Greenville Pastor Pleads with BJU over GRACE Scandal: “I am personally aware of the disappointment, confusion and hurt that your decision and subsequent communication caused”

In a video that quickly went viral, local Greenville pastor Ryan Ferguson shared his thoughts about BJU’s handling of the GRACE investigation and, specifically, the University’s communication regarding the decision. The video, and a transcript, are below. Let us know how you feel about this remarkable statement in the comments.

“To Stephen Jones, Larry Jackson, the Bob Jones University Board and Administration,

My name is Ryan Ferguson, and I’m a pastor in Greenville, South Carolina. I would like to draw your attention to the nature of your recent communication regarding your termination of GRACE. My hope is that my commentary will allow you to see the great harm you have done to survivors of abuse, who responded to your invitation to tell their story to a third-party investigator.

Proverbs 31: 8 and 9 says, “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth. Judge righteously. Defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

I am personally aware of people both in my congregation, in the local area, and those abroad, who responded to share their story with GRACE. I am personally aware of the disappointment, confusion and hurt that your decision and subsequent communication caused to these people. They responded in good faith, believing that you were seeking their good. I am speaking for them, because I know that some are not able to speak for themselves. They lack the power and the platform.

I would like to draw your attention to Paul’s words in Ephesians 4:29.  Paul writes, “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only that which is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to the hearers.”  This is God’s blanket statement about the words that come out of the mouths of Christ-followers. “No corrupting talk.” No potentially rotten talk. No words that can poison the minds of the hearers. Only words that edify, words that build up, words that are appropriate, that is, words that are spoken in a timely fashion. This blanket command exists so that hearers may receive grace.  I would like to attempt to show you that your communication reveals very little care for the survivors of abuse that you invited to speak to GRACE.

I would like to present to you six ways in which your communication might have been destructive.

First, you do not take responsibility in your communication about the past, or stated differently, you do not talk transparently. Allow me to illustrate. Stephen Jones, in his address to the University on February 7, said the following:  “We initiated a project to look back on any instances in which it was alleged that some university [word obviously left out here] may have under served, who may have reported abuse at some point in their lives.”  This comment is consistent with a comment on the BJU blog, dated February 6, that states “ The committee recommended some policy revisions and also that the university appoint an independent ombudsman to review past instances in which it was alleged that the university may have underserved a student who reported they had been abused at some point in their lives.”

My point is this: do you see how many qualifiers there are in these statements? Are we to understand that you don’t really believe anything happened in the past, when in fact you began this investigation to remedy what happened in the past? Why can’t you clearly state to people, “We have wronged people in the past – we are going to make it right”?

How do these qualifiers serve people? It sounds like legal-speak. It is my opinion that even your greatest critics would be stunned by a simple and forward statement of responsibility. I would even hypothesize that if you clearly communicated, the blogosphere would blow up with statements like “Can you believe that BJU said they were wrong?”  Even more so, survivors of abuse, who reported to GRACE, would be greatly served by your admission.

Secondly, and flowing from the comments I already quoted, your repeated use of the word “underserved” is a poor use of euphemism and it is insulting to those who have been abused. You use the term “underserved” twice in the BJU magazine article, also in the letter that you sent to all former students dated January 2013.  This term continues to be used in your termination letter, Stephen’s address to the university, and in a press release dated February 6.

I believe that it is a natural question for me and others to ask you to define this term. To my knowledge, I am unable to find on your web site, blog, the press releases, termination letter, or Stephen’s speech any instance where you define this term.  Therefore, it is left for the audience to define this term. It seems to be an attempt to tell people what you have done to those who would choose or have now chosen to speak with GRACE. The term is easy to say. It doesn’t sound too bad.  I describe your use of this term as “euphemistic.” “Euphemism” is defined in the Encarta dictionary as “the use of a word or phrase that is more neutral, vague, or indirect, to replace a direct, harsh, unpleasant or offensive term.”

