Points of Failure - Another Look at the BJU GRACE Report
Image
A bad idea is one thing. Flawed execution of a good idea is something else. Thomas Edison is said to have botched the execution of the light-bulb concept about a thousand times before he got it right. Today, we’ve decided that the incandescent light bulb is not such a great idea anymore. But does anyone think that the general concept of converting electrical energy into light is a bad idea?
With changing times and advances in learning and understanding, we’re in constant danger of thinking that all old ideas are bad ideas—and in even greater danger of seeing any flawed execution of an old idea as a failure of the old idea itself. In our hurry to embrace “progress” we often don’t pause and look more carefully at where failure is truly located, and as a result, our piles of obsolete notions include increasing amounts of the wisdom of the ages.
Lately, at least in the West, we’re especially prone to do this with the social sciences. This week’s (or this decade’s) scientific consensus trumps all. And if you’re out of step with it—well, the fact that you’re wrong is self-evident. Because we just don’t do things that way anymore. We know better … until we change our minds again.
My chief concern with GRACE’s BJU investigation and Final Report (hereafter, GR) is that some very good ideas are lumped in with flawed execution (and a genuinely bad idea or two). As a result, there’s a temptation to respond to the GR in one of two unfruitful ways: (a) by dismissing it entirely, or (b) by embracing it entirely.
I appreciate the core of GRACE’s mission and don’t doubt that they have helped many abuse victims find a measure of healing. I’m sure they’ve also helped many ministries make much-needed changes to prevent abuse and help abuse victims.
There is some good stuff in the GR—some very good stuff. But the GR is flawed in some important ways as well. More conservative ministries should use GRACE’s services very carefully, or perhaps seek out an alternative.
1. Lack of Focus
Most of the report focuses on matters clearly relevant to the purpose. But the GR’s efforts to connect BJU’s commitment to personal discipline, “showcase” ideals, in loco parentis, dress standards, etc., to failure to properly help abuse victims are strained.
The section on BJU’s dress code is an example worth noting. To be sure, dress codes and modesty teaching can get pretty weird if poorly understood, poorly balanced, and/or poorly communicated. But Scripture clearly has no problem with placing the primary responsibility on men to resist lust, while at the same time acknowledging the seductive power of clothing and calling women to responsible restraint (Prov. 5 and 7, particularly Prov. 7:10; 1 Tim. 2:9). Viewed through that lens, the idea that pursuing modesty encourages men to blame their behavior on women appears far less likely. It’s interesting that the GR does not even acknowledge that there is a modesty principle in Scripture (59).
The lack of focus is a fairly minor flaw, but it did result in a report that is longer and more cluttered than necessary, making it harder to correctly locate points of failure, and tempting some to put the whole report in the circular file.
The cautionary note here for conservative ministries in general is that, unless the GR is a fluke, GRACE does show some tendency to seek out and target irrelevant philosophical and methodological differences.
2. Facts and Perceptions
If I walk by Pierre’s office cubicle every morning, offer a cheerful “Bonjour!” and receive only a silent glare in return, day after day, I might start to think he hates me or hates some group I belong to. That would be my perception, but the fact might be that until he’s had his third mug of coffee, Pierre hates everybody, and I’m not special at all.
Readers of the GR should keep in mind the difference between perceptual realities and factual realities. In my hypothetical working relationship with Pierre, my perceptions are not only real, but are a potentially important problem for both of us. So Pierre has two sets of problems that may not have much to do with each other: he has (a) the perceptual problem that I think he hates me, and (b) the factual problem that he gets too little sleep and is generally grumpy.
I could lecture Pierre all day about the ugliness of hatred, and every word of my criticism might be absolutely true—just not very applicable. My solution is off target (and maybe counterproductive) because my perception is not factual; I have not correctly located the point of failure.
The GR does show a little awareness that perceptions are not the same things as facts.
