"Do Right BJU lost its credibility ... The Facebook page just went from one crisis to another, responding in very bad ways. And that’s why nobody wore red on Monday."
I find Jeri to be largely fair, levelheaded, and insightful.
And she pretty much nailed this one.
And she pretty much nailed this one.
I have disagreed with Jeri in the past, but I agree with her 150% on this. Her paragraph(s):
I just hope that this particular blog entry gets the kind of widespread circulation that it deserves.
I have maintained in the past that some - not all - of the people in this whole mess are far more interested in vengeance or in hatred than they are in justice, and I think Jeri’s done an excellent job of pointing that out.
What really amazed me was the utter indifference shown by Jon Henry and the other supporters who wanted to drive these young people like lemmings over a cliff. It seemed never to have crossed their minds that it might also be ethically necessary to think about ways to spare the young people from being humiliated and losing a semester. And what is even more remarkable, the leaders of the protest never realized that any college student with a grain of sense would recognize the utter callousness and willingness to use idealistic young people (use them up, I should say) that was demonstrated by some of the alumni driving the DRBJU cause.
And that was also becoming more clear. In spite of guarantees that this was a student-led organization. It clearly was not. And that would also have been clear to the students at BJU.
The unabashed venom, spitefulness, pettiness, lack of focus, lack of concern, lack of professionalism killed the protest. Once the students at BJU saw what was really going on, they steered clear of red on this past Monday. Even to the very end, the DRBJU FB page was still alternating between assuring people they were now back on point and then going off point.
I just hope that this particular blog entry gets the kind of widespread circulation that it deserves.
I have maintained in the past that some - not all - of the people in this whole mess are far more interested in vengeance or in hatred than they are in justice, and I think Jeri’s done an excellent job of pointing that out.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
This protest, even though its final execution flopped, really was a vital first step.Jeri is partly right in her post, but she is still a bitter angry woman. Not really worth the time of day. This quote, however, near the end, shows that the bitterness and attacks will continue.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
My point of view with caveats:
Caveats:
I can’t put myself in the shoes of a potential incoming Freshman because 45 years ago I had never heard of BJU and so did not consider it.
But go in with eyes wide open. Now specifically about BJU:
Caveats:
- College was like … 41 years ago AND
- I went to a secular college (University of Cincinnati)
I can’t put myself in the shoes of a potential incoming Freshman because 45 years ago I had never heard of BJU and so did not consider it.
But go in with eyes wide open. Now specifically about BJU:
- Not regionally accredited
- Heavy http://web.archive.org/web/19990224181248/www.bju.edu/aboutbju/special_… in loco parentis philosophy (follow the link where they actually state that: “Bob Jones University acts “in loco parentis.”” (also some interesting stuff on accreditation: “Yes, you as a parent should be concerned about the accreditation of the Christian college your child plans to attend. Has the institution surrendered itself into the hands of unsaved men and women who will attempt to dictate the manner in which its program is to be carried out? Bob Jones University can justly lay claim to what other educators have termed it, “The World’s Most Unusual University.”“)
- Know the handbook before you pay the $$
- Dominated by a family - it’s in the name. Know the quirks / sayings of the main man (Bob Jones III) (the man has a lot of opinions and it strikes me he does not tolerate opinions different than himself. Some might view his sayings as “pontifical”)
If one undersands points 1-4 above and still wants to go …. go and don’t protest.
More of Peet’s point of view:
- Bob Jones is not a haven for free speech. I’m ok with that
- If one wants to freely express himself in blogs, twittering, Facebook status updates …
- The secular college campus might be a better place!
- More on “in loco parentis”: My parents really loved me. Mom and Dad Peet …. Cleone (now 91) and Alvah (passed on 12 years ago). If your parents love you and you respect them, why on earth would you let someone take their place?!
[Don Johnson]…she is still a bitter angry woman.What’s she bitter about?
She has a perspective on the failures of “the IFB” and is pursuing a solution (although she’s called out her own denomination at least once). Sure, she names names, but does not make accusations without presenting evidence.
Also, how can one blood-bought saint refer to another as not worth the time of day?
Well, David, just my opinion after coming across Jeri’s rantings from time to time over the last few years. I am sure she won’t lose any sleep over it.
The fact that someone happens to profess faith in Christ is no criteria on which to say anyone must pay attention to anything that person happens to opine on.