In Stephen’s address, he states “And I just want to reiterate that we are committed and remain committed to identifying and reaching out to those individuals, and if we didn’t serve them as best we could, to ask their forgiveness and make it right.” For what are we asking forgiveness and what are we going to make right? “Underserving”?  What does that mean?  Forgiveness, as we will talk about later, is a biblical term. By definition, forgiveness involves wrong or sin.  Therefore, how did you sin against or offend someone?  Where is “underserving” defined as sin in the scriptures?

I have three kids. If, after dinner, I pulled out three bowls, pulled out ice cream and put three scoops of ice cream in two bowls, and one scoop of ice cream in another bowl, certainly my kids would look at me and let me know about someone being “underserved.” I do not see this as an appropriate term for speaking about your failures with victims of sexual abuse in the past. “Underserved” doesn’t give the listener or reader any sense of the severity of the events surrounding speaking to GRACE.  So I would like to posit that “underserving” might be a euphemism for not reporting abuse to authorities, not helping the needy and the poor, or giving counsel to someone that caused harm rather than healing.  That’s what you might mean by “underserved.”

I would appreciate any clarity you can give on this term, and I believe that survivors of abuse would appreciate it as well. At best, “underserved” is understatement. At its worst, it’s euphemistic evasion of truth.

Third, I believe your contradictory speech only reinforces the mistrust, confusion and pain in the victims of abuse who told their stories to GRACE. In Stephen’s address, he states as a goal of his speech to “fill you in a little more about the current situation so you have accurate information both for your own knowledge and so you can help correct any misperceptions that are abundant.”  So, Stephen, you tell us that accuracy is a key, so that your constituency can be secure.  You also call them to action, to take what you say and clear up any misperceptions that are abundant.  You continue and tell your audience, “But over jus t the past months, the last several months, we grew concerned that in the process GRACE had begun going on beyond the originally outlined intentions and so we wanted to sit down and talk about them because it had gone askew. So we terminated our agreement with GRACE so that we could sit down and get it back on track.”

I can’t even make sense out of that last statement.  Employers don’t typically fire employees so that they can sit down and work out their employment structure and performance.

The quote continues: “That was the entire intention in terminating the agreement. And if you look at GRACE’s web site or ours, that’s clear in my letter of termination.”  So, if your audience followed your advice and went to the web site and looked at the letter of termination, they would read the following: “As you know, I recently announced my resignation as president of the university effective in early May. As you can imagine, this has redirected a significant amount of our focus and energy. While remaining resolute in our desire to achieve our stated objectives, in view of the ongoing challenges in leadership change, Bob Jones University notifies GRACE that we are terminating the November 16, 2012 engagement agreement for independent investigation. This termination is effective immediately.”

I have read the termination letter and see no mention at all about growing differences, changing objectives, or investigations gone askew.  You plainly tell them, you resigned and that’s  gonna be hard on the university, so you need to stop the investigation.  The text does not seem to be unclear. You invited people to make this comparison, Stephen. In your speech, you make a statement and then direct me to find proof of that statement in your correspondence. Your contradictory communication is devastating to people who trusted you enough to, in your own words, “share the horrific personal stories of abuse with GRACE.”

Allow me to state that I understand you never meant for your termination letter to be public. However, that hardly seems to be a substantial argument against my point.  You have stated two different reasons for the dismissal. For the sake of those who have responded to your invitation, speak clearly and transparently, and let them know why this has stopped.

Fourthly, the concept of “moving forward” seems to be your primary concern in your public address to the university. Nine times in your speech you talk about “moving forward.” Early in your speech you stated “We initiated a project to look back.” This is what the people who spoke with GRACE are concerned about. Your repeated message of “moving forward” might have been nervousness, or just a badly written or delivered speech.  However, if you listen to what was said, the message is quite clear. “We’re moving forward with our objectives.  With or without GRACE, we are moving forward.” The issue is you take little time to address what that means for people who are looking back and who desire you to look back.

