BRAVE GIRL EATING by Harriet Brown

Brave Girl Eating (William Morrow, 2010) by Harriet Brown is a mother’s memoir of her daughter Kitty’s struggle with anorexia. Having read this book, I will never again look at a very thin young woman and think, “Eat a cheeseburger, honey!” Because she can’t eat a cheeseburger. She can’t eat anything without hearing voices in her head shouting louder than anything else in her world, “Bad girl!” and “If you eat that, you’ll be even uglier than you are right now,” and “If you eat that, no one will love you.”

Sound familiar?

Of course it does. Every woman in America who has ever struggled in any way with food knows all about these voices. Frankly, I don’t think a meal goes by that I don’t think this even today, even right now when I’m drinking my first cup of coffee and know for a fact exactly how many calories were in that organic raw sugar and that almond milk I stirred in there.

In fact, I was stunned to realize as I read Brave Girl Eating that Kitty’s anorexia and my endless dieting-weight-gain are not polar opposites: they are the same thing. The same “demon” (as Brown describes it) is yelling. Kitty heard it louder is all. I hear the identical voice saying the identical thing, but I eat anyway, whereas Kitty’s internal voice was so loud and fierce, she could not overcome it to feed herself.

Irrational messages: “You’re ugly” when no young woman is ugly, “You’re fat” when pictures (of Kitty) (of me at that age) show nothing of the sort, and “No one will love you” when you’re popular, cheerleading, elected to class office, on the team, being pursued by boys, and so on. These messages have no basis in fact and can be contradicted by loving parents (if they’ll take the time and effort).

Parent effort is the gist of Brave Girl Eating. Brown discusses the treatment options she had for Kitty. Doctors recommended in-patient residential settings far away from home, but Brown had no intention of sending her emotionally and physically fragile child hours away from home to hang around with other girls who were hearing the same hateful voices. She chose Family Based Therapy, and therein lies the story. I recommend this book to anyone who has encountered anorexia.

And anyone who has encountered the eating disorder many of us have been bowing down to and worshipping for decades, for almost all our lives: Restriction. “You will be holy and virtuous if you do not eat that. Better: if you do not eat, period.” The less you eat and the longer you go without eating, the better you are. Denial as holiness. Starvation as virtue.

Restriction is what anorexics do, and restriction is what many of the rest of us do. We’re just less successful. We restrict on large scale—months’ long “diets” that are nothing but unending weeks of semi-starvation where we purposefully deny our bodies nutrients they need. We “give up” carbohydrates for weeks, months, or years, because some Doctor said bacon was the way to Health Nirvana or some book told us to stop that insanity and eat no fat at all, or whatever the next craze was.

Then we wake up one day and realize that was gross—bacon is God already, fine, Facebook, you can go there with your fun memes and your bacon maple bars—but telling young women (or older women) that the things God actually designed for you to eat (potatoes, bananas, avocados, pineapples) and packaged in “Serving Size: One” portions are evil…well, we wake up from Bacon Fest and realize we’ve depleted ourselves of critical nutrition while lining our arteries with fat (“But I’m THINNER! Holy Grail Happy Dance!”). And on we go to the next nonsense, the next diet, the next folly, and the book publishers and diet-food manufacturers smile and count their money and schedule casting auditions with underweight teenage models to make us want to look like that.

Anorexia (undereating) is the same as dieting (eventual overeating) because the identical hate-voice is speaking to you. And, I am positive that the answer is the same as well: balanced, nutritional eating. Period. For year upon year. Not another “try” at restriction: “This time I’ll do better. This time I’ll be good.” “I have to lose twenty pounds before the reunion/wedding/anniversary, so I’ll just restrict this one last time.”

You know where I am going with this. Yes. It has to happen. I have to bring it around to the real evil of the Church pushing a template of wrong-headed perfectionism down hard onto adolescent women: hear no evil, speak no evil, don’t have boobs, you slut, you might accidentally (Mrs. LaHaye said this out loud to us at CHC) allow your breast to “brush” against a young man causing him to be “snared” by lust, you evil thing, you, to have a womanly body! How dare you have hips that move! Clench that gluteus, walk straight, don’t sway! A half-inch of cleavage, oh my GOD! (Those of us with D-cups in college were probably seen as per se evil, never mind our purity, virginity, and naivete.)

