Still Waiting for Official Statement from Gary Nelson
15th September 2011
We realize that the events of the past few days have been difficult for many people who are part of the Tyndale community. While we have not heard the reasons behind the cancelation of the event we hope to hear from Gary Nelson and others regarding the decision. We would also welcome the opportunity to dialogue about the concerns of all stakeholders to ensure Tyndale continues to be an institution we can all be proud to be apart of.
The lack of grace, understanding, patience and love you have all shown here is astounding. i don’t like george bush either but your response has revealed you to be reactionistic, overdramatic and self-righteous and self-important. If Gary Nelson owes you an apology you also owe him one for being so sensationalist and antagonistic. Certainly missing any sliver of a fingerprint of Christ.
by the way, congratulations on all 50 of those signatures gentlemen. you are real game changers.
We changed the language from demanding an apology to requesting an apology or statement, thanks for pointing that out D M.
when you go to the great lengths of making a website like this one the word “request” sounds completely incongruous. You may have communicated one thing through your language but a completely other thing through the medium.
what do you mean a website “like this one”?
we are simply collecting signatures and evidence to our point. If at any point we have been crossing the line we have retracted or re phrased our words, just like on this post.
What is it exactly about this site that is communicating something that you don’t think should be communicated?
1) You have a running total of all the money given to Tyndale by the people signing the petition. For what purpose? To show your power over them? How much influence you have over them?
2) The tone of things like “Tyndale, we’re still waiting” is not the tone of a request as DM has already pointed out.
3) Linking to a completely unrelated event in BC in an attempt to prove how right your position is.
4) Linking to an article encouraging people to “Be as creative or as confrontational as you want.”
5) Going back and retracting or re phrasing words AFTER crossing the line (which from your response seems to have already been done more than one) is like apologizing after you’ve given someone the finger. Sure you apologized, but wouldn’t the right thing be to not give them the finger in the first place?
6) What evidence are you collecting exactly? Do you think people are unaware of the war in Iraq? You’re created the modern version of a stoning, replacing rocks with blog entries. If you replaced Bush with the woman dragged before Jesus, how many blog entries do you think Jesus would have made on here?
1. To show that the people upset about this are just as invested as the people for this. Money is language that Tyndale speaks, this event proves that.
2. I don’t need to defend tone. We are still waiting for it.
3. Again to show that we aren’t alone in this, especially in Canada and that Nelson is mistaken if he doesn’t want us to be identified with right-wing schools, bringing bush in does more than identify us with that, it identifies Tyndale with all the things that other Canadians see as war crimes.
4. We do want people to be creative and confrontational.
5. I disagree. We do this because we want to be accountable and realize that we might make mistakes along the way, the changes we make aren’t because we intentionally made the error, it’s because it was pointed out to us after the fact.
6. Evidence of support and opposition to what we think was a bad decision by Tyndale.
1) You may think Tyndale only speaks in the language of money (and that’s your right), but if you feel this is such a negative thing to do, why stoop to this level yourselves? Aren’t you then becoming the very thing you believe you’re petitioning against, the usage of money as a means to power?
2) Sure, you don’t need to defend tone. But you asked DM what this site was communicating that it shouldn’t be. One of the answers is, a threatening tone. I’m not requesting (or demanding) an apology, just answering your question. Threatening (whether using violence or money) others to make them fear you probably isn’t what you’re going for (maybe I’m wrong).
3) And so instead you choose to align yourselves with Keith Olbermann and Lawyers Against the War? I thought you were petitioning against the idea of Bush representing Tyndale? This article has nothing to do with Tyndale. So in actual fact, are you actually just petitioning against Bush? Because if that’s the case, your website is misleading. If it’s not the case, the article is irrelevant.
4) So be it.
5) In my example, I didn’t say you intentionally gave the person the finger, just that you did. Unintentional mistakes are spelling or grammar issues, or bad links. Publishing the word “demanding” is not really an error at all, it was a deliberate use of strong language to make your point and show your dominance in the situation. My point isn’t that the correction isn’t appreciated, it’s that if you truly want to be responsible, consider some editing prior to publishing.
6) You’ve very deliberatly sidestepped the most important section of the whole comment.
1. Refer to Chris’ comment. I don’t think talking about money is stooping, I said it was a language and it’s a language we use.
2. This whole petition is threatening, if there wasn’t people that said “change or else” then the cancellation probably wouldn’t have happened. The issue for me is what we are threatening with. Threatening with money seems like a good non-violent tactic. We are not interested in anything “violent.”
3. We are not aligning ourselves with a person, we are linking to news items. No one even said we support what they are doing. If we invited Keith to come and speak to our private investors to see how we could better promote our cause and raise our profile, then you would have a point.
5. We have to move quickly to accomplish our task. We did that, and I’m the one managing the site and I’m trying to allow myself to be accountable to those that I trust in this case. So there is some editing before and there is some after. If I was wrong or hurtful, then my apologies that is not my intention.
