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

I suspect some of the heartache boils down the fact that people retain a nostalgia for the institutions that played formative roles in their adult lives. An undergrad institution can do that to a person. Some people can look beyond that nostalgia and welcome good change. Others cannot. This doesn’t characterize everyone who opposes changes at BJU and other institutions, but I suspect it accounts for a notable proportion of the incessant criticisms.

For the record, this is the organization that played a formative role in my own life:

AndyE

Rather than expect someone with a moderate interest in the subject to wade through a couple hours of sermon audios, it might be more profitable to all if you could simply summarize your main ideas, perhaps using Jim’s bullet point approach.

Rather than expect someone with a moderate interest in the subject to wade through a couple hours of sermon audios, it might be more profitable to all if you could simply summarize your main ideas, perhaps using Jim’s bullet point approach.

What I’m about to say may be interpreted as a shot at Andy E, but it isn’t intended to be.

It has been my experience that whenever you need to read / listen to several hours preaching or teaching to learn, articulate, and defend a Biblical principle, something is wrong. Biblical principles should not need massive amounts of explanation. They should be something that anyone who is a believer should be able to read, understand, and articulate during the course of their own Bible study at any point in their spiritual walk. That’s why I find Andy’s question puzzling.

Take the Trinity - it’s a hard concept that we cannot possibly hope to fathom this side of glory. But it shouldn’t take a believer even one hour to figure that out. If they reject that teaching, that’s one thing. But not being able to understand it? I don’t think that God has ‘hidden’ or ‘buried’ truly Biblical principles down in the depths for us to have to find and follow. God’s commands are pretty clear - so clear, as one man said, that even a ploughboy would be able to read and understand them.

When I looked up pictures of BJU in the 1920s, what I saw was that the women were wearing tea length skirts. The picture does not serve to suggest whether the woman there is wearing a corset or the newly invented brassiere (often a glimpse of the silhouette will make that clear), but she is wearing a hat characteristic of the 1920s instead of the exuberant plumage (and full length skirts) of the Victorian era. In the picture from the 1930s, the clothing is also quite contemporary. Not cutting edge, not revolutionary or edgy, just what ordinary people in even liberal churches were wearing at the time.

Not quite sure that the preoccupation with attire is new, or whether the mean was closer to what BJU considered acceptable, but for reference.

One other note; Andy’s link does have links to outlines. I read them, not having the time to listen, and I’m simply not convinced that the evidence presented there leads to his conclusion.

[Bert Perry]

One other note; Andy’s link does have links to outlines. I read them, not having the time to listen, and I’m simply not convinced that the evidence presented there leads to his conclusion.

I looked over the outlines as well, and, while not having scrutinized every word, they generally look sound. However, similar to what Bert said, I find that there is not enough there to e.g. argue that showing/hiding an additional 2” at the knee is something we can say would be indicative of not understanding or obeying the scriptural principles involved.

I will say that I lean in Andy’s direction, and find that modesty is not really considered and understood enough in our “Christian” culture, let alone the world around us. I don’t, however, think that BJU’s recent changes in this area are ones that all Christians should necessarily find concerning. The trick will be to determine what the school’s philosophy and attitude toward modesty are over time. If the changes are simply practical, or have something to do with styles being different from in past years, but still could be considered in alignment with the scriptural principles (and I realize that this is a judgment call), then I wouldn’t be concerned. There could be changes made that fall outside this. The problem, of course, is that outside something obvious, determining this will always be like the standard of the Supreme Court justice (can’t think of his name at the moment) — “I know it when I see it.”

As others have said, though, meeting the standards is not really an issue for those who want to be there, even if they are a little strange. It’s not like the students will be there forever, and even if they are a little strict, it certainly won’t kill them. No matter what standards they pick, someone will disagree, so I think they just need to do as they are doing — consult a “multitude of counselors” from their constituent leadership, make a standard, and just go with it, without worrying that they can’t please everyone.

I’m not seeing any proof to the claim that BJU is changing in an attempt to attract students. I can see why some might make that assumption but you know what they say about what happens when we “assume”.

Biblical principles should not need massive amounts of explanation. They should be something that anyone who is a believer should be able to read, understand, and articulate during the course of their own Bible study at any point in their spiritual walk. That’s why I find Andy’s question puzzling.