The root of these illnesses/conditions/lifestyles is perfectionism. You know who you are and where yours came from. Mine arose out of innate ability. You can, so you should, dontcha know. I was told by more than one person in my teenage years: “You have the ability to get As, so Bs are sins for you.” Remember that verse, “Whatever is not of faith is sin”? How has that been twisted, abused, and used as a bludgeon? It’s a sin to get a B, to show cleavage, to have a Bible when they don’t in Cambodia (hurry, memorize it all, the Russians are coming to take it away!), to have hips when women in Africa are skin-and-bones. Let’s try to be skin-and-bones then to be more holy. Makes sense, right?

Anyway, you’re sinning if you don’t get an A on your Algebra test, never mind you don’t understand Algebra and Mr. Erickson is drawing basketball plays on the board because the student aid sitting in the back of the classroom is on the team and Erickson just got a cool idea for tonight’s game against Valley.

You’re sinning if you’re not in the dead center of God’s will or the exact middle of the “ideal weight” table. In my high school years, you were also sinning if you didn’t wear the right “season” colors. Remember that foolishness? I was an autumn (kill me), so I “had” to wear browns and olive and avocado and harvest gold, the kitchen appliance colors of the 70s.

Real avocados, however, were of the devil (so much fat!), but Atkins was God, so we ate bacon and hot dogs and hamburger patties slathered with mayo and slabs of cheese, and if we were “good” we could add a side of cottage cheese on Friday. Kid you not. I weighed 130, but there were little girls in my grade who were under 100, so I was super fat, out of God’s will, and sinful. (They probably hadn’t started to menstruate yet, weren’t yet women.)

So we learned to restrict. I fasted for the first time in eighth grade (I was 115–super fat!). Two solid days sans food. I’m not going to go into a play-by-play here of my four decades of dieting (read: the “heads” side of the restriction coin if anorexia is the “tails” side). Suffice to say that I learned oranges were of the devil in the third grade because they had carbs and carbohydrates (designed by God for the nourishment of the human body) were innately evil and to be avoided. Pictures of me at eight years old do not show an obese child.

I am fat now (by anyone’s understanding. I weigh about 70 pounds more than I did when I thought I was–but wasn’t–super ugly and fat in college), and am only now learning that restriction is disordered eating. That when Paul said, “I put my body under” he didn’t mean young women should forego feeding themselves in order to conform to an image of thinness ordinary bodies cannot maintain without starvation.

American women should not look like concentration camp victims. Christian women should not look at food God designed for the purpose of feeding them and call it evil or sinful. Calling good evil and evil good is something we need to struggle against, not something we should embrace.

I digressed a lot here from the book because of how the book spoke to me in my struggle, but I don’t want to digress so much that the message of Brave Girl Eating is lost on any readers: Anorexia is an illness, not a choice. It is not something to be envied or desired or joked about. This is not funny:

Anorexia is a cruel and brutal task-master that often leaves corpses in its wake. We need to keep our eyes open to see if the young women under our care (and, though far less often prey to this illness, young men) are restricting their eating to less than normal or less than balanced or less than regular.

I could write a book on my eating disordered (restrict-eat-restrictsomemore-eatmore-fast-eateateat-feel gross-hate self) life, but it’s embarrassing and would make me oh-so-vulnerable to people saying stupid and unhelpful things (Why don’t you just be like me? I always knew you were disordered. Who thinks like you, you freak? I always knew you were great, why did you hate yourself so much?) and more inner-voice shouting: Why are you talking about eating, fatso? Who would listen to a fat woman like you? Why don’t you Atkins it up for a few months so you can at least not look like a whale when you talk about eating? and so forth.