Is this persistent message of moving forward timely for these people? Does it build them up? Is it speech that gives grace? Or do survivors of abuse, after sharing their story, feel as if the university is on a pathway and they just need to get over it, get on board and potentially get ready to go through it all again if you choose to use a different ombudsman.

Allow me a brief digression to speak about hiring another third party. I do not know a way to more effectively communicate this point but to ask you the question, “Are you crazy?”  Are the issues really so bad that you would start all over? Really? Is this seriously a viable option for the people who responded to you? I want to admit that I’m operating on the assumption that it would be impossible for GRACE to just hand over all their data to another organization.  I’m not a professional, but I don’t see how that could be wise, how data could be properly interpreted by another third party looking at GRACE’s material, even if that was legal.

Stephen, the fact that you had mentioned this idea of a third party twice in your speech seems so thoughtless.  To be honest, it makes me question if any of you who are making this decision have actually sat down with a man or woman when they tell you their story of abuse. So I ask you, Stephen, Mr. Jackson, the BJU Board and Administration, have you ever sat in a room with a man or woman when they speak of sexual abuse? Have you seen someone triggered to remember their sexual abuse? Have you sat on the floor with a woman who has to rub the carpet as she speaks about her abuse so that she doesn’t disassociate?  Do you know what disassociate means?  Have you spoken with someone on the phone as they are dealing with memories and you try to get them to describe the room they’re in or what’s outside the window so that they can be calm enough  to think?

If you have not experienced those things, then you should rethink even mentioning that people would have to tell their story again.

If you have been through those things, then you are even more foolish for thinking of having people tell their story again.

Please cease about speaking about moving forward without ensuring survivors that you will continue to look back. Give assurance to survivors by what you say and what you do that you will continue to look back.

Fifth, your communication speaks very little of people and focuses on “objectives,” “initiatives,” “projects,” and “reviews.” Stephen, you used these terms fourteen times in your speech. With your outlined objectives, do you realize they are all people?  I recognize in your speech that you speak directly to survivors in two paragraphs, however, as one listens to this speech, it seems clear that the pertinent issues are the institutional objectives.  This is only hypothesis, but what would happen if  you spoke directly to the people who shared their stories? What if, instead of making sure everybody understood what was going on, you just addressed those people who spoke? What if the people that left that gathered meeting left with the weight and the feel of what it means for those people to share their stories and you spent time praying for them?  What if your posture towards GRACE and your subsequent communication basically said, “We know we’ve screwed up.  GRACE, do whatever you can so that we can reach out to these people for forgiveness.  We don’t care about institutional objectives. We are recklessly pursuing hurting people.”

May I ask you to stop talking about your objectives and begin speaking about people?

Finally, in my opinion, your communication reveals a lack of pursuit of a biblical imperative. Stephen, in your speech, you speak of asking forgiveness and making things right.  That is clearly biblical language.  That’s confession, repentance and restoration. In Matthew 5:23 and 24, Jesus says, “So if you’re offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go.  First be reconciled to your brother and then come and offer your gift.”

Stephen, Mr. Jackson, Board and Administration, if at present, there are those out there who have something against you, is it not your responsibility to pursue it with all haste?  I recognize I don’t know everything going on. I’m specifically commenting about your communication, the way you’re speaking to these people. It is not apparent to me you’re both communicating and doing everything you can to reach these people.

Jesus said this is a worship issue. Worshipping while at odds with a brother in Christ makes no sense. What would it look like for all of you to leave your gift at the altar and pursue those who spoke with GRACE?

My desire is that you see that your communication matters.  I am hopeful that my perspective will cause you to review your own communication and choices and respond accordingly.  Your words matter to the listening ears of survivors of abuse.

I purposely did this in video format. I wanted you to see my face, I wanted you to see my body language, I wanted you to hear my tone.  I’m not just being a sniper from a distance and being critical. I’m passionate about serving survivors of abuse.  I am open to any responses.  Where I am wrong or inaccurate, I will make it right publicly.  I am open to both critique and criticism.  I am not afraid of negative feedback. To my knowledge, I am responding in faith to speak for those who have no voice. I am called to shepherd the flock of God and I will protect those under my care from harm.

