddled with errors as it was). Thus, McClain’s sub-speech “A World without Black People” within his speech presentation of “I’m Still Standing, I’m Still Strong!” is not only morally reprehensible, but a serious breach of the Code of Academic Integrity as well. If Dr. Barton does not consider this fact alone to be important and warranting a fair representation of our of arguments on this blog, then he, other members of the Rochester College Administration, and the Diversity Committee (along with its associates, the members of the Student Action Diversity Committee) should seriously examine whether or not truth takes precedence over political correctness at Rochester College.

Dr. Barton acknowledges that, throughout history, anonymity has been used in environments that writers considered to be hostile as they spoke out with an unpopular message. Dr. Barton also states that, in his opinion, a liberal arts environment is Christian because it allows, “difficult discussion in an atmosphere where truthfulness is sought, and humility, forgiveness, respect, grace, and trust, are offered in other-worldly measure.” As we revealed in this article, however, despite his lofty ideals, Dr. Barton has misrepresented our arguments and clearly not sought the truth in this case. So far, every attempt by the Rochester College Administration and the Diversity Committee to deal with this blog has dealt with it unfairly. In fact, his response, among the many others we received, has done more to justify our choice of anonymity than we had originally expected. In addition to this, several students, including one particularly enraged student on the blog, have insulted the writers of this blog, misrepresented our arguments, and derided the blog without taking into account the facts behind our reasoning. In light of these developments, we do indeed feel that the environment surrounding Rochester College around the time of McClain’s speech justified our choice of anonymity.

Sincerely,

Tacitus and Aquinas

A Respectful Critique by Tacitus and Aquinas

2006-06-27T14:58:00.000-07:00

In light of Dr. Barton's article in the Shield, Tacitus and Aquinas have submitted a response in the following:

Dr. Barton: A Respectful Critique

Back in February, in a discussion with some of the leadership at the college, we brought up difficulties in McClaine’s speech and a volley of discussion erupted ending with an agreement to move forward in unity and a promise that the objections we raised would not be swept under the rug.

In the May issue of the Shield, however, Dr. John Barton published an article entitled "McClain's Speech Generates Healthy Discussion.” Like Dr. Barton says, the speech has generated much healthy discussion and brought difficult issues to the table. However, we think that our main objections that were raised on www.questionthecollege.blogspot.com were left unaddressed by Dr. Barton.

First and foremost, Dr. Barton fails to mention the URL of the blog. Additionally, Dr. Barton does not list the name of the site given as evidence and factual reference either: www.snopes.com/business/origins/blackinv.asp. Instead, he vaguely refers to our blog, but never quotes it directly.

Second, Dr. Barton accurately reports that students raised some objections on the grounds that the speech was divisive and damaging to diversity initiatives. While Dr. Barton addresses these concerns, our particular objections were factual, not emotional.

Third, Dr. Barton states in his article that "others" (i.e. us) have pointed out that the sub-speech "A World without Black People" was "taken (verbatim at some points) from an internet e-story that is in common circulation." This may be partially true, but Dr. Barton does not accurately represent the entire situation. In fact, the "e-story" was plagiarized word-for-word from an anonymous e-mail chain letter. Dr. Barton continues, "In and of itself, I do not see a problem with this, as long as the appropriate credit is given." Not only was the appropriate credit not given, but it would be impossible to give such credit to the "e- story," because the supposed "e-story" is actually an anonymous e-mail chain letter. Dr. Barton further notes, "There also seems, however, to be some questions concerning the accuracy of some details included in that section. Inaccuracies, if indeed present, are unfortunate, and I would suggest they need to be investigated before the speech is ever used again in public venue." Dr. Barton questions whether there are indeed inaccuracies present in the speech despite the fact that we have already show conclusive evidence that not only was the “A World without Black People” chain letter plagiarized word-for-word, but it also was riddled with half-truths and factual inaccuracies as shown by our previously cited source. Dr. Barton also says that the letter "is in common circulation" but does not inform the reader that various forms of the letter have been circling around the Internet for over six years. This is an important fact to understand, because the length of time that the letter has existed for has allowed numerous and thorough rebuttals of the "facts" within, such as:

www.snopes.com/business/origins/blackinv.asp.