Maybe I’ll do it anyway. Damn the inner voice that tells me I’m ugly and unlovable and unworthy, and down with people who think it’s their business to tell me I’m fat, as if I don’t have a mirror, a scale, and size 22 jeans hanging in neat rows in my walk-in closet. You want me to tell you your failings? Why you’re sinning?

Pass the avocado. Give me some bread. I’m hungry so I’m going to eat. (A fat woman even saying she’s hungry is seen as disgusting in our culture. How dare she have a functioning digestive system?) No more I’m hungry so I’m going to not eat because when I feel that empty feeling I feel virtuous and good. Equating physical pain with spiritual virtue is (hear me) a very serious problem. We need to address that as American Christian women. We need to not put our own daughters through this hell. We need to love ourselves enough to climb out.

(Pushes “publish” with the real fear that people will say, “What are you talking about? I don’t understand you? I never felt like that ever and don’t know anyone who did.” Which is why, of course, there are ten zillion dollars a year spent in The Diet Industry–because women feel so beautiful and normal and empowered in their bodies.)

STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS, starring Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto

In the 2009 Star Trek movie, which we’ll call Alternate Reality, we rejoiced because they’d gotten it right. They took our old friends and re-made them perfectly. Perfectly cast, perfectly written, and even better, because Captain Pike wasn’t a head attached to a box that beeped once for yes and twice for no.

We rejoiced for the familiarity of the people: Spock raised his eyebrow just so. Adjusted his shirt like that. Said, “Fascinating.” Kirk was brash and disdained regulations. McCoy was plainly and simply (and oh so metaphorically) Bones. It all clicked. Plus I cried my eyes out at the beginning when a young man gave his life for his crew.

Someone else does it this time. In a neat nod to the needs of the many, we see a mirror image of a scene we’ve loved for years. This time it hurts more. This time it matters more.

Into Darkness is the story of Captain Kirk being brash, bold, sacrificial, facing a Kobayashi Maru lose-lose scenario with gut-wrenching honesty: “I don’t know what I’m supposed to do, but I know what I can do.” Isn’t that how it often is in times of crisis? No sci-fi there. That’s real.

This is the story of a friendship we’ve admired for decades being formed. Last time, we saw its tentative beginnings. This time we see the bond take hold, take root, become permanent. It’s not breakable now.

But mostly, this is the story of Commander Spock exploding out of Science Officer nerdness into full-blow action-star mode. Yeah, we know he knows everything and can fix anything and is the steady logical mind bearing up and ballasting Kirk’s brash bravado. But he’s far more than that now. He’s da man and he rocks righteous violence and delivers righteous vengeance. This is my Spock. We always knew he could do this—not just when he lost control in freak moments where his human weaknesses overcome him, but when anger needs to be unchecked and unhindered. When the needs of the one outweigh the need of a half-Vulcan chill-machine to stay calm, Spock unleashes his five-times-human strength, powerfully delivering–without reserve, without second thoughts–deserved and necessary brutality.

He can unleash his anger because he is no longer hampered by his previously-greatest fear: that he might slip and show that he’s half-human. That doesn’t matter now. He’s faced death alone and afraid, resolved to die without panic, without psychological disintegration. He’s faced the end of the world and the end of himself with the knowledge that sometimes you must do what you must do and damn the torpedoes (or lava waves, as the case may be). Having faced that, he is free to be what he knows he needs to be for his friend, when the moment comes where only he stands between his friend and death.

There are other heroic, self-giving moments in this movie, but I’ve been watching Spock for a long time now, and I am pleased to say that what we see here is Real Spock—embracing his Vulcanness, embracing his humanness—being who he really is and, in doing so, saving himself and his friend.

End paeon.

And yet I wonder whether we need to move on into plots and characters that are less familiar in order for future movies in this franchise to do well. We don’t really want to see re-makes: we want new adventures with aliens we’ve never thought of before, planets we haven’t yet encountered, dangers yet unconceived. We want new, wildly unpredictable things to happen: like Scotty’s “friend” betraying him, or Mr. Chekov growing up. I don’t really want Yeoman Rand to show up or Charlie X or the Horta. I want to go where no Trekkie has gone before. Nero gave us that in Alternate Reality, so we know the screenwriters are up to the job.