Since this is public, it will be easy for you to find me, since I live in your town.  You can find me through Facebook.  I am open to hear from you and will make myself available both for confrontation if needed to correct me, or conversation that would lead to edifying words that build up and give grace to survivors of abuse.

To those of you who shared your story with GRACE, your courage is heroic.  Many of you have been sinned against within the church. For that, the church as a whole should stand up for you and speak on your behalf. I know many others out there who have been on their knees praying that your efforts will not be in vain. The time for change in the Christian community regarding abuse is right now. We must change and we must speak. I hope my brief comments add to the collective voice of those crying out on your behalf.”

Respectfully,

Ryan Ferguson

Advertisements

38 thoughts on “Greenville Pastor Pleads with BJU over GRACE Scandal: “I am personally aware of the disappointment, confusion and hurt that your decision and subsequent communication caused”

  1. Anson Mills [BJU Professor John Matzko]

    Thanks for transcribing the speech. No way was I going to watch that bad fashion statement for twenty minutes.

    Though I disagree with much of what Ferguson said, we do agree in our dislike of the word “underserved.” I winced the first time I heard it go by, and I continue to do so. It’s the sort of foggy bureaucratese I routinely go after in my writing class.

    1. baldjonesgrad

      A “bad fashion statement”? Is that what you have to say about this pastor calling out your master?

    2. Milosch

      So one of BJU’s professors spends some of the school’s final days trolling a blog, criticizing the *fashion choices* of a local pastor who precisely identifies the very issue that will bring BJU down. What a perfect metaphor for this whole screwed-up school.

    3. Michael Parker

      “No way was I going to watch that bad fashion statement for twenty minutes.”

      When you can’t deal with the substance of the message, you can only pick at the style.

    4. baldjonesgrad

      After a google search, I have to ask you, Prof. Are you just giving yourself the benefit of the doubt? Did you really side with Chuck Phelps against Tina Anderson? Is this true? Now don’t quote Scripture as a defense. The answer is ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Did you side with Chuck Phelps against a rape victim? You’re a smart guy. Now be an honest guy. Tell me the truth.

      http://chucklestravels.com/tag/john-matzko/

    5. Michael Kreger

      Dr. Matzko, as I said before, I respected you once upon a time. If you can’t do any better than this post, might I suggest that you don’t post at all? Because all you are doing here is making “your side” look really, really bad.

      Form over substance. With BJU, so has it ever been.

      Sigh.

      1. Anson Mills [BJU Professor John Matzko]

        Perhaps you’re right, Michael. It’s hard for me to resist trying to put in a good word for BJU and all the fine, godly colleagues with whom I’ve shared my career.

        1. Michael Kreger

          Again, the problem is not (and never has been) the fine, godly colleagues with whom you have shared your career. Some of us have actually started discussions about how the Alumni could band together to support them when BJU collapses.

          No, the problem is with the Administration, whose god generally is their own belly, who have led BJU down this path of destruction…who have treated some of your godly colleagues as one treats the canine fecal matter one might find on one’s shoe.

          And another problem was with your comment, in which you nit-picked a man’s shirt while giving vague disagreements with his message. If his message is factually erroneous, or otherwise flawed, please use your gifts to make that case. Don’t waste electrons criticizing his shirt.

      2. Anson Mills [BJU Professor John Matzko]

        I want to take this opportunity to reaffirm my support for the BJU administration. The current administrators are human and make mistakes as we all do, but they try to get it right. I admire their godly courage.

      3. baldjonesgrad

        “Godly courage.” Ahem. Revitalizing the GRACE contract was not an act of courage. It was BJU’s desperate attempt to survive after the blogosphere exploded.

        It took godly courage for the rape survivors to speak to GRACE investigators. BJU’s vacillations mark craven cowards.

      4. JoAnne

        Matzko said

        “I want to take this opportunity to reaffirm my support for the BJU administration. The current administrators are human and make mistakes as we all do, but they try to get it right. I admire their godly courage.”

