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

[Dan Burrell] 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!

Dan,

Thanks, but I’m already struggling with finishing the two I’ve promised Aaron. But I’ll keep it in mind.

Mike D

From my office window I can literally observe the goings on at BJU. I have been greatly encouraged as I have seen a new generation of administrators take over and slowly have an impact. This is just part of some very positive things happening at BJU. Sadly, things have to change slowly because, as one administrator once told me, “We are the hostages of a constituency we created ourselves.”

Mike’s six points are spot on. His sixth point remains the primary problem at BJU. They want local churches to trust them, but they don’t trust local churches. If you send a student to BJU they may NOT attend a local church on Sunday morning. They must attend the “church” service on campus.

I am confident that the powers that be understand the irony and, hopefully, this will be one of the next changes.

Changing the name of the school will not turn things around. However the name has so much baggage I wonder if a name change has been considered. And I don’t mean “Stephen Jones University.” I’d rather tell people I went to ______ Christian University than BJU.

All in all I think BJU is moving in the right direction if more open to “appropriate change.” It remains to be seen what that means. In deciding what’s appropriate I hope they listen to churches. I could suggest a few things and as others have noted the music issue is one of the elephants in the room. I’ve always appreciated BJ’s emphasis on excellence and on the arts. They can and should keep that while allowing more freedom in the musical choices of students. If we had students going to BJ I wonder if they could listen to our services because of our music.

It can often be tough to rename the organization without rechartering. Don’t expect it any time soon.

Steve,

As I suspected, the BJU charter includes language that the provisions of the charter may not be changed, which includes the name (and the creed).

“This charter shall never be amended, modified, altered, or changed as to the provisions hereinbefore set forth.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50560622/1952BJUOriginalIntent

So in order to change the name, they’d have to recharter. Doubt that would ever happen.

Shayne

If major changes are made, Dr. Bob Jones III can’t be seen as just allowing the changes in deference to a new administration. He has to be a champion of those changes, explaining to the old guard the Biblical reasons behind them. They respect him, and his position as someone who has invested his life in defense of fundamentalism will help bridge the old to the next generation. Without it, you could have some severe fallout from the older alums.

[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.

Well said. While I’m not opposed to accreditation, and certainly see that some schools need accreditation for OTHER reasons than the indirect financial benefit (academic mostly), I’m growing more and more concerned with the increasing role of para-church organizations in the education of our young people and the DIMINISHING role of our churches in said education. It is the church’s role to prepare our people. We need to step up, and soon.

On a lighter note, I’ll be the next to whack the dead horse by saying that 16 years of management has taught me a number of things; one of them is that if you’re going to change something, be straightforward about the what, when, where, and who. Don’t give bureaucratic blather; it wastes time, and nobody likes to have their time wasted, unless they’re a bureaucrat, and then nobody likes bureaucrats. I understand what they’re TRYING to say, but BJU’s statement is the pinnacle of bureaucratic blather. I’d rather read the Cliff Notes version, thank you very much.

P.S. - Five Year Plan? Does that mean there will be another “new” vision in 2017?? : p

For those who don’t enjoy high falutin’ blatherese, the Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of The Plan is as follows:

“We need to change the way we do some things. We are going to stay faithful to Biblical principle, but bring the school into the 21st century. This involves a better trained staff, renovating some of the facilities, adopting new technologies, and updating some of our policies.”

I can understand the desire for some specifics, but it sounds like they aren’t going to show their cards all at once. Why not I can’t imagine.

Great comments on ths thread but I just can’t stop laughing about the Stryper in Vespers comment.

[Susan R] For those who don’t enjoy high falutin’ blatherese, the Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of The Plan is as follows:

“We need to change the way we do some things. We are going to stay faithful to Biblical principle, but bring the school into the 21st century. This involves a better trained staff, renovating some of the facilities, adopting new technologies, and updating some of our policies.”

I can understand the desire for some specifics, but it sounds like they aren’t going to show their cards all at once. Why not I can’t imagine.

I understood the “blatherese” version as well as this one, and like you and Don, I agree they haven’t really said much. On the other hand, unlike Don, I do find that what was said here does show some encouraging things about their attitude toward changing things that are tradition rather than obedience to the Bible (which in itself is a big change from the past), so it seems to be a welcome prelude to things that may come along later. However, as you said, they haven’t shown their cards here — I suspect it’s because they want to roll things out a bit at a time to reduce the amount of resistance they might experience from traditionalists.

[dcbii] I understood the “blatherese” version as well as this one, and like you and Don, I agree they haven’t really said much.

Just to be clear, I don’t expect anyone to give specifics before they are ready to give specifics. I am not asking for specifics. I just object to blatherese as an insult to the reader’s intelligence (in addition to a colossal waste of time — they called a heap big special meeting to announce this?)

