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
…..of outsiders speaking to institutions (churches, colleges, whatever) to bring them to repentance.
MacLachlan, Douglas, “Recovering Authentic Fundamentalism”
Beacham & Bauder, “One Bible Only.”
Really a lot of the lecture series at Central are aimed at theological perspectives that we ought to consider aberrant, like KJVO, hyper-fundamental legalism, and the like. No? And while I would definitely consider KJVO and hyper-fundamentalistic Jack Hyles style legalism further out there than we’d find BJU (or Central for that matter), I don’t think that other churches, colleges, and institutions are off the hook, either, for this kind of criticism.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Dr. Straub,
By your own logic:
Seriously? Who gets to say what is reasonable? My house, my rules. If you do not think my rules are reasonable, go somewhere else!
Should you even be lecturing on “Signs and Wonders - the Pentecostalization of Global Christianity” in a few weeks? If you’re not a Pentecostal, then who are you to criticize?
Now, I think you are right to criticize the “Pentecostalization of Global Christianity,” and apparently you agree! In fact, I’m going to that lecture series and have been looking forward to it. I just don’t think you’re being very consistent on why BJU’s rules should be off-limits for discussion.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I agree that BJU as a private organization can do what it wants with rules. If you don’t like the rules, then don’t go. If you go, then you agree to abide by the rules. Period. This was my attitude when I attended there in the mid-90’s.
However, I feel that at the end of the day the issue many people have with BJU about this really isn’t with the rules themselves, but in the method and manner they were enforced and how BJU too often presented itself.
It would be one thing if BJU had rules AND went about teaching and holding students accountable with grace, patience, and discipleship. However, as the GRACE report notes and as too many BJU graduates will attest, that was not the case. BJU was commonly characterized by rules AND a harshness about enforcing them. You had students turning in to Student Life other students - I would say most often by far without talking to the other student first. Students would be expelled for accumulating too many demerits for non-rebellious infractions. I get it that if a student knows the rule, i.e. making your bed, and doesn’t do it, it could be a sign of “rebellion,” but I trust you see my point.
Then there is the whole inter-racial dating controversy. That entire situation still casts a grey cloud over BJU. BJU should’ve recanted that unbiblical policy decades ago, but no, BJIII held his ground I believe into the early 2000’s. It was only in 2008 that BJU under Stephen Jones apologized for this silly policy. I will throw in the accreditation issue here as well as BJUIII putting his foot in his mouth on Larry King Live.
I would say that BJU would even be characterized as “passionate” (fanatical??) about keeping a good public image. The very first time I visited campus during Bible conference I heard BJIII say something about the university from the pulpit that struck me as unnecessarily over-the-top. BJU seemed to care about its image almost as much as it wanted its students in ministry.
All this to say, sure, maybe the rules themselves weren’t wrong or arbitrary. But, when you combine the rules with the lack of grace commonly displayed AND BJU’s crazy obstinence about the interracial dating policy and how it viewed itself … . . you should expect to be perceived exactly as it is. That of an organization that is kind of out of touch, stubborn, “out there,” harsh, & arrogant. Not to be harsh about it myself, just saying what I think many people feel about BJU.
I think the rules issue that BJU’s critics focus on is simply low-hanging fruit. As I’ve said above, it is a mess of BJU’s own making.
When I attended MBU and traveled as a school rep, I was often asked about which rules I disliked. We had been told not to discuss the rules, but I always answered the question with the caveat that since I voluntarily enrolled at MBU I had agreed to obey the rules, so it didn’t matter if I liked them or not. Complaining about rules is little more than sour grapes.
Is this statement…
[Jeff Straub]But keeping rules with a Christlike spirit is godly, even if I disagree with the rule.
…incompatible with this statement?:
[Jeff Straub]So who cares if in their history they had such a rule? It was never a measure of spirituality.
If “keeping rules…is godly,” then it follows that the obverse is “[not] keeping rules…is [un] godly.” By implication, conforming to rules becomes a means or way to measure spirituality. That is the inherent result.