I’ve read that Zachary Quinto is, earlier rumors to the contrary notwithstanding, onboard for the next installment. At least we know that if Spock dies in that one, he will die daring greatly, his face marred by dust and sweat and blood, not sitting at his console monotoning the infinitesimally-small odds of his survival.

Also endearing here were Mr. Sulu’s first moments in The Captain’s Chair, portending a great future with (one hopes) the U.S.S. Excelsior, and perhaps a cup of tea. He, as we say here, deals with the bad guy, with good effect.

Speaking of the bad guy, let me just say that Benedict Cumberbatch has the most sonorous voice in the history of voices and may he continue to talk like that forever. He is the best of villains—the kind you can understand, empathize with, and root for, if only part of the time. He gets a chilly send-off, but one is left with a feeling that they are going to put him down on Ceti Alpha Five and things are going to go south from there, without, it is hoped, any creatures crawling into his ears and lodging there, because he’s scary enough when he’s in good health loving his peeps.

The screenwriters did a great job of giving us real men reacting to terrifying prospects. Real men (even half-Vulcans and three-hundred-year-old Supermen with Superior Intellects) feel, make mistakes, fumble, fall, and occasionally save the beautiful woman (read: USS Enterprise, she of the ample nacelles) at the last second.

Carol Markus shows up. You know what that means. At least they picked a really pretty girl. I hope she sticks around. It is a five-year mission after all. David could be four years old before we’re done. I hope his nanny is the man on the bridge who speaks out of an amplifier on the back of his head, because that is just too cool for words.

Leonard Nimoy. I’m a fan, but this needs to be the end, okay? Unless we can somehow–please oh please–get Shatner on for next time. Bill’s 81, so we need to hurry. What is the use of time-warps if we can’t get Shatner back to teach Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto how to play a little Fizzbin?

THE GREAT GATSBY, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, and Tobey Maguire

By ten minutes into this movie, I wanted to leave. By fifteen minutes in, I was gripping the arm rests to keep myself from rushing out. I felt like I’ve occasionally (okay, often) felt in church when the speaker says, “My second point is…” and starts rambling on a barely-even-tangentially-related (if alliterated) rabbit trail, and you know you are in for a long, boring haul because there are always three points.

I stayed for Leo. I love Leo. I have always loved Leo. I loved him as Jack Dawson in the goofy Titanic. I loved him as Romeo. I loved him in Gangs of New York, Catch Me if You can, The Aviator, Blood Diamond, The Departed, Revolutionary Road. I loved him in Inception, in J. Edgar, and in Django. (I’ve been too much of a scaredy-cat to watch Shutter Island.) If it were up to me, he’d have a shelf full of Oscars.

I didn’t love him in this. I didn’t like him in this. I don’t think it’s his fault. I think Baz Luhrmann had a very particular thing he wanted to do, and that is what happened. That is what directors are for: to put their vision on the screen.

I didn’t like the vision.

What we see on screen is all sap and fluff. There are pretty costumes, but the people are not really all that pretty. Giant houses without charm, parties that I’m sure lots of people would enjoy, but which look like too much humanity crushed into too little space with too-loud music—basically an outer circle of Hell to this introvert. If I were at a party like that, I would have sudden and urgent needs to gasp for air outside, far away, somewhere near an all-night Starbucks.

I never read the book. Now I’m not going to. The story didn’t resonate with me, and it’s not just the 1920s thing. Lots of movies in historical settings are brilliant–there are universal themes: longing, hope. This movie is about a creepy, lying fraud who stalks a married woman. Which I might even go for (cinematically) if he were confident and happy and refined (think Vronsky), but he’s pathetic and creepy. “I built this house for you” may have played well in former centuries, but today, a woman would turn on her stilettos and run for her life. Nothing says “This guy will read all your emails and check how many miles you drove today” like “I built this house for you, never mind you are married to someone else, but looky my pool!”

