They're looking for a new director for their online Master of Accountancy program; this is a fairly new program:

http://romenews-tribune.com/view/full_story/12306658/article-Shorter-University-s-online-Master-of-Accountancy-degree-caters-to-CPA-requirements--accounting-professionals?instance=home_news_lead_story

Have the Shorter Faculty google Conservative Christianity and its Discontents by Giberson and Stephens at religion dispatches.

That is the world of Dowles and Price and the greater Roman Community ought to study it closely. And then have group readings and discussion groups of authors book, The Anointed.

Read also at North Greenville and Truett McConnell and everywhere fundamentalism has infected the promise of a flawwed but forward slogging SBC of the 60's and 70's.

I repeat Ken Chafin said in a debate with Paige Patterson at Samford in April of 1987: "A Bible in the Hands of a Believer who will not submit it to rational means of investigation is a dangerous thing, and has often been used to buttress up injustice."

Nelson Prices fundy takeover forebears buttressed up the White Citizens Council and the Birch Society; and now he and Dowles Buttress up the Tea Party; witless or not, the unjust consequences are just as damnable.

Baptists Ethicsdaily.com and Baptists Today show a better way. If there is still time Greater Rome must destroy this cancer metastasizing at Shorter.

Reinhardt also used a different process to come up with their statement of faith.

And Night Owl you are a desperate candidate for a deliberative and prayerful reading of Giberson and Stephens The Anointed; and Rachel Held Evans Evolving in Monkeytown.

Start a reading group with Dowles and Price and Joy Battles, Lewis Grizzard's good friend; and please in Jesus Name get to work on it right away.

Please for the Enlightenment of Rome, Ga. And my God, please tell me you are not against the Enlightenment or the Reformation or the Civil Rights Movement; or did you think like Nelson Price's friends Larry Macdonald and Jesse Helms that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Communist

Night.Owl

after reading your post I would like to introduce you to the kettle.

you call posters on this site who do not agree with you "liberal, religion illiterate" May I point out to you that the states with the highest number per capita of Southern Baptists, also have the lowest education rankings in the United States. My point is this, yes the Bible is important to a believer, but an education is what pays the bills. Until God starts raining money for studying His word, I will choose a real education at an institution whose namesake hasn't become a pawn for the GBC.

To ohmy!

So you are saying all Southern Baptist are illiterate? If you believe that, I think it only proves my point about lack of knowledge of the subject.

Since Southern Baptist dominate the population in every state below the Mason Dixon line, your statement doesn't really prove anything except that the south has the lowest education rankings in the nation. I think that has more to do with the education systems than what church 16 million Americans belong to. Most Southern Baptist I know are intelligent, thoughtful people. Are you a Southerner? I would dare say that more Southern Baptist have their children in private schools and home school co-ops, and they score higher on test than the majority of their public school educated peers.

As for what kind of education you would choose, that right belongs to everyone including Southern Baptist. Those who choose Shorter University will get the kind of college experience and education they want, or they will leave. It is only right for them to know before they enroll that it is a Christ centered University affiliated with the GBC/SBC. On the other hand, folks like you will know they do not want to attend a Christ centered school.

I think there are reasons that literacy levels and education quality are lowest in states with large numbers of Southern Baptists but I don't think that means the education problems are due to Southern Baptists.

I believe observant Southern Baptist kids are likely to finish high school.

Rank-and-file Southern Baptists, probably due more to culture than theology, are more likely to support lower taxes, smaller government and an emphasis on self-reliance and responsibility. There are many good things associated with those values but there are a couple of byproducts to note:

* Lower educational spending leading to weaker schools

* Less support for kids growing up in families whose parents for whatever reason aren't providing well for them, especially if those parents are unchurched.

This is a generalization for which there are surely many offsetting, though ultimately secondary factors.

Southern Baptists are still great people Schools like Mercer and Wake Forest are great institutions to be proud of.

You want hateful NightOwl? Try having your employer telling you that you aren't the right kind of Christian to work there anymore if you don't believe as he believes.

Uninformed? Hardly. The Faith Statement and associated documents are public record, as is the Gospel of Dowless where his policies are concerned.

Inflammatory? It's known by another term... calling a spade a spade and not allowing bigotry and intolerance to hide beind a cloak of religion. And that's not a matter of someone taking a Biblical stand, but of calling out so-called Christians when they take decidedly un-Christian stands and undertake un-Christian and unjust actions against fellow Christians.