GRACE made every effort to collect, verify, and corroborate all information that was provided and included in the Final Report. Some information collected from witnesses was incomplete or unable to be corroborated. (21, note 59)
One of the more intriguing findings in this investigation is the degree to which recollections about BJU teachings on the topic of sexual abuse differ among former students. Students who apparently heard the same sermons and lectures seemed to come away with vastly discrepant perspectives on what was communicated. (45)
This observation is not surprising. Human beings are notoriously non-factual, even when they are being absolutely honest. We perceive inaccurately and recall even less accurately.
I appreciate the GR’s concessions on this topic, but on the whole, it does not adequately help readers understand how to deal with the fact vs. perception relationship. Sometimes, it even increases the confusion:
Clearly, different people can respond differently to the same messages and environment. One way to understand the differences in perceptions is to keep in mind that many victims of sexual abuse suffer from guilt and self-blame … . As a result, many abuse victims are sensitized to perceive and remember victim blaming/perpetrator exonerating attitudes and teachings that individuals without such life experiences fail to note consciously.
In more concrete terms, abuse victims may be able to detect toxic victim blaming/perpetrator exonerating attitudes in highly diluted concentrations that non-abused individuals may lack the sensitivity to detect. A canary illustrates this concept well. (46)
Certainly abuse victims may perceive intended meaning that others miss. But they may also perceive meaning that is simply not there. As I read the GR, I was struck repeatedly with the thought—“Wow. There is a whole lot of misunderstanding going on here!” not only by respondents (many of whom are identified by the GR as non-victims, by the way), but also by the GR team.
The GR team had a difficult task. On the one hand, correctly locating points of failure requires sifting fact from misperception. On the other hand, including that kind of cross examination in the investigation process would create yet another painful experience for victims who have already endured so much—and the prospect of having to go through that would likely frighten many into silence.
Still, the GR does not acknowledge its disproportionate reliance on perceptions, and several of its Recommendations reveal an inappropriate level of confidence in what critical respondents understood BJU leaders to believe and teach.
Two final observations may be helpful on this topic:
- Responsibility for understanding the communication of leaders, preachers, and counselors does not lie entirely with those delivering the message (Prov. 18:13).
- Even if we communicate with perfect clarity, some will misunderstand (e.g., Matt. 16:11, Mark 9:31-32, John 12:16).
3. Counseling Model
Though the GR gives considerable attention (59-162) to problems of execution—such as the pace of counseling, inadequate attention to establishing safety and trust, and lack of clear communication—the overall thrust of its analysis and Final Recommendations goes beyond correcting problems of counseling delivery; it is ultimately unsupportive of the biblical counseling model in general.
Not only does the GR’s analysis grant a far smaller role for Scripture and spiritual realities than any variant of the biblical counseling model, but it also recommends outsourcing all of the university’s sexual abuse counseling to an organization that is, apparently, secular (227).
The contrast between GRACE’s recommendations and the handling of sexual abuse upheld by the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors, for example, is deep and profound. Note “Vision of Hope: The Story of Julia,” as a poignant example. The Biblical Counseling Coalition’s Making Peace with the Past recommends a counseling process that is similarly at odds with the GR’s perspective (e.g., the contrasting statement around 0:08:53, and comments at 0:40:33 regarding dealing with guilt), as does Amy Baker’s “What Do you Say to a Woman Filled with Hate from Past Sexual Assault or Abuse?”
The message of these groups is clearly not just “move on,” but it definitely includes “move on.” Though I believe the biblical counseling movement has some weaknesses in finding a proper relationship to clinical research, the movement continues to grow and improve. What victims of all sorts need is a biblical counseling model that brings the whole truth to the whole person rather than a model excessively limited to neuro-biological understandings of human behavior.
That there is room for improvement in the execution of BJU’s counseling process is clear in the university president’s public statement as well as in counselors’ comments in the GR itself (e.g., 69). On a few points, it appears that problems exist at the theological level (such as the “Trinity of Man” concept and counseling techniques predicated on trichotomous anthropology; 65 note 108, 87). But to the degree that the university’s counseling has been ineffective for abuse victims, giving too much weight to spiritual realities and too much attention to Scripture has not been the problem.
