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

I’ve been telling myself not to say anything on this thread, but I feel like I ought to say something.

Regarding the dining common, my Mom and Dad met as host and hostess at a dining common table rotation. My Dad, who just passed away last month, loved to tell that story. What Don says about this unusual practice is true – it was a great way to meet and learn how to talk to new people. I’m sad to see this part of my BJU experience lost for my son, who is a student there now.

When I talk with my son about aspects of the BJU culture that were in place in my day but not his – guys wearing ties in the morning and off campus, required family-style dinners, getting permission or signing out to go off campus, light bell, vespers, and the like – he’s happy with how it is now. I still think he’s missing out on what I got.

These new dress standards, though, for people like me who think the Bible does address issues of modesty and distinctions in male/female dress, these are harder to take. BJU has always taken a more conservative stand on these issues and I appreciated it. I think I mentioned this on SI last year when similar issues were raised, how that I was surprised and disappointed that the girls volleyball team wore outfits that were not in line with the BJU’s stated standards. So now to fix that they change the standard, to something less modest? It’s just disappointing. Other than music now, what really sets BJU apart from other Christian universities? Nice facilities?

Look, I get it – the majority of BJU’s constituency has probably moved away from where BJU used to be. People think that talking about hemlines and dress is stupid. It would be so much easier to get on that bandwagon. My conscience just doesn’t afford me that option.

AndyE, you said:

These new dress standards, though, for people like me who think the Bible does address issues of modesty and distinctions in male/female dress, these are harder to take. BJU has always taken a more conservative stand on these issues and I appreciated it. I think I mentioned this on SI last year when similar issues were raised, how that I was surprised and disappointed that the girls volleyball team wore outfits that were not in line with the BJU’s stated standards.

In what way do these new dress standards violate Biblical prescriptions regarding modesty and distinctions in dress? I’m puzzled by what you said here, especially since women’s pants are cut differently from men’s and several people here have commented that finding knee-length shorts for their daughters has become nearly impossible.

Welcome Week 2017:

https://www.bju.edu/media/photo.php?gallery=418

––––––––––––—

So I have to admit that when I first saw this slideshow of photos from last Fall’s Welcome Week I was startled. Picture after picture of BJU female students wearing blue jeans on campus came as a surprise to me. Not that I was personally offended by it–I’m not. But the last time I was on the campus (many years ago) that would have been unheard of. I think it would have resulted in expulsion.

Looking at the photos, I was thinking that if I didn’t already know their origin I’d be hard-pressed to tell if I was looking at photos of BJU, Liberty University, or (locally here in Minneapolis) Bethel University students.

Understand, I’m not saying that’s bad, but of course some here are.

[AndyE]… what really sets BJU apart from other Christian universities?

Empty dorm rooms

Hence the need for change!

“a living dog is better than a dead lion” Ecclesiastes 9:4

Steve Pettit is positioning BJU for the next fifty years, and those next fifty years will look different from the previous ninety. My prediction is, and has been that BJU will align more with CE than whatever moniker it has been associated with in the past.

Institutional change is hard, and best done slowly. The culture and direction of the University cannot be changed overnight, and so the observation made by many on this forum regarding its slow drift is accurate. More to the point, it is being done purposefully.

Regarding the dress issue, there are several reasons why maintaining the old policy was unsustainable.

1) BJU is now accredited, and it has to draw its faculty from approved credentialing institutions. Do any of those schools remotely adhere to the old guard standards? I can’t think of one. The next generation of faculty - those in seminary or doctoral programs now, and the current assistant professors on staff - will to a large degree not have the stricter dress convictions. Even if they give lip service to them, their position will show up in how they or their spouses dress around town, and how they defend the policy when asked by students why a certain length short is not pleasing to the Lord.

2) Along that same line, very few people under age 40 are going to be excited about policing knee length hemlines or skirt/pants. That generation didn’t grow up in the era when that battle was bitterly fought.

