"We will shape a campus community that is more comfortable with and more readily accepts appropriate change."

Just from the historical standpoint, an organization wanting to promote a new era of openness might wish to avoid calling their ideas Five Year Plans. :-)

[Robert Byers] Just from the historical standpoint, an organization wanting to promote a new era of openness might wish to avoid calling their ideas Five Year Plans. :-)

LOL! Dear Leader no like you bring up painfilled past! Trust five year plan every time!

[Robert Byers] Just from the historical standpoint, an organization wanting to promote a new era of openness might wish to avoid calling their ideas Five Year Plans. :-)

Robert, shame on you! It is appropriate that glasnost be practiced concerning the perestroika. 5 years is about right for the first phase. ;)

No criticism of BJU’s document is intended here. Just playing along with Robert’s observation.

To Don, I get what you’re saying. They give a structure change that promotes changes, but not the changes themselves. As such, this document could sound like bureaucratese to some.

But I think the acknowledgement that they are going to change they way they change things is a major accomplishment. My feeling has always been that the institutional inertia at BJU kept them from making adjustments that would have benefited the school, the students, the faculty, the staff, the movement, and the cause of Christ. Delegating decision-making power in non-fundamental areas to people you trust to make those changes is always better than making changes with glacial slowness from the top down.

They really didn’t say anything specific. I am with Don that it was a lot of high-level gobbleygook. I am curious to see how they implement their “changes”. I suspect that this has more to do with their long term survival than anything else. Enrollment is declining and they need to find a way to remain viable.

In a culture where change is feared, saying that you will change is a big step in the right direction. Doing it however, may prove to be extremely difficult. They had better do a great job of explaining the “changes” (and the reasons behind those changes) to the churches which feed their university. If they don’t get buy-in, they run the risk of losing support from the pastors and in turn losing students.

You said what I am trying to say, but much better, especially the first paragraph. I hadn’t thought much about your second paragraph, but it is correct also, in my opinion.

[JGreen] Enrollment is declining and they need to find a way to remain viable.

Why?

1. Many churches and pastors are seeing fewer and fewer reasons to exclusively send their young adults to Fundamentalist institutions as opposed to a mix of Fundamentalist, Conservative Evangelical, and even, in some cases, Secular schools.

2. On the opposite end, the most conservative/reactionary elements that self-identify with the name “Fundamentalist” are more comfortable with the far right schools (KJVO, or at least TR/Majority text; strong commitment to the Fundy Fixin’s too).

3. And then there is the drag of distance learning options. Why go away, when you can stay at your church that is working well for you, take some classes at the community college, and the Christian stuff on-line?

The first is doubtless what President Jones is trying to address. The 2nd is not solvable — BJU is not that and is incapable of appealing to that set (nor would it be honest of them to try). The 3rd is one they are addressing, by offering their own distance learning programs.

The challenges that the big Fundamentalist schools face are larger than just making themselves more palatable to today’s Fundamentalist young person. They have to carve out a place for themselves in the new environment of the “Emerging Middle”. Few will choose their school because the movement leaders tell them too. They will need to be convinced that the school represents what they believe, will teach them well, and will give them credentials that are usable in their field. If there are “quirks” of the particular school (think “Fine Arts” at BJU, for example), the potential student will have to be convinced either that they have value or that the benefits outweigh having to put up with that emphasis. Standing strong on dress codes (for one example) will not be a sufficient selling point anymore.

In the end, though, distance learning poses a difficulty for all brick and mortar schools. While the distance learning model has many shortcomings (and is unworkable in some fields, like neurosurgery), it will prevail. The important thing will not be what school you studied at, but what professors you studied under. Barring a collapse of the power grids of Western Civilization, all of these schools will change radically in the decades to come. It is mind-boggling to contemplate even now that some schools that once would never have graduated a student over whose life they did not have complete control for a few years now will graduate a student they’ve never met until graduation week.

Great post Mike.

As social media and the Internet grow, the influence of a local pastor on where the church kids go to school will decrease. You may like that or not. It may be good or bad. But schools like BJU will have to engage in more direct marketing to students and be less reliant on pastors to push kids to a particular school.

In the end, influence beats control. I think BJU will do better at influencing decisions for enrollment as the plan is worked out.

The education bubble. At my company, we just hired a 20 year old software developer who is one of the smartest we have. Why should he spend half a million in costs and lost income to go to a school where he knows more than his teachers?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/04/higher_education

[Mike Durning]

[JGreen] Enrollment is declining and they need to find a way to remain viable.

Why?

1. Many churches and pastors are seeing fewer and fewer reasons to exclusively send their young adults to Fundamentalist institutions as opposed to a mix of Fundamentalist, Conservative Evangelical, and even, in some cases, Secular schools.