This is contrary to Dr. Barton's suggestion that the speech should be investigated -- the letter has already been thoroughly examined (over a year ago, in fact, by our source) and its inaccuracies exposed.

Fourth, while we have indeed posted anonymously, the article criticizing the “A World without Black People” cited sources accurately and quoted the speaker properly. Dr. Barton condemns our use of anonymity, yet he fails to mention that McClain’s plagiarized chain letter was also anonymous. It appears that Dr. Barton has set up a double standard regarding his policy against anonymity. Our article has a high degree of credibility, while McClain’s chain letter does not. However, even more importantly, Dr. Barton writes at length about our anonymity but he ignores our factual objections completely. Instead, Dr. Barton minimizes the severity of the factual inaccuracies by describing the chain letter as having “some of the details” containing inaccuracies, disregarding the fact that the entire “A World without Black People” chain letter was plagiarized and filled from the first paragraph to the last with inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Dr. Barton continues, “Inaccuracies, if indeed present, are unfortunate and I would suggest they need to be investigated before the speech is used again in a public venue.” Dr. Barton ignores that our article (and the Snopes.com reference) has conclusively shown that the chain letter is filled with inaccuracies. As point three has already illustrated, the “A World without Black People” anonymous e-mail chain letter has circulated for years, allowing thorough debunking of its inaccuracies. Clearly, it was a mistake by the Diversity Committee and Rochester College Administration to let this letter be presented in Assembly without proper review of its veracity.

These points may seem caustic, so let us pause for a moment to acknowledge the good in Dr. Barton’s “McClain’s speech prompts healthy discussion” article. Dr. Barton rightly points out that McClain’s overall speech effectively condemned racism and explained that African-Americans have indeed contributed greatly to America throughout its history. McClain’s speech rebuked the pseudo-science and pseudo-intellectualism that has justified racism in the past. All these arguments are commendable and should be recognized for their value to American society.
However, in order to combat the previously mentioned pseudo-science and pseudo-intellectualism that robbed African-Americans of their achievements throughout Western history, we must not respond with factual inaccuracies of our own. Instead, we should cite real achievements of African-Americans, of which there have been many. To do any less would damage this cause, not assist it.

There is one last thing we would like to address in response to Dr. Barton’s argument. In his article, Dr. Barton asserts that we made, “indicting claims about…his lack of spirituality.” This is not true. In our article, we never questioned McClain’s own spirituality, only the spiritual relevance of the “A World without Black People” chain letter, which was not his own work in the first place.

Sincerely,

Tacitus and Aquinas

AS in the Shield!

2006-05-22T14:31:00.000-07:00

Well sort of. The following is the relevant article By Dr. John Barton:

On Feb. 15 of this semester, Mr. Terrence McClain visited campus and presented a speech in Assembly entitled “I’m Still Standing, I’m Still Strong!” as a part of Black History Month celebration activities.

His presentation has since sparked somewhat of a buzz around campus in the form of some emails, weblog entries (including several anonymous entries from some “concerned students”), and cafeteria discussions.

Because of my own personal passion for issues of diversity and what I see to be its place in a faith based liberal arts institution, I desire to weigh in on the issues.

Let me begin by offering a few of my reflections on the speech.

While Mr. McClain is obviously an articulate and gifted communicator, some people-both blacks and whites-experienced it as an angry attack on white people in general and as working against diversity initiatives.

Personally, while I respect such perspectives, and those that offer them, I did not experience the speech the same way. The speech did have an in-your-face quality to it, but I did not experience it as an attack on me or anyone in the room.

I experienced it as a powerful example of the resolve that many African-Americans in this country have had to have in order to overcome and succeed and how many have had to defiantly fight for the opportunities that I have always been able to take for granted.

This does not mean, however, that we should not critique Mr. McClain. In fact, I think that respect for him requires a respectful critique. With that in mind, I offer a few observations about one part of his speech. It has been noted by others that the section of the speech which imagines a “world without black people” is taken (verbatim at points) from an internet e-story that is in common circulation.