I'm also worried by someone2's responses yesterday to several questions I raised (see below). His/her answers are troubling and seem consistent with other stuff I'm hearing. I don't know who someone2 is but his/her comments here over the last year have tracked well with subsequent events.

The picture I'm beginning to form is of a situation that's snowballing out of Dr. Dowless's control or understanding.

And the cumulative affect might be that Shorter does have problems in the foreseeable future. But I do not think it is detrimental to its existence. It could be Shorter becomes a different kind of institution with stronger ties to it's parent organization.

I have done a lot of research on faith based institutions. My research bears witness to this fact: those that claim association with a sectarian organization thrive when they affirm that relationship and strive to make it strong. Those who are in continual conflict with the parent tend to be consumed with breaking away and then have trouble establishing themselves as autonomous institutions. Especially those who do not have a strong alumni giving base.

It will take time to see how all this shakes out with Shorter. NGU had a get exodus and an influx of excellent faculty. But it is all the stronger for what it has gone through. Did I agree with every step the president took in 1991? No. When he showed me his 1 page mission and vision I thought it was laughable. Today, anyone who does strategic planning sees this as laudable. But his was no quick fix. It took time and the plan worked. Do I still have differences with the president at NGU? Yes, but I cannot honestly assess his work and say the college is abysmal for his being there. I can only say his leadership is not what I would have done, but it works. NGU just added its first doctoral program. I am proud to say I was a part of helping it get SACSCOC Level III status. Many at Shorter who stick around will express the same sentiment in the ensuing years. Those who adamantly disagree with the administration might be better served by granting the current administration a "fare thee well" and "godspeed".

Almost I am a faculty member at Shorter and try to provide the most accurate info possible. While I am obviously not a fan of the changes, I do try and present the situation as clearly as I can based on my knowledge and understanding. I was told at one point that 80% of the staff wanted to leave. While that is likely and over estimate, I think that the survey of staff would have provided very similar numbers.

In short about 10-15% of the faculty and staff support the changes, the rest, even the most conservative Baptists, do not.

CHM_from_SC

Since you worked with Dr. Dowless at his last school, are there any parallels to the current situation at Shorter? Did North Greenville University go through any of these changes? Dr. Dowless was clearly brought in, as you point out, to change things at Shorter -- was that his role at NGU, too? Does NGU have the same statement of faith as Shorter? What do you think will happen at Shorter?

Thanks for sharing your experience.

You just demonstrated another example of that hypocisy CHM...

"In this country alone. Now that is a problem and being an example to the upcoming generation can hardly be asking too much."

The policy at Shorter doesn't dictate no alcohol at all, just none in public, something quite contrary to the Baptist "teetotaling tradition". So it's not Baptist dogma Dowless is imposing on others, nor scripture, but his own hypocritical, intolerant personal belief system.

"Maybe Jesus would not want to work there."

You read Phil's statement wrong. It's not a question of whether or not Jesus would WANT to work at Shorter, but that in fact given what we know if him from scripture he COULDN'T work there with the policies Dowless has enacted. He isn't the "right kind" of Christian.

Read more: RN-T.com - Dowless issues statement on Shorter survey

Voter,

I believe I am now seeing the rationale of your statement. I should have worn by cowboy boots to this shindig...

geekazoid,

Not trying to impress anyone. Just trying to interject some sense into the argument. You are incorrect instating that these historical examples have no place in the argument. I would say they are well placed within the confines of this argument. It is people like you who try to compartmentalize such as incidents by saying they are not a part of a larger argument. And who is "us"? Are we not all a part of the greater Christian community trying to understand the greater issue here, or are you trying the old "southern" response that if you don't like it here you can go home? Dismissing me and my opinion as not being "impress[ive to] us" is trifling and beneath anyone associated with academics.

Try a little harder.

PhilMaco:

My responses below:

"WWJD? He would drink alcohol in public. Check the bible."

He did, and Baptist tradition has been a "teetotaling" approach to alcohol. Check your history. Doesn't make Him wrong. It just recognizes that alcohol use and abuse accounts for the deaths of nearly 41,000 people each year. In this country alone. Now that is a problem and being an example to the upcoming generation can hardly be asking too much. Especially when they think we are hypocrites to begin with.

"WWJD? He would associate with those who do not fit the high standards of Dowless in an attempt to show them Christian love and with an understanding that ALL of us are sinners, even those who meet Dowless' approval. Check the bible."