4. Recommendations
Due to the perceptions-focus and philosophical differences evident in the GR, the Recommendations are of widely uneven usefulness. Much is helpful; some is quite unhelpful. For what it’s worth, I believe the university should limit its future relationship with GRACE to something along the lines of “Thanks for your help; we’ll take it from here,” then chart its own course to fixing the points of failure it is able to correctly locate.
As for GRACE, I would echo BJU president Steve Pettit’s observation: “They are devoted to the cause of preventing sexual abuse and their contributions are significant.” When it comes to investigation services, they are perhaps not the best choice for more conservative ministries and institutions, though. Perhaps the time has come for an organization such as BCC or ACBC to launch a service to meet this need.
Aaron Blumer 2014 Bio
Aaron Blumer, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years.
- 283 views
G.N.,
There are people that you speak of for sure. But there are others who really don’t want that, but do want justice. I was not one that was ever harmed. Like I said on another thread, my time at BJU was great. I am glad that my alma matter has made adjustments. I am sitting on the sidelines and waiting to see what happens. If people in leadership did fail to follow the law and report, then they should be held accountable. I think all reasonable people would agree on that. But just because there are those who have an “off with their heads” mentality, does not mean we dismiss everyone who came forward either.
Someone else wondered why GRACE did not talk about those who were positively helped by the University. That is a good point, but remember, those who felt harmed were encouraged to come forward. So I think that is why that happened. Yes many, many of us were helped by BJU (praise the Lord!), but the focus was on those who were harmed.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Someone else wondered why GRACE did not talk about those who were positively helped by the University. That is a good point, but remember, those who felt harmed were encouraged to come forward. So I think that is why that happened.
There are actually a couple of references to that in there (one is top of p.47). It does get a few nods… though, as you say the focus is on the negative evaluations.
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.
Catching up with this detail…
…I cannot address any hidden motivations of GRACE. Six hundred complaints is a solid body of evidence to examine. My own sense is that GRACE does pursue the University with somewhat of the bias of a different philosophical point of view.
I’m not sure where you got that number. Perhaps you’re referring to the top of p.26? But it does not describe 600 “complaints,” rather 601 survey respondents who claimed either to have a history of sexual abuse or to be connected with someone who is a sexual abuse victim. were affiliated in some way w/BJU.
I’ll see if I can paste a shot of that portion here… (you can click to see a larger version)
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.
[G. N. Barkman]Since BJU has a new president (Steve Pettit), this problem has already been addressed. What more is needed at this point? It would seem to me that the way forward for those who are not assigned the responsibility of running BJU, is to wait and see how things are handled in the future with new leadership in place. I hope I am mistaken, but it seems that nothing short than a pound or more of flesh will satisfy some critics of BJU. “Off with their heads!”
I would suggest that what is yet lacking is BJU’s implementation of the report. Along with Aaron, I would take a careful look at it, including the assumptions of GRACE (e.g. are they attempting a theology of Biblical counseling, or is it simply the flavor of the month from psychology?), and make sure that the policies, theology, training manuals, and procedures are in place to make sure that, in as much as they are able, their counseling program complies with the Bible and with the law. There will be some places where they simply agree with GRACE, probably some where they disagree. But if I were at BJU, I’d be pressing for some openness on it—here are the new policies, we’ve taken this counsel, differ with this, and here we are.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
When I went back over the Survey Results, following the suggestion of Aaron Blumer, I realized that I had not stated in my comments the correct number of respondents who seemed to be in opposition to BJU’s policies and personnel in their handling of the abuse situation. The number was NOT 601, which I referred to as “Complaints”; it was far fewer. Of course, if it had only been one person who was injured or insulted by the BJU policy, that would have been important enough to investigate. However, the number was far fewer than I had indicated, which tends to put the whole situation in a different perspective, even though even one case is inexcusable. Hopefully, the situation will find solution under a new administration, as C.N. Barkman has suggested. And it is my prayer that those who have felt injured may find it in their hearts to forgive what they feel they were made to suffer, so that the training of young people may proceed on a positive note. This example may serve to benefit the entire Body of Christ and give guidance to other Christian institutions.
