############################################################
          The Student Voice     Issue 3, No. 3     12.27.1996
############################################################
     260+ Readers
############################################################

     A PUBLIC APOLOGY AND REVELATION OF LEIBNIZ'S IDENTITY

Apology.
It is the purpose of The Student Voice to remain a journal of integrity,
honesty and one based upon Scriptural principle.  One of our primary areas of
emphasis is on the fallibility of human nature, and thus the need for a check
on that fallibility.  Whether it be you as a reader, us as The Voice, or PCC,
we must all be willing to engage in at least a minimal level of introspection
from time to time.  We at The Voice do take what we do seriously, and after
reexamining our first three months in existence, we recognize that there have
been some very positive aspects that we will continue to do, while at the
same time, there have been some negative aspects that have probably turned
away some readers and have perhaps made us a little less credible than we
should and could be.

One of the negatives that we want to make a public apology for before the new
year begins is regarding the overuse of sarcasm.  If an argument or a point
is valid, it does not need dripping sarcasm to add some extra validity to it.
 It is our feeling that some of those who disagree with us understand things
better in a sarcastic tone, and this is due, perhaps to being immersed in a
legalistic environment that is full of paradoxes and ironies that simply beg
for a sarcastic remark.  This, however, does not mean that a sarcastic remark
is always required.  In the first several months of The Voice's existence, we
have done far too much of it in the public issues, and for that we apologize
to you, the readers, to PCC, and most importantly, to God.

Now, let us make it clear that we have NO intention of refraining from
pointing out nonsense, hypocrisy and legalism at PCC, but we will do our best
to refrain from using sarcasm in the process.  Sometimes this line will not
be clear - is The Voice simply pointing out something that is ridiculous, or
is it being sarcastic?  This is something that we request your input on and
something that we will do our best to stay on the right side of the line.
 Remember, however, that we are human just like you and just like PCC - we
will make mistakes.

Revelation of Leibniz's identity.
One of the things that has made me (Leibniz) the most uncomfortable about
putting out The Student Voice is being anonymous.  I am not the slightest bit
afraid or intimidated to state who I am or where I stand, and those who know
me know that to be true.  However, until only a few weeks ago I have
basically been incapable of revealing who I am, and these reasons and
developments will be discussed in more detail in a later issue.  Suffice it
to say that the most important reasons - the ones which I could not reveal -
for anonymity are no longer present, and so I am free to reveal who Leibniz
is.

Let me make something else clear, though: this newsletter is not about me,
nor should it be.  It is about what is right and what is wrong, and who I am
makes no difference whether something is either.  Most of the complaints have
been about my remaining anonymous, even though few people know the entire
story.  That's fine, and even though most of those who complained about me
not revealing my name would likewise not reveal theirs, I still recognize it
as a valid concern. 

With all of that said, I am hereby relegating "Leibniz" to the archives of
PCC history, short-lived as it may have been, his name will no longer be a
mystery to The Student Voice readers.  I am:

PAUL S. PERDUE
8227 Crackling Fire Dr.
Gainesville, Va. 20155
703 754-7327

B.S. - Criminal Justice, Pensacola Christian College, 1993
J.D. - Catholic University Law School, Washington D.C., 1997

Please keep the prank phone calls between the hours of 7 a.m. and 12
midnight.  Thank you.

############################################################

          QUOTES OF THE WEEK

And I honor the man who is willing to sink
Half his present repute for the freedom to think,
And, when he has thought, be his cause strong or weak,
Will risk t' other half the freedom to speak.
     - James Russell Lowell (1819-1891)

Ultimately, the only power to which man should aspire is that which he
exercises over himself.
     - Elie Wiesel

The trouble with some of us is that we have been
inoculated with small doses of Christianity which keep us
from catching the real thing.  
     - Leslie Dixon Weatherhead

It's common for men to give pretended reasons
instead of one real one.  
     - Benjamin Franklin