        Are you kidding me, Dr. Matzko? Congratulations on “reaffirming your support.” Since you’re admitting that BJU has made mistakes, what “mistakes” specifically are you admitting to? Because in the area of sexual assault you don’t just get to say “mistakes were made,” as much as the school you’re defending would love to excuse it like that. Your ignorance of proper handling of these situations is disgusting. Your pride “supporting” this place when the ONLY concern should be for victims turns my stomach.

      5. Anson Mills [BJU Professor John Matzko]

        We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m proud to support the BJU administration. The administrators I know personally are fine godly folks who’ve tried their best to get it right.

      6. JoAnne

        I’m sure “they tried to get it right” will make a pleasing epitaph for the University when its decades of systemic abuses are brought to light.

      1. Anson Mills [BJU Professor John Matzko]

        Apparently I’m not only a fashion disaster, but I’m also unable to hit the right “reply” line.

  2. A James

    “Third, I believe your contradictory speech only reinforces the mistrust, confusion and pain in the victims of abuse who told their stories to GRACE.” Exactly. Unnecessary confusion.
    Meanwhile, if the grapevine is accurate, Stephen is or will be soon gone on a trip to China? by way of Lynchburg? There is only one day left in this week for the BJU/GRACE meeting that is to be this week.

  3. baldjonesgrad

    The “underserved.” Wow. What a word. As I’ve mentioned on this site, I’ve spent a career as a cop. I’ve lost count of the number of “underserved” women I’ve interviewed. I’ve interviewed a lot of “underserved” children. I remember one “underserved” woman from a dozen years ago. After reporting to the police how her dad let his buddies molest her as an adolescent, she went and hanged herself in her closet. She was in her 40s by then, but never got over the abuse.

    This is not an academic issue for me. Is it an academic issue for you, Stephen Jones?

  4. Dan

    There are many ways BJU “underserves” their students. Let’s count a few:

    1 – An unaccredited “degree” that costs $80,000.

    2 – A dorm life system that puts peers in spiritual leadership over other peers, and foments an atmosphere of distrust that has students turning in other students for rules violations that would make the KGB happy.

    3 – A “counseling” system that makes book chapters and sermon illustrations from the “counselors.”

    Yes, “underserved” is a stupid word for what Stephen Jones is discussing, but it’s part of an honest assessment of the school. In this particular instance, however, students weren’t “underserved,” they were abused. Not all were abused on campus, but they were abused by the student life organization that pits student against student, and by a “counseling” system that told victims to shut up or develop an eating disorder.

  5. turkbenistan

    It’s pretty sad to see several diatribes in the comments to this video defending Bob Jones and attacking this pastor for speaking the truth on behalf of the abuse victims in his ministry. What is most sad about them is they are nearly all under fake names. A whole lotta “Smith” goin’ on, know what I’m sayin’?

  6. A James

    Will their lack of good judgment during such a time as this ever end? They seem to be begging for enemies. Here are students with little experience and incomplete knowledge judging others with more experience and at least as much knowledge as they have.

    Collegian: Despite opinions, feelings about BJU, GRACE investigation, Christians urged to pray in faith
    http://www.collegianonline.com/2014/02/21/despite-opinions-feelings-about-bju-grace-investigation-christians-urged-to-pray-in-faith/

    Here is a sampling of their fair and objective reporting condemning unfair and unobjective internet dialogue.

    “floodgates of criticism and anger burst and hurled a rush of accusations toward the University” (what about the floodgates of defense and anger bursting forth hurling a rush of accusations against those who dared to question–how will we ever forget Judith Garcia Patton on BJU Facebook).

    “mix of bitter remarks, accusations of a cover up, and comments defending the University that were met with intense rebuttals.”
    (such mild language for many of those bitter comments defending the University)

    “Commenters said they were ashamed of their alma mater, they’d never send their kids here, and they were disappointed the University would take this course of action”
    (and yet there was no effort of a summary as to why they were ashamed) (by the way, kids, it wasn’t primarily that BJU didn’t announce future plans it was that they terminated in the first place, terminated in the first place, terminated in the first place, and we had to find out from GRACE, and we had to find out from GRACE, and we had to find out from GRACE, and they still haven’t told us why, and they still haven’t told us why…how many times do our fingers of destruction have to type that.)