When I think about Bob Jones, I think about rules. (I get rules by the way. I work in a highly regulated (big bank) and we have rules galore). It’s not so much “rules” that I think about re BJU but capricious, arbitrary rules.
I know this is a bit off topic, but perhaps not by much; because I think the intent of rules at BJU pertain either to the good order of the university (eg “lights out at such a such time”) or the sanctification of students (the U being in loco parentis to thousands of young adults). And in loco parentis is mentioned in the GR and defended by BJIII.
My son went through Marine Corp boot camp back in 2001 at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego. In the decade plus since, he has from time to time commented (without complaint, by the way) about the rigors and rules of his 13 weeks of boot camp. Every rule had some sort of logic and intent.
Being a parent (now empty nester), I get rules from that angle too. I once had a rule (and enforced it too!) that no car from our house could be driven without my permission and no Jim Peet owned car could leave the city of Plymouth (36 square miles … 6 miles by 6 miles) without my explicit permission (which was sometimes granted). This car rule was enforced by a mileage log being in the car and regular checking of the same.
I would like a BJU person to address rules above certain businesses being off limits (by the way. while I have never had this rule for myself nor for my offspring, I would understand a rule such as “you will not dine at a restaurant that serves alcoholic beverages”.
Here is an image that Greg Easton has captured from a 1980’s student handbook. What was the purpose of banning these businesses?
Jim has hit on an interesting phenomenon I have watched repeatedly among fundies. They make a pronouncement that something is wrong. Years pass. Then, suddenly, the paradigm shifts and they reverse course. This would be understandable as part of the normal maturation process of people and institutions if the change was accompanied by a statement acknowledging the change and admitting the former position and explaining the reason for the change (they were wrong, circumstances have changed, whatever reasons legitimize the change of position). Unfortunately, what actually happens is the change is quietly implemented and everyone pretends it was never different in the past. A recent example of this on a large scale is accreditation. In the 80’s, accreditation was uniformly denounced as a compromising move. Institutions that sought accreditation were criticized by those who promised they would never make such a mistake. Today, fundy institutions are falling all over themselves pursuing regional accreditation from secular organizations. However, I have not seen one of them address the former stance of their own institution to the contrary. It all comes back to the circle-the-wagons mentality that is unwilling to ever admit it has made a mistake.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
but your example is horrible. Accreditation IS horrible…I say that as an inside college professor. It is pointless and controlling, etc etc. I could go on and on. Consider this: the University of Phoenix is accredited but BJU is not. Does anyone really want to claim that an on-line education from Phoenix is better than BJU?
BUT, as of 2015 a degree is WORTHLESS in most situations unless you graduated from an “accredited” school because every other school thinks accreditation is important. So it isn’t that BJU and other fundy schools were wrong, it is that they were horribly outgunned and no one cares what their opinions are. If you are a teacher you must graduate from an accredited school to get a job in a public school. Same ofr nursing, or getting admitted to any graduate school.
Accreditation is now required to be relevant in any public profession. Is is pure practicality. If BJU or other schools want to be a “liberal arts” school, as opposed to purely a ministry training center, they have NO CHOICE but to seek accreditation.
[Chip Van Emmerik]A recent example of this on a large scale is accreditation. In the 80’s, accreditation was uniformly denounced as a compromising move. Institutions that sought accreditation were criticized by those who promised they would never make such a mistake. Today, fundy institutions are falling all over themselves pursuing regional accreditation from secular organizations. However, I have not seen one of them address the former stance of their own institution to the contrary. It all comes back to the circle-the-wagons mentality that is unwilling to ever admit it has made a mistake.
Anyone else remember how BJU vehemently denounced Maranatha for pursuing regional accreditation, what, 20-some years ago? The denounciation basically was that Maranatha was leaping head-first into apostacy. Now that BJU is in the process of pursuing regional accreditation, would anyone from BJU even admit that former position?