2. On the opposite end, the most conservative/reactionary elements that self-identify with the name “Fundamentalist” are more comfortable with the far right schools (KJVO, or at least TR/Majority text; strong commitment to the Fundy Fixin’s too).

3. And then there is the drag of distance learning options. Why go away, when you can stay at your church that is working well for you, take some classes at the community college, and the Christian stuff on-line?

The first is doubtless what President Jones is trying to address. The 2nd is not solvable — BJU is not that and is incapable of appealing to that set (nor would it be honest of them to try). The 3rd is one they are addressing, by offering their own distance learning programs.

Mike….I think you made a very fine assessment here, but if I could push back on one point.

As one who has lived in the backyard of BJU for most of the last decade and who has honestly encouraged students to give it a look, I can tell you that they ARE viewed as one of the “far right schools” — not because of a KJVO position, but because of their music position — something that matters far more to the typical college-aged kid than textual issues. I don’t see it or understand the mentality as I’m not one who is particularly drawn to music of any kind. But for today’s generation, it IS a big deal and the horror stories of music checks, being campused for unauthorized music, etc… do make their rounds among kids in churches that might be inclined to support BJU. For all the positive things that BJ has to offer, it makes me sad that the music issue has become such a barrier to a significant portion of each potential freshman class. So while they may not be viewed by those on this side of an education as an extreme fundamentalist school in the category of Hyles-Anderson or one of it’s clone schools, it appears to me that those on the other side of the college experience might see it differently. I realize that in the view of many, this is a standard worth sacrificing for in order to maintain separatist and philosophical purity. I see it differently and wish it wasn’t such a wall to overcome when offering guidance to graduating high schoolers who generally think superficially and with an exaggerated sense of immediacy and self-centeredness as they choose a school.

[Dan Burrell] Mike….I think you made a very fine assessment here, but if I could push back on one point.

As one who has lived in the backyard of BJU for most of the last decade and who has honestly encouraged students to give it a look, I can tell you that they ARE viewed as one of the “far right schools” — not because of a KJVO position, but because of their music position — something that matters far more to the typical college-aged kid than textual issues. I don’t see it or understand the mentality as I’m not one who is particularly drawn to music of any kind. But for today’s generation, it IS a big deal and the horror stories of music checks, being campused for unauthorized music, etc… do make their rounds among kids in churches that might be inclined to support BJU. For all the positive things that BJ has to offer, it makes me sad that the music issue has become such a barrier to a significant portion of each potential freshman class. So while they may not be viewed by those on this side of an education as an extreme fundamentalist school in the category of Hyles-Anderson or one of it’s clone schools, it appears to me that those on the other side of the college experience might see it differently. I realize that in the view of many, this is a standard worth sacrificing for in order to maintain separatist and philosophical purity. I see it differently and wish it wasn’t such a wall to overcome when offering guidance to graduating high schoolers who generally think superficially and with an exaggerated sense of immediacy and self-centeredness as they choose a school.

I was thinking that, but I didn’t want to turn this into yet another music thread — which seems to be the great SI black hole. Let music be mentioned, and the thread slowly revolves more and more tightly around the music issue singularity, until it can never escape the topic.

But, since you’ve started down that road…

Change in this area would be helpful to the school, and to BJU’s credibility. The same is true of all the Fundamentalist schools.
When we hold a position up as “Bible truth” that is not found in the Bible, it makes us look ignorant. It certainly calls into question our objectivity.
BJU already suffers from the history of trying to preach against interracial dating and marriage as though they were Bible-based teachings. They are not unique in that, but they are unique in how long they held onto that teaching.
Musically, it is time to acknowledge that some standards that have been preached in these institutions (and out of them) are not well-founded Biblically.

Before you paint me as a radical, everyone, let me state my position on music. That way you’re not attacking me in ignorance.
1). I don’t believe in the slippery slope. They could make some changes in this area without bringing in Stryper for Vespers. A position well-founded in Scripture is an unassailable position, and stable. One based in tradition is a dinosaur.
2). I don’t believe in the elitist musicologist magisterium. If the reason for a form of music being evil is completely inaccessible to someone without a Masters in Fine Arts, it cannot be valid Biblically. A believer under the leadership of the Holy Spirit reading the Word ought to be able to understand the standard, or it’s not in the Bible.
3). I don’t believe in the typical uses of the word “worldly” or “fleshly”. If these are not defined Biblically, you end up with standards on music and life that ultimately are derived from the same wells as monasticism or the Amish movement.
4). I agree it is easy to go way too far in changing a church or an institution to modern music — not because it becomes too modern, but because the agenda that drives such changes is as ill-founded Biblically as some of the silliest reasons given against modern music.
5). I believe it is time for the Bible faculty to lead on such issues, rather than the Music faculty. They Bible faculty should say “Just shut up and compose. We’ll tell you whether or not a particular obscure Hebrew word is really about the Rock beat.
6). I believe that God appointed the local church as the Pillar and Ground of the truth (I Timothy 3:15). He did not appoint the Bible College, University, or Seminary. So the churches should tell the colleges “Shut up and teach. We’ll tell you what music we’re going to use in our church.”

