A Failure to Stay the Course [Handbook changes at BJU]
- 514 views
[dcbii]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.
Dave, I don’t think BJU’s standards ever insisted that skirts be below the ankle. Look at the 1920s pictures if you can find them.
However, you are still talking about the dress standards. I recognize there can and will be change in standards, and such changes are NOT a deviation from holiness. I think my friend Travis does also, and I think he said so, albeit not as directly. So the whole conversation of dress standards seems to me to be totally outside the point.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don, how are the standards TOTALLY outside the point when your friend Travis is the one who brought them up? His article is why we’re having this conversation. And his article used the changes in the rule book as a talking point for his larger point. In fact, the changes in the rule book that he is unhappy about are integral to his argument about “institutional erosion,” specifically the “institutional erosion” of BJU. Of course, the changing standards aren’t the engine that’s driving this purported erosion. But according to him (and other critics), they’re the aspect of the “erosion and decay of BJU [that] has manifest itself openly.”
We get it, the changing standards are not the illness, but according to the article they are a symptom. A symptom that he highlighted in his article. Like it or not, he used the changing standards in his argument to support his thesis.
I agree that the changing standards launched his post. I also agree that he probably views these changes as somewhat symptomatic of his general reasons for concern. But as I read through the whole article, I don’t think he really is so concerned about these particular changes per se. Thus his main point is missed. That’s partly his fault, that’s why I said he could be clearer.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Someone said:
”Is it BJU’s responsibility to be the cultural gate-keeper for fundamentalism?”
I am not sure that BJU wants that responsibility now, but I do believe that many expect that of the school. Frankly, given some of their own statements about who they were and why they existed from decades ago (and maybe as late as the 1980’s or ‘90s), it’s going to be hard to shake that burden off now.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[John E.]BJU’s core constituency has shifted. In fact, apart from the remnants of the music rules, BJU is practically a main-line SBC institution.
Would anyone else go this far in his description of BJU? How is BJU “practically a main-line SBC institution?”
Surely BJU isn’t a Garner Webb, Carson-Newman, Baylor, etc.
I don’t understand what it is about BJU that gets everybody so riled up. Want to start a long discussion thread on SI? Post an article about standards and BJU!
But seriously, people talk about BJU as if it’s really unique and distinctive. Don’t they even call themselves the world’s most unusual university or something like that? What is it that sets BJU apart from other Christian (and even other fundamentalist) colleges and universities?
For the record, I’ve never visited BJU so if it’s the beautiful campus or the art gallery that make it special I’ll have to take your word for it.
[pvawter]My theory has been that colleges and universities always attract disproportionate attention in the fundamentalist world because they are the de facto power-brokers and kingmakers. We don’t have bishops, presbyteries, or synods, and what organizations we do have are loose, unstructured, and optional. Educational institutions therefore play an outsized role in setting the theology and culture for the broader movement.I don’t understand what it is about BJU that gets everybody so riled up. Want to start a long discussion thread on SI? Post an article about standards and BJU!
But seriously, people talk about BJU as if it’s really unique and distinctive. Don’t they even call themselves the world’s most unusual university or something like that? What is it that sets BJU apart from other Christian (and even other fundamentalist) colleges and universities?
For the record, I’ve never visited BJU so if it’s the beautiful campus or the art gallery that make it special I’ll have to take your word for it.
BJU, naturally, carries more interest than most because of its age, size, and prestige.
You’re quite right. Well said.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
The BJU of today does not have the size and prestige it had in the days many of us recall. There are a number of doctrinally sound Christian schools of the same size or slightly bigger. One in Greenville SC itself. As to prestige, it’s been my experience that the notoriety BJU had in the 80’s when its racial policies drew the attention of the press has faded and practically no one outside of the Christian world knows they exist while within the conservative Christian culture they are now just one of many. I recall hearing about a noted IFB pastor with strong BJU connections asking a noted CE pastor, “What do you think of us (BJU)?” The answer was, “We don’t.”
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[pvawter]I don’t understand what it is about BJU that gets everybody so riled up. Want to start a long discussion thread on SI? Post an article about standards and BJU!