############################################################

     TABLE OF CONTENTS

   Page 1
   I.   Voice Announcements
   II.   "Have You Heard The One About. . . ?"
   III.   Essays
          A.   "A Classic PCC Irony"  by Paul Perdue
          B.   "The Ideology Underlying the PCC Tyranny" - Guest essay
   
   Page 2
   IV.   "THE ONES" -- By Aaron Herman
   V.   Your Comments

############################################################

     I.   VOICE ANNOUNCEMENTS

>>> If you would like any copies of back issues, please let us know. However,
we would ask that you limit your request to 2 issues per request in order for
us to be more efficient.  Once you have received the two issues, then please
feel free to request 2 more.  Here is a list of Voice issues and other
information:

          The Student Voice Introductory Letter
          Transcript of Dr. Horton's comments made about The Student Voice
          Issue 1, Nos. 1 - 4
          Issue 2, Nos. 1 - 5
          Issue 3, No. 1 ("Rules Compilation," Version 1)
          Issue 3, No. 2

>>> We are in the process of putting together an "official" web page where
back issues, the Rules Compilation and other interesting information will be
displayed.  Please stay tuned.

>>> If you do not wish to receive The Student Voice, please drop us an e-mail
and let us know.  If you know of someone who would be interested in receiving
The Student Voice, let us know.

############################################################

     II.   HAVE YOU HEARD THE ONE ABOUT. . . ?

While I was a student at PCC, I was fortunate enough to work on the Work
Assistance program.  It helped pay my bills, so I cannot complain.  The
summer between my Freshman and Sophomore year, we moved into the new
Distribution Center over off Rawson Lane.  A--- was our work
supervisor: a highly qualified supervisor who was, oh, at least two or
three years older than the rest of us.  Anyway, one afternoon, several
of us got into a marker fight, a friendly fight that happened to include
members of the opposite sex.  This all happened right before lunch.  Our
supervisor, went and told her supervisor, D---.  Well rather than
handling it himself, he told his supervisor.  By that afternoon, word
had reached Dr. Horton, and we were all in deep trouble.  As punishment
for our misdeeds, we were all transferred from the Distribution Center
to some more undesirable work assignment for the rest of our career as
work assistance students.  They transferred one person to the sign shop,
one to grounds, one to housekeeping, and I, of all places, was
transferred to food service.  All of this for marking on a girl's arm
with a marker.

