Kevin Bauder on the future of fundamentalist education

[TylerR]

Because I have a good, fulltime government job as a bi-vo pastor, I’m paying for the DMin and then the ThM in cash as I go. Most pastors couldn’t do that.

That was my route through seminary as well. I financed the entirety of my M.Div. with my biannual bonuses.

Limited Fundamentalist Prospects:

• Small Churches
• Bi-vocational
• Low, near poverty salaries

Reality Bites

Most non-fundamentalist churches are this way as well.

[Brandon Crawford]

The first thing that comes to mind is that if indeed the main reason (per Brandon) is to get connections in the IFB/GARBC world, then the argument for fundamental colleges and universities really boils down to “tribalism”.

Thanks for interacting with my comment, Bert, but you are really missing my point if you think I’m talking about tribalism! It’s not about that at all. It’s about answering the question, “what kind of church do I hope to pastor one day?”, and then finding the training institution that is most likely to get you there.

Brandon, you’ve re-affirmed my point. If one must go to a fundamental school to serve in a fundamental church or mission, that’s tribalism. Period, full stop, end of story. If you went to sound conservative evangelical churches with a degree from TEDS instead of Master’s or an SBC seminary, nobody would bat an eye. You could even get in with a degree from the more academically sound fundamental colleges. They might ask if you affirmed cultural stands A or B, but you could get a look. Talk about approved and disapproved schools in the private sector, and HR will ask you if you want to get the company sued.

What fundamentalism has done, really, is to confuse their rightful separation from theologically liberal seminaries a century ago with the need to keep separating from schools that, theologically speaking, really don’t differ from “their own”. And again, that’s tribalism, and it causes a LOT of strife. Ron Bean here describes it in terms of the movie “The Village”, and Dr. Bauder himself has compared the petty principalities of fundamentalism to rotting castles filled with dead mens’ bones.

Don’t get me wrong; if someone comes up with a genuine, theological differentiation that suggests that something really is different about fundamental ecclesiology vs. conservative evangelicals, or that what I would ordinarily view as cultural distinctives are indeed theological, I’m game to hear it. But again, unless a genuine theological difference is demonstrated, it’s really about “my tribe.”

This is a topic of great concern to me. I have two kids in college now, both at BJU, and a third one on the way in a year. I am spending a LOT of money for this education. It would be way cheaper for me to have them go to school locally at a secular school. Why am I spending all this money? I’m looking for several things:

A school with high academic standards that will enable my kids to grow into independent adults, while guided spiritually to make wise choices. I’m looking at how administration, faculty, and classmates function in this area. I want my kids to develop their own convictions but influenced in that by godly people.

Part of what I’m looking for in the above is a place that affirms similar values that I do as a Baptist Fundamentalist, including conservative music, affirmation of the fundamentals of the faith, ecclesiastical separation, young earth creationism, and a carefulness regrading personal holiness.

On top of that, I’m looking for a place than enables my kids to continue in their training within the fine arts. My son, for example, while a computer science major, has really been helped musically by taking private voice lessons at school from someone who shares our basic philosophy of music. It is also a big plus to have opportunities to participate in concerts and various productions, and not having to worry about the type of music they will be performing.

This was the general experience that my parents had at BJU, that my wife and I had, and that my kids have, for the most part. The sad truth is that BJU has changed in some areas that are of great concern to me. Modesty standards are not what they used to be; nor are their basic dress standards. I see things in the dorms now that I can’t believer are allowed. BJU is not as conservative musically as they used to be. Even their fine arts concerts occasionally include numbers that I find questionable. It’s all very disappointing to me. Nevertheless, my kids have all grown spiritually while they have been there. They have surrounded themselves with good godly friends. They go to good solid churches, that I trust, while they are there.

From what I can tell, though, it appears that Maranatha is more conservative now that BJU is. If it wasn’t for the fact that I really enjoy being able to drive up to watch my kids perform in concerts, and it being much easier to get to, we’d probably think strongly about sending our kids there.