The fact that someone happens to profess faith in Christ is no criteria on which to say anyone must pay attention to anything that person happens to opine on.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[DavidO] Also, how can one blood-bought saint refer to another as not worth the time of day?The same ones who think that beating people with a blunt instrument of words is a good way for Christians to behave.
http://oxgoad.ca/about/
Protesting the position of authority may be acceptable and even lauded in our culture but that doesn’t make it right. Reread the first five books of the Bible for support of that statement. God has a very dim view on griping. I don’t know if accreditation has resulted in BJU being forced to allow dissent. That may be. It still doesn’t make it right.
[Don Johnson] The fact that someone happens to profess faith in Christ is no criteria on which to say anyone must pay attention to anything that person happens to opine on.Fair enough, but it sounded like you were saying something else. If this is what you meant, ok.
[Shaynus][DavidO] Also, how can one blood-bought saint refer to another as not worth the time of day?The same ones who think that beating people with a blunt instrument of words is a good way for Christians to behave.
http://oxgoad.ca/about/
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Matt Walker] Protesting the position of authority may be acceptable and even lauded in our culture but that doesn’t make it right. Reread the first five books of the Bible for support of that statement. God has a very dim view on griping. I don’t know if accreditation has resulted in BJU being forced to allow dissent. That may be. It still doesn’t make it right.Griping and dissent are not synonymous. I guess I should be thankful our nation’s founding fathers weren’t fundamentalists.
Griping vs. dissent… a fine line indeed. How to define it? A key factor is whether legitimate authority is involved, whether the bounds of that authority can rightfully exclude dissent. There is a place and a time and a mode for expressing just about an contrary opinion.
I think Doran’s post on this a few weeks ago was on target. There are forms of dissent that do not probably belong to believers particularly in relation to other believers.
One thing’s for sure: the Christian way is not to uncritically embrace the methods of our culture, especially methods that have emerged as the favorite tools of philosophies particularly hostile to a biblical view of human nature and authority.
I don’t think this generalization is quite fair. Every leader has opinions a plenty or he should not lead. When we agree with opinions we call it “wisdom,” when we disagree, we call it “pontificating.”
I think Doran’s post on this a few weeks ago was on target. There are forms of dissent that do not probably belong to believers particularly in relation to other believers.
One thing’s for sure: the Christian way is not to uncritically embrace the methods of our culture, especially methods that have emerged as the favorite tools of philosophies particularly hostile to a biblical view of human nature and authority.
[Jim Peet] Know the quirks / sayings of the main man (Bob Jones III) (the man has a lot of opinions and it strikes me he does not tolerate opinions different than himself. Some might view his sayings as “pontifical”)
I don’t think this generalization is quite fair. Every leader has opinions a plenty or he should not lead. When we agree with opinions we call it “wisdom,” when we disagree, we call it “pontificating.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] Griping vs. dissent… a fine line indeed. How to define it? A key factor is whether legitimate authority is involved, whether the bounds of that authority can rightfully exclude dissent. There is a place and a time and a mode for expressing just about an contrary opinion.As you say later dissent really has quite a range of meaning, at least one of them nowhere near griping.
One of the more salient questions for me is which authorities can rightfully exclude dissent. To a point, even a local church/pastor ought not exclude dissent (over various non-fundamentals) even if they/he limits the format in which dissent is expressed. I think alot of Jeri’s article on dissent had to do with the right of students to hold their own opinion. I think that’s called soul liberty.
We get incensed at various Bible Colleges who require graduates to sign off on allegiance to a certain translation, but when I graduated from mine, I had to sign off that I personally subscribed to a dispensational, pre-trib, premil view. In other words, a mid-tribber or amil student would not be allowed quietly go through the Bible classes, learning what he needed to learn to pass them, while privately holding his own views. Simply not welcome. I’m not sure that’s the best approach.
Again, it’s their school. And if those gates were opened, quiet dissent would not likely be the way it played out, but, on the other hand, this is college/seminary, not 3rd grade catechism.
One question I think parents my age will be asking as they help their kids choose schools is how much will this place simply tell them what to think instead of letting them do some of their own thinking.
To a larger point, from whence does an independent Bible College derive any biblical spiritual authority? Sure, if you go to one, you submit yourself to their rules, same as workplace. But mere institutional authority is different from what I percieve being portrayed/exercised at various BBCs.
Discussion