############################################################

     III.   ESSAYS

"A Classic PCC Irony"
by Paul Perdue

     One of the interesting aspects of PCC is that everywhere you look, there
is always a different "irony" that is a direct result of the policies which
the school has seen fit to enact - i.e., separate but public beaches, a claim
to moral superiority at an unscriptural church, the requirement of "closet
devotions" except if you're a mixed couple, PCC's Biblical "discipline," etc.
 This reminds me of Paul's exhortation to the church at Corinth when he was
quoting the book of Isaiah: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of
the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." (I
Corinthians 1:19) When we examine these ironies in the light of Scripture and
reason, the ludicrous nature of PCC's "system" becomes all the more apparent.
     If you happen to have a 1996 PCC Summit, I ask that you read no further
until you open it up to pages 40, 41. . . .  For those of you who do not have
96's yearbook, let me describe the picture that is the centerpiece of this
page.  First of all, let it be noted that this is the page that introduces
the "collegians," and for those of you who do not attend PCC, a "collegian"
is a spin off of the collegiate fraternity system in secular schools, only it
has a "Christian" emphasis. . . supposedly.  They are campus organizations to
which each student MUST belong, regardless of whether or not the student
actually desires to be a part of a collegian.  These collegians meet a couple
of times a month to (1) "conduct business," which is business strictly
governed and controlled by the administration and with little room for
creativity by the students; (2) "fellowship" (I have always found the
"forced" fellowship an unusual policy, but a policy I have come to expect at
PCC); and (3) "fun and games," even though a student may have a test the next
period, he or she must still participate in these juvenile activities.
     This is, however, beside the point.  These pages that I refer to are the
introductory pages of the collegian section of the yearbook.  There are four
subsidiary pictures surrounding one primary picture, and it is this center
picture that I would like to discuss.  The setting is "Greek Rush," also
commonly referred to by the students as "Geek Rush," apparently because of
the high geek-to-student ratio at this event.  Again, for those of you who do
not attend, this is an event at the beginning of the school year where each
collegian parades through the center of campus in the midst of throngs of
students in an attempt to persuade new students that they are the best
collegian and should therefore be joined.  The tactics used to persuade the
students are a bit odd, for they do not demonstrate anything, really, at
least nothing of any importance or substance.  Each collegian arrives in a
unique vehicle, be it an antique car, a fire truck, a crane, or even a small
plane.  Somewhere in the entourage are the following characters: the
collegian mascot acting like an imbecile usually, some athletes dressed in
their athletic clothes (this is one of the acceptable times for guys to wear
shorts in public), some cheerleaders, a few of the more "rowdy" members of
the collegian (for "spirit"), and occasionally a few faculty members.  This
is supposedly what new students are interested in, and based on this parade
and a booth that has been set up, which doesn't include much more than the
parade does, a student must pick his or her collegian family.
     Again, though, this is essentially irrelevant to the point of this
article, but the context must be understood.  In the background of the
picture is Griffith Tower, its impressive brick structure creates an
institutional backdrop against the bright blue Florida sky.  The picture has
you in the middle of the street looking at a particular collegian's entourage
proceeding directly towards you.  Along the sides of the street are students
standing and sitting, all looking amazingly interested.  Approaching you as
you observe this picture is what appears to be a dump truck loaded with a
bunch of guys in the back, hanging off the side and even sitting on the hood.
 But the center of this picture, and I can only assume the main theme of the
yearbook's portrayal of the collegian system are two guys holding a large
sign that says, "BE YOURSELF."
     Think about that for a minute - be yourself.  And then remember where
this is at - PCC.  One of the last places on earth that you can "be yourself"
is at PCC.  "Being yourself" is one of the quickest ways to get shipped;
"being yourself" means ignoring all of the restrictions that you would
normally never impose on yourself; "being yourself" means NOT being what PCC
wants you to be.  So, why would this sign not only be allowed by the
administration (remember, everything goes through "ad check"), but why would
it also be the central theme of the collegian section of the yearbook?  What
are the reasons for this sign being where it is while saying what it says?
 Or has anyone ever even thought about it?

     REASONS AND PROBLEMS

     Reason 1.   A way to entice freshmen.
     One of the possible rationales for this message is a concerted effort by
the administration to send a message to all of the freshmen that collegians
are a place that you can "let your hair down," so to speak, a place where you
don't have to follow the crowd.  This is certainly an enticing idea, and even
though this may have never been intended, it certainly has crossed someone's
mind.  Bear in mind that the freshmen have only been around for a week or two
when this takes place, so they are still "adjusting" to the new lifestyle and
will probably be looking for some relief.
     Freshmen are still used to the outside world ("real" to me; "unreal" to
PCC).  When a freshman sees a sign that says "Join us, and you can be
yourself," he thinks to himself that this isn't so unusual - PCC may have
some "normal" aspects after all.  Everyone wants to "be themselves."  Few
people want to be considered someone who does something simply because
everyone else does it.  "Be yourself" sends a positive message to new
freshmen.

