Over the course of the last few days, several things have happened in SGA that I think deserve clarification and that we would love your feedback on moving forward. I proposed earlier this week that SGA as an entity be dissolved for the period of one year. Events would still be sponsored and planned under a specific Events Council whose positions are still voted on by the student body at-large and the respective classes. One of the main reasons for the proposed change would be to reevaluate the functions of SGA and how it could best fit with the direction of Bryan College as a whole, to clearly see the essentials that the organization provides. I remain firm in the belief that this proposal would be best for SGA and student leaders on campus, but there are many people whom I respect inside SGA and out of it that disagree with me. I believe in this change, others do not, and disagreement is not a bad thing.

The Corporate Body of SGA will have the final vote on this proposal Tuesday, Feb. 7, at the first Corporate Meeting of the semester. I understand that I have simply given an overview and not many specifics on my line of reasoning, so I encourage anyone with an opinion on this issue to please contact your representative or friends in SGA to ask questions and give thoughts.

Thank you all,

Vincent Smith

Your Student Body President

I read your letter to the editor this past week, and while there were several things that I agree with, the main point has been bothering me all week. I have to say, I disagree. You said, “I do believe that having attraction to the same sex is wrong and is an act that requires repentance.”

Same-sex attraction is not a sin. Same-sex attraction is not an act. Same-sex attraction is a temptation, and a temptation that a lot of research suggests will be with you your entire life. Attraction is also not the same as lust.

I believe that even you would agree with this. If attraction is lust, than attraction to anyone of the opposite sex is also sin, unless they’re your spouse (so good luck courting).

Instead the main Greek word used for lust, also often translated covet, can also be used for good desires (Hebrews 6:11 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end). It is a desire or longing for a thing. But that desire is wrong, when it reduces someone to an object to crave.

Attraction, on the other hand, notices that the person your looking at looks good. I think that Emma Watson is attractive, and several of my friends. But that is not the same as lusting after any of them. Can attraction be a temptation? Certainly. Is it sin? No.

In the same way that I can be tempted to gorge myself on a feast, to hurt someone who’s wronged me, or to pridefully ridicule an opinion I disagree with, I can be tempted to lust after those I find attractive. It is not sin to feel temptation. Jesus felt temptation too. But being tempted isn’t wrong.

To single out a single temptation as being itself sin, requiring of repentance drives away those who desperately need our help. Instead it is typical for them to find the church’s doors closed. God spent time with sinners. He loved them so much it killed him. Though he tells them to “sin no more,” he also offers them forgiveness for their failings, and restoration.

So yes, “everyone struggles with something.” Your sins are no more or less acceptable to God than any other. Maybe we as the Church need to remember that we are just as flawed as those we so often seek to condemn.

- Junior Sean Bunger

Concerning your recent article about the piano situation on campus, I feel that there was some crucial information left out that would change the course of this discussion.

I was disappointed with the fact that the article did not give what I believe is the most important reason why not every student is allowed access to the pianos in Rudd. All music majors and minors who are taking lessons from music faculty have to pay a $125-250 music lab fee that goes to the music department for the upkeep of the current pianos. We pay the music department for the “privilege” to use the pianos.

The music department is not trying to deprive the rest of the student body of the opportunity to practice. Every student has the ability to take music lessons and pay the lab fee to use the pianos if they desire. It’s only fair that students who wish to practice on the Rudd pianos be asked to pay the same fee that music students do.

The caption under my picture that was placed with the article was misinforming. The reason I am allowed to play the pianos in Rudd is because I am a music minor taking lessons, and I pay the music lab fee. I mentioned to the Triangle staffer who took my picture that he had to hurry because I was supposed to be teaching a lesson in about a minute. I believe I also said something to the order of, “The only time I’m allowed to be in here (talking about the practice room with the grand piano) is when I teach my music lesson.” I never said anything about that having to do with my ability to practice on the Rudd pianos in general. However, I do understand how that may have gotten misinterpreted.

I agree with the article in the fact that this is an issue worth talking about, and it would be nice if SGA could have a piano on campus that other students may use. At the same time, let’s remember that having a piano to practice on is not a right, it’s a privilege.

- Junior Kelly Findley

Graciously re-stocking pool sticks and cleaning egg off the side of buildings isn’t exactly normal. Yet, someone at Bryan College is willingly doing it. After reading the well-written article about vandalism in the Triangle, I first thought, “Vandalism at Bryan—who would do such a thing?” and then I thought, “Forgiveness at Bryan—who would do such a thing?”