I kind of wish Luhrmann had done the Romeo thing again and set the story in San Francisco in 2013. That might have resonated with me more. Gatsby could have secretly been a drug lord and could be suffering from PTSD from his time in Afghanistan, where he met the poppy men who supply him. Daisy could have been married to a Silicon Valley nerd-gone-billionaire with a penchant for mail-order Asian women, while Daisy’s heart truly beat for Gatsby whom she thinks is so rich because his real name is Armie Hammer.

Tobey Maguire should not have been in the movie. The whole schtick that he’s a wannabe writer who works on Wall Street, but really wants to write a book, and how he copes with his loss of Gatsby (who is shot—not a spoiler, this book was written, people, in 1925) is to write it up and then voila, looky, I have a whole book and I think I’ll call it, ta-da, The Great Gatsby. I hate that kind of book-ending. I hated it in The Wizard of Oz and I hate it here, but here it’s worse, because we have that annoying thing where we bounce in and out of Nick Carraway (wannabe writer, Daisy’s cousin/Gatsby’s neighbor) having therapy at a Sanitarium (should have been Betty Ford where he was addicted to anti-depressants and alcohol because of his experiences living next to a psychopathic stalker) where an old man and an old woman keep bringing him tea and blankies to help him through (try that, Lilo!).

(Parenthetically, I don’t like Tobey Maguire in anything, but I really don’t like him in this movie. He plays a man who stands around watching other people fall in love and he talks too much and says dumb things and then decrees that a lying creepy man who isn’t sensitive to anything is Great. And he has that squeaky-soft voice that crawls up my spine.)

I see on Wikipedia that Nick Carraway is the main character in the book, but please, people, when writers write books about writers writing books, especially when it’s a struggling writer struggling to write as he struggles through his inability to cope with life, then I’m seriously not on board. If you want to see a movie about writers struggling, and then succeeding, at writing, see the undying classic Throw Momma From The Train.

Speaking of annoying, if I hear the term “Old Sport” one more time, I’m going to break something. I think this term comes out of Leo’s mouth about 100 times, and there’s really no reason for it other than to irritate and enrage the audience who gets it already.

So Gatsby is this multizillionaire who’s in love with a woman he feels married to because he kissed her five years ago, which gives me nightmares from college days about boys who were sure beyond doubt that you were “God’s will for them” and that it was probably best if you began submitting today, and you can type my paper for me, can’t you? Daisy is the woman, and she’s married to a man who is having an affair with a woman he would never have looked at.

Gatsby–besotted beyond reason–although rich and famous, and able to throw enormous parties in a single bound, doesn’t have the nerve to invite the girl over. Glory be, the random caretaker’s cottage is rented (why would it be rented out?) to someone who must drive 20 miles to Wall Street to sell bonds every day, but who doesn’t have a car, so calls for a taxi every day, what?

Going on, the cottage is rented to a man who turns out to be none other than Daisy’s cousin, so wowee wow wow, now Daisy can be invited to tea, because although she can’t be invited to Gatsby’s for tea, she can be invited to her own cousin’s house for tea and then they can all walk 25 yards to the Big House where they can disintegrate into a pile of lust, Carraway disappearing at appropriate times, because he has no role except to watch people and then write about them later while he copes with having watched them.

Perhaps the best thing about the movie is that it is a public service announcement for relaxed divorce rules. Here, we have a couple, unhappily and unfaithfully married at a time when there was no such thing as community property laws and where Daisy, had she divorced her husband for Gatsby, would probably have received the short end of the deal, both financially and socially, though I’m not at all sure it would have mattered, Gatsby being as ridiculously wealthy as he appears to be, even though the story of how he got there is a lie. It was a time when appearances were more important in marriage than realities, and the fact that the marriage is intact at the end of the show doesn’t mean the people are any happier than they were or any more likely to be faithful to each other.

Actually, since we know what is going to happen in late October, 1929, all the money is probably moot. Somebody write the sequel. Make it one of those parodies: The Great Gatsby Marries Daisy and They Have Zombie Babies. As long as it’s set in San Francisco and has drug lords and lurking ninjas, I’m in.