In and of itself, I do not see that as a problem as long as the appropriate credit is given. There also seems, however, to be some questions concerning the accuracy of some of the details included in that section. Inaccuracies, if indeed present, are unfortunate and I would suggest they need to be investigated before the speech is used again in a public venue.

Nevertheless, I experienced theis section of the speech, despite its flaws as a powerful reminder that many black Americans have made many important contributions to our world and society, which is important to reiterate in a society that has historically dismissed not only the contributions of African Americans, but ofted thien very humanity as well.

Additionally, and somewhat ironically, I experienced the speech as not only commenting on extraordinary African American individuals, but also as commenting on an American system that, for all its shameful and monumental flaws, still provides an atmosphere for people to do extraordinary things, even for those who would have to fight from the under-belly of the systemin ways that I personally have never had to do.

This is not a Eurocentric defense of the greatness of the West. But it is an attempt to apply something I have learned from the African philosopher Kwame Gyekye: all cultures and societies have their vices and virtues, and successful cultural living requires being able to discuver both and discern between the two.

Not every speech can do everything, so in order for us to do what Gyekye calls us to do speeches will need to strongly reveal and criticize our society’s vices, while others will need to explore the virtues. I experienced Mr. McClain’s speech as a powerful example of the former. He highlighted and condemned some of the vices of our racist society, and in turn applauded some of those who achieved individual greatness despite overwhelming odds.

That is not the only message needed, but it is one that is needed and that is often neglected. Personally, therefore, I thank Mr. McClain for doing what he did so well. There is one more piece of this puzzle on which I desire to comment. Some of the anonymous student writers expressed concern that the speech did not match with either the College's academic standards (citing the questions about the accuracy and source of the "world without black people" section), or what they feel should be the criteria for the "spiritual" focus of our Assembly programs (citing what they experienced as a lack of spiritual perspective and a divisive tone).

Let me first respond with a brief comment about academic standards. While more could be said here, a quality liberal arts environment is one where there is an atmosphere where people have the opportunity and freedom to consider, openly discuss, critique, and investigate important ideas. In other words, I see these very discussions as evidence of a quality liberal arts environment. In response to the question of spiritual focus, let me comment briefly on the use of anonymity.

While I do think anonymity has its place (e.g. there have been many authors in history who have used it in order to say something important in what they considered a hotstile environment), anonymity can also create an atmosphere where writers are not as careful with their words and critiques as they would have been if their name had been attached.

In my opinion, such tendenciesd are evident as several of the student writers, for example, make indicting claims about Mr. McClain's motives, his "political agenda," and his lack of spirituality, which I am assuming is based only on reactions to the Assembly speech and not on a relationship or further dialog with Mr. McClain himself.

If my assumptions are correct, I encourage the students to reconsider such perspectives and I invite Mr. McClain to respond graciously to these young thinkers. What makes our liberal arts environment Christian is the opportunity for people to take part in even difficult discussions in an atmosphere where truthfullness is sought, and humility, forgiveness, respect, grace, and trust are offerred in other-worldy measure.

In the end, such an atmosphere cannot be created by a chapel program or speaker selection process; in the end, the responsibility for creating and maintaining such an atmosphere rests on each of us.

Soothing Ourselves to Death?

2006-04-03T17:52:00.000-07:00

This article stuck out to me in Christianity Today (April 2006). Even though the author(s) take a strong approach, the ideas seem to be worth discussion.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/004/
Soothing Ourselves to Death
By
Charles Colson with Anne Morse

When church music directors lead congregations in singing contemporary Christian music, I often listen stoically with teeth clenched. But one Sunday morning, I cracked. We’d been led through endless repetitions of a meaningless ditty called “Draw me close to you,” which has zero theological content and could just as easily be sung in any nightclub. When I thought it was finally and mercifully over, the music leader beamed. “Let’s sing that again, shall we?” he asked. “No!” I shouted, loudly enough to send heads all around me spinning while my wife, Patty cringed. I admit I prefer traditional hymns, but even so, I am convinced that much of the music being written for the church today reflects an unfortunate trend slipping across the line from worship to entertainment. Evangelicals are in danger of amusing themselves to death, to borrow the title of the classic Neil Postman book.