3) In the old day, believers really had just two or three human sources of Biblical authority - church, home, and school. Theology, interpretation, and application could be closely controlled. Clearly, those days are gone, as the access to ideas is now exponentially increased. Yes, heresy is more easily stumbled across, but also sound biblical hermeneutics and application. Believers of any serious persuasion are reading, and can find acceptable rebuttals to biblically unsound arguments.

4) Cultural standards will change. Regarding change, my opinion is that the gravest mistake Christian educators and leaders can make is to stick a post in the ground and mandate that anything to the right is safe and Godly and anything to the left is worldly. I strongly believe that each generation has to examine scripture and make that determination for themselves. Only this process builds true conviction and purposeful holiness.

One further note… My family just visited a Mennonite church, and we absolutely loved the service. We loved the purposeful teaching, the lack of focus on entertainment, and the friendliness of the congregants. All the ladies wore bonnets and dresses, and the men wore in black pants/white shirts. We could see ourselves in such a ministry. But our primary concern was, if we got involved in evangelical ministries in this church, what would we be converting the people to - Christianity, or Mennonitism? There is a gospel issue at the heart of culturally regimented Christian denominations, and that is if the distinction between Christ and the cultural standard becomes too indistinct, the gospel is lost - completely.

JBL just said it best in the previous post. “What would be be converting people to - Christianity or” fundamentalism?

One thing of note in this entire tread of 96 posts - not one woman has responded. Maybe some of you should consult the women and potential women BJU students to find out just how hard it is to shop for, and find, the clothes YOU want them to wear.

[Jay]

In what way do these new dress standards violate Biblical prescriptions regarding modesty and distinctions in dress? I’m puzzled by what you said here, especially since women’s pants are cut differently from men’s and several people here have commented that finding knee-length shorts for their daughters has become nearly impossible.

JBL said:

Regarding change, my opinion is that the gravest mistake Christian educators and leaders can make is to stick a post in the ground and mandate that anything to the right is safe and Godly and anything to the left is worldly.

This the references to Proverbs 22:28 that imply that this verse is referring to certain clothing standards that are not to be moved.

In my long life I’ve seen former “worldly” practices now tolerated and practiced by my conservative brethren. I remember when any movie/film including Snow White and Cinderella and other Disney features were worldly. I remember when shopping in grocery stores that sold liquor was wrong. And then there was facial hair on men, television (especially on Sunday), card games with the “sinful” cards (Rook and UNO were OK), board games with dice, and open-toed shoes on women.

We all change but the Word of God never changes.

[Craig Toliver]

AndyE wrote:

… what really sets BJU apart from other Christian universities?

Empty dorm rooms

Hence the need for change!

“a living dog is better than a dead lion” Ecclesiastes 9:4

If only empty dorm rooms set BJU apart from other Christian colleges…..as far as I can tell, the only thing keeping a lot of those rooms filled at surviving schools is that their former rival schools have closed. #WayOffTopic, of course.

Back on topic, it’s my hope and prayer, again, that BJU becomes distinguished for what it should be famous for; standing for the Word of God even when that isn’t popular. Also, the door is open for those who endorse the old clothing standards to demonstrate that they are, indeed, Biblical. I’m not yet persuaded, but if someone’s got an argument that’s not slippery slope/guilt by association and otherwise Scripture-free, I’m open to it.

While this is my personal preference, I think it’s a travesty that the school allows students access to things like emails and text messages. Gone are the glory days of waiting each evening for a note to arrive through the note-system. While, as stated, my personal preference, it does point to the shift in culture at the school that, while admittedly simply my preference, was incredibly important to keeping the school moored to its separatist, fundamentalist heritage. It’s not that I believe emails and text messages to be inherently wrong and handwritten notes to be better, it’s that I’m troubled that BJU doesn’t adhere to each of my non-Biblically required personal preferences. It’s time for graduates and almost-graduates to rise up and reclaim BJU for what it once was. Never mind that in doing so the school will close in a few years due to lack of students since that “tribe” of fundamentalism really doesn’t exist anymore, it’s the principle of adhering to non-Biblically required personal preferences that’s important. Petimus credimus for life.