Association does not mean assuming tendencies. Nowhere does it say in the Bible that Jesus acted as a sinner. People labelled him as doing such, but there is no indication that he took paid prostitutes for sex and acted in concert with those who over-imbibed. Don't think Jesus was a drunken pimp.

"Dowless has decided to pick his favorite "sins" as an exclusionary list of Shorter employees, he has chosen to ignore the others."

Maybe he has been a little too confining on some, but I would say only on the most public of such. Not sure Dowless has favorite sins. I think he dealt with the ones he believed should be dealt with. For that matter the Board must have felt that way as well. It is amazing to me that many people posting here believe they are the only ones consulting God in this argument. Is it too much of a stretch to believe others might be doing and acting out of the same conviction?

"WWJD? He would NOT be an active member of a baptist church. Check the bible."

Does the agreement say baptist church? Or does it say local church? I think the latter and not the former is the case. And if it does, Shorter has been traditionally identified as a Georgia Baptist Institution. Being a Christian to work at a Christian/Baptist institution...call me crazy, but sounds like good sense to me.

"The most telling thing about Dowless, in my opinion, is that under his regime and rules, not even Jesus could work at Shorter University."

Your opinion. You have every right to vocalize it. Maybe you are right. Maybe Jesus would not want to work there. I think that would be best left for Him to decide. We have way too many people presuming upon the Lord...

CHM_from_SC: You are dragging in issues that have nothing do do with the debate here in an attempt to obfuscate the issues. Somalia has nothing to do with this, and the founders of Protestantism the same. I doubt that those founders would have approved of Dowless' and the trustees' high-handedness in attempting to foist their own prejudices on the faculty at Shorter. Their personal prejudices in favor of fundamentalist narrow-mindedness is the issue here in spite of your attempt to divert from it. Dowless feel that his own personal prejudices are the only way Christians can feel and behave. It's his conceit, not Christianity. Faith is not sufficient either; a person can have total, unwavering faith undo death and still be totally wrong. This is not character assassination; it's the ability to see a spade and call it a spade. Your dislike of someone calling fundamentalist is more indicative of your own desire to cloud the waters; that's exactly the motivation here.

Shorter tried desperately to get away from the GBC because they were afraid something like this might happen. Mercer tried to stay with the GBC and was cast out. I, and many others, see the GBC as the villain here. Your support of it does not impress us.

To mirage83,

my responses below:

"It may be Southern Baptist to enact bigoted policies which make the demands Donald Dowless is, but it's hardly Christian."

You are absolutely and fundamentally right in all of your assertions. How does it feel to be an absolutist/fundamentalist? How does it feel to be branded as such? I Googled "Bigot" and this is the definition, "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Is there no room for what you have deemed "bigoted" behavior? If not then you too are a bigot. Or have I misread the definition? Maybe it is not your definition?

"And that you've lost a job because you wouldn't toe the line where your personal religious beliefs are concerned doesn't make your employer right to force you to make such a decision."

In the case of a private institution, it can happen. It happens in public institutions. Presidents come in and totally revamp the leadership to reflect their way of conducting business. It happens every day. You do not have to make a decision to sign. You can acquiesce or leave. I've done that and I bet you have as well.

"As for Dowless being a scholar of biblical studies, that does not address the point that many of the policies at Shorter are not found in the Bible. They're of his creation alone, yet he (and others) insist on presenting them as based on scripture or Christian in nature, something which has already been proven false."

I think this is a gross overstatement of what has been done. A question I would pose is were you with him as he made these decisions? Do you know his motivation? Did you hear his prayers as he consulted his conscious during these deliberations? So to say these are creations of his own is a little too much for met o accept.

"When it's forced down the throat of others or costs them their job, yes, it's bigoted and intolerant. That it's religious bigotry and intolerance doesn't excuse it."

Nor does it excuse you when you use the same tactics you decry his use of.

"You haven't defended Dowless, merely excused and rationalized his policies and action. So lets not pretend that his actions aren't bigoted, intolerant, and unjust to fellow Christians. Trying to cloak such things in a mantel of religious purity merely taints all other Christians who don't engage in such narrow-minded behaviors."

Maybe you are right. But I have not excused any action. Rationalized? Yes. I think a little rational thought needs to be interjected in this discussion. I think it highly irrational to paint Dowless as an agent of Gestapo intent on establishing a Fundamentalist state in Rome, Georgia. Now that is bigoted.