This trend is evident not just in theater-like churches where musicians with their guitars and bongo drums often perform at ear-splitting levels. Its also true of Christian radio, historically an important source of serious preaching and teaching. Several stations recently many acting on the advice of a leading consulting firm have dropped serious programming in favor of all-music formats. For example, a major station in Baltimore has dropped four talk shows in order to add music. Family Life Radio, a first class broadcaster, has adopted a new program split of 88 percent music “to appeal to the 35 to 50 year old demographic.” A respected broadcaster recently dropped Focus on the Family on the grounds that it has become to involved in “moral issues.” Does anyone really believe the Bible is indifferent to moral questions or that modern Christians should be?

One station cancelled my four-minute BreakPoint commentary saying that four minutes is the equivalent of one son. Horrors! Besides, the station manager allowed, Breakpoint is too serious and not contemporary enough. When another major station, this one in Cincinnati, replaced BreakPoint with music, I called the station manager, arguing that believers need to think Christianly about major worldview issues. The young woman on the other end admonished me: “but we don’t want to do anything that will upset our listeners.” Younger women, she said, want “something to help them cope with life.”

This view was confirmed by a Christian homemaker interviewed for a TV special on evangelicalism. She is so busy, she explained, taking care of the kids, family activities, Bible study, cooking, etc., that she doesn’t even read the newspaper or care what is happening in the world around her. Church for her is getting her spirits lifted.

Admittedly, modern life does create enormous stress. But can’t the church offer comfort and help people confront the culture?

The decision by influential Christian broadcasters and music companies to avoid moral controversies could result in the church withdrawing from the culture as it tragically did a century ago. What is the job of Christian radio, after all? to give people what they want, or as with any ministry to give them what they need? Music is important in the life of the church an d can inspire us to focus on Christ. But it cannot take the place of solid teaching.

The great strength of radio, as with books, has to present in depth teaching and moral discussion theat engages Christians cognitively. This is something Americans find increasingly difficult. According to a recent study, the average college graduate’s proficient literacy in English has declined from 40 percent in 1992 to 31 percent today. The study defines proficient literacy as the ability to read lengthy complex texts and draw complicated inferences. Think about it one out of three college graduates cannot read a book or absorb a serious sermon.

But the gospel above all else is revealed propositional truth- truth that speaks to all of life. Yes, the gospel is simple enough for a child to understand Yet if you want to study doctrine and worldview, you need the capacity to think. You need the capacity to engage ideas cognitively.

Doctrine and biblical teaching are not as some “emerging church” advocates believe dry, dusty, abstract notions. This truth has to be carried into the heart and applied. But there is no escaping that it is truth that must be learned.

Sure , skits and catchy music on the radio can inspire us. but these things aren’t an end in and of themselves; they should engage us in learning and applying truth.

When Postman published his book two decades ago, he feared television would impair our capacity to think. He was right. Can we learn from this or are we destined to follow suit, the church blissfully amusing itself into irrelevance?

Special Assembly's Million Little Pieces...

2006-03-01T10:03:00.000-08:00

This is a piece submitted by Calvin Moore, President of the Student Action Diversity Committee as a response to letters by Luther, and by Tacitus and Aquinas:

Special Assembly’s Million Little Pieces…
To The Concerned Students of Rochester College,
I came across a printout of this particular blog as I was heading to class this morning. I could not help but appreciate the irony of my being the one to find it sitting on the ledge of a table. My initial reading of it made my hair bristle. But, after thinking on it throughout the day and checking the website referred to in the response, I found it interesting, informative, and an important voice in the ongoing dialogue we find ourselves in here at Rochester College. Fostering diversity is not necessarily about consensus. It is noticing and celebrating differences…whether that be a difference in culture or a difference in point-of-view. Be that as it may, I have both thoughts and concerns.
I will begin with my thoughts. (While I know there are two entries by two different authors, I will be responding to them as if there were, in fact, one entry.)
My first inclination was to blindly defend the speaker’s inclusion of specious information in his speech “I’m Still Standing, I’m Still Strong.” After all, much of what was said was still valid, was it not? Wasn’t this simply a veiled attack at one part of a larger narrative that left the “Concerned Students of Rochester College” a little uncomfortable? Did the people cry for an apology from the Sanhedrin when Christ read from the scroll in the synagogue and claimed Scripture had been fulfilled in their midst that day (Luke4:16-21)?
Then I started thinking about A Million Little Pieces.
This “memoir” by bestselling author, James Frey was called to the floor for blatant lies and half-truths by thesmokinggun.com. Oprah Winfrey, who had praised Frey’s book on her television show, defended the author when the controversy over the truthfulness of his “memories” first came to light. “What is relevant is that he was a drug addict ... and stepped out of that history to be the man he is today and to take that message to save other people and allow them to save themselves,” Winfrey commented.
But, in a change of heart, Oprah had Frey on her television show and confronted him on the blatant lies and misrepresentations in his book while also apologizing to her viewers for her shotgun defense of the author. “I feel duped,” she said, “I left the impression that the truth does not matter.
So, to a degree, I am in agreement with the analytical student. While orators are not obligated to site every person they quote or freely borrow from as they deliver their speech (Could you imagine all the breaks, pregnant pauses and segues?), I believe Minister McClaine could have better checked his sources. For that, I personally apologize.
However, this is where my agreement with The Analytical Student ceases to exist.
The Analytical Student is an example of defiance literature. Much like Dostoyevsky’s “The Idiot,” Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, Malcolm X’s “My Voice Helped Save America,” and the text “African Philosophy: The Essential Readings,” The Analytical Student seeks to speak loudly the point-of-view of various individuals at odds with another point-of-view—in this case, February 15th’s chapel speaker—stating, “…rather than seeking to create unity, [McClaine] apparently focused his attention only on what divided us as a people, instead of the Gospel that unites us.” One must not hastily point to the writer of this blog entry a “racist” for his or her disagreement. But, a discerning person can easily point out the entry is an adventure in missing the point.
The Analytical Student misrepresents (or misunderstands) Mr. McClaine’s speech, demeanor, point-of-view, and purpose in speaking to the students of Rochester College.
“The major point I received form his speech is the casting of blame on the white man,” comments the Hussar. If this is the case, then you were not listening. The purpose of the speech was not make whites feel a personal sense of guilt—as if Caucasian university students in the year 2006 are guilty of slave trading, ritual physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual abuses of African-Americans, and the perpetual subjugation of other ethnic groups through America’s sordid history. McClaine, in his speech makes the statement, “Without indicting any one individual here, nor speaking with any sense of bitterness, there is a present day discussion involving the issue of white privilege [emphasis mine].”
What ought to be done with these guilty feelings, though? I recently witnessed a conversation between JC Thomas and a student in his African Philosophy and the African-American Experience course. The young lady communicated a sense of feeling guilty for being white. You could see Thomas’ shoulders slump for a moment as he let out a sigh of resignation. Why? Because whenever the subject of slavery and the history of race relations is broached, especially in a place like Rochester Hills, people miss the point and subsequently misplace their feelings of guilt.
“It’s not our intent to make you feel guilty about what happened,” Thomas informed her, “But, I would be scared if you could hear something like that and not feel something. If my brother killed someone, I would feel very badly about what he did and strive to make things better for the victim of his crime. However, by the same token, I cannot take personal responsibility for what happened. That rests on the shoulders of my brother.”