    “accusations in criticism of the University were nothing but assumptions. The anger, bitterness and declarations of injustice flowed from minds that connected non-existent dots and formed assumptions about BJU and its actions.” (back to ya)

    “it may have been difficult not to doubt. We read one statement from BJU and another from GRACE and may have been left with a genuine question: What’s going on here?” (nice of you to acknowledge that safely with the little word “may”–didn’t Ferguson mention something about using the word “may”)

    “Whether or not you have good faith in BJU’s actions, as Christians, our responses to sensitive situations like this should reflect what James commands in Scripture: “So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” (back to ya)

    “Caustic words…do little to change a situation or convince others of your position. Those actions do, however, display a bitter heart that is quick to speak before waiting, listening and understanding the circumstances at hand. More importantly, biting words divide the body of Christ and harm any semblance of a gospel testimony. Arguments were written through those Facebook comments — arguments from Christian people who supposedly love Jesus.”
    (isn’t there a verse about a log and a speck? “supposedly” says it all)

    “And about what? About information that wasn’t fully made known to the public at the time.”
    (or fully made known to GRACE, or fully made known to GRACE)

    “Those who are deeply invested in the GRACE investigation, and especially those who are feeling a sense of injustice during this pause in the project, can do one very important thing at this time: pray.” (Then shut the BJU Facebook page down so you can just pray and not be offended by the action.) (nice word “pause”…right word “terminate”)

    “It may be the simplest answer, but it is also the most difficult. It’s the humble course of action that expresses complete faith in a Power that is beyond ourselves. Committing this situation to prayer shows a surrendered heart, a heart that isn’t spewing irate words, but a heart that says, “God will take care of this.” (then why write this article and spew more irate words…go commit it to prayer…if you would at least acknowledge that many of those defending the university were spewing irate words…)

    “We must commit BJU’s relationship with GRACE and the investigation to prayer. No matter your opinion or confusion toward the situation, God’s work transcends man’s work; so pray that God’s sovereign work will be done through this investigation. It’s the most effective choice we can make — far more effective than dividing the body of Christ through our own uninformed words.” (Lead the way, then, be our example, revise or retract this article, make an apology for your hypocrisy, go back to your dorm room and pray…far more effective…)
    —————-

    Very reassuring from BJU’s Journalism and Mass Communication program page:
    “At BJU…you’ll learn why biblically defined truthfulness and ethical behavior in news are pre-eminently important and, ultimately, pleasing to God. Then you’ll explore how to relate appropriately to people as both sources and topics for your articles or news stories, and how being created in the image of God gives everyone inherent worth.” (mmm-hmmm.)
    “how to handle sources ethically in your interviewing and observation”
    “a better grasp on how people think and how to connect with your audience”
    Division of Communication page:
    “It is imperative that Christians be adequately prepared to communicate the gospel and defend Biblical values against an increasingly antagonistic secular society.”

    The only positive thing to say is that at least they put it under the Opinion page. Otherwise they have much to learn.

  7. Pingback: The BJU Sex Abuse Coverup, Day 17 | The BJU Sex Abuse Coverup

  8. Jeri Massi

    Here are the full transcripts of John Matzko’s rude, inaccurate, and bullying attempt to intimidate Tina Anderson, a rape victim. He misrepresented the case, and he also grossly misrepresented what the Scripture says. When directly, and kindly, confronted with the ethical choices to be made, he refused to answer. Wear any shirt you like, but get the details of the Bible correct. Matzko’s suit and tie fashion sense cannot hide his ignorance of the Bible.
    http://jeriwho.net/lillypad2/?p=1934

    http://jeriwho.net/lillypad2/?p=1934

    http://jeriwho.net/lillypad2/?p=2107

  9. baldjonesgrad

    Jeri, thank you for the links. Most interesting reading. I should’ve known you’d be able to supply the transcript. Well done.