One other thing. I’m not sure what BJU’s position is now regarding conservative evangelicalism. Things have definitely changed in that area and it would be helpful for Dr. Pettit and Bob III to speak to why things are changing. I think I understand some of it – there has probably been movement in both camps to positions closer to each other, but it would be very helpful, and reassuring to hear something like – we still believe in principle in what we have historically taught regarding ecclesiastical separation, but here is how the ecclesiastical landscape has changed in the past 30 years and here is why we are taking a position that looks a bit different in practice than what it used to.

The bottom line is – if a school no longer operates as a fundamentalist school, why should fundamentalists send their kids there? Maybe there are not enough fundamentalists to support fundamentalist schools anymore. I hope that is not the case.

I don’t know what I was thinking when I decided to engage online with a man who says he is “aspiring to be a stick in the mud.” But for others who may be interested, there are some notable ecclesiological differences between GARBC schools and their evangelical counterparts (TEDS, SBTS, etc.). For example, (1) They have a distinctive understanding of the relationship between the Church and Israel; (2) They have a distinctive understanding of the relationship between the Church and the eschatological Kingdom; (3) They have a distinctive understanding of the way in which local churches should work with one another—not just on the issue of separation, but on the practical mechanics of cooperation. The GARBC does not follow the convention model of the SBC or the centralized model of the EFCA. Taken together, these distinctives result in a way of doing church ministry that differs quite dramatically from the typical EFCA or SBC church—even if other aspects of their doctrinal statements are the same.

Also, no one is saying that you can only get into a GARBC church if you attend a GARBC seminary. Here in Michigan, I know GARBC pastors who got their MDiv’s from Moody, SBTS, GRTS, and other places. But I am saying that if you want to hear an extended defense of the distinctives listed above from men who actually hold those views, you should choose a GARBC school. If you come out of TEDS, SBTS, etc., holding GARBC distinctives it will be in spite of your education, not because of it. I am speaking from experience. My ThM and PhD (in progress) are from non-GARBC schools.

Appreciate your input. When I mentioned there was no difference in ecclesiology, I was thinking strictly of “being a Baptist.” Regarding the theological points you mentioned, you obviously have to weight how important those are for you.

It also matters why you’re going to school.

• Vocational? Then, it probably doesn’t matter very much if you go to Boyce or Faith.
• Ministry training? Then, it probably matters a lot more. For me, having a Reformed view of Theology Proper is more important than dispensationalism, which encapsulates two of the three points you mentioned. This is why I’ll be happy if my son goes to Western Reformed here locally for seminary, but I’ll also be fine with Faith. Not ecstatic, but fine.

[AndyE]

One other thing. I’m not sure what BJU’s position is now regarding conservative evangelicalism. Things have definitely changed in that area and it would be helpful for Dr. Pettit and Bob III to speak to why things are changing. I think I understand some of it – there has probably been movement in both camps to positions closer to each other, but it would be very helpful, and reassuring to hear something like – we still believe in principle in what we have historically taught regarding ecclesiastical separation, but here is how the ecclesiastical landscape has changed in the past 30 years and here is why we are taking a position that looks a bit different in practice than what it used to.

Andy, as you know, both my kids went to BJU as well (of their own choice). I’m probably a little less concerned than you about some of the changes, but when my kids were there, I was at least wanting to know the reasons for some of the changes. I’m not particularly concerned about the changes in music or dress standards except in the area of modesty, where I would agree that the students get by with a lot that wouldn’t have been permitted in previous years, though from what I saw when my kids were there, this was due more to less enforcement than what the rules actually stated. Changes like allowing facial hair on men were actually overdue and welcome.

I went to a session for the parents with a bunch of the leaders of BJU, including Dr. Pettit, where some of the reasons for the changes were laid out, with a following question and answer session. It probably wouldn’t be inaccurate to describe that session as lively, with some of the attendees borderline hostile to any change at all. I wish they had videoed/recorded that session for later playback, if not the questions and answers, then at least the presentations from the leaders at BJU. In short, they did in fact mention that both camps were closer to one another, with conservative evangelicalism not being the same as greater evangelicalism. They also noted that a lot of the rules that were in force when you and I were there were not really necessary, a lot of which had to do with dress (ties off campus, sneakers only back campus, coats and ties to dinner, etc., etc.).

