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.
- 226 views
[Bert Perry]Aaron, understand your frustration, but it’s worth noting that the GRACE report did in fact point out, whether correctly or not, that a root cause of the problem is BJU’s culture. So that is on the table, whether GRACE was justified or not in doing so.
And quite frankly, this is a good thing; BJU has done a decent job making some changes to policies and procedures over the years to deal with this kind of problem. Good on them. The trouble with that, however, is that the old policies derived from the culture that has been developing since it was founded. So if you change policies without changing culture, you change…..
Granted… the “culture” is not irrelevant to the topic at hand. Culture is a famously slippery concept though. Again, it’s much more helpful to identify specific principles, values, attitudes in the culture that are allegedly unhelpful or unbiblical. And then, equally important, examine carefully what relationship these have, if any, to “policies” that are allegedly derived from them.
So in short, there are several ways to be in error in the “culture” analysis…
- reject a vaguely defined concept of culture that includes good along w/bad etc.
- more specifically identify components of the culture that are at issue, but incorrectly judge them to be unbiblical or unhelpful
- incorrectly identify ineffective policy/process as necessarily the outcome of a particular idea/value/attitude in the culture
Of course, it’s possible to get some or all of that right, too, but it’s far easier to start w/ an end result that we don’t like (say, a rule, or the mere fact that there seem to be a lot of them) then work backwards to give our dislike a weightier legitimacy by lumping it in with a culture that is already a lumping of a lot of different things and then declaring it unbiblical.
I’m not sure I’m saying it well, but maybe some of that is clear.
What makes me impatient with the whole topic in general is that so many act as if a highly disciplined learning environment was some kind of new-fangled idea invented by 20th century fundamentalists rather than what it is… an idea that has, in various forms, been tried and proved for literally hundreds of centuries. The new-fangled idea is that today somehow we can slouch our way to high levels of skill and achievement as long as we keep chanting “gospel” and “grace” and “discipleship” and growling against “rules” and “legalism” in the process.
[dcbii]I’m sorry if my comment led to belief that I am a detractor or basher of the university — far from it. I actually intended to say that I appreciate the culture changes compared to what it was like when I was there…
No, I was reacting mostly to stuff further up the thread. In my complaint about broad-brushing, I probably should have used a narrower brush myself!
I do think that particular problems in the culture of any school can be identified, and certainly BJU has had a few. Also agree that there have been positive changes. I do hope, though, that these have not simply been responses to pressure and that future changes will not be driven by that either… or by some of the misguided anti-discipline theology that is so widespread today.
The BJU approach to running a school is not for every school, but it sure ought to be the way for some school somewhere…. and it makes sense for BJU to be the one.
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:
i may regret another post as I do not really have time to fully enter into this back and forth however …
i just returned from two weeks in India at a school with no connection to the current discussion. The president has little if any connection, no faculty have ties, all are nationals working within the Indian culture. Yet,
- the men and women have little or no contact on campus beyond the casual interaction at class.
- no dating is allowed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is racial. Students who wish to have more contact can only do so in a highly structured way and only with parental approval. India is multiracial and mixing can bring challenges at multiple levels.
- while men may have cell phones, women may not
- Men and women do not even sit mixed in chapel
- the students have virtually no Internet access at school, what they do have is highly regulated
- the president feels a deep sense of obligation to the parents to be protective of those who attend, particularly the girls (loco parentis?)
However, there was a great spirit manifested while there. The student body was polite, joyful, they stood when I enter the chapel or a classroom (out of respect for the guest). They refer to their elders as Sir or Uncle …
Ok, so it’s India. The point is, as Aaron is trying to point out, that however wrongly some within the BJU culture may have acted, the goals were both laudable, reasonable, and common in other places and at other times.
Twenty five years ago I knew a pastor and his wife who graduated from Prairie Bible Institute when they had such rules … Times gave changed. I wonder if the changes are really for the better?
Finally, no one “complains” about the rules in the military. They make you cut your hair, tell you when to go to bed and when to get up. They regulate your diet and exercise. They make you wear a uniform and shine your shoes … As if a buzz haircut or a polished pair of boots will make you a better soldier … What a bunch of nonsense. How could any parent allow their children to be subjected to such treatment?
This is not to excuse individual bad behavior. Let’s remember though that there are many fine servants of the Lord who have given much to work there. I hope BJ never becomes so tolerant that if Rosaria Butterfield spoke in chapel, a group of Christian students would boycott her testimony of the grace of God that transformed her from a radical lesbian to a pastor’s wife.
Jeff Straub
Right on, Jeff. I have no wish to get into this debate either and have been thoroughly disheartened by the venom displayed on this thread. May God grant the leaders of BJU the grace to resist the pressure to dismantle themselves.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
You are right to say this:
… the goals were both laudable, reasonable, and common in other places and at other times.
