The Gaslight Effect: How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulation Others Use to Control Your Life
Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence–from Domestic Abuse to Political Terror
The Supper of the Lamb: A Culinary Reflection (Modern Library Paperbacks)
Things I Have Learned: Chapel Talks
Artisan Bread in Five Minutes a Day: The Discovery That Revolutionizes Home Baking
October 10th, 2009
tedmercer.blogspot.com — Post #3, 1954
This would be Ted Mercer’s final post to his blog (if he had one in the 1950s). But, of course, the story continues without him.
In his final “post,” Mercer is plainly exasperated. Bob Jones Sr. has called him more than just “inefficient” and “disloyal,” more than just “criminally insane” and “demon possessed.” In numerous private conversations with students, alumni, staff, and constituency, Jones has called Mercer a homosexual. And in this document, Mercer is trying to set the record straight (pun intended).
It’s hard to imagine the weight of this accusation today. I’m not going to deconstruct it anymore than to say that Jones’ “poisoning the well” for Mercer’s reputation is despicable and shameful.
A few people to note:
- Mr. James H. Price was “a member of the executive committee” and “attorney for Dr. Jones [Sr.].” He still resides in Greenville, and his son is a local attorney.
- Mrs. Keefer, Dean Keefer’s wife, worked at the Dining Common.
- Glen Lockwood told Mercer the exact numbers of enrollment (in contrast to the published numbers in the Sword) and was subsequently expelled for “[supplying] information to an enemy of the institution” (20). I believe he’s preached recently at Reformed Presbyterian Church, Southside in Indianapolis.
- Another faculty member is mentioned as resigning — Mr. Warwick.
- Matt and Millie Weld resigned because of BJSr.’s accusations against Mercer.
Alice Mercer, Ted Mercer’s wife, provides an honest and shoot-from-the-hip rebuke of Jones Sr. She clarifies what have been only fuzzy glimpses of the Family for those of us who followed her.
- She describes the more Pentecostal ethic in BJSr. with his “biblical discernment of spirits and of character” claim degenerating into a simple and blatant accusation of his argumentative opponents.
- She points up the double-standard on the “beverage use of alcohol” among the administrators — specifically that “little bottle” that BJSr. “[carries] around and take[s] sips from” (14).
- She draws the obvious connection (for the times) between BJU and the USSR.
Ted Mercer’s most startling and eerily-resonant statement in the whole document:
Your failure as individuals to support what I and hundreds of others believe is a reasonable request (for Dr. Jones to retract and apologize or to grant an open hearing to determine the guilty ones in this controversy) will only serve to prolong and intensify the controversy. The alumni have spoken. I have more than a thousand letters which the Board may inspect under the conditions of a hearing. These tell abundantly what many alumni think about these matters (5).
This explains much of the BJU official reaction to the Please-Reconcile movement a year ago. It was completely an alumni-driven effort to coax BJU to apologize for what was clearly institutional racism. While BJU did apologize, their spokesman, Gary Weier, went to great pains to explain that the alumni had nothing to do with their statement. No one, of course, believed him. So the question becomes why does BJU work so hard at proving that the alumni and faculty are irrelevant?
Habit may be one explanation.
October 10th, 2009
The Bard Says :
Powerful stuff, and thanks for taking the time to locate as post all this stuff. Many of Mercer’s accusations sound all too familiar. At the very least, Sr. and Jr.’s diabolical slander and gossip-mongering, hidden behind their veil of supposed concern, smells like sulfur, not grace.
I still wonder about Mercer a little bit, whether he has any other evidence for some of his accusations and whether he (understandably) got too carried away in his own crusade. But if Mercer is wrong about something, let the Administration, or someone else, come forward with *real evidence* and prove it. Somehow, I think the arrival of Godot is more likely.
October 10th, 2009
Will Says :
“So the question becomes why does BJU work so hard at proving that the alumni and faculty are irrelevant?”
And they couldn’t figure out why, my senior year at BJ, I withdrew my membership from the alumni association! (In fact, they not only couldn’t figure it out, they called me into the Dean of Men’s office to make a “spiritual” issue out of it.)
October 10th, 2009
cklewis Says :
I *think* they would say that they did answer it in Turner’s chapter on the issue. Have you read it? It keeps the homosexual innuendo completely intact and simply on the level of innuendo. I find that deplorable, disappointing, and unprofessional.
October 11th, 2009
The Bard Says :
I did read the chapter on Turner’s book, which I found utterly non-responsive. Besides the innuendo of homosexual acts with students, Turner dismisses Mercer’s later letters by saying that if Mercer got his way, BJU would have been a more academic and less spiritual place.
Even if there was evidence that Mercer was guilty of homosexuality (there isn’t), the Administration hasn’t offered much evidence that Mercer was lying about everything else.
October 11th, 2009
Camille Says :
I do agree. On a civil case, Judge-Judy level, the preponderance of the evidence goes with Mercer.
October 11th, 2009
Mel Says :
Change the names and it could have been written in the 90’s. The practices are the same, the personalities not dissimilar enough.
From Alice’s letter, this statement sums things up pretty well: “Your definition of loyalty is different in that it does not admit of any difference of opinion or real acknowledgment of imperfections…”
October 12th, 2009
Andrew Says :
Oh, Will! Withdrawing your AA membership?! In the middle of the year?! Horrors! I mean, you might as well have drawn up a petition for better food in the Dining Common or grabbed a girl and had a make-out session in front of the Dean of Men’s office (or over BJSr’s grave!). You should have waited until the day before graduation so you didn’t have to deal with their antics…
Camille — I learned very well from personal experience how the powers that be at BJU truly THRIVE on innuendo. It took a personal intervention from Dr. Gingery to get me a spot to sing in chapel as a senior voice major. Ironically enough, I had been bumped off the schedule my freshman year because an upperclassmen wanted to sing, so I didn’t catch the flack for singing one of your husband’s songs….
October 13th, 2009
timf Says :
Wow. I guess being a member of the alumni association is good for nothing more than the hotel discounts. I guess all of this alumni networking stuff that the university has been working on is purely cosmetic. I wonder if they lie about the membership numbers…
November 12th, 2009
Jackson1864 Says :
You have worked diligently to bring up past injustices (if Mercer is to be believed), but for what edifying reason? You fail to question if Mercer used hyperbole or innuendo in his statements, but you have done so in your posts. You have not shown charity to those currently associated with BJU by assuming that they would be dismissive of evidence. And you have linked to a site that makes belittles other believers (even if they are wrong in many areas).
So, enough of my thoughts. In what way are your actions and content “good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear?” (Eph 4:29)
A humble reading of Proverbs 6 might be in order. And for the record, I don’t work at BJU nor do I attend a IFB church.
November 13th, 2009
cklewis Says :
Yes, Jackson. That is the standard response within a certain ethic that automatically defers to authority. “How could you?” “Why would you say such things?”
At the root of that is a misunderstanding of the nature of sin. None of us edifies by covering up past sins. That is a pagan practice, not Christian. We Christians know that by exposing our sins, Christ is honored.
I know “those currently associated with BJU” are “dismissive of evidence.” Dan Turner’s book proves that.
We build up the Church by foregrounding where our true Strength lies. And it’s not in protecting the Powerful.