When it was over, I breathed a huge sigh of relief, stayed all the way through the credits (waiting for the Song That Never Came), and then smiled: “Next Friday, Star Trek.”

Jay Leno provided automobiles from his collection.

That amazing song from the preview is not in the movie.

Jay Z is one of the producers, so props to him and Mrs. Carter. They both have singing/rapping credits. Lots of people don’t like the rapping, but I’m not a hater there. It was the peppiest part of the show.

IRON MAN 3, starring Robert Downey, Jr.

I’m sitting here on this couch because I just made an awesome movie that is going to print money for me until the end of time. Even middle-aged women in Northern Cali are gasping for breath after seeing it.

I’m Ben Kingsley and I’m totes amazing as The Mandarin, even though I’m not Chinese and I’m about to kill everyone.

I’m the Iron Patriot, a shameless Iron Man knock-off, and I can fly to Pakistan in like three minutes.

Hi, I’m Gwyneth, and I write cook-books and kiss men in armor.

See above comment about middle-aged women gasping for breath.

First gigantic, overpowering, explosion-filled movie of the summer powered by an emotionally-frail hero, an almost sympathetic nerd-turned-villain (think Syndrome), a highly-zealous security guard, a conflicted genius botanist, and a little boy who saves the day. Throw in Gwyneth looking lovely, Miguel Ferrer (NCIS: Los Angeles) as the US Veep, and a President who’s high-strung and vulnerable, and you’ve got yourself a movie, people.

There are some bikinis, but they are mocked. It’s the serious, smart girls who get the attention here. There’s some innuendo, and a little language, but all of that is subsumed in the explosions and the story. And the music, the beautiful music.

Stay all the way to the very very very end.

I’m afraid Leo and Company next week (Gatsby) and Kirk and Company the following week (Star Trek) may be in for a bruising.

My guys saw it in 3D and gave that a thumbs up.

COURAGE

No, I’m not courageous. Forging ahead when you have something to lose, or when the power you are speaking truth to can hurt you, is courageous. Speaking truth to power when the power can’t hurt you isn’t courage. It’s just talking. Talking is valuable, but it is not, of itself, courageous.

Others are courageous. Others are speaking out when family relationships may shatter, when their stories may cause humiliation to themselves, to those they love. Others are speaking out when they may be shouted down, called liars, ridiculed, shunned. Others are speaking out when they may be fired, left with nothing, forced to move. Others are speaking out when they live right there, must interact with the principals, must rub shoulders with the hurting, the wounded, the perpetrators, the uncaring. Others are speaking out when they must pick up the slack, pay the bills, promise again where promises have been broken, discounted, disappeared.

Others are courageous. I’m just typing.

Here’s something else that requires no courage, and I hope many of you will do this:

It does not require courage to pick up a telephone, dial 864-242-5100, and say, “The firing of Dr. Bill McCauley was the wrong move. Please rescind it.” It does not require courage to open your computer, go to bju.edu, click on the little “Contact Us” envelope at the bottom of the home page and write a little note to Dr. Stephen Jones or Dr. Bob Jones III or Darren Lawson or Ed Dunbar or whoever you want to talk to and say, “You know what, firing Dr. McCauley was not right. Please reinstate him,” and sign your name. There is no courage required for this, only fingers.

It might also be a good idea to follow up your call or email with a real letter on a real piece of paper with a real stamp and really mail it to 1700 Wade Hampton Boulevard, Greenville, SC 29614, since I understand the computer people go through the mail (this may not be true, but I’ve heard such a rumor) and don’t deliver what they don’t want to deliver.

Banish those silly sounds in the back of your head that say, “Who am I?” and “They won’t listen to me,” and “I shouldn’t get involved” or “That would be ganging up.” It’s not ganging up. It’s talking. It’s just talking.

Do not be afraid to do the right thing. Do it for Dr. McCauley. And, if there is someone else you know of who was forced to retire, do it for him. Do it for her.