My concern for any institution, especially “para-church” institutions (which in my mind have a hard time justifying their own existence, which may be why the struggle to exist), is summarized in Bauder’s latest article:

“As [Christian] institutions become more concerned with markets than with real effectiveness, they unavoidably make choices that are designed not so much to help students as to appeal to them. These choices, if widely adopted and fully implemented, will almost certainly prove disastrous in the long run.” - Kevin T. Bauder (With Gratitude, http://sharperiron.org/article/with-gratitude)

Schools NEED students, and thus NEED accreditation (for financial benefit indirectly provided by the government), and thus NEED to do things that take them farther and farther away from their intended focus. It is not wrong to plan, to change, to wisely adjust. It is wrong to do so just to survive as a non-church institution trying to do the job of the church (at least part of its purpose). Bring back the church.

The goal of educational institutions should be the good of society (from God’s perspective), not survival for survival’s sake. If the paradigm of formal training institutions is fading because of technology (you can learn from “the greats” by book, audio, even video) without the cost, etc. why see that as a demise of a good thing?

Scattered thoughts. Hopefully some worthwhile.

[Mike Durning]
6). I believe that God appointed the local church as the Pillar and Ground of the truth (I Timothy 3:15). He did not appoint the Bible College, University, or Seminary. So the churches should tell the colleges “Shut up and teach. We’ll tell you what music we’re going to use in our church.”

While I believe the era of the traditional classroom is near its end, I think the above illustrates one of the misguided premises on which many college policies are founded- and that is the idea that young people in college still require parenting. Of course, basic guidelines are needed for purposes of efficiency, safety, etc… but too often there is an effort to indoctrinate young people into a certain mindset (that is extra-Biblical) rather than give them the info and let them decide for themselves. If one of the church’s main functions is to equip the saints, young people should already have a good set of theology tools before they step foot into academia. Wait until they are 18, and that horse has most likely left the corral.

[Kevin Subra] My concern for any institution, especially “para-church” institutions (which in my mind have a hard time justifying their own existence, which may be why the struggle to exist), is summarized in Bauder’s latest article:

“As [Christian] institutions become more concerned with markets than with real effectiveness, they unavoidably make choices that are designed not so much to help students as to appeal to them. These choices, if widely adopted and fully implemented, will almost certainly prove disastrous in the long run.” - Kevin T. Bauder (With Gratitude, http://sharperiron.org/article/with-gratitude)

Schools NEED students, and thus NEED accreditation (for financial benefit indirectly provided by the government), and thus NEED to do things that take them farther and farther away from their intended focus. It is not wrong to plan, to change, to wisely adjust. It is wrong to do so just to survive as a non-church institution trying to do the job of the church (at least part of its purpose). Bring back the church.

The goal of educational institutions should be the good of society (from God’s perspective), not survival for survival’s sake. If the paradigm of formal training institutions is fading because of technology (you can learn from “the greats” by book, audio, even video) without the cost, etc. why see that as a demise of a good thing?

Scattered thoughts. Hopefully some worthwhile.

Scattered perhaps, but astute and brilliant. It is the same phenomenon that drives the Church Growth Movement toward the bizarre extremes to which they go. It does endanger our classrooms.

But accountability is good. Say it again: Accountability is good. The fact that the churches (and spiritual leaders in particular) now have a voice via blogs and places like SI can let those schools know when they are not looking at things askew. I hope the changes will be driven by insightful, Biblical constructive criticism and not desperate self-preservation.

[Susan R]

[Mike Durning]
6). I believe that God appointed the local church as the Pillar and Ground of the truth (I Timothy 3:15). He did not appoint the Bible College, University, or Seminary. So the churches should tell the colleges “Shut up and teach. We’ll tell you what music we’re going to use in our church.”

While I believe the era of the traditional classroom is near its end, I think the above illustrates one of the misguided premises on which many college policies are founded- and that is the idea that young people in college still require parenting. Of course, basic guidelines are needed for purposes of efficiency, safety, etc… but too often there is an effort to indoctrinate young people into a certain mindset (that is extra-Biblical) rather than give them the info and let them decide for themselves. If one of the church’s main functions is to equip the saints, young people should already have a good set of theology tools before they step foot into academia. Wait until they are 18, and that horse has most likely left the corral.

Excellent. If I ever encouraged a student from our church to BJU without him or her already having a well-defined Biblical ethic on such matters, I would be ashamed.

Mike, Susan and Kevin…you ALL make excellent points. The Bauder quote was right on target as well.

Mike, your six points on music should be expanded into a front page SI article. That was right on the money!