Reading about Mr. Doug Schott and the way he’s patiently cleaned up after the vandalism made me realize how truly grateful I am for what we have on this little hill. It’s easy to point out the cons or the negative aspects of our college. The truth is, we have something here at Bryan that students at other Christian colleges don’t have. Some say it’s community. Others say it’s passion. However, the attractive “thing” we find at Bryan College goes deeper than simply a character trait or emotion. It’s a lifestyle, and it’s a lifestyle modeled after Jesus Himself. Mr. Doug Schott is a living, breathing example of Jesus to us. He not only cleans up after the vandals, he seeks a solution with them and even prays for them! That’s a crazy kind of forgiveness and love, and—just think—we get to witness that every day here at Bryan! How humbling it is to know that I am being blessed daily by someone who’s replicating their life after Christ’s. This lifestyle is what sets us apart, and we should try to appreciate it better.

Some may never understand or copy Mr. Schott’s lifestyle, which is modeled after Jesus. Regardless, we should still recognize what it looks like and give thanks daily for its presence in our lives. I am reminded of Paul’s words in Romans 12:

“Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. [...] Live in harmony with one another. [...] Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ To the contrary, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

I hope the vandalism ends, but if it doesn’t, may Mr. Doug Schott continue to “bless those who persecute him” by praying for the vandals, and may he continue to “contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality” by re-stocking those pool sticks. Let’s learn from his example and follow his lead. In doing so, we imitate Christ as well.

- Freshman Rebekah Weaver

Dear Editor,

I recently attended the couch event on homosexuality and read Love Is An Orientation by Andrew Marin. Needless to say, this issue has been on my mind a lot lately.

During my socially developmental high school years, I befriended some amazing people who are directly influenced by this issue, yet shamefully antagonized by some church groups. They are fellow locals who have the potential to benefit from Bryan’s Rhea County Scholarship, so I unashamedly invited them to look into Bryan as a potential college.

I was able to help remove their fears of being unfairly stereotyped if their secret somehow got out, but they ended up at a different college for other reasons. Their presence here would have blended the better aspects of my mediocre high school experience with the new vitality I found at Bryan, and I believe that their sexuality should not rob them of their chances at a Christian college, although many see the two sides of this debate as a theological and cultural war-zone.

The aforementioned mediocrity and loneliness of portions of my high school experience caused me to reach out to anyone from any walk of life as long as they would just listen to my story and simply be my friend. Some Christians may call this “letting my guard down,” but it was essentially how I operated and I do not regret it.

Being a member of many diverse high school clicks, I conciously chose to not belittle anyone for their personal preferences. Not to glorify myself and my personal choices, but I believe that this refusal to belittle is an essential part of the Christian walk. Tearing down stereotypes should be the first step in building bridges between the church and the LGBT community. Andrew Marin believes this, and I strongly suggest his book to anyone that aims to reach out to people in the LGBT community.

- Sophomore Logan Davis

Dear Editor,

I do agree that there is no gene linked to attraction to the same gender, however, I don’t agree that the people who struggle with this have no choice in the matter. In my opinion, it is all caused by nurture and not nature. There are lots of factors in common with the upbringing of a person who struggles with same sex attraction.

I don’t think that it is easy to overcome the urge to have that attraction, but I do think that it is possible. It is the same as someone who struggles with gluttony, trying to avoid the temptation to eat. A person who struggles with same sex attraction struggles with what we all struggle with just in a different way. Everyone has something that they struggle with. It is called sin. Some people struggle with self-esteem, others with drunkenness, and still others with greed. It is something that people work everyday to overcome.

God made man to be with woman only. So anything contrary to the way God made things is wrong. God made us in His image, and yet some people think that they do not look good enough. That person is disagreeing with God and saying that they were in fact not wonderfully and beautifully made.

I do believe that having attraction to the same sex is wrong and is an act that requires repentance.

In conclusion, I don’t agree with everything that everyone on the panel said, but I did listen and find it interesting. My viewpoint on the matter is that everyone struggles with something and they just need to take it to God and ask for His help to not fall in to temptation.