PhilMaco,

My responses below:

"CHM's selected bible verse, Matthew 18:15, instructs us to keep our criticism private."

"Yet CHM, in a move COMPLETELY BAPTIST, left out the rest of the verses."

Well you have identified me as "COMPLETELY BAPTIST". You have outed me. Is that the rub here? Baptist tenets? I left the verses out because I saw no evidence the first instruction had been attempted. And I still do not see that many here have done so. I read that some have, but not that each who has a problem with Dowless has indeed done so. I suggest reaching out first then following the instructions of Christ if Dowless will not listen. If that is done then I have no problem continuing on.

'But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.'

Can you prove that he has not listened? Have you gone to him? If you read the context of this this is done in the church and not in public? This forum is not the church. It is a public forum. Nowhere did I say the word "whisper" - your words not mine. I only suggest that one starts at the instruction given by Christ and follow through. I have not seen evidence of obeying the first instruction yet.

"sorry CHM, I won't let you pick and choose the convenient verses and ignore the others. YOU think it's christian to whisper to Dowless, because that's YOUR preference."

No apologies necessary. If I am wrong, I am wrong. But as for picking and choosing verses. I think this forum is ample evidence that the picking and choosing of Christian, for that matter Baptist, polity is alive and well.

Nice try PhilMaco...

geekazoid,

See my responses below:

"character references are all well and good, but it's Dr. Dowless' arrogant behavior and fundamentalist self-righteousness, his willingness to punish those who do not follow his lead in all ways, and his spin-doctoring have caused this problem."

Is it arrogance to stand firm on matters of faith? If so, then Marin Luther King Jr., and his 16th century namesake were equally arrogant, self-righteous and fundamentalists. Was John Calvin and John Knox, no less? What about the Puritans. What standing up for Christians being slaughtered in Somalia? Is it arrogant to stand up for what we believe is patently wrong? Since when did standing up for things right and virtuous become wrong? Apparently beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What is wrong for recognizing that we should be stalwart Christian examples to our students albeit from a Southern Baptist perspective or otherwise? I would say the world needs more academics who profess their beliefs and not hide them in some compartment hoping they would not taint their academic fortresses. Self-righteous? Is that a label you are giving him? I've never known him to be anything more than a humble man. Self-righteous, not from my experience with him. And this is not a character reference. I have nothing to gain from these posts. Nor does he, except for gaining some respect from those on the fence about his actions. These are my observances, however myopic they may be. But are not all of our observances myopic?

"Shorter was already a Christian school and had never swayed from those principles. It did not need a fundamentalist takeover and purging of dissident elements, and it did not need the imposition of the "principles" of a hidebound few on the faculty, staff, and student body. Your confidence in Dr. Dowless' and the trustees' motives is misplaced."

Your branding Dowless' efforts as fundamentalist is an easy way to scare people and obscure the real issue. The real issue is whether Shorter will continue in its foundational relationship with GBC as a GBC cooperating partner. If so, it must resemble the tenets of foundational Southern Baptist belief. Many of those are outlined in the statement developed for the employees of the college. And I would challenge anyone who says otherwise.

You, and your kin, at Shorter are at a crossroad. And many tough questions have to be asked and courageous conversations must be had. I would say that Dowless, while opening a can of worms with a statement of belief, has at the very least cut to the quick of issues you at Shorter must be willing to discuss. The Don Dowless I know would be very willing to discuss these with you. He was always open with me. If you have concerns don't try and cloak them with this talk of "fundamentalist takeover". To rephrase a recent commercial, "that was so 35 years ago".

I never said I have confidence in either Dowless or the trustees to change the direction of Shorter. But is that not why colleges bring on new presidents, to effect change?

However, I did say the character assassination being attempted here portrays not the Dowless I know. Furthermore, individuals should get to know him before branding him as something he has not demonstrated to me.

I can say from experience that these kinds of actions, however distasteful and disheartening they may be, have proven to be a catalyst for positive and effective change. But your branding something as a fundamentalist takeover is doing nothing but render obscure an already confusing situation.

CHM,

"You cannot have an institution that sways with the wind and based upon personal beliefs; either it is Christian/GBC/SBC or it is not."

It may be Southern Baptist to enact bigoted policies which make the demands Donald Dowless is, but it's hardly Christian.