One could completely agree with this and be mystified by why Andy’s point is even questionable. It shouldn’t need massive amounts of explanation and yet it does because people are unlearned, they say. It is something that even unbelievers have accepted throughout history, they say. It is something that is common sense, they say. And their point is not without merit. It is, to me, a strange thing that people deny that women have a duty to love their brothers by caring about the way they dress. Or denying that skirt length is a factor in modesty. Even Mark Driscoll preached about that. That’s it is being disputed is a mindboggler, wherever we might draw the line.

But I do find it odd that you claim that these biblical principles should be understood and articulated by their own Bible study at any point in their spiritual walk. The Bible seems to differ on at least two fronts. First, God appointed teachers to teach, at least in part, perhaps because some biblical teachings might not be immediately clear without it. Second, the Bible makes clear that there are levels of spiritual knowledge and maturity (hence the need for teachers and the warning about being untaught). Which means that not all is able to be understood and articulated “at any point.” A younger Christian may not be able to explain something an older or more well taught Christian can explain. And someone may be able to articulate a view without being able to give a full defense of it.

[Joeb]

My Brother in Law just visited the ABC’S campus about a month ago. Their dress code is Suit and Tie for the guys and Dresses for the Gals. A fully accredited College to my knowledge and they have no problem getting students.

They also have a very prosperous Christian Camp they run. Don’t seem to have money problems or struggles attracting students. They must be doing something right. Also a lot of there Profs got there M Divs at Grace Seminary. which contributes to a balanced faculty

In my mind that’s proof that a strict dress code does not hinder recruitment if the Dress Code is presented as being professional and taking pride in the school instead of being for the moral protection of the students. The students are adults and just needed to be treated that way. So maybe BJU just needs to change their attitude instead of the dress code.

I served on ABC’s Board for several years….several corrections to the bove.

1. They are not regionally accreditted.

2. They are a very small regional school.

3. At the time, many of the professors/administrators raised financial support like missionaries — and finances were extremely tight.

4. They are a Bible college — not a liberal arts college — therefore, the type of student that goes there is quite different than at a LA school.

5. They have a wonderful camp…to describe it as ‘prosperous’ might be an overstatement, however.

6. Their President, a truly gracious and godly man, has done a great job of fostering relationships that have provided support. He lives extremely modestly himself. He is a careful steward of resources and a creative innovator of fund-raising and capital projects.

7. Their dress code is conservative, but not quite a narrow as the description above might lead one to believe.
8. I love the President and many of the people at ABC and they are considerably “right” of me on multiple areas. They have a gracious reserve in their positions that I respect and nothing I wrote above should be construed as a criticism — just a statement of facts as I know them.

I canNOT believe that in 2019, I am reading that changes in a school’s dress code, which has neither theology nor Scripture to support it but is, instead, a set of human rules that were written for structure and order, are still considered straying from any moorings or Biblical standard! Certainly motivation is important to consider, but what is the motivation of those who insist these rules are litmus tests of one’s spirituality or fidelity to God and his word? Is it fear? (What about shunning a spirit of fear in favor of a sound mind?) Is it control? (Isn’t that within the arena of the Holy Spirit to convict individuals or individual organizations without fearing denominational (or cliquish) reprisal?

One reason why that crowd is just so far out of my range of vision at this point of my life.

Unbelievable!

Ron

I wrote the following in a blog post entitled, “On Dressing Modestly in Public Worship”:

God provided definitive instruction to His people about how those who would draw near to Him in public worship had to be dressed:

Exodus 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: 43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

God specified that Aaron and his sons had to have on linen breeches (underwear) that were of a specific length to cover the nakedness of specific parts of their bodies (“from the loins even unto the thighs”) when they drew near to Him to worship Him. In an all-male context and even in a context when there would have been no other humans present at all, Aaron and his sons had to do this.

Moreover, they had to have other garments on over these linen breeches. If God required these men in an all-male context to dress modestly to cover their nakedness in this way, how much more so does God want all people to dress modestly in public worship in a mixed group by covering these parts of their bodies at least as much as these priests had to when they worshiped God in the tabernacle and in the holy place!

God certainly wants people to dress modestly in public worship.

I highlighted in bold what is a specific biblical statement that gives a specific length of dress concerning how men in an all-male context before God were supposed to be dressed in a worship context. I believe the implications for human attire in other contexts are straightforward.
I’m not interested in a lengthy debate about modesty in general, etc. I am sharing this specific passage and my treatment of it for your consideration as biblical data with implications concerning public modesty.