- Sophomore Luisa Wallach

I, like the majority of you on this campus, have many social media accounts. I am friends with many faculty and staff on Facebook and I have seen this connection nurture friendship and community with them. I also have a Twitter account through which I keep up with a select group of friends where we share jokes and funny occurrences in our day. Many of my professors dislike the Twitter format openly and I can only think of one professor who has an account. Regardless, because of the student-teacher integration on Facebook, I see more complaining about teachers or the school on Twitter than on Facebook. I do not speak for other students, but sometimes the act of complaining about a teacher or an assignment actually allows me to get my frustration out of the way and to accomplish the task. It may not be proper, but it works for me.

This past Thursday I was called into the Office of Student Life to explain five of my tweets. Do not be alarmed, OSL says it does not monitor our tweets or our Facebook updates, but that does not mean you cannot get in trouble if you post something on either of those platforms. I know of another situation in which someone printed photos from Facebook and took them in. Someone had gone through my thousand plus tweets and turned in five tweets they considered suspicious to OSL. I truthfully explained why I tweeted each of the five and promised to delete them upon the end of our meeting. One of the tweets I actually regretted tweeting, so I welcomed the correction.

Friends and others who heard wanted me to be angry, however, I left the meeting only feeling amused. I called two of my closest friends who are former students and they were completely shocked. My mom laughed and said that it would make a good story to share after graduation. Two of my professors said they had heard worse from other professors in the classroom. Three of my very close friends are RAs, and they just shook their head and laughed. It seemed so ridiculous that anyone who heard it had the reaction of, “Are you serious? Twitter?”

Do not misunderstand me; I do not hold anything against OSL for this meeting. I am under their authority of my own volition, and I accepted the correction and owned up to my tweets. At the time of writing, I have received no points or work hours and I am thankful for the grace I was shown in this matter

That leads me to the real point of this letter: why was I turned in? Or rather, who turned me in? Almost every person I have shared this experience with has stated that it either seems like someone holds a vendetta against me or was playing some sort of convoluted joke. I am curious as well, because, let’s be honest, it is Twitter. I thought most of my Twitter followers were my friends, though I did not protect my tweets, so my profile was accessible to anyone. I have since changed that, and I suggest you do the same.

I was told during my meeting that they do not typically have these sorts of meetings because if they monitored Twitter and Facebook, they would have these sorts of meetings all day long. My case was special because someone took the time to turn me in. Part of me wants to question why they even bothered if it something so out of the norm, but I understand the responsibility of OSL’s position, so I must ask a question: Why did that person not come to me and ask me about my tweets himself? Many of you know me and know that I am a very approachable guy. I am an adult and can handle conversations where I am being corrected. Matthew 18:15 states, “if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.”

Students complain about rules on this campus all the time. Why do we not hold each other accountable so that maybe the more ridiculous ones can slowly be shown in their own light? We asked to be treated like adults, but with every rule we break we either force our friends into awkward decisions or receive correction and then desire to rebel against the system even more. We want to be adults, yet we act like children.

I admitted that I was at fault; I received correction, changed my action, and moved forward. I am only at Bryan for a time, but this ability will extend far beyond the reaches of this hill. There will be hard to please bosses in my future. There will be ridiculous company and government policies in my future. While OSL may not monitor my Facebook and Twitter profiles, future companies will and I’m willing to bet the government already does. We have an opportunity to keep ourselves in check through biblical community; let’s use it.

- Senior Garrett Lemons

I don’t usually have a strong public voice about much of anything these days, even less so about Bryan College policies. I’m no journalist, I’m no politics major, I’m just a busy little musical theatre major with more scripts in my hands than time, but your last editorial has forced me into a very distinct public opinion and I thought I’d share it. Let me first say, however, that though I admit I am very frustrated about your previous editorial, I apologize in advance if I seem hateful or spiteful. I don’t mean to be.

I am a close friend of Matt and Milton Bell. I’ve talked to them about the “Friday Night Circus” article. They were never under the impression that their innocent product of boredom would ever be slapped onto every front page of every Triangle newspaper and shoved into every mailbox of every student on campus. They were completely unaware of the fact that they were being interviewed. Miscommunication? Probably. I’m not judging what happened during the interview, I’m just stating it to start out with: they were caught unaware.