     Problem.
     The problem with this reasoning is that it simply is not honest.  A
student can no more "be themselves" in a collegian than they can be in their
dorms or in a class.  Sure, the activities are more relaxed and informal than
in, say, a church service, but as we all know, demerits are handed out just
as freely in collegian meetings as they are anywhere else.  If a student,
particularly a collegian officer wishes to actually follow this encouragement
and "be himself," guess what happens?  The next time he wishes to be himself,
he will be doing so as a non-collegian officer, if he is lucky.  
     I honestly do not know what the reasoning was behind allowing this sign
to be placed where it was, but I know that if it was because someone wanted
someone else to believe that this was actually allowed or encouraged on the
campus of PCC, then the person who permitted it was being flat-out dishonest.
 Why have rules if everyone can be themselves?  The whole purpose of having a
system of control is so that people WILL NOT be themselves, for we are sinful
people.  If PCC wants its students to be themselves, then I would encourage
them to throw away the handbook as soon as the next semester starts.  If they
do NOT want students to be themselves, which I suspect to be closer to the
truth, then I would encourage the yearbook staff to be more careful next time
not to create a false impression of the truth, for a false impression is
every bit as false as an actual statement.

     Reason B.  PCC actually believes it.
     Perhaps the reason PCC allowed the message "Be Yourself" to be the theme
of the collegian section of the 96 Yearbook was because they actually
believe that while at PCC, students are "being themselves."  This sort of
goes hand-in-hand with the reasoning that because inside the walls of PCC is
a closer representation of "truth," it is therefore the "real world" as
opposed to that which really exists outside the walls.  PCC becomes the focal
point of reality.  All ideas are filtered through the screen of PCC ideology.
 However students act on campus (assuming they are abiding by the policies)
is the way that students can actually "be themselves."  Deep down inside each
student's psyche is a sort of Freudian-like, unconscious desire to be told
what to do all the time.
     Or perhaps the collegians are where this act of "being oneself" takes
place.  I find this highly insulting as a former student, because I can
assure the administration that "being myself" in no way included being forced
to participate in juvenile activities.  For many students to "be themselves"
would mean that they would be involved in NO collegian at all, not IN one
acting like a child.

     Problem.
     The problem with this is that "being oneself" is not synonymous with
being a PCC clone.  If this were so, then people would continue after
graduating to live in the PCC way, and there would be many others who would
had never lived at PCC who would live the same way.  However, there are few
who fit this description, so either most of civilization is not "being
themselves" or PCC's possible idea that "being yourself" is synonymous with
the way students (and faculty) are required to live is simply not accurate.

     Reason C.  Ignorance.
     This, I suspect, is the real reason for the sign being displayed as the
introduction to the collegians.  I suspect that no one ever actually thought
about it.  Hey, it sounded "cool," and it looked "groovy."  And isn't that
what collegians are all about?  I suspect that when the administrator who
approved this message to be displayed in front of thousands of students and
faculty (and guests?) sat down and actually approved it, he or she never even
stopped to think about what message the message would send.  No one actually
realized that a student could never "be themselves" while on campus at PCC
and so therefore, this sign represented an inaccurate image of what PCC is
about.  Therefore, the sign should not have been displayed.  It is a rather
simple thought process, but simple thought process' seem to be often lacking
at PCC.

     Problem.
     The primary problem with this is that at a college, this should be the
last place where a lack of thought produces such an obvious irony.  A place
where "higher education" is taking place should actually produce something
that is "higher."  Of course, this is a subjective term, and perhaps the
administration should clarify just how "high" they intend a student and
themselves to be able to think.  Perhaps it is equal to the level of control
imposed - adolescence?  Or perhaps it is "higher" than junior high.  Any
higher would eliminate ironies such as the one on this yearbook page.

     Unfortunately, simple thought and numerous ironies are commonplace at
PCC, and frankly, it is embarrassing.  I had a student write me not too long
ago trying to explain that PCC never searches for truth, because God reveals
it to us directly.  But yet the school does claim to be searching for truth
as the college hymn, "Searching for Wisdom" would seem to indicate.  And
another student tried to explain that the school does not allow men and women
to hold hands because of Paul's admonition that it is not good for a man to
touch a woman, but yet the school DOES allow students to hold hands, even
though it is in a highly controlled environment.
     Where is the higher thought?  Where is the simple understanding that an
ironic message displayed to the world should be an embarrassing message?
 Where is the understanding that a system that discourages creativity and
independent thought will do just that? And why does PCC pool all of its
efforts to maintain such a system?  Legalism will do that.  A man-made system
of morality will create embarrassing situations and plenty of ironies, and
when it reaches the level it has on the campus of PCC, it will greatly
eliminate rational thought, and with a little rational thought, this would
have never happened.  
     But what's the big deal, you might be asking?  Inaccurate messages by
one claiming to be "real" is always a big deal. 