Dr. Straub’s colleague, Kevin Bauder, apparently holds to a different view. In his “An Open Letter to Les Ollila” (dated June 07, 2013), he writes (in commendation of Northland graduates under Ollila’s auspices):
“[T] hey clearly understood the difference between personal disciplines and biblical morals. You had taught them that institutional rules were not the same thing as spiritual exercises, and they did not judge spirituality by conformity to external disciplines and regulations. Somehow, you had found a way to make them effective without turning them into legalists.” [Emphasis mine.]
http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/462-an-open-letter-to-les-ollila
To Bauder, spirituality should not be (and/or perhaps cannot be) judged by “conformity to…regulations.” Moreover, he goes one step further, by apparently labeling those who would “judge spirituality by conformity to external disciplines and regulations” as “legalists.” (!)
Good point by pvawter, but the trick here is that I don’t think anyone, least of all myself, is saying that we are in authority over BJU or anyone else. Rather, what I’m saying (and what I think Chip and others are saying) is that because BJU (others, whoever) does represent Christ in the public arena, other Christians can and should point out when these institutions embarrass the cause of Christ by their actions, including their rules.
And quite frankly, “if you don’t like it, leave” has all too often shut down legitimate debate, fractured the church, and enabled selfish church leaders to destroy the faith of many. The church is supposed to have robust debate on these things—see Acts 15 and the church conference that limited the scope of the application of the Torah for an example—and “if you don’t like it, leave” is rightly seen by many as “my way or the highway.”
It’s past time for fundamentalism to get past this point, I think. For the sake of the Gospel no less.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Amen and amen.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
BJU had a philosophy towards its students described as In Loco Parentis.
Or was it too many times Loco parentis?
:-)!
And quite frankly, “if you don’t like it, leave” has all too often shut down legitimate debate, fractured the church, and enabled selfish church leaders to destroy the faith of many. The church is supposed to have robust debate on these things—see Acts 15 and the church conference that limited the scope of the application of the Torah for an example—and “if you don’t like it, leave” is rightly seen by many as “my way or the highway.”
Amen and Amen isn’t enough. It’s more like this: 
"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 discussion on rules is not really off-topic. I think it directly relates to the GRACE report.
The rules themselves are not necessarily the issue. The Bible College I went to, was one of many BJU clone schools started in the 70s. The president and vice-president both went to BJ and so the college inherited much of that culture. Having also been familiar with churches and colleges of other stripes, my experience is probably sufficient enough to apply to these questions for BJ. But this point applies beyond BJ specifically.
In my time at Bible college, there were written rules and unwritten rules - loads of both kinds. Demerits for not signing out or punching back in. Making bed and other “ironing” level offenses - as well as a host of other points - including a teacher’s or staff-member’s prerogative to just hand out demerits for any reason.
It was their house, their rules, and I kept a good attitude about it, mostly. But some of my class-mates couldn’t hack the rules. Some were rebellious, perhaps. But many were just clueless, unkempt or undisciplined. And many of these would get expelled and never heard from again.
The rule-enforcers showed little heart or care or compassion for these kids, looking back. Who cared that they are gone? They were the problem, they didn’t play house on the college’s terms. Never mind that some of them were new converts and many probably abandoned Christianity altogether after their experience at a Christian college.
Numerous times the pastor/president would talk about threats to his ministry. And college kids might talk back or protest and they were the problem and soon were removed.
Looking back, instead of treating college students as eager students wanting to learn - and then making it your job to present just why your system of faith and doctrine and practice is compelling enough to buy into - they were treated like kindergartners not to be trusted to tie their own shoes. They were needy but also potentially destructive and not to be trusted. Better to kick them out then to truly help.
This brings up one of the points in the report. If violating these rules is hard for someone to avoid through a general cluelessness about them - the rules also stipulated there would be no refund of the money they invested for school. Some of those who broke a rule and in their counseling sessions about sexual abuse, that came out - they were expelled. Expulsion is not a simple matter. There is loss of property (through not having means or ability to remove property due to the untimely and surprising turn of events) and there is loss of an educational semester and also the loss of the tuition already paid. At least that is how it was at my small version of BJU. So the reparation that the report talks of as a suggestion, could be focused on this aspect.
Many a young college student coming to a school like BJU really has no clue what they are getting into. If they weren’t in a BJU type church, or even if they are a late convert to one, they probably aren’t prepared for what en loco parentis means. Their parents werent’ IFB church members, so the parental upbringing that BJU is prepared to give them is a big shock.