    1. jeriwho

      It was my Facebook page that Matzko invaded to vent his hostility against Tina Anderson and his ignorance (or deliberate misrepresentation) of the Old Testament Law regarding rape victims. I knew that this was a perfect example of the culture of Bob Jones University, so I rebutted him but also took screenshots.to keep as evidence. Such open disdain for a teenage girl is the sort of thing that screams for documentation.

  10. Pingback: TIm’s Tips: Bob Jones U. Revives Study of Responses to Sex Abuse | Center on Diversity and Community

  11. Pingback: Dr Camille Lewis Presents “The Stormy History”: Life at Bob Jones University | The Wartburg Watch 2014

  12. Pingback: “The Stormy History”: Life at Bob Jones University:Temporary | The Wartburg Watch 2014

  13. Pingback: Dr Camille Lewis Presents “The Stormy History”: Life at Bob Jones University | The Wartburg Watch 2014

  14. Gray Grad

    What you have done, John, is not only make a petty, mean-spirited comment about a fellow believer and area pastor’s attire, which have nothing to do with the content of his character or of his message, but you have not shown common respect to the pastor as a minister of the gospel. If you can’t take the time to watch and listen, you shouldn’t stoop to making dishonorable public statements. I, too, loved many of my former professors and colleagues, including your late wife, a brilliant teacher who I was blessed to take a course from. Your words dishonor them.

  15. Anson Mills

    I didn’t need to watch and listen because “BJU News” kindly transcribed the speech. My appreciation was sincere. I even agreed with the pastor about the use of the term “underserved.” (If you check the BJU website, the term’s now gone.) But I have no apology for my remark about his attire: if you’re trying to communicate a serious message, you dress accordingly.

    1. lostchildnowfound

      Dr. Matzco–You know, after the “underserved” statement is remained and was public knowledge on BJU’s website for a year–it has become public information. BJU can’t just rescind it by editing.it out, BJU should have issued a correction publicly.

      You may want to run that over to Randy Page, Mr. Foxe because none of the survivors will forget being labeled “underserved” like as if we were a badly cooked hamburger (piece of meat) from a restaurant and the waiter didn’t “respond well” by returning the badly cooked Hamburger to the chef.

      HINT: The BJU memory-black- hole doesn’t exist any longer thanks to those little inventions called way-back machines and screen-captures.

    2. A James

      Okay, I did raise a quizzical brow at your willingness to publicly agree with the pastor on “underserved”. Surely that might go under the category of “griping” or being negative on social media about BJU per faculty handbook policies. So, I didn’t know whether to applaud this moment of objectivity, turn you in for demerits, or to mentor you. I’m not being snarky…tone is hard to decipher until you get to know commenters’ personalities better (hence probably why we were not sure if you were in earnest or not with your appreciation for the transcription)…so, for the record, the tone of this particular comment should be deciphered as bantering rather than snarking 🙂

      Now switching from banter to serious tone: There is so much I could say about communicating a serious message and dressing accordingly…if indeed you are a current professor, please know that some of us out here have to wonder if you have looked around campus and have taken an objective moment to acknowledge that BJU is not communicating a serious message in this area. I’m not trying to be rude to you, but what can you possibly have against Ferguson? There is a log/speck situation here. I am praying that more employees will refuse to be the “frog in the boiling water”…rather choosing to be as objective as possible so they can be the significant influence they have the opportunity to be.

      Back to banter mode: I didn’t have time to check the history of “frog in the boiling water” to know if I used it appropriately in this context. I think you can get my gist 🙂

  16. Anson Mills [BJU Professor John Matzko]

    I disagree with Ferguson’s analysis. I think most of what he said about the BJU administration is dead wrong. Regardless, his pronouncement is now moot, and the Disaffected own the forthcoming GRACE report to a greater degree than ever.

Comments are closed.