     Epilogue.
     It is interesting to note that the person who created this sign was
asked not to come back because he "didn't fit into the ministry of PCC."
 Perhaps he followed his own PCC-accepted words of advice?  Ironic, isn't it?

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

"The Ideology Underlying the PCC Tyranny"
Guest Essay

     The tyranny of PCC instanced in its senseless and petty regulations and
its prohibition of sensible discussion and appeal springs from a deeper
ideology that afflicts many other fundamentalists: the tyranny of the
present. Because the Hortons and subordinates have never (or rarely) been
exposed to classical Christianity and therefore to an in-depth history of
Christianity and history as history, they necessarily see the modern era
(that is, of their lifetimes) as somehow normative.

     PCCs Cultural Relativism

     They tend, for example, to equate a 1940s cultural conservatism with
Biblical Faith. "Worldliness" is their big bogeyman, but they fail to realize
that they are not really excoriating and prohibiting worldliness, simply
pitting the worldliness of the 40s against the worldliness of the 90s.
Knee-length skirts for girls and PCC-ensemble music for everybody is A-OK,
though in the 20s and earlier, "conservative" Christians found knee-length
skirts whorish and Negro spirituals outlandishly offensive, a
concession to "the world." PCC is playing a catch-up game with modern culture
and labeling it "fundamentalist" and "conservative."
     This was seen most clearly in the Mike Harding case from the early 90s.
In a letter dated Oct. 22, 1991, A. R. Horton, refuting charges that PCC
supports Contemporary Christian Music (CCM), oddly stated: "[W]e do not
believe that it is wrong to use a song Steve Green made popular a few years
back, after it has passed its peak of popularity and other groups have
recorded it, if it is sung in a Christ-honoring style." In other words, when
it is at the cutting edge of "worldliness" PCC forbids it, but when
worldliness becomes well accepted in the extreme fundamentalist subculture,
PCC will endorse it.
     This is an example of the amusing game of cultural catch-up, which
belies PCCs claims that it is most interested in a Biblical posture: if it
were an absolute Biblical posture PCC were interested in, the school would
either forbid all such music absolutely at all times or else not summarily
dismiss it but judge each recording on Biblical grounds. Thus it is that not
the Bible, but modern cultural standards, albeit "conservative" standards,
set the tone at PCC. This is a form of cultural relativism, the very mention
of which Arlin and Beka Horton would find abhorrent, but which is nonetheless
a guiding axiom of PCCs regulation-ism. PCC should be interested in
Biblical standards, not "conservative" standards.

     PCCs Theological Naivet

     Sequestering from classical Christianity leads to another vexing
problem: the lack of a final standard by which to judge belief and practice.
This is possible only to those whose minds cannot (or do not) isolate
theological formulations and practices from what the Scriptures actually
teach. A sincere professor there at PCC once told me, "We [in the Bible
department] do not rely on books, but The Book [the Bible]." This sounded
pious, but it really was an expression of ignorance. He did not perceive how
presuppositions govern all exegesis and interpretation and practice,
even--perhaps especially--for people who do not rely on books (an odd
assertion, in any case, for a college professor). The failure to recognize
the existence of these presuppositions leads one to vest his own provincial
views and practices (and rules) with the authority of the Bible itself. That
there may be a cleavage between Biblical revelation and PCCs views and
practices seems not to be considered.