I want to quote the mission statement for the Bryan Triangle, piece by piece:

“The Bryan College Triangle’s mission is first and foremost to bring glory and honor to God our Father and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

I am under the impression that the opinions you have shared in your editorial are in no way bringing any sort of glory to God. Maybe I’m missing something deep and hidden within the subtext, but if I were a non-Christian reading this column I would marvel at the hatred, sarcasm, and libel (Yes, libel) printed right here in our own community newspaper, not just towards “300 lb clownettes” or “A group of young adults,” “hiding in nearby shrubberies.” If I were a non-Christian, I would not only marvel, but I would laugh and say, “See? This is how Christians treat each other. This is how they show glory to their God.” Would this editorial have been worded with such patronizing terms as “preteen drama” if it were your parents involved? Would you have speculated in such a demeaning manner about your closest friends? I am, of course, referring to patronizing comments such as “hideout in nearby shrubbery,” and “Turn or burn.” “Turn or burn?” I nearly fell out of my seat when I read that. Doesn’t secular society make fun of Christianity enough without implying that our students make light of God’s law? Or maybe you were implying that they really were legalistic fanatics. Yes, what they did was immature, and at worst annoying, but in making them out to be horrible people because of a prank is completely counterproductive. Maybe you didn’t mean to slander their names, but real people read what you write, and real people make their own judgments based off of what they read, and real people make judgments on Christianity based on the way we treat each other. You’ve started a lot of nasty rumors whether you wanted to or not.

“It is our mission, also, to seek truth always and accurately and effectively report that truth to our readership;”

If you don’t have a full understanding of a concept, please don’t print it in your editorial and act as if it’s truth. You should get a full understanding of the concept. That’s your job – you’re a journalist. You should talk to the people involved, you should get the whole story. I am friends with everyone spoken about in that article, I’ve heard the story, and it is not what you have speculated in your editorial at all. This “make-out patrol” is a simple practical joke, nothing more. They’re not trying to be the “Bryan police,” they’re doing what college students do when they get bored – they amuse themselves. You’ve turned an embarrassing anecdote that college students would laugh at during open dorm and made it into this overblown vigilante vs. freedom fighter screenplay.

“…inform the Bryan College community of newsworthy issues affecting or relative to their lives while offering an independent voice for Triangle staff members and the student body at large;”

How was the article (Friday Night Circus) a noteworthy issue? Did this really affect the lives of people on campus? Was it to assure people that the “Bryan college vigilantes” will trouble us no more? If that’s the case, why kick them when they’re down and publish their names in a public paper? Was the article meant to be funny? I have a sense of humor, and yes, it was kind of funny. It was also demeaning to both the pranksters and the clowns and it does not belong in the Triangle. Was it to inform the community that there are vigilantes out there? Maybe, but there are much simpler and less offensive ways to do that. And as for the editorial, isn’t it already embarrassing enough to have your name published in an article like that? Why did you have to rub it in and tell them they got what was coming to them, and “God smiles” upon their misfortune?

“…provide hands-on, practical experience for students in the art and craft of journalism;”

As I have stated before, the information was both inaccurate and offensive. If the goal is to get hands-on experience, why wasn’t the story straight according to those I’ve talked to? Why was the story, in the editorial, speculated upon incredibly sarcastically in a public setting, instead of carefully researched?

“…bring credit and positive professional recognition to the Triangle publication and to Bryan College.”

This is another one that gets me. The article and editorial were well written and interesting, don’t get me wrong. What gets me is that five names were disclosed to the entire student body attached to an only half-accurate story, the editorial tore them up and left them in the dust. We are so much better than that. Yes, those patrollers are all my friends, yes I believe it was a bad plan in the first place to “patrol,” and yes I would say that to their faces, but heck, I don’t even need to. Our public paper already has cast judgment upon them. In that sense, the clowns weren’t the only ones flashing, but the entire student body has flashed itself. We’ve exposed a private area of our student body and left it open, flapping in the wind so the world watches what we’re doing to ourselves, and says, “This is how the body of Christ acts.” And that is what frustrates me more than anything else.

Out of your entire editorial, I did find one statement I really liked. “Let’s act like we know how to treat each other with a little respect and decency.” Let’s stop worrying about the nighttime gossip and, above all, start loving each other as Christ loves His Church. That includes both our journalists and our bored college students.

- Junior Brian Huff

Having read your letter to the Editor, we were a bit bemused at your choice to remain anonymous. After all, the editor places her name alongside her opinions and if you care and believe strongly enough in your opinion then why do you feel the need to hide away? But, then again, after reading and analyzing your rancid tirade we think its probably for the best you remain anonymous, to avoid further embarrassment for yourself.