The point of the speech was two-fold.
First, it defies the myth slavery was this blip on the screen of American history that made blacks slightly uncomfortable. It points out the atrocity of slavery and calls the ugliness of sin to the floor. McClaine refused to become complicit with evil by characterizing that nasty, wicked stuff in a way that softens its destructive bite. Doing so would be deceptive, at best. The reason for doing this was not to so much to focus on the divisions that exist between white Americans and African Americans in this country. The reason was to say, “This is where we’ve been. There is hurt. There is pain. Now that we’ve acknowledged that we are wounded, let’s begin the healing together.”
“…there was no major contribution to God...I felt like I’ve sinned for sitting there, listening to, giving my spiritual attention to, then received false teachings. This just disgusts me,” the Hussar continues. This is, of course, assuming that Jesus is not at all concerned with social action. If he is not, then McClaine’s words were indeed blasphemous and false. In the book, “Adventures in Missing the Point,” Tony Campolo writes, “While the kingdom of God would beat swords into plowshares and bring an end to violence, there was no question that in the struggle for justice, God sides with the poor and oppressed against the strong and powerful.” So, one can see that Jesus is indeed concerned with social action, with defending the fatherless and the widow and the poor and downtrodden from those who would seek to overpower them (whether consciously or unconsciously).
Second, McClaine, though unfortunately using a slightly suspect chain e-mail as his source material, sought to defy the myth that blacks have not contributed anything of value to society. While it is easy to naïvely claim that racism is no longer a problem in America, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s dream is far from being realized in this country. Yes, we are further ahead than we were in ’63 and light years ahead of when slavery first ended, but the dream is still that—a dream. There are many who unconsciously walk around with the notion African-Americans have contributed nothing to society beyond urban blight and welfare babies. Having been raised around predominantly white people, this has been evident in the “you’re different than other black people” and “you’re the whitest black man I’ve ever met” statements I constantly hear from white people, whether in comfortable jesting or in all seriousness. Not all people feel this way, of course, but I am not afraid to make the generalization that more people feel this way than don’t. I don’t believe there are hidden agendas on the part of white people and abject hatred on the part of African-Americans. I am simply making an observation.
As the Student Action Diversity Committee (SADC) prepared for several events throughout February in observance of Black History Month, the organization caught a lot of flack. SADC members have been accused of being “a “black group” that is not truly interested in diversity” and the necessity of Black History Month has been attacked with statements like, “Why do we have Black History Month? We don’t have White History Month.” This statement is so asinine it honestly doesn’t even deserve a rebuttal. However, grace dictates a response. There is no recognized white history month because history already reflects a patriarchal Eurocentric point-of-view. As a history major here at Rochester College, it is not difficult to point out whites are over-represented in the annals of times past. As the adage goes, “History is written by the victors.” Whites are over-represented on television. Whites are over-represented in bookstores. Whites are over-represented on the silver screen. This is a fact. To that end, observances that celebrate other cultures seem reactionary. Be that as it may, it is our hope that one day there will be no need for Black History Month, Women’s History Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, and other observances seeking to celebrate cultures and contributions that are rarely recognized. One day, we will also not require soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and philanthropic organizations committed to finding the cure for AIDS. One day, Christ will come! And how I long for that day. I can feel heaven in my bones. But please, let us not be attacked with patronizing nonsense, pretending that a simple “Jesus is the answer,” will suffice. While this statement is true, equally true is the statement, “Jesus is concerned…”
McClaine spoke with the cadence and volume of many African-American pastors. Many interpreted this to mean he was yelling at those in attendance, full of anger. But, he came as an authentically black pastor. The argument can be made that an orator ought to know their audience and adjust their speech to that end, but the argument can also be made McClaine was being true to himself in his approach, especially in that the speech was a dramatic presentation.
May God bless and keep you. YHWH’s peace.
Calvin Moore
President, Student Action Diversity Committee