The main change that I was actually excited about was the move to more of a discipleship model than having students anonymously “turn others in” for rule infractions, which certainly has served to make the whole campus atmosphere less adversarial. The other big change I really liked was the deprecation of the campus “church” in favor of having the students join and be a part of local churches. Finally, they noted that BJU was, and is, a non-denominational school, not a baptist school, so there would still be different positions held by the faculty (presbyterian, methodist, etc.). That’s not a change from when I was there, but I expect that many thought BJU was and still should be a fundamental baptist school.

One of my children is going there this fall. The attendance is actually increasing YoY, which is good, but the leadership has expressed that they do not want to grow much larger. I do share some of the concerns Andy has, but probably fall more inline with Dave. Fortunately I know a lot of the leaders there because many of them are close friends with our family. So while there are changes seen, I understand where the heart is. I had not visited the school for quite some time and decided to visit with my middle child a few months ago. While I am thankful for some of the relaxed dress standards, I was concerned with some situations that I saw there. The rules appear to be a bit tighter than the enforcement. But I do share some of Andy’s concerns with what I saw. I privately talked to one senior person and they said that the relaxing of the dress standards has been the biggest reason for the increase in attendance.

I do like the change to discipleship. I decided to take a tour around a few buildings late at night one night and I was very encouraged to see a number of fairly large prayer groups taking place in places like the Alumni building. This was something I did not see very much of when I was attending. I also talked to a number of individuals and was pleased with their verbal testimony.

While my kids were free to choose where they wanted to go (with some exceptions :)), I did steer them to BJU, for much of the same reason that Andy stated. I do not go to a fundamentalist church right now, because, frankly, most in my area are on the fringe areas. I go to a reformed baptist church that is conservative, and while there are many things I like about it, I still lean fundamentalist. The problem is that there are so few fundamentalist churches and the ones that do exist tend to be out there (i.e. KJVO…). So I am thankful for the higher education that is available in this sphere. I am not sure where BJU will eventually end up. While I do have a few concerns, in general I find it a better alternative than what is out there.

dgszweda wrote:

I privately talked to one senior person and they said that the relaxing of the dress standards has been the biggest reason for the increase in attendance

My son doesn’t want to go to MBU because of (1) dress code, and (2) the requirement to use the KJV. It makes me sad, because I got an excellent seminary education at MBU.

When I was preparing for the ministry I was in a place where the fundamentals of the faith were non-negotiable. On the other hand I was exposed to various views of eschatology, both covenant and dispensational views, Calvinism and Arminianism and “Biblicism”, and the varied views of church polity. I was encouraged to search the Scriptures and make up my own mind.

[T Howard]

TylerR wrote:

This brings me to another question = what does a balanced, fundamentalist institution offer that a conservative evangelical one does not?

A more conservative dress code and student handbook.

Based on the last several posts, it appears I was right! :)

[Brandon Crawford]… there are some notable ecclesiological differences between GARBC schools … Also, no one is saying that you can only get into a GARBC church if you attend a GARBC seminary. … you should choose a GARBC school. If you come out of TEDS, SBTS, etc., holding GARBC distinctives it will be in spite of your education, not because of it. I am speaking from experience. My ThM and PhD (in progress) are from non-GARBC schools.

Tip: There are NO GARBC schools!

Well, maybe not “officially” … But, everybody knows who they are, even if the old approval system is dead and gone!

The old approval system is gone, but there is still an approval system! There is a strict vetting process for who may advertise in the Baptist Bulletin, display at the national conference, and participate in the GARBC college scholarship program. The group of schools that make the cut are the ones I am calling “GARBC schools”

[T Howard]

Clarks Summit (aka Baptist Bible Seminary) has been bleeding seminary students for a while. They are choosing to go to SBTS and other conservative evangelical seminaries instead.

What do you mean here? That Clarks Summit undergrad students are going elsewhere for seminary or that seminary students are leaving their program midway through to go elsewhere instead? (Or that their Masters graduates are going elsewhere for Doctoral degrees afterwards?) And on what basis do you say this? I - for one - am a very satisfied and grateful BBS student who’s wrapping up an M.Div. there this year.