And that you've lost a job because you wouldn't toe the line where your personal religious beliefs are concerned doesn't make your employer right to force you to make such a decision.

As for Dowless being a scholar of biblical studies, that does not address the point that many of the policies at Shorter are not found in the Bible. They're of his creation alone, yet he (and others) insist on presenting them as based on scripture or Christian in nature, something which has already been proven false.

"Is being faithful to traditional Christian/GBC/GBC/Baptist beliefs being bigoted?"

When it's forced down the throat of others or costs them their job, yes, it's bigoted and intolerant. That it's religious bigotry and intolerance doesn't excuse it.

You haven't defended Dowless, merely excused and rationalized his policies and action. So lets not pretend that his actions aren't bigoted, intolerant, and unjust to fellow Christians. Trying to cloak such things in a mantel of religious purity merely taints all other Christians who don't engage in such narrow-minded behaviors.

CHM_from_SC: character references are all well and good, but it's Dr. Dowless' arrogant behavior and fundamentalist self-righteousness, his willingness to punish those who do not follow his lead in all ways, and his spin-doctoring have caused this problem. Shorter was already a Christian school and had never swayed from those principles. It did not need a fundamentalist takeover and purging of dissident elements, and it did not need the imposition of the "principles" of a hidebound few on the faculty, staff, and student body. Your confidence in Dr. Dowless' and the trustees' motives is misplaced.

Mirage83,

See my answers below:

"Does it say "integrity" to you when a man dictates the beliefs of others and demands that they sign a document attesting that their personal religious beliefs are the same as his, or lose their job?"

I would question which beliefs are blatantly personal, non-Christian, or non-Georgia/Southern Baptist? You are obscuring the issue with your personal beliefs as much as anyone. The question here is "who is Shorter?" If it does hold to a sectarian stand what are those stances? You cannot have an institution that sways with the wind and based upon personal beliefs; either it is Christian/GBC/SBC or it is not. I have been there and have lost my job, and I was a better person because of it.

"You believe we're not speaking the truth about him and his policies at Shorter? Please feel free to point out precisely which of our claims and statements are inaccurate."

I said you were misreading him as a person. I do not know what his policies are except that which has been trotted out in the paper and on these posts. I can say I never saw Dowless press individuals in such a way as to cause them to lose their jobs. I can say that what you, and others are saying is out of character for a man I have been acquainted with for nearly 15 years. I stand on my assertions.

"Would you like being told that you not only have to act, but have to think and believe a certain way or find another job?"

Been there, done that. Not a happy place at the time but a lot more fulfilling and meaningful when I saw it as the hand of God working in my life. Many of us see God as some unobtrusive fair weather friend who helps us when we are down. I have found that God (the Christian God) is much more profound than that. My whole life was changed when I began understanding Him not as I want but as the Bible portrays.

"The fealty in question isn't to Christianity, but to Dowless. This is quite evident given that the policies enacted under Dowless at Shorter aren't based on Biblical scripture, but on The Donald's personal interpration of what he thinks the Bible says."

There you go, characterizing him as some Mafia Don who comes to town to "make [you] and offer [you] can't refuse". Your thoughts are skewed because of your personal involvement and it takes the form of a personal attack against Dowless. Understandable, but misguided. You need to understand that Dowless is a biblical scholar and not some fly by night administrative junkie who took the reins of power after a short stint as a VP. He was head of a department of Religion and is qualified to interpret the scripture and not just from a personal standpoint. You can ask any of the Christian Studies faculty at NGU of their respect for Dr. Dowless and his abilities to be fair.

"And policies based on religious bigotry and intolerance is moving backward, not forward. What he's done in the past is in the past, it doesn't justify or rationalize what he's doing now to Shorter and it's faculty, staff, and students."

Is being faithful to traditional Christian/GBC/GBC/Baptist beliefs being bigoted? Or are we interpreting Christianity today in light of the American ethic of inclusiveness? Is it any less bigoted for you to proclaim bigotry in this case? I would say search your beliefs before you come after Dowless and his beliefs. We place ourselves on righteous pedestals by ripping others from theirs? Not sure who the bigot is in this case.

My Quote: "I would say that the tone of these arguments should subside and if you truly have a problem with Dr. Dowless do as Jesus said, “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.""

Your Quote: "When Dowless conducts himself in that manner, we will. But so far he has shown absolutely no interest in any viewpoints or opinions which don't conform to the Gospel of Dowless. There's nothing 'reasonable' about his bigoted and prejudicial actions at Shorter."