A Letter From Concerned Students Addressing the Special Assembly For Black History Month

2006-02-23T11:33:00.000-08:00

A letter to Dean Cain by students we will call "Tacitus" and "Aquinas":

"Dean Cain,
On February 15, in Assembly, the speaker introduced by J.C. Thomas gave a speech in honor of Black History month. Normally assemblies have a spiritual message relevant to all who attend, but in this case it was exactly the opposite. The message had nothing spiritually relevant about it. The section of the speech that is particularly in question is the speaker’s summary of African-American inventions in his “A World without Black People” mini-speech. To be sure, we admire his basic argument: African-Americans have made America a better place to live in for all. However, the “A World without Black People” section of his speech betrays his motives in the most critical way. The original source of this fellow’s information was not his own work, but in fact an anonymous internet e-mail chain letter that has been circulating around the net for years. This letter is riddled with half truths and blatant lies, and much of what our assembly’s speaker said for that section was plagiarized word for word from the letter! Please see Snopes.com here for a critical analysis of his letter, as well as a later variant that has also been floating around the internet you can find at this address: www.snopes.com/business/origins/blackinv.asp

The speaker in assembly, rather than seeking to create unity, apparently focused his attention only on what divided us as a people, instead of the Gospel that unites us. It seemed almost as if there were some political agenda behind his words. While this aspect of the speech is certainly troubling to us, the fact that a speaker and speech of such low credibility and intellectual honesty was allowed to be presented to us in an academic institution is even more distressing. As students of Rochester College, we are taught to question what we are told and critically analyze messages that are resented to us. Unfortunately, the speaker’s message wholly failed to pass this test. Imagine if we presented an anonymous internet e-mail chain letter as an academic source to our professors! Why then should an assembly speaker, speaking in front of the entire student body, be held to a lesser standard? While the contents of this letter are of grave importance to us, we hope it is understood that this letter has been written not because of hatred or antagonism towards the college, but rather that we are concerned for the direction in which this college is headed. We strongly believe that Rochester College should put academic integrity and intellectual honesty among its highest priorities. With that said, due to the respect we have for this college, we feel that it is only right for the college to apologize to its student body and seek some redressing of these concerns.

Sincerely,

Concerned Students of Rochester College"

Special Assembly For Black History Month

2006-02-20T13:24:00.000-08:00

A letter from a reader we will call "Luther" to Dean Cain:

I believe we as the student body deserve an apology for allowing what was presented in Chapel on February 15, 2006. We came to give our time to God, as we were told and perceived what Chapel is for. I do believe it is very necessary for the giving of contribution to Black History Month, although Chapel if specifically and most of all for our contribution to God.
On that day I came to Chapel and concentrated my ears to what I thought were great words relating to God that the man wanted to share. That is until I realize my ears were assaulted by blasphemous words. That was outrageous. First of all, there was no major contribution to God. Secondly, half the words were false. Then the thing I’m most disappointed in is that Rochester College, a Christian establishment would allow such half-baked content to be presented. I felt betrayed coming here trusting the school to uphold Christian principles. This is inconsistence to the Rochester College Mission Statement and Code of Academic Integrity that we proudly display in our buildings and on the internet. Example of false words would Walter Sammons inventing the comb. The comb is and ancient tool that existed even during ancient Egypt. It is not a recent century invention. Walter Sammons did invent the heated comb. Also Alexander Miles did not invent the elevator. He improved on it by inventing the mechanism to automatically close the doors of it. This is academic fallacy that the college has allowed to be presented, to be taught especially in Chapel. That is just disturbing.
The major point I received form his speech is the casting of blame on the white man. It really is sad for him to not realize who his true enemy is. (I assume he is a Christian since Rochester College allowed him to speak in Chapel.) “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Ephesians 6:12. His true enemy, the true oppressor is Satan, not his brethrens.
I felt like I’ve sinned for sitting there, listening to, giving my spiritual attention to, then received false teachings. This just disgusts me. I feel ashamed for having to encourage my friends and family to attend here. I don’t want us to just become a so-called Christian College. I hope that we don’t travel far from the Rochester College Mission Statement and Code of Academic Integrity.
I know you cannot apologize for what the man said during Chapel, but you can apologize for allowing fallacy to be preached. What is more important than an apology towards the student body is an apology to God. Humility is what makes us humble.

"Luther's" letter was only one among a number exposing the problems with that assembly and the speech. The Rochester College staff, encourage students to analyze things, so it will be interesting to see how they respond.

The New Blog

2006-02-15T13:56:00.000-08:00

This blog aims to foster an intellectual environment in which analytical students are free to question the teaching and philosophies taught by Rochester College, both in its activities and assemblies. The creator of this blog wishes to remain anonymous and respects the wishes of any student who desires to take part in the discussion. This blog will publish anything relevant to the college and its teaching, namely relating to the philosophies and beliefs of the students themselves versus (or in complement to) that of their professors or leaders.

It should be noted that this blog is not for immature, emotional exchange, but for deep, serious discussion of the state of the college and what it endorses. This blog may well be the result of a lot of controversy, though no inflamatory remarks against professors or staff will be permitted. Let's keep this discussion calm, reasonable, and civil.

Students from all perspectives are welcome to comment, and anyone can make a post and send it to rochesters7uden7@yahoo.com to be reviewed, then published. If accepted, a poster's work will NOT be edited.