A Failure to Stay the Course [Handbook changes at BJU]

[Kevin Miller]

Don Johnson wrote:

It is possible that Travis wasn’t as clear as he could have been in his article, but it seems to me that the complaints are about direction rather than these specific changes. Try reading the article with that point of view in mind and I think you will see it reads differently.

I actually understood that point while I was reading the article, but that point was one of the reasons why the article was confusing to me. He talked about some rules from his era that were “irritants” that are “gone now.” So he is okay with those specific changes. They don’t represent a shift in direction. However, the changes now DO somehow represent that shift in direction, or he wouldn’t be mentioning them. So it must be something inherent in the current changes that represent a shift that was not present in the previous changes. Yet the point of the article is about the direction rather than the changes, but how he gets to that point if specific changes are not the issue is confusing to me.

And why does he make the statement that Jim quoted in the post previous to yours if specific changes were not a big part of the problem. The quote was “Why the accommodation of changes we know are not welcome in our own ministries, but are being thrust upon us and our children …” Doesn’t that quote show that the shift in direction is being represented by specific changes that are not welcome in certain ministries?

Right. That’s what I mean by saying I think he could have made his point more clearly.

I have been disappointed in the general direction of the BJU changes myself. Some of them, like the rule changes on dress are somewhat inconsequential on a rule by rule basis. For example, we used to have to wear ties every morning until after lunch. It was a bit of a hassle, especially in certain circumstances. No one is going to be less spiritual simply because they no longer have to wear most mornings. It isn’t clear to me if there is a tie requirement at all anymore, I haven’t looked closely. So on an individual basis, doing away with each one of these rules have very little effect except in one respect that I will mention later.

In addition to these, there have been other significant culture changes which have changed the way campus life works. The sports teams are one area, the changes at the Dining Common another. In addition to this we’ve heard about changes in the dorms and campus life from students - either our children or young people from our churches reporting back. There are probably several others but I’m not trying to think of every change just now, just giving a couple of examples.

In general, the more conservative graduates are concerned about the general direction of the changes. They are moving from stricter discipline to more relaxed discipline. They are sometimes doing things that seem to appeal to the culture of the world (mimicking to a certain extent the secular campus approach at promoting sports, for example). There are a host of changes some bigger, some smaller that show a trend in a direction, at least from our perspective.

So all of that adds up to concerns on our part. I think that is what Travis is speaking against.

Besides the culture changes, this is my own personal take, I think the relaxation of discipline really weakens the aspect of character training that I so appreciated from my time at BJU. It isn’t the specific rules - I only wear ties on Sunday, for example (and then they are bow ties usually). I wear jeans on Wednesday night (not blue, but still denim). It’s not the rules themselves, but the culture of discipline I see as a loss. I think character building is good, and I think the distinctive rules of dress and other rules of that nature at BJU were helpful in this respect during relatively formative years. I think it was good for me, and I am disappointed to see it go.

I also think that the more BJU becomes just like any other Christian university, they lose some of the distinctive reasons for attending. I live about 3,000 miles from BJU. If it isn’t that different from a Christian school closer by, why would I recommend young people go there? Most of the young people we send away never come back. And if they aren’t getting something distinctive, why should I bother sending them there?

I don’t think BJU has totally lost its distinctiveness, but I am concerned about the direction. I think that is what Travis is saying also, although I think he might think it is further along the path than I do.

Our church on Sunday mornings displays the lyrics to hymns on a big screen at the front of the auditorium. I have found myself from time to time somewhat dismayed at it, thinking we are losing as a people something by not using hymn books. We lose the context of the verses put together in the traditional hymn book manner, seeing the name of the composer and who wrote the lyrics that are typically printed on the page. With this, we miss out on seeing those believers that have gone before us and contributed to the Christian faith. We also lose seeing all of the other hymns as we flip through the book looking for the right page. Are we as a people - are my children missing out on something by the trend away from using hymn books? Yes, I think we are.

That said, my next question to myself was whether or not that really mattered in the grand scheme of life and if it was my church’s responsibility to be a cultural guardian for the congregation. I had to come to the conclusion of No and No.

This, I think is in a nutshell the issue the BJU is facing with the push-back against the changes they are making. These are cultural traditions that, to various degrees, have their purpose and benefit. But are they scriptural and a sign of spiritual decay if not followed? Is it BJU’s responsibility to be the cultural gate-keeper for fundamentalism?