Since when was this scripture used for those who are in righteous standing? It was used, by Jesus, to bring the unrighteous back into relationship with God an others. You make my point - Thanks!

"Is it Christian for him to dismiss fellow Christians when they don't share all his personal religious beliefs?"

I think that is the point you need to take up with him. I cannot speak for his demeanor at the time Christians were dismissed, nor would I presume to do so. I think it is presumptuous of you to do so without speaking with both sides. I have found the truth is found in the middle somewhere.

"Is he acting like the one who saves us when he tells fellow Christians that since they aren't HIS kind of Christian that there is no place for them at Shorter?"

I have never known Dr. Dowless to have a Messiah complex. Just the opposite in fact. He is quite human and has spent times on numerous occasions listening to my ideas and thoughts - none of these times did he make me think he was any type of Messiah as you have so eloquently stated here.

"Defend such actions if you can, but don't try and pretend such things aren't happening at Shorter because of him. They are."

I think I have defended my remarks. As to Shorter, I am not there on a day to day basis. So, I cannot remark on what is happening. I can say that the comments describing him here are out of character for Dr. Dowless. I think you need to spend your time trying to understand what he is doing rather than marching out your feelings here. Just my two cents...

AA,

Yes, some faculty members have requested and gotten a personal meeting with Dowless and conveyed their concerns. He listened to their opinions and thoughts on the issues, but basically told them that he felt that the new policies were important to the continuation of Shorter as a Christian community and would be enforced regardless of their concerns.

I would say that he did come across as humble and unobtrusive, but also dead-set against anything that did not conform to his personal beliefs. As far as he's concerned his views are the only right and proper ones, and anyone who has a problem with them was welcome to walk out the door.

Almost Anonymous,

See my answers below:

"Since you worked with Dr. Dowless at his last school, are there any parallels to the current situation at Shorter?" I was at NGU in 1991 when the current president took office and conducted similar actions. There was no signed statement of faith, but I did lose my job. And I was all the better for it. I returned to NGU in the mid '90's and worked there until 2006. The college grew and prospered because of the actions taken by the president. Did I agree with all of them? No. Can I honestly say NGU is in better shape than it was in 1991? Unequivocally yes - both financially and academically. Both of these while maintaining and strengthening its faith commitment.

"Did North Greenville University go through any of these changes?" Yes. And as I stated above it came through a challenging time to become a first rate institution - with a great fine arts department. The chair of Fine Arts was just awarded a prestigious honor for her work. Dowless was no doubt a part of her success.

"Dr. Dowless was clearly brought in, as you point out, to change things at Shorter -- was that his role at NGU, too?" All college presidents are brought in to effect change. No one likes change, and this diatribe against Dr. Dowless proves it. If the Board backs off on its choice now, whether you agree with them or not, shame on them. He was not brought in to change things. He was really brought in to strengthen relationships between faculty and the president and to insure academic strength. He did both. I would say he did both at his previous institution as well.

"Does NGU have the same statement of faith as Shorter?" Not when I left. And not now to my knowledge.

"What do you think will happen at Shorter?" I would say that Shorter will continue to thrive. 145 years of history will count for something. It has been a cornerstone of Georgia Baptist commitment to higher education. Although it takes on the tenor (no pun intended) of the President, the institution is larger than any one individual. Shorter will be there long after Dr. Dowless and long after many of those who languish here in these posts. I have found in my experience that in ten years many will not even recall these events and the anguish felt over them. Many will look back and see this as a challenging time which caused growth at some level.

Responding to CHM_from_SC's challenge for Shorter employees to take their concerns directly to Dr. Dowless:

Has anyone done this? How did Dr. Dowless take it? Were there any reprisals when people did this respectfully?

For those that have actually dealt with Dr. Dowless face-to-face at Shorter, does Dr. Dowless come across as a "humble individual with quiet and unobtrusive methods" or has his demeanor changed?

Thanks for any insight you can share.

Does it say "integrity" to you when a man dictates the beliefs of others and demands that they sign a document attesting that their personal religious beliefs are the same as his, or lose their job?

You believe we're not speaking the truth about him and his policies at Shorter? Please feel free to point out precisely which of our claims and statements are inaccurate.

"No one likes to be pushed from their zones of comfort to other ways of thinking"

Would you like being told that you not only have to act, but have to think and believe a certain way or find another job?