The foremost point of the editor’s article, which you seem to have missed, is she (the editor) was not berating the rules, she was voicing concerns of the way in which they were being enforced. She stated she has read the rules and understands them—you seem to have totally missed this.

We put it to you, Mr/Mrs Anonymous, that your response was nothing short of an aggressive and insulting barrage of unnecessary and hurtful taunts which you should be ashamed of. Personally, we have great relationships with some RAs here on campus, but think we can all agree that there are a certain few who are on major power trips and abuse their position of dominion over fellow peers.

You self-confess to having “no right to judge” the heart of the editor. We strongly suggest you take a long, hard look at the response you constructed, paying particular attention to your word choices and tell us if you still feel that you did not judge the heart and the character of the editor whilst writing a response to a piece of work created and intended for the very purpose that you have abided by in producing a response.

Whilst the editor’s opinion was objectively dealing with an issue that is proven time and time over, with multiple perpetrators, your response was wholly idiosyncratic to call out the stance of the editor and the editor alone. Not once did you show mutual understanding to the situation, illustrating to anyone reading your response that you most probably are not in a position to offer a well-rounded estimation on the interactions between RAs and rule-breaking students at Bryan College.

Now we are totally aware of the strong-natured response we are presenting here, but we would never make it personal. You have the right, just like each of us, to your own opinion. But with this right comes a responsibility to respect the opinion of another, and we believe you have completely undermined this responsibility. By all means, write a response challenging the main points of the article, but do not communicate this in such a way that presents your opinion as utterly righteous.

You said to the Editor:

“You could have addressed an issue here, instead you came across as so hateful and immature you hindered your case rather than helping it.”

You also said she should not use personal bias in her writings. We believe this statement to be wildly judgmental. By mentioning that the editor has a bias (which we already know due to her editorial being an opinion piece) you have not only highlighted the fact that you are in complete juxtaposition to her view, but you communicate that because of this, her opinion is unworthy of public broadcast.

You need look no further than the great amount of debate her article has provoked, clearly depicting it to be a very successful one. The editor has sparked a great amount of interest, and clearly many within the Bryan community are now talking about this issue. This is exactly what great journalism is about.

You call the editor an “over protective mother.” Spot on, well done to you. We will overlook the attempted derogatory statement you constructed and agree with you that by definition an editorial is an article that gives an opinion on a topical issue. If an editor was to keep her business to herself and not immerse herself into the lives of the students for which she writes the school newspaper, then we would have no news stories reported, no sentiments to be shared and no platforms for cowardly anons like you to express their opinion.

You say to the Editor:

“Your editorial was way out of line, and came across not as a person who is not trying to address an issue, but a person who has unresolved issues having a catty angry gossip session with a friend.”

We would suggest that after reading your brashly ludicrous statement, that this is a slight case of one throwing a rock when residing in a glass house?

You pitch Galatians 3:26 at Catherine: we all deserve respect. Again you show yourself to be a hypocrite due to the lack of respect you have shown in your very own response.

Again, we would like to mention that we have great relationships with some RAs here on campus. We do not categorize them together as a collective group that we are prejudiced against, but we think many can agree that there are a certain few who are on self-aggrandizing quests for ever-increasing control over others and abuse their position.

Understand that the entire point of the original article was not stressing the trepidations that actions have reactions, and rules and laws being broken have resulting consequences. More, it is the manner in which the punishments for slipping up are enforced that is causing the heated debate here.

For example, to use your own reference, it is not the speeding ticket as a direct result of speeding that is the problem, but it is the way the speeding ticket is being delivered to your hand. The RAs enforcing rules would be like handing you a speeding ticket with a personal sting in the tail. No one likes it, and it is a bitter pill to swallow when the day comes that it happens to be you on the receiving end. We’re glad you “have never had a problem with the RAs,” but know, this places you completely unworthy of a valid opinion in response to the subject matter.

More than once you agreed to the sole point of the original article by saying that perhaps the incident should have been dealt with in a different manner. You could have saved yourself time and effort, and not wasted that of ours or others who read your article, by ending your response there. But then again you did “ponder for days as to whether or not you should respond” to the original article so perhaps both time and priorities are not of any value to you these days.