Per Don’s recommendation, I re-read Pastor Smith’s post and can see what Don was saying that Smith was expressing more concern about the over-all direction as opposed to just the dress-code changes.

Like Don and others have said, I think the blog post could’ve been clearer in its communication. For example, Smith talks about “saying the course,” “core values,” “disciplines,” and “distinctive moorings.” Not to be snarky, but what do those terms mean? What makes a BJU student “distinctive?”

Is Smith referring BJU’s spiritual & Biblical beliefs and convictions or the overall campus life and cultural heritage? Both? I think Don’s comments above help to clarify those questions, but I hope we and others will be clear about what side of the spiritual and cultural issue we are discussing.

BJU for so long has played a leading role in cultural fundamentalism and has much too often used a heavy-handed and hard-lined approach with its dealings with students and people in general that this push-back is not at all surprising.

What actual Biblical beliefs has BJU denied or strayed from? What sinful practices are they implementing?

BJU’s core constituency has shifted. In fact, apart from the remnants of the music rules, BJU is practically a main-line SBC institution. And, so, I get that cultural fundamentalists are unhappy with BJU’s direction. The pushback doesn’t surprise me. However, the pushback, especially in regards to how cultural fundamentalists would/do respond to my two questions above, will continue to ensure that “convergents” exist. In turn, that will continue to ensure that BJU changes.

With articles like the one posted above, cultural fundamentalists are nailing their own coffin shut.

Is it possible that these changes at BJU actually represent strengthening their standards? If previous standards were culturally, not Biblically based, and current standards are an attempt to follow a more Biblical perspective, is this not moving in a stronger direction?

In the past I have seen BJU trained pastors attempt to implement the pseudo-Biblical cultural standards of the school into their churches. In general, it has not ended well.

Many of those BJU church planters who had the luxury of starting a church with those standards in place faced a struggle and either have closed or are still struggling today.

In the old days when students questioned the “why?” behind the rules, often times the short answer was something like “We’re teaching young people to obey.” That reasoning doesn’t work in the real world of churches and believers. It also hints that perhaps “control” is important to those who implement the rules of cultural fundamentalism.

Trust and obey … for there’s no other way … to be happy in Jesus … but to trust and obey.

[Don Johnson]

As a result, you are tilting at your straw men again.

It is possible that Travis wasn’t as clear as he could have been in his article, but it seems to me that the complaints are about direction rather than these specific changes. Try reading the article with that point of view in mind and I think you will see it reads differently.

…

I am not keen on some of the changes at BJU as I have stated before. I think in general I would share Travis’ concerns. But what I see here is a typical exercise in missing the point and calling standards of all kinds into ridicule. You don’t actually live that way, but you seem to love ridiculing either past or current BJU and especially ridiculing those who prefer the past BJU. It all seems rather unedifying.

You aren’t making arguments. You are just reinforcing your own prejudices.

Thank you Don. We all misread the article and you interpreted it for us. Really, no one (hardly) is calling all standards into question or ridicule. What is ridiculous is all the fuss in treating young adults like adults and allowing for more latitude in dress choices. It is not a biblical issue which requires agreement among Christians. As for “You aren’t making arguments. You are just reinforcing your own prejudices.” That reminds me of the pot and kettle.

As a 1975 graduate of BJU and a pastor of a local church in Western CO, I say well done to the current leadership of BJU!

For the first time in several years, our church family has a student heading off to BJU. She visited the campus during the spring of 2017; and was so impressed that she made her application to attend in August of 2017 to start her college experience this year! That kind of enthusiasm is so rare.

To the current Administration of BJU, keep up the good work! Your commitment to the Fundamentals of our common faith are unwavering and your commitment to train a generation of servants for our Savior is greatly appreciated by this 1975 graduate of the University.

Thanks for your comments. I always makes me happy to see enthusiasm, rather than (in my opinion, unwarranted) criticism from alumni of any institution. BJU is doing great things, and Pettit seems to be doing an outstanding job. He’s ALMOST doing as great a job as Marriott is doing at MBU! Tillotson is likewise doing a wonderful job at Faith. I worry about Central (but, I have no evidence to substantiate my worries), and I wish Detroit had accreditation.