     PCCs Legalism

     This contributes often to the error of the Pharisees: wiping out what
the Bible *actually* requires and substituting "rules" (Mk. 7:9). Law is an
inevitable concept: the problem at PCC is not a legalism which substitutes
law for grace (both of which are valid Biblical phenomena), but one which
substitutes man-made law for God-made law. This becomes exceedingly
pernicious, because swiftly it diminishes Biblical revelation in favor of
man-made regulations, which become the new law. Conformity to these
conventional rules then becomes the indicia of spirituality and godliness,
which, in actuality, should be conformity to God's regulations in the Bible.
This is a subtle but dangerous attack on the binding authority of the Bible.
     This is true no less in theology than in simple conduct regulations.
Because they lack contact with historic Christian orthodoxy, the Hortons and
subordinates don't know where to draw the line in matters of fellowship and
separation. The great early creeds and the Reformation and Baptist
confessions were hammered out to draw just such a line. It just so happens
PCC is not interested in Christian orthodoxy, however, but in reinventing
orthodoxy on the anvil of its own historically conditioned and excessively
fundamentalist speculation. Therefore, it's necessary to establish a new
orthodoxy, new Hortonesque boundaries of fellowship and separation, rules of
conduct, and so forth.
     The oddity is that this exhibits how far PCC has departed from Biblical
Faith. The biggest bogeyman for PCC (besides worldliness) is liberalism, and
"loose standards," etc. The Hortons apparently do not understand how their
attachment to and imposition of an extra-Biblical set of "standards" leads
right into the rationale for liberalism. By playing fast and loose with the
Bible's standards, they are marching to the beat of the liberal drum.
     I disagree with the Hortons on the grounds that they are insufficiently
Biblical (substituting man-made teachings and practices for those of the word
of God) and insufficiently historical (sequestering themselves from historic
Christianity and thus inventing their own modern--and defective--version).

I could say much more, but this must suffice for now.

############################################################

     IV.   "THE ONES" - by Aaron Herman

If Jesus would not have come when He did,
But was born to be alive here today instead --
We might be surprised by the way He would live
And the people He would heal and forgive.

I hypothesize he would be a homeless man,
Roaming around, seemingly no plan.
He would show up at your temple where your rabbi preached,
Crack His Father's Word and start to teach.
His Words would amaze and thoroughly craze;
His Wisdom throwing law teachers in a rage
'Cause He'd expose the grave error of their ways.
And all of that before He turned the page.

Would we be the ones, the Pharisees of modern day, 
Proclaiming "our" Messiah would not live that way?
Would we be the ones to threaten Him
When he claimed to have the power to forgive sin?
Would we be the ones there to shout "let Him die"
As fellow legalists beat Him with their picket signs?
Or would we give up all to love and follow Him?

If Jesus would not have come when He did,
But was born to be alive here today instead --
I think we'd be surprised by the way He would live
And the people He would heal and forgive.

I firmly believe He'd love the people of shame --
Healing the lives of those who believed on His Name.
Prostitutes, drug addicts -- all the people who are "unclean."
And if you asked Him, "Why them?" He'd say, "What do you mean?"
"The well don't need a doctor but the sick do."
Then He'd extend this invitation to you,
"Forget your life and follow if you believe I am the King Jew.
 I'll save you if you give yourself to spread the Good News."

Would we be the ones, the disciples of modern day,
Proclaiming "the Messiah's come, please change your ways."
Would we be the ones to live with Him
As we claim His Promise of forgiven sin?
Would we be the ones there to witness His death --
Crushed, yet filled with hope by the words that used His last breath?
Or would we let Him down, and willingly deny Him?

Okay, Jesus really did come when He did,
But He's alive today at His Church's Head.
But is He pleased by the way that we live,
And the loyalty we're willing to give?

Are we the ones, the Pharisees of modern day,
Enforcing on all but us what we see as "the Christian way"?
Are we the one who live for Him,
Or are we willfully swaying in the winds of sin?
Are we the ones who are willing to die,
To let the Lord have full reign in our lives?
Oh, will we give our all, surrending to Him?