"What I have seen is Dr. Dowless do is to bring together a faculty and move it forward to achieve university status in every sense of the word - without compromising academic and Christian fealty."

The fealty in question isn't to Christianity, but to Dowless. This is quite evident given that the policies enacted under Dowless at Shorter aren't based on Biblical scripture, but on The Donald's personal interpration of what he thinks the Bible says.

And policies based on religious bigotry and intolerance is moving backward, not forward. What he's done in the past is in the past, it doesn't justify or rationalize what he's doing now to Shorter and it's faculty, staff, and students.

"I would say that the tone of these arguments should subside and if you truly have a problem with Dr. Dowless do as Jesus said, “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.""

When Dowless conducts himself in that manner, we will. But so far he has shown absolutely no interest in any viewpoints or opinions which don't conform to the Gospel of Dowless. There's nothing "reasonable" about his bigoted and prejudicial actions at Shorter.

Is it Christian for him to dismiss fellow Christians when they don't share all his personal religious beliefs?

Is he acting like the one who saves us when he tells fellow Christians that since they aren't HIS kind of Christian that there is no place for them at Shorter?

Defend such actions if you can, but don't try and pretend such things aren't happening at Shorter because of him. They are.

mirage83

my responses below:

"The policy at Shorter doesn't dictate no alcohol at all, just none in public, something quite contrary to the Baptist 'teetotaling tradition'."

I would say there is some wiggle room then. What's the big complaint for. At NGU I couldn't have the stuff at all. I never had a problem with that.

"So it's not Baptist dogma Dowless is imposing on others, nor scripture, but his own hypocritical, intolerant personal belief system."

What I see is that Dowless is not an unreasonable man. If he were unreasonable and intolerant then he would have banned alcohol outright. Hypocritical? Only if he believes that the use of alcohol is wrong and and imposes his beliefs on others and does not follow them himself. I still believe this is an emotional issue for you. You will not win this battle in the public square.

My quote: "Maybe Jesus would not want to work there."

Your Quote: "You read Phil's statement wrong. It's not a question of whether or not Jesus would WANT to work at Shorter, but that in fact given what we know if him from scripture he COULDN'T work there with the policies Dowless has enacted. He isn't the 'right kind' of Christian."

You misread my statement. I said exactly what I meant. I did not misread Phil's statement. I understood it completely. I just made the assertion that Jesus might not want to work at Shorter. It has been my understanding that Jesus did pretty much what He wanted to do under His own terms. The idea of employment probably never crossed His mind. Like I said, this is an emotional issue for you and others close to it. Branding it patently Christian or non-Christian is purely an emotional response.

Good question, RomeGaLady.

Maybe it was easier to do the full-time faculty -- their names are published and they don't turn over as much. Or maybe the survey sponsors wanted to focus on the faculty. I don't know.

How do the staff feel about all these changes? Is there much variation between different groups of staff (maintenance vs. administrative, etc?). How has Dr. Dowless treated the staff? Have they been brought into the discussions? A number of faculty have left or said they're going to leave -- is this true of the staff or do they support Dr. Dowless's changes? What do you think is going to happen to Shorter?

I'm very interested in what you and other staff members have to say.

Comm,

Since when and according to which Bible is bigotry and prejudice a "biblical belief and value"? Because that's what Shorter and it's administration is now promoting in it's actions and policies.

Intolerance? Have you been paying attention to the issues and events under discussion? At Shorter, unless you believe as Donald Dowless personally believes and sign on the dotted line to confirm that you do believe as he believes, you're not fit to work there. And Donald Dowless by his own admission isn't basing Shorters policies on scripture, but instead on HIS VIEW of scripture, his interpretation of the Bible. He has no tolerance of other viewpoints, not even other Christian viewpoints.

Care to guess how manhy policies he's enacted which have no basis in the Word of God? Or for that matter, which policies are so out of touch with Christian ideals that Jesus himself wouldn't be welcome as a faculty member there?

Hypocrisy? Is it hypocritical for a supposedly Christian-oriented institution to openly and flagrantly act in a prejudicial, intolerant, and unjust manner toward Christians? All because those other Christians don't fit what Donald Dowless considers to be REAL Christians?

God may be holy and deserving of our full trust and obedience, but Donald Dowless, and thereby Shorter, most assuredly don't deserve our trust or obedience. It's sad for a great many talented staff and faculty there that obedience to the Word of Dowless is what is being demanded as the price of keeping their jobs.