Maybe the example might be the end of the interracial dating ban? I don’t remember whether they apologized for that one, or whether they just “disappeared” it, but if the latter, that would be a great example.
Speaking from my profession, one of the points of an 8D or corrective action plan is, interestingly, to force public repentance. You’ll end up saying (real example BTW) “we had two different sites using three different sets of instructions in two languages, none of which would enable the part to be made correctly. We now have one site using a corrected work instruction, and have trained personnel in its use.”
I would concur, BTW, with the logic behind accreditation that Mark uses. It is supposed to ensure minimum standards of instruction, but in practice it can become a political exercise. Way off topic, but one would surmise that perhaps the best thing to do is to add an accreditation that tells people “in the know” that you’ve overcome the problems that are known with the politicized process?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The examples in above link are from 1984-85, Is this a current practice or ancient history.
Jim,
As an alumnus of BJU, we were given reasons (during our student days)why those businesses and churches were banned. Churches were/are banned because they were/are hostile to BJU or promoted a philosophy of ministry that BJU did not endorse or wish to be associated with, thus students not allowed to attend those churches. For banned businesses usually it was because either students would be harassed at those businesses or the businesses didn’t want students at their place of business. Also, for some of the restaurants and gas stations, I believe it was because those businesses sold alcohol within a certain radius of an educational institution(I believe that was actually against SC law until said law was repealed). As far as I know, the Red Lobster next door to BJU is no longer banned. I hope this helps.
[Jeremy Horn]Jim,
As an alumnus of BJU, we were given reasons (during our student days)why those businesses and churches were banned. Churches were/are banned because they were/are hostile to BJU or promoted a philosophy of ministry that BJU did not endorse or wish to be associated with, thus students not allowed to attend those churches. For banned businesses usually it was because either students would be harassed at those businesses or the businesses didn’t want students at their place of business. Also, for some of the restaurants and gas stations, I believe it was because those businesses sold alcohol within a certain radius of an educational institution(I believe that was actually against SC law until said law was repealed). As far as I know, the Red Lobster next door to BJU is no longer banned. I hope this helps.
Is there a current list (2014-15) of banned businesses?
Whether one is for or against accreditation is beside the point. The point is the change and the appearance of hypocrisy and self- righteousness being promoted by quietly changing positions without acknowledging error. The racial ban is anther example specific to BJ, but I wasn’t thinking of BJ only. Last month I sat in a class with a principal of an AACS school. The school was sponsored by an SBC church. 20-30 years ago, cooperation with SB churches was another supposed sign of compromise. Now, this particular state convention is welcoming them in as their former membership dwindles with schools and churches both shrinking and closing. No mention of a change in position or apology for the formerly caustic rhetoric, just acting like the past never happened. These are a few large-scale examples, but I see similar things happening on smaller issues frequently in IFBdom. I think we would make a lot more headway for the glory and cause of Christ if we could just learn to admit when we have made a mistake and humbly try to move forward to better positions rather than trying to preserve our appearance of perfection by running away from past decisions. Sadly, we don’t seem to be learning any lessons about treading lightly in matters that are less than black and white in scripture.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Jim]Yeah, the Red Lobster ban was particularly odd. I am certain they were not the only restaurant in Greenville serving alcohol, so I wonder what could have possibly landed them on the banned list. Churches I have a better understanding for, at least in the general sense.Jeremy Horn wrote:
Jim,
As an alumnus of BJU, we were given reasons (during our student days)why those businesses and churches were banned. Churches were/are banned because they were/are hostile to BJU or promoted a philosophy of ministry that BJU did not endorse or wish to be associated with, thus students not allowed to attend those churches. For banned businesses usually it was because either students would be harassed at those businesses or the businesses didn’t want students at their place of business. Also, for some of the restaurants and gas stations, I believe it was because those businesses sold alcohol within a certain radius of an educational institution(I believe that was actually against SC law until said law was repealed). As far as I know, the Red Lobster next door to BJU is no longer banned. I hope this helps.
Is there a current list (2014-15) of banned businesses?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Featured Resource
Discussion