############################################################

     V.   YOUR COMMENTS

>>> This was sent to us during the week where we were unable to get an issue
of The Voice out:

What's the freakin' deal?  I NEED my Voice.  I've played with my Tickle Me
Elmo too long.  Only one thing will help---yes, the voice.  I'm slowly losing
touch with reality.  So much that I'm actually considering calling PCC and
ordering some ensemble tapes.  Yes, it's that bad.  HELP!  If I don't get a
voice soon, I will be feeling death's sweet embrace.

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

FROM: a PCC alumnus

I wanted to comment on your newsletter.  I have been reading it and
keeping up with it when I get a chance.  Yes, as a former student I would
disagree with many of the rules and do not know if I could recommend the
school to someone wanting to enter the secular world of work (non-full
time Christian service).  

However, I believe you and those rallying behind Student Voice are
missing a point, and a very important point at that.

Pensacola Christian College's whole infrastructure is based on the
independent Baptist movement. (for the most part, that is)  So the
concept of marketing, as worldly as it may sound, comes in.  Dr. Horton
has chosen to market his product (education) to those in the independent
Baptist world, therefore the independent Baptists, or hyper
fundamentalists, as I like to call them, trust in PCC to offer services
that would fit their list of rules.  

Now, if Dr. Horton were to suddenly change and say, "Hey, I have been
wrong in imposing these rules on these poor students,"  he would lose 95%
of the students.  Why?  That is his market. 

Take Liberty for instance or Moody.  If you were to go on their campuses
you would see a whole different market.  A different psycographical (not
really demographical, as they are all between 18-25) market or audience.

So what am I saying?  I think you are attacking the symptom and not the
problem.  Personally, I will not waste my time, because it would be like
me going to Taco Bell and saying, "Why do you operate under this
infrastructure?  Why are you targeting that segment?  And in reality they
are very successful in their market.  Are they successful in selling
burgers.  NO.  They market "Mexican" food.  

Leave PCC alone.  Hey, they are making money, they are somewhat training
young people, and they are definitely reaching their target audience.  As
the Lord has removed me from that whole hyper fundamentalist movement
into what most of the PCC market would consider "neo-evangelical" I have
seen that the Christian world is waaaaaaaaay far bigger than the
independent Baptist movement.  I in no way negate that God has used this
movement in the past, but may we always remember that God cannot be boxed
up into any one movement or institution.

My whole point is:  Arlin has chosen his market and to change it would
mean  a phenomenal and revolutionizing restructuring, which I do not
see--of course you may say I'm putting God in a box, eh?  :)

Good day.

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

>>> This is a comment regarding the Rules Compilation:

Thanks for the laugh (and almost a cry!)  I thought we had a myriad of
unncessary rules when I was there in the 70's.  Apparently, with each
new year the new facilities and new students require more rules.  It is
amazing (frightening) that adults with PhD.s who call themselves
Christians can justifiy such ridiculous rules.  Indirect contact,
separate stairscases, flipping the plate, indirect horseplay, no jeans,
....UNBELIEVABLE!  What must God think of all of this?  So these
regulations make PCC a Godly place?  What kind of a world are they
living in? - Their own little commune - almost a cult.  I have been away
from it so long - I am amazed I survived.  The parallels of the
community there to Dictatorships around the world are frightening -
well, at least you can leave, never mind the time and money you have
wasted and try to explain it all to mom and dad and you friends back
home. Yes, they would have us completely imbrace PCC's
"standards" which few do in the name of the "ministry".  There is a word
that has been completely misused.  Keep up the good work.

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

"Food for thought..."

If I can remember correctly, did not Satan temp Eve with food?  For some
reason you remind me of Satan's angel.

############################################################

The Student Voice is:

Paul Perdue (formerly Leibniz, and Mr. X)   studentv@aol.com
lupos   lupos@usa.net

Please feel free to let us know your thoughts and opinions; we do not
discriminate on the basis of content.

############################################################
     THE STUDENT VOICE, PCC's alternative newsletter


