# Brown to reinstate RUF



## Pilgrim (Dec 12, 2006)

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


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 12, 2006)

joshua said:


> 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.



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


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 12, 2006)

joshua said:


> 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. in my opinion 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


> "does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered...?" (1 Cor 13:5)


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 13, 2006)

joshua said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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.


----------