This is why I was thrilled with what I heard of Northland’s change of policy to remove demerits and focus on discipleship. That approach, a coming alongside of, rather than a top-down judicial approach - that would be refreshing and life-giving for many.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Bob,
If BJU adopts a similar approach with its students as NIU, then it is likely that BJU will experience the same reaction from its loyal alumni and supporters that NIU experienced and collapse.
IMO, most who call for radical changes at BJU probably wouldn’t send their children there even if the changes were made. The “stigma” is too great.
BJU needs to stay the course. A steady decline is preferable to a sudden collapse.
Of course, revival would be best.
[C. D. Cauthorne Jr.]Bob,
If BJU adopts a similar approach with its students as NIU, then it is likely that BJU will experience the same reaction from its loyal alumni and supporters that NIU experienced and collapse.
IMO, most who call for radical changes at BJU probably wouldn’t send their children there even if the changes were made. The “stigma” is too great.
BJU needs to stay the course. A steady decline is preferable to a sudden collapse.
Of course, revival would be best.
CD,
I don’t think eliminating demerits was the sole issue for NIU supporters. Not do I think such an action will absolutely result in a defection from everything BJU is and stand for.
Just my two cents…
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Larry:
Where did I argue that conformity to the rules equaled spirituality. A flagrant law breaker may have a spiritual problem but this is a separate question from my original point. I argued one thing and one thing only - an organization has the right to make its own rules. HOW they use those rules may be open for discussion … but this was not my original point.
Bob, I agree - from a guy who racked up a lot of demerits :) , discipleship is far better.
Jeff Straub
[C. D. Cauthorne Jr.]Bob,
If BJU adopts a similar approach with its students as NIU, then it is likely that BJU will experience the same reaction from its loyal alumni and supporters that NIU experienced and collapse.
IMO, most who call for radical changes at BJU probably wouldn’t send their children there even if the changes were made. The “stigma” is too great.
BJU needs to stay the course. A steady decline is preferable to a sudden collapse.
Of course, revival would be best.
Yes, the return to that ‘ol time religion where the man of God told you what to do and how to do it worked out so well for Fundamentalism, didn’t it? We raised a generation of unthinking clones that could not adapt to the ’90s, let alone the 2010’s.
I’d rather a sudden collapse for the right reason than be shackled to a mentality that depends on the great men to tell me what and how to think that causes lockstep conformity to the society of the 1950s in 2015. Maybe Paul was wrong about those noble Bereans after all.
*rolleyes*
"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
I really am smiling… but, we’ve gone the whole 10 rounds on rules before. Nobody ever budges. :)
But it’s so hard to resist tossing in the .02 one more time.
Tried to make this point earlier, but maybe it got buried in my too long post. Note the difference here in these two statements about the relationship between godliness and rules
- A. the rule itself has biblical authority and to disobey the rule is to disobey Scripture (ergo, ungodly)
- B. the rule is a decision by legitimate authority I have put myself under and to disobey legitimate authority is to disobey Scripture (ergo, ungodly)
Now, not even “A” would be “legalism,” but it would be a false claim of biblical authority (unless the rule really is backed by Scripture in that way, which does happen!), which is a pretty serious error to make. But “B” is not the same thing at all. When you enroll at most institutions they make you express, in one way or another your intention to abide by their policies. This puts you in an authoritative-submissive relationship. You’re bound by your own commitment to follow the policies and take the penalties whenever you don’t. It’s ungodly to do less because it’s (a) something like dishonest/a breach of integrity/dishonorable and (b) rebellious (the authority part of the relationship).
So there is simply no way to make a rule-less institution and no way to make rule-keeping and rule-breaking spiritually neutral activities.
And every institution has some dumb rules (especially if its only rule is “We shall have no rules”! … :D )
I’d rather a sudden collapse for the right reason than be shackled to a mentality that depends on the great men to tell me what and how to think that causes lockstep conformity to the society of the 1950s in 2015.
Fortunately, those are not all the options (excluded middle there the size of …. well, something really, really big… it’s late and I’m tired.)
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.
Discussion