6. We aren’t stoning Bush. We aren’t asking for his death. We are stating loudly that what he does and stood for is wrong and we will not stand with him and we do not want Tyndale (who represents many of us) to either. I find your comparison of blog posts to stones a distortion of an understanding of judgment and love. If blog posts are stones, then no one should confront anyone or anything ever according to your logic.
We have changed the copy of this post as well to better reflect what we intend, thanks for pointing out to us where you thought we were crossing the line.
Thanks J – you said exactly what I was trying to communicate.
So how do you define crossing the line? Because I feel like posting an article accusing a man of ‘emotionally manipulating’ the students at the town hall meeting, that was written by someone who a) wasn’t at the meeting and b) has never met Gary Nelson is crossing the line.
DM,
It would be nice if you used your name when you stood up for what you believed in rather than resorting to initials.
Thanks “Chris” that’s a good point especially given that you have the most common name on the planet. My initials say more than your one name. Really stupid and cheap way to try and discredit my argument too.
This whole protest is short sighted, clumsy and truly pathetic. I am embarrassed for you and for Tyndale.
Oh, and I hope that you and others who have signed are prepared to put your up money (and lots of it) when your alma mater comes calling. They will need it.
The running money total isn’t about power, it’s meant to show Tyndale how much ‘old money’ has been invested in our school by people who are concerned about this event. We wanted them to consider the opinions of those who gave this old money before pursuing ‘new money’.
Do you really believe that? Maybe you do. I don’t. When you say, “we wanted them to consider the opinions of those who gave old money”, you’re proving my point. You’re showing that you believe that this old money gives your opinions weight, thereby making them powerful.
Nathan asked what the website was communicating that it shouldn’t be. Regardless of your intentions, it is communicating that you have helped build Tyndale, and “demand” (taken from the text directly under the counter) changes be made. There is an implied threat not so subtly hidden there that they make this change due to the money, otherwise Tyndale can kiss any future money goodbye.
Why not have a counter showing the number of alumni signing the petition displayed at the top instead of burying it as a side note half way down the page?
Nathan
1) & 2) You and Chris need to get your stories straight. Chris says that it’s not about a show of power, you say that you think threatening with money is appropriate. I didn’t say talking about money was stooping. What I said was that using money as a means to wield power over Tyndale isn’t far removed from the “sell out” label you’ve given the school. As a note, I don’t think you’re using violence to threaten, just indicating that violence is often linked with the word threaten more than money.
3) You might need to work on your self awareness a little. Linking to articles and videos of someone does indicate that you are supporting them. Linking to news items indicates that it is an item related to your cause. Additionally, aren’t Christians suppossed to be different from others? Shouldn’t it be an indication that our actions might be a little misguided when you can link to other news stories and proudly say, “Look, they think about him the same way we do!”
6. Obviously you’re not literally stoning him. I find your understanding of judgement and love a distortion of what is written in the Bible. Where does Jesus command that we publically detail the sins of others in order to ensure everyone realizes that we have no association with that person? What part of his website is patient, kind, humble, not self-seeking, protecting, not rude, trusting, hopeful, persevering, and keeping of no record of wrongs? My logic makes no statements regarding whether you should confront someone or not. My logic is in regards to HOW you confont someone.
Sorry meant to add at the end, other than JR Turtle’s very well written What Should We Do Now. Very well written, and in very sharp contract to some of the surrounding articles.
Agreed, JR Turtle’s letter was excellent.
I’m done by the way, no disrespect intended, just other things to get done and I’ve said my piece. Thank you for the respective dialogue.
God Bless
Agreed, I think we both said our piece and I appreciate your comments on here.
further up the page you said: ‘If at any point we have been crossing the line we have retracted or re phrased our words, just like on this post.’ – do you not think that saying Dr Nelson was using his emotions to ‘manipulate’ people was crossing the line? granted that article was written after you wrote the post that i am referring to, but you should have stuck to what you said and never should have let it be posted.
protesting george bush is one thing, but attacking Gary Nelson and the school is wrong.
Is it possible Gary Nelson was being emotionally manipulative? Is there a 1% chance? Or good Christians dont do that?
Could a really great guy, make a mistake? Or not handle things in the best way? I think the article made the case (granted in many peoples opinion in a harsh way) that Dr. Nelson made a poor and unprofessional decision, and Dan is making the case that it was emotionally manipulative.
The same freedom of speech that makes it possible, for many people to write on this website, saying they don’t agree with Dan’s approach to his blog, is the same freedom that gives Dan the opportunity to write his post. Sadly, most people are acting like honest discourse, is bad, and will ruin the school and the kingdom.
Daryl – there is an enormous difference between honest discourse and wreckless, baseless, speculative and sensational accusations. It’s stunning and discouraging that you think of them as one in the same.