I spoke with Dr. Pettit about these most recent changes in the dress code. He explained to me that they surveyed the top 50 Christian schools who send students to BJU (mine is one of them; we will have about 25 students from Bethany Christian School there this year). More than half of those schools allow the girls to wear slacks in the classroom. Female students at BJU from the public schools did not generally wear dresses to school. Homeschoolers range from dressing like the Amish to attending school in your PJ’s. This was a major factor in changing the standard from dresses to slacks during the classroom sessions. Regarding the change in the length of the shorts, BJU is trying to harmonize their standards between the girls’ sports teams and the rule for the student population in general. BJU has ordered new uniforms for the Volleyball team this year which will be longer than the VB uniforms in previous years. We had received a number of complaints along those lines. So I don’t think anything sinister is going on here.

Doctrinally BJU has improved over the years. Their seminary is very well staffed and their theological positions are sound. The chapel and Bible Conference platforms have been very good. Their emphasis on the local church has increased. Personally, I preferred keeping the dress code the way it was; but that is not my call.

[Steve Davis]

Don Johnson wrote:

As a result, you are tilting at your straw men again.

It is possible that Travis wasn’t as clear as he could have been in his article, but it seems to me that the complaints are about direction rather than these specific changes. Try reading the article with that point of view in mind and I think you will see it reads differently.

…

I am not keen on some of the changes at BJU as I have stated before. I think in general I would share Travis’ concerns. But what I see here is a typical exercise in missing the point and calling standards of all kinds into ridicule. You don’t actually live that way, but you seem to love ridiculing either past or current BJU and especially ridiculing those who prefer the past BJU. It all seems rather unedifying.

You aren’t making arguments. You are just reinforcing your own prejudices.

Thank you Don. We all misread the article and you interpreted it for us. Really, no one (hardly) is calling all standards into question or ridicule. What is ridiculous is all the fuss in treating young adults like adults and allowing for more latitude in dress choices. It is not a biblical issue which requires agreement among Christians. As for “You aren’t making arguments. You are just reinforcing your own prejudices.” That reminds me of the pot and kettle.

I’m not really involved in this argument at all. I have made two posts in this thread with this being the third. I simply wanted to point out that I think most commentators here had misread Travis. (My opinion.) I don’t have anything to add to the discussion here so I don’t see how I can be accused of “reinforcing my own prejudices” in this thread, at least. When I made that statement above, I am offering my opinion about the whole discussion in this thread where basically the tone of most comments is how Pharisaical/legalistic/stupid the “cultural fundamentalist” (whatever that is) is. Go ahead and beat yourselves up with that line, guys. It isn’t what Travis was saying, nor is it really what the more conservative grads of BJU are concerned about.

Don’t have much else to say. Not interested in debating the dress standards. Just wanted to point out how you all are leaping to conclusions.

Additionally, Dr. Pettit believes that the change to a business casual dress code during class, which includes slacks for women, better fits with his understanding of modesty, professionalism, and appropriateness. This was the principle he was operating under when he made the change. A woman in a modest pair of slacks is equally modest as if she were wearing a modest skirt or dress. The key is modesty and appropriateness.

Don,

I don’t know how many here are are really talking more about the actual dress standards vs. whether or not BJU is on a slippery slope. I know that the dress standards were not my primary point, and I suspect they aren’t for a number of others on this thread. I survived the 80’s dress standards just fine, even though I hated having to wear a tie to go anywhere off campus, and my daughters survived the early 2010’s dress standards also with their well-being quite intact.

My major point is that the standards I knew were not what they were when the university started, and just as I didn’t think those changes represented a downward trend in their soundness, I don’t think the newest changes are either. I’m sure there were plenty of alumni that thought raising the skirts above the ankle was sinful or a sign of slipping, but I suspect no one on this thread, including you, thinks that. I guess the real question is why some people expect the standards from their years to be the ones that should never change, when they can see all the changes that took place over the time before them, and why only changes since that time, that is, at least the ones they also didn’t think need changing, must (in their minds) be negative.

The changes I’m the happiest with are those that, as I said, made the faculty/staff/administration, and really, the whole university in general, less adversarial/focusing on punishment towards the students and more oriented towards discipleship. There will always be debate over that balance, and whether or not the students are learning enough discipline, but personally, I think that balance was more skewed during my time than it is now. That, coupled with the fact that I don’t see BJU giving in on doctrine or theology (and in fact have made some big improvements like correcting the whole interracial dating mess), make me more comfortable as an alumnus than I was for a number of years after I graduated. I know that that is not shared by all my contemporaries, but you can’t make everyone happy when things change.