http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/7520.html

__________________
Chris
Member at Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

Beware of a religion without holdfasts. But if I get a grip upon a doctrine they call me a bigot. Let them do so. Bigotry is a hateful thing, and yet that which is now abused as bigotry is a great virtue, and greatly needed in these frivolous times. I have been inclined lately to start a new denomination, and call it "the Church of the Bigoted." Spurgeon

From the article:
I hope that RUF's representation refuses to have RUF take the four steps, because by "agreeing" to do so they'd be acknowledging guilt of having not "communica[ed] with 'full transparency' " in the past. And since the University cannot/will not substantiate their accusations calling into question RUF's integrity, it'd be a blunder to submit to these steps if it includes the "full transparency" clause.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Attending CCRPC, Member of TRBC
Reformers & Puritans -lllll- Puritan Pub
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

I agree if the "full transparency" and 4 steps that are conditions for reinstatement are above and beyond what is asked of other groups.

Granted, but if it's been asked of other groups, then it's already been asked of RUF and needs not be revisited. There should be no "restoration", as if RUF had done something wrong in the first place.

I understand where you are coming from. The university is most likely just trying to save face at this point. IMO they already have egg on their face. IF RUF can be reinstated and minister unhindered, I say that's the way to go. Besides, aren't we told that love

I have no qualms about them suffering a wrong in love, but I think we as Christians ought also be careful and not do that which could be seen as an implicit (or explicit) admission of guilt by acknowledging (again, whether implicit or explicit) something that we didn't do wrongly in the first place. In this case, there is no proof substantiating any wrongdoing by RUF (concerning the "full transparency" thing); thus, it follows they shouldn't follow these four steps if:

a) They originally did this when forming as a group initially1

or

b) They're not guilty of violating such.

I'm not sure if what I have typed is even coherent. Sometimes my thoughts lack good translation into paragraph.

The "full transparency" language is quite ironic considering that the stated reasoning behind RUF's ouster appears to be about as far from transparent as you can get.

Exactly.