Then it [the Committee] will drag out another year. Of course, most of the folks in the ARP are pretty much fed up by this time. Someone has suggested that the entire Board needs to be disbanded, a new composition devised, and new Board members appointed. I don't see that happening, but it is an interesting suggestion. Part of the problem is that there are folks on the Erskine Board who do not need to be on the Board, imho.I remember reading this just a few days after it was written. Who knew we had a prophet as a pastor! Incredible.
The “riot” referred to in the original post was the Chalking incident discussed in a previous post on this blog. In addition, students gathered at night to protest and police were called in to see that Erskine property was not damaged. I was there. I saw it. There was screaming. There was anger. By students, not police. The situation was bad though, truly, and the policeman was reprimanded by Ruble the next day for being part of the confrontation.
But get this: the confrontation with police was not over Christianity at Erskine! A riot over Christianity would be when police allowed all chalking except for "Christian" chalking; a riot over marking school property would occur when all chalking was forbidden. Christian chalkers were not singled out in this event; their comments were not selectively erased; they were not selectively hassled.
No, the "riot" occurred between two students in particular and half a dozen students in the general area; these students were protesting for many things, among them a green campus and toleration. Ironically, the “Christian” chalking that has been portrayed as "characteristic" of the riot primarily occurred in peace earlier that night; by the time the "riot" occured, the "Christian" chalking had moved on to a different area of campus, and later back to the dorms. This makes sense; confrontation with police leads to no chalking while avoiding the police leads to excessive chalking. Based on the success of the "Christian" chalkers, one might even say the police singled out Non-"Christian" chalkers;* though of course any claim of selectivity by police is groundless.
In reality, what would be the most Christian thing to do: mark up the campus with chalk after the administration asked politely to leave things alone, OR mark up the campus with chalk asking for "integration of faith and learning?" I believe respect of property is a moral prerogative; chalking was humorous but fearfully childish. Either way the chalkers succeeded in their goal: "Fire Woody [O'Cain]", "integrate faith and learning" and "stop wasting paper" were surely welcome sights to Maintenance workers as they cleaned up the mess early the next morning as they tried to make the campus look good for visitation weekend. Mission Accomplished!
Nevertheless, pastors were told that Christians were calling out for help as a callous administration stomped on their religion. The truth was hidden, or told only in part (yes, "Christian" chalking was forbidden - but so was all other chalking as well). Thank goodness for this subterfuge! If our ministers had known the truth – that the “riot” was about Green Technology, the Commission might never have been formed. What a travesty that would have been.
New topic: Who is this "someone" that suggested firing half the board of trustees? What does this powerful "someone" suggest will happen next?
*By "Christian" and Non-"Christian" throughout this post I refer not to the individual's religious state but to the content of his protest. Hence, Non-"Christian" talking is protests about secular issues, while "Christian" chalking refers to protests over integrating faith and learning, inerrancy, and so forth.
No comments:
Post a Comment