[dcbii] On the other hand, unlike Don, I do find that what was said here does show some encouraging things about their attitude toward changing things that are tradition rather than obedience to the Bible (which in itself is a big change from the past), so it seems to be a welcome prelude to things that may come along later. However, as you said, they haven’t shown their cards here — I suspect it’s because they want to roll things out a bit at a time to reduce the amount of resistance they might experience from traditionalists.

The way to do that is to start by building a case about a problem one is facing, sending letters to key constituents and/or by public announcements or other means asking for prayer concerning needs, preparing the way for the solution. I was once a member of a large church where the congregation was prepared for change by building the case for the need of change. It wasn’t manipulative, but prudent, in my opinion.

By using bafflegab, it sounds more like “nothing to see here, move on, move on”, which of course only raises suspicions.

[Don Johnson]

[dcbii] I understood the “blatherese” version as well as this one, and like you and Don, I agree they haven’t really said much.

Just to be clear, I don’t expect anyone to give specifics before they are ready to give specifics. I am not asking for specifics. I just object to blatherese as an insult to the reader’s intelligence (in addition to a colossal waste of time — they called a heap big special meeting to announce this?)

I do want specifics because- a “heap big special meeting” that produces a statement like this, by default, asks us to believe and support their endeavor to become “the top aspirational choice for those who desire a Biblically faithful liberal arts education that fosters the development of Christlike character.” Furthermore, the plan states that “commitments” have been made to the changes under each key theme.

This wording, along with the weighty implications of “President Rolls out Five-year BJU Strategic Plan” and “Read information on how the 2011-2016 plan was prepared and the key themes included in the plan” deserves a few more detailed subpoints. Minute details aren’t needed, but you don’t have to put all 52 on the table face up to be more forthcoming.

Reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes storlyine-
http://31things.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/calvin-beanie.jpg

By using bafflegab, it sounds more like “nothing to see here, move on, move on”, which of course only raises suspicions.

Yeah- that too. A long-winded statement that doesn’t reveal anything solid feels like verbal prestidigitation.

As a parent with children who will be entering college in the next five years, we are going to be fine-tooth combing any college they consider. Vague, ear tickling promises don’t cut it, especially when thousands of dollars and a young person’s future are on the line.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LSNbj4s_Bgs/TMc6w3GsuKI/AAAAAAAABJQ/rYVwMpocc…

[Susan R]

[Don Johnson]

[dcbii] I understood the “blatherese” version as well as this one, and like you and Don, I agree they haven’t really said much.

Just to be clear, I don’t expect anyone to give specifics before they are ready to give specifics. I am not asking for specifics. I just object to blatherese as an insult to the reader’s intelligence (in addition to a colossal waste of time — they called a heap big special meeting to announce this?)

I do want specifics because- a “heap big special meeting” that produces a statement like this, by default, asks us to believe and support their endeavor to become “the top aspirational choice for those who desire a Biblically faithful liberal arts education that fosters the development of Christlike character.” Furthermore, the plan states that “commitments” have been made to the changes under each key theme.

This wording, along with the weighty implications of “President Rolls out Five-year BJU Strategic Plan” and “Read information on how the 2011-2016 plan was prepared and the key themes included in the plan” deserves a few more detailed subpoints. Minute details aren’t needed, but you don’t have to put all 52 on the table face up to be more forthcoming.

Reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes storlyine-
http://31things.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/calvin-beanie.jpg

By using bafflegab, it sounds more like “nothing to see here, move on, move on”, which of course only raises suspicions.

Yeah- that too. A long-winded statement that doesn’t reveal anything solid feels like verbal prestidigitation.

As a parent with children who will be entering college in the next five years, we are going to be fine-tooth combing any college they consider. Vague, ear tickling promises don’t cut it, especially when thousands of dollars and a young person’s future are on the line.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LSNbj4s_Bgs/TMc6w3GsuKI/AAAAAAAABJQ/rYVwMpocc…

I’m with Susan in that we have kids coming up in the next 3-5 years. We need to see what really happens in these institutions. What you hope doesn’t happen are panic/knee jerk overreactions to get the short-term enrollment rising out of self-preservation. Are the plans well thought out and Scriptural? Are they going to a sustainable position that will serve the Lord’s work well for many years? These are the core questions. Such plans might not please those who just want BJU to “reform” from the times they were there. So let’s see what comes of it. We haven’t got enough specifics to really discuss anyway.

[Pastor Joe Roof] Great comments on ths thread but I just can’t stop laughing about the Stryper in Vespers comment.

Are they still around? Weren’t they from the 70’s ? or maybe 80’s …? laugh ..