You say, “Where is the love?” Where is your love? Christianity is not something to be earned by following rules. You are not a better person for following more “rules” than someone who claims to be a Christian. For you to hold to this opinion demonstrates poor discipleship in your life, something no one would wish upon anyone.  None of us are perfect, we never will be. To be humble in our approach to daily life and encounter others as we would wish to be treated is all that we can ask of one another.

Understand that we are unaware of your personal identity; our response is merely a challenge to the words you have written, not to whom you are and what you stand for. You constantly refer to yourself as a mature “adult,” so we are confident you will be able to digest what we have written.

– Junior Jordan Devlin, senior Harry Sherwood and junior Richard Kirk.

For the last few days I have pondered whether or not I would speak up on the issue you address in your editorial “RA’s crossing the Line.”

I personally have never had a problem with the RAs, but I don’t push the limits and try to behave in a mature and adult like manner (as I am an adult). While Bryan is by no means perfect (I have several issues with the school) and does have many rules I personally don’t agree with (chapel three times a week + clf + mandatory church attendance come to mind), I made a commitment to follow the rules of the school when I applied. No one forced me to come here; I came here out of my own free will. When rules irritate me I just have to remind myself that I agreed to this and accept it. This letter is not about me, it is about the editorial so I will try to lay aside my issues.

Aside from the fact that no one forced you to come here (you have been here several years and know the rules), I would like to address just a few of the issues I had with your article.

First, you as an editor are in a position of authority. You can address whatever issues are on your mind, but should not abuse your position with personal bias or anger (“speaking the truth in love, Ephesians 4:15 comes to mind). I do believe you could have addressed the story in a more objective manner and with a little more grace. Your editorial was way out of line, and came across not as a person who is not trying to address an issue, but a person who has unresolved issues having a catty, angry gossip session with a friend. What you print cannot be erased; the whole world can see your editorial online. Not only does this make you look bad, but it reflects poorly on the Triangle and the college.

Second, everyone here on campus is your peer (Galatians 3:26). They are your brothers and sisters in Christ and therefore even the adults here on campus are your peers. Everyone here deserves respect, whether they are your peer or not. Some people are mature for their age, some are not.

In your editorial, you said:

“I personally have a problem with RAs having the authority to discipline other students. I don’t understand how anyone could think that people who are my age or younger have the maturity, life experience, and close communion with God that it takes to make accurate judgments about disciplining peers in a loving way.”

Does anyone? No one is perfect, and obviously the school thought these people that they put in the authority were right for the job. Maybe the school is right, maybe it is wrong. I don’t know. It’s sad that we just can’t behave like adults and follow the rules that we agreed to obey.

Third, your friends DID break the rules and were aware of the fact when the issue was addressed. However abrasive the RAs that approached you might have come across, it was your friends’ jobs to obey the rules that they agreed to. According to you, they knew they were in the wrong, so, they should accept whatever punishment they were supposed to receive. It doesn’t matter if someone is older or younger (aren’t we all adults here?). You are to respect the authority that is put over you (Ephesians 5:21-33 comes to mind). I might not like having to pay a ticket when I speed, but I did the crime and I have to respect the law and do what is right.

Maybe the incident should not have been handled in the manner in which it was, but your calling them out in public (even without using their names) far outweighs any verbal chastisement your friends received in a hallway.

Fourth, and this is kind of trivial, you were not the one getting in trouble. If “Luke” and “john” had and issue with the RAs, it was THEIR job to address it (as they were breaking the rules). It was not your job to be the over-protective mother and get involved.

I agree with you that there probably should be some kind of reference for students on RAs – what they can do, what they can’t do etc. This is something the school will have to address.

I found it interesting that you referenced the motto of the school “Christ above all” to justify your tirade. Were you putting “Christ above all” when you wrote this editorial? Did you speak the truth in love? Were you quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry? (James 1:19) I have no right to judge your heart, but by the way this article was written, it doesn’t seem like it.

This is yet another example why I am not a Christian. Growing up, I went through two major church splits because of this type of petty behavior. Where is the love? Where is the forgiving 70×7? Where is the turning the other cheek? I feel like I follow the rules and teaching of Christianity more than the Christians do…that’s sad. You could have addressed an issue here, instead, you came across as so hateful and immature you hindered your case rather than helping it.

I most humbly apologize to Dr. Turner if he should read this and feel that I took scripture out of context.

- Received by Triangle anonymously