But seriously, people talk about BJU as if it’s really unique and distinctive. Don’t they even call themselves the world’s most unusual university or something like that? What is it that sets BJU apart from other Christian (and even other fundamentalist) colleges and universities?
For the record, I’ve never visited BJU so if it’s the beautiful campus or the art gallery that make it special I’ll have to take your word for it.
They don’t call themselves that any more. In fact, you are at least fifteen or maybe even twenty years behind the times. The slogan “World’s Most Unusual University” characterized the school in the past, when it was decidedly different from most other Christian colleges, and deliberately so. There were a host of ways.
One of the ways was the strong disciplinary system. Like any such system run by fallen men, mistakes were made. Some people aren’t gracious enough to recognize that and grasp the goals and philosophy of the system. You will see several of them posting on this thread. They bring up the same tired whinges they always bring up. It gets a bit tiresome.
Anyway, from the WMUU slogan, they went to “The Opportunity Place,” then they became something else, which I think is the current one. Can’t remember exactly what it is, I think its three words strung together to show how hip they are. Or at least, that’s my impression.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I am a little late to the game here and others have echoed the sentiment I am about to share, but there is one particular line in the article that makes me cringe and displays that there is a fundamentalism that is not worth saving. The author writes:
Fundamental pastors, so quick to point out the flaws and failures in other ministries in the past, have been all but silent while the board and leadership at BJU steers the University away from its fundamental moorings. (Emphasis mine)
Since when do changes in the handbook mean that the University is being steered away from its fundamental moorings? This statement belies a more dangerous thinking in some circles of fundamentalism. That adherence to extra-biblical standards is the true mark of a fundamentalist. And this flavor of fundamentalism is certainly not worth saving.
Now I know the author is not suggesting that these changes alone are what are raising concerns for him and others, but, it seems that his assessment of BJ as an institution that “is adrift from the disciplines that shaped the character of generations of Christian students in its past.” is centered entirely around their changes in institutional standards. He sends a call to alumni to rise up and call the administration, board, and faculty to right the ship.
Yet in all these discussions, I have not heard a direct accusation that the University is transgressing any biblical principals in what they are doing. This is the crux of the matter and the reason why so many are escaping fundamentalism. It is a movement that has devolved into pharisaical squabbling over nonadherence to man made standards. This the the very worst of fundamentalism and it is certainly not worth saving. One may have different standards than the University. One may even voice their concern. But to throw around an accusation that BJ has, as quoted above, “steered away from its fundamental moorings” is not warranted.
Could it be that the current administration are the ones seeking to “right the ship” by shedding unnecessary, archaic, and harmful standards and, instead, focusing on gospel proclamation and discipleship that is biblically defined, not artificially created through manmade standards? That is the assessment of this 2-time graduate. I am thankful for the bold leadership of Dr. Pettit and the current administration and continue to support my alma mater. They are not failing to stay the course! They are steering BJ back to the biblical course that exalts Christ and His kingdom above the legalistic standards that we are so prone to creating.
Phil Golden
I think its three words strung together to show how hip they are. Or at least, that’s my impression.
The new motto is “Learn. Love. Lead.”
Don’s description of it makes him sound like an old fuddy duddy like me. SMILE
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
AND proud of it!
(Yes, I know pride is a sin.)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
When I was at BJU in the middle 90’s they had a latin motto of “Pedimus Credimus,” which means “We seek, We Trust.”
However, I heard other students refer to it as “We’re right, You’re wrong.”
That revised meaning to those students was not far off from the practical realities of that period.
Also, I could be wrong, but I seem to remember there once was a slogan that went to the effect of, “God’s Place for You.” That came across to me as BJU thought they were all that & more - which was true, regardless if my memory here is correct or not.
Thankfully, BJU has strayed away from such moorings.
Learn, Love, Lead sounds concise to me. As a 65 year old, I can remember that. BTW, sounds sort of what I would want a Bible education to be and to what I would hope that a Bible education would do for me. I need learn more of whom God is, love Him and others, and be part of God’s solution. Learn, Love, Lead!
Discussion