DEAR DR. BOB: an open letter to Bob Jones III and the Board of BJU

Matthew 18 requires a Christian who has been offended by a brother to go to that brother to see whether things can be made right without escalation of the issue to “two or three” and then “to the church.” This is not that. Rather, this might be something I would drop into the Suggestion Box were I in Greenville. It is a signed list of suggestions, along with the reasons for those suggestions from a longtime loyal alumna, former staff member at BJU Press, and author of 11 books, all still in print with Journeyforth, an imprint of BJU Press.

May 1, 2013
sharonhambrick@hotmail.com
Rancho Cordova, California

Dear Dr. Bob,

I recently wrote a post on my blog about things I’d like to see changed at BJU. Today, my husband encouraged me to send it to you personally. However, because I included bits of humor and irony in that post in order to spark conversation, I felt that the post as it is would not be appropriate to send to you. Because of that, I have taken out the humor, distilled some points, removed others, and added some, so that this letter will reflect my thoughts without the funny bits that, it must be admitted, were simply an attempt to mask my fear of speaking plainly.

To introduce myself to you, this is what might be in my file at BJU: In 1980 or 1981, I turned in my roommate for wearing pants off campus. In 1990, I contacted you for advice because I had been fired from a Christian school for telling students Santa Claus is a myth. In 1993, I came to you with the scary news that I had received a positive HIV test after attempting to give blood for a fellow BJUP employee. (The test was later found to be in error.) In 2009 or 2010, Beneth poured ice-water for me at the Perrys’ home here in my neighborhood. I have written 11 books (all still in print) for Journeyforth. You have always been kind to me.

Dr. Bob, there is a rumbling among some alumni, and it is a rumbling of fear. We are afraid that our friends who have 30 or more years of service invested in the University will be fired without a pension and without benefits, as Dr. McCauley was. If you and Stephen were powerless to help Dr. McCauley, you will be just as powerless to help our friends who are less visible than Dr. McCauley is.

We are afraid that the Board will, at any moment, decide that the purpose of the School can no longer be fulfilled and will shut the whole place down (as the Charter provides), distributing funds to a select few—including most importantly your immediate family—without regard for the thousands of students and faculty and staff who would be left high and dry.

We are afraid that, because of dwindling enrollment and a shrinking demographic and the availability in other places of more modern music, water parks, and what not, our Alma Mater will not be available to future students. Our own children and grandchildren will not even have the choice to experience the distinctives BJU offers because, due to Board action mentioned above, it will not exist.

Should the Board really have the power to sell to the highest bidder a Campus dedicated to Christ and purchased with the sacrificial giving and life’s work of thousands of loyal alumni, faculty, staff, and students simply because it doesn’t care for reasonable modernization?

Should not the Board, rather, repent of its collective heels-dug-in stance against, say, modernizing the music, in hopes of recruiting a new generation of Christian young people committed to Jesus Christ and His Gospel of saving grace? Indeed, does not a refusal to budge on non-creedal issues indicate a desire to see BJU close and the proceeds distributed among those the Board chooses? This frightens me.

Because of these and other concerns, I wrote a list of changes I would like to see implemented. Edited and changed for reasons mentioned above, here are those things:

1. Change the name of the school. As sad as it is to hear, “Bob Jones University” has unhappy connotations, nor do many people have any idea who your Grandfather was. I recommend “South Carolina Christian College” or something similarly generic.

2. Bring in a new President from outside who has an earned doctorate from a regionally-accredited University. Tie his salary to enrollment. We feel very sorry that Stephen has been so ill for so long, but at this point the School needs someone who can vigorously preach, vigorously promote, vigorously recruit, and vigorously move the School forward. Even a pro tempore President might work, if one had the magnetic personality and outgoing nature of, say, Mike Buiter.

3. There is a widespread feeling that the Board is a group of old racists. In a spirit of disarming this belief, require all members of the Board to sign and then read aloud in chapel to be permanently posted on sermonaudio.com the following statement:

“I have never aligned myself with, nor prayed for the success of the Ku Klux Klan. I regret my racist past, if any, and pledge myself to furthering the mission of South Carolina Christian College by actively seeking out African-American, Asian-American, and Hispanic-American faculty and students.