Where is the Christian love and fellowship in such actions and policies?

Hypocrisy indeed.

As far as public drinking goes you can certainly read through Proverbs and find that wine is a mocker and beer is a brawler. You're right to say the Bible does not prohibit drinking alcohol. However Paul makes it clear that we are to avoid doing things that make it easier for others to stumble. Would anybody disagree that many of our young people stumble when it comes to alcohol? Is it such a terrible thing to give up a "right" such as that in order to be better examples to our youth? I would gladly drink water all my life if I could keep my kids from ever experimenting with something that has destroyed so many.

Which Comm, demonstrates the proscription against public consumption of alcohol to not be Biblically based. The Bible warns of the dangers of drinking to excess, to intoxication, but consumption in moderation is not proscribed, much less consumption in public.

Dowless is merely imposing his personal beliefs on others with this directive, and using religion to hide the personal nature of the proscription.

Dishonest and hypocritical, all at one time.

I agree that it is dangerous to speak out firmly that "God is saying..." when it is not in Scripture. I don't think it is wise to ever do so. However, I also think that many of us have issues with authority, which is a biblical pattern for us. When I was in Bible college we had a lot of rules and I was tempted to find them bothersome, but then I remembered that the military also has rules and that people who belong to any important and meaningful organization or team will have rules. Those can seem arbitrary, but they usually are there to support the purpose of the organization and it takes a wider look to see that. I have benefited by submitting to proper authority. It's a good question to ask ourselves: Why am I so upset about this? If Jesus asked the rich man to give up all he had and then follow him, was he wrong to do that? Would I be willing to do that if he asked it of me? Would you?

Jesus isn't asking anything at Shorter Comm. Neither for that matter is Dowless, as he's demanding. Either believe as he believes or find another job. And equating Donald Dowless in your analogy with Jesus is laughable.

So why should anyone "submit" to Donald Dowless' personal religious beliefs?

How is Shorter served by one man dictating not only the actions of others but the beliefs as well?

What sort of Christian makes the demands of fellow Christians that Dowless is doing at Shorter with his Faith Statements and other nonsense?

To do so may be Southern Baptist, but it's not Christian.

Mirage I'm not comparing Dowless to Jesus. We all fail that test. You miss my point. Authority is God ordained. That's the reason I try to be reapectful with the current administration even though I disagree with it on many issues. I gave you good, biblical advice on why it might be wise to cooperate when it comes to the consumption of alcohol. Dowless was fairly put in place as president. He has to answer to God for his own behavior and choices as do we. I have to live under authority that I don't always agree with or understand. I am trying to teach my kids this all the time. It is a part of life.

Comm,

The position of president at Shorter is God ordained? Through whom did this ordination come?

"I gave you good, biblical advice on why it might be wise to cooperate when it comes to the consumption of alcohol."

Good biblical advice about a policy which contrary to the person who enacted it has no basis in scripture.

Why should anyone cooperate with a petty tyrant like Dowless when he enacts policies which are not only unjust but un-Christian as well? And at a supposedly Christian institution no less? Aren't we all under a moral obligation to oppose unjust practices and policies of those in power?

There is such a thing as abuse of power, abuse of authority, even by legitimate authories. That's the situation at hand here.

"This thing about alcohol." Hm. The discovery of the distilling of alcohol, the creation of champagne, and an enormous amount of winemaking were done by monks. At least one monastic group still makes wine and brandy, and at least two make liquers. Many of the original American whiskey distillers were Baptist preachers. Many of the founding fathers made alcohol in various forms. Many Christian churches and groups today have no problem with alcohol, just with its abuse or misuse. Temperance is not necessarily a Christian tradition, but it's popular with certain bluenosed groups who think their dislikes should be everyone else's.

I believe they are both puppets being run by the head puppet master, Dr. Robert White, president of the Georgia Baptist Convention. Who I'm sure has no problems whatsoever in seeing Shorter closed down completely so it can be reopened in their grand scheme of things.

This bunch is expecting alumni to quietly accept the changes and that our school is no longer ours. They have grossly underestimated the love of the alumni for this once great school. Those who are continuing to fight, have been told by alumni of other schools that have been taken over by this lot that we should just give up and slink away.

Well, we won't be silenced, not until we have exposed all of the lies these puppets are spinning.