I am in a position to know the heart and intentions of the board of trustees and the administration. It is not the intention of BJU to fundamentally change. They have every desire to remain a conservative, center-right, fundamental, separatist institution. Adding intercollegiate sports has been good for BJU; however, it has created some new challenges. We endeavor to solve those problems principally and ethically.

We are different than the culture around us; however, we have no desire to be Amish. The world is constantly shifting. If there is no adjustment culturally on our part, we will appear to be not only odd, but cultish. This struggle never ceases because the world is always in a state of flux. I will have about 25 students at BJU this year who have previously attended our Christian school (Bethany). Our students are very conservative culturally. I can say that our students are enjoying their experience at BJU better now than ever before. I encourage them to join one of the excellent churches in the Greenville area and be involved.

I have not agreed with every change or every decision made by the administration; but I have never doubted their intention or direction. One has to make very difficult decisions when in leadership, and you will never make everyone happy. I believe that BJU is more theologically sound today than ever before. I believe the chapel and Bible conference platforms have been strengthened. These are the major things. Their education today is better now than ever before. It is still the number one school I recommend. I have numerous degrees from other fine Christian institutions; yet, overall I think BJU is doing the best job.

I invite all my conservative friends to communicate with the administration about your concerns. I don’t, however, appreciate what Travis has done. I don’t question his motives, but I do question his method of publicly and imprecisely launching attacks against BJU. He would do better to call, write, visit, and make his case. He would actually have more influence that way. This is a very important time in the school’s historical development. Get involved and make your influence known, but do so in a fashion that is building not destroying.

Discussions like this are inevitable as an organization works its way through change. As JBL said, “Institutional change is hard and best done slowly.” ((cough!) Did you catch that NIU??)

As I think about this discussion from a high level and talking to no one in particular… . Bear with me in my ramblings.

1. These conversations do have their benefit, because it helps us (& in this case BJU) think through what we believe, why we believe it, and helps to answer if changing is appropriate or not given an organization’s Biblical beliefs, culture, & heritage. The fact of the matter is that both sides would be wise to listen to each other - because, at least to some degree, we need and should not ignore each other.

1. The folks that are skeptical about this change: What are they basing their thoughts and feelings upon? Are these concerns Biblically based or of a historical and cultural heritage nature (i.e. family meals at the dining common)? If they are regarding the historical and not necessarily Biblical, are those thoughts being communicated as such? If BJU has changed many times in many ways in its history (i.e. men coats & ties to dinner then vs. no ties now), why are those changes not brought-up - or, not “bad,”, but these new changes are?

2. The folks that are happy for these changes: How are those thoughts being communicated? Didn’t many of those on the other side come before us in the faith and through whose toil and treasure build the organization being discussed? Is the support for those changes flaunted about disrespectfully or with appropriate consideration for others? Isn’t the “With all these changes, what now makes BJU unique” a valid question?

Take it. Leave it. Whatever.

But even if that were the case, how would that invalidate a Biblical principle? Also, I’m well-aware of the counter-arguments to maintaining a more overt distinction between male and female dress. All I’ll say is that the “cut” doesn’t seem like much of a distinction to me, and so I haven’t been able to use that argument to move my conscience on this issue.

What’s the Biblical principle, Andy? Other than the Levitical admonition not to wear clothing that pertains to a man? Some of the women’s apparel in the BJU photos is far more modest that I see elsewhere (likely including women at other Christian colleges). It’s certainly far more modest than anything I’d see on the streets of NYC, Boston, or Philadelphia or even, for that matter, Greenville.

And just as a quick reminder - women are not responsible to dress modestly in order to protect men from their own lusts.

[Jay]

What’s the Biblical principle, Andy? Other than the Levitical admonition not to wear clothing that pertains to a man? Some of the women’s apparel in the BJU photos is far more modest that I see elsewhere (likely including women at other Christian colleges). It’s certainly far more modest than anything I’d see on the streets of NYC, Boston, or Philadelphia or even, for that matter, Greenville.

And just as a quick reminder - women are not responsible to dress modestly in order to protect men from their own lusts.