“I regret the termination of aging faculty and pledge that this practice will no longer occur. I pledge to sell the art collection, back-campus housing, or other non-educational assets rather than to abandon those who have given their working lives to this school.

“I further pledge to speak out boldly against any past, present, or future corruption relating to the College—including sexual abuse or its cover-up—when I learn of it and without regard for my own or my colleagues’ personal interests.

“Furthermore, I will attempt to avoid speaking evil of the President of the United States during his or her term in office.

“So help me God.”

Retain no one on the Board who cannot enthusiastically sign this statement.

4. Enlist the help of Alumni volunteers of good-standing to check music submitted by students so that new songs that meet reasonable objective guidelines as to beat, lyric, general tone, and genre can be listened to and even purchased in the Bookstore.

5. Occasionally introduce in chapel a new worship song that meets the reasonable objective guidelines mentioned above. “New” may mean songs that are decades old, such as “We Will Glorify the King of Kings” (copyright 1982) by Twila Paris, which is now in hymnbooks. The fact is that students and their parents know that there are many authentically worshipful, Bible-based, and non-rock songs among what is called Christian Contemporary Music.

6. Allow other checked worship songs in hall meetings, society meetings and outings, and other non-worship-service settings.

7. Encourage chapel speakers to speak more of Jesus and less of homosexuality, remembering that we speak about what we think about.

8. Encourage students who may be engaged in sexual sin or struggling with homosexual or heterosexual cravings or who may be pregnant or otherwise in moral difficulty to seek confidential help. History tells us that the Dean of Men’s and Dean of Women’s offices have not been safe havens for students with moral issues, but merely pit-stops on the way to being shipped home. A confidential counseling center could be established to help students work through issues—rather than being shipped for them.

9. Drop the word “Fundamentalist” for the simple reason that it connotes jihadism. Purposefully distance yourselves from this word. Coin a new word if a label is necessary and no existing word accurately describes us.

10. Hire one Black faculty member immediately. Add one more every year. Add an African-American to the Board without delay. Add another in a couple of years.

11. Commit yourselves to accepting the G.R.A.C.E. report with dignity, with repentance, and with grace, making the changes that will be obviously necessary once the report comes out. If you have not already done so, exhort any faculty, Board member, affiliated preacher, and so forth, to come clean before the report comes out, resigning from his ministries, seeking forgiveness from and offering restitution to those he has wounded, and even turning himself into law enforcement if appropriate.

12. Do what needs to be done to implement the Promise, especially as to those older former faculty already dismissed and living on Social Security. It is wrong to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right, and it is wrong to fire loyal, hard-working faculty in order to save money for whatever “right” reason.

13. We beg you to reinstate Dr. McCauley in some capacity for the next two years so that he can retire with full benefits.

14. Give Mr. Peterman his diploma. Expelling anyone (no matter what the infraction, less than a serious felony, perhaps) within 9 days of graduation is unconscionable.

15. Create and publish an “exit strategy” that will calm fears, indicating that, in the sad event the School closes, all current faculty and staff and all retired faculty and staff will receive a portion of the proceeds of the School’s sale in some proportion relating to their years of service, before the remainder of the money is distributed to other Gospel endeavors, the M & G, or the Jones family.

16. Apologize for saying homosexuality would be stopped were all gays to be stoned. Although this statement was made decades ago, it continues to wound.

Sincerely, and in the hope that our School will continue to exist to glorify Jesus for the next eighty-six years,

Sharon Hambrick (MA, 1981)
Brian Hambrick (BSN, 1997)

P.S. From Brian: I fully support Sharon’s statement here and asked her to send it. Both Sharon and I continue to be thankful for our BJU educations, and for Journeyforth’s publishing of Sharon’s books. My nursing degree has allowed me to support my family well in the sixteen years since I graduated (at the ripe old age of 39!). Sadly, at this time, we feel it is impossible to look at BJU as a future place for our children’s education, but we hope that will change as appropriate changes come to BJU. We are committed to doing our part, if there is anything we can do to further reasonable, appropriate change.