I am absolutely certain that all Christian institutions put rules in place with the best of intentions. No school, no matter how exhaustive the rules are, can change a student’s heart. It can’t be done. Because people are sinful, rules get abused by petty “enforcers,” and broken by rebellious students who resent any authority. Always has happened. Always will.
Finally, because I was in the military for quite a while, I’ll comment on your thoughts here:
Finally, no one “complains” about the rules in the military. They make you cut your hair, tell you when to go to bed and when to get up. They regulate your diet and exercise. They make you wear a uniform and shine your shoes … As if a buzz haircut or a polished pair of boots will make you a better soldier … What a bunch of nonsense. How could any parent allow their children to be subjected to such treatment?
- Everybody in the military complains about the rules. Everybody. Every. Body.
- Going to work in the military is like any other job - you have to be there at a certain time. People seem to have a stereotype image of an open-bay barracks stuck in their heads. It’s certainly not always like that.
- They do make you wear a uniform, but that’s really not bad, when you think about it. The uniforms they have now are, quite literally, “wrinkle-free.” The boots are suede, which means you don’t shine them anymore. So, basically, you get to go to work in wrinkle-free pajamas and suede boots. Not a bad deal.
- Buzz cut? Not at all! The Navy says a man’s hair can’t be more than four inches in bulk. You can have some decent hair, as long as it’s trimmed off your ears!
Your analogy falls flat because the military, by doing all those silly things, is teaching external discipline, teamwork and conformity (i.e. rules). Christian discipline isn’t external; it’s internal. That’s a big difference.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I mentioned his book Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism in a Filings thread last week. Thinking of it prompted me to re-read it again this weekend.
In Chapter One, he addresses several “Hindrances to a Balanced Fundamentalism.” One section is “Equating Mechanical Codes of Conduct with Biblical Holiness.”
Some excerpts:
“We are not suggesting that codes of conduct are intrinsically wrong, only that they fall far short of producing true spirituality.”
“[T] here must be constant reminders that mere outward conformity can never produce sincere inward reality.”
“One of the grave problems associated with a focus on externals is the development of a preoccupation with the trivial. And the greatest danger of concentrating on the trivial is the ignoring of the vital. That was Jesus’ burden in Matthew 23:23.”
“[I] n modern terms, a man might dress modestly, groom conservatively…(etc.)…and still be a ‘jerk’ spirtually.”
“[W] e must never confuse Biblical holiness with mechanical codes of conduct.”
[Jeff Straub]i just returned from two weeks in India at a school with no connection to the current discussion. The president has little if any connection, no faculty have ties, all are nationals working within the Indian culture. Yet,
- the men and women have little or no contact on campus beyond the casual interaction at class.
- no dating is allowed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is racial. Students who wish to have more contact can only do so in a highly structured way and only with parental approval. India is multiracial and mixing can bring challenges at multiple levels.
- while men may have cell phones, women may not
- Men and women do not even sit mixed in chapel
- the students have virtually no Internet access at school, what they do have is highly regulated
- the president feels a deep sense of obligation to the parents to be protective of those who attend, particularly the girls (loco parentis?)
However, there was a great spirit manifested while there. The student body was polite, joyful, they stood when I enter the chapel or a classroom (out of respect for the guest). They refer to their elders as Sir or Uncle …
Correlation does not equal causation. We had these rules at NIU (except for cell phones, which weren’t around yet, and we did have mixed chapel seating) and we shipped students for egregious sins probably 2-3x year. We had three pairs of students become parents while at NIU, for example.
Furthermore, Indian culture, I’m fairly sure, is more a factor than the rules would be.
"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 trust that no one in leadership at BJU ever thought that obeying their rules would create spirituality. It may be that individuals began to assume that adherence to those rules meant one was spiritual and, conversely, not conforming to those rules meant one wasn’t spiritual. I’ll confess that it took me a long time to get over assuming that a man with a beard or facial hair, a woman in slacks in church, or someone who went to the movies couldn’t be a good Christian.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
As a man who wears a beard (trimmed nicely…thank you), I never understood how it became associated with “ungodliness”. I guess it had something to do with hippies, but I suspect it was around before them. After all, growing a beard is one of the few things that only MALES can do, and is thus very manly :-)
Of course, most of the OT characters clearly had beards…etc
I must admit that when I was college age (18-22) there was no way I could grow a decent beard. The thickness kicked in later!
It was strongly implied that facial hair was a form of rebellion. I can recall being told that Jesus was clean shaven and had short hair and that the beard pulling at His crucifixion was stubble. Glad those days are over.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
You could wear a beard in the Navy until the early 1980’s …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
45 years ago, my pastor (BJU grad) said that Jesus likely had a buzz cut and no beard. Didn’t make sense to me then …. doesn’t make sense today
If you look up the Roman decorations commemorating Titus’ conquest of Jerusalem, they do show shorter hair than the typical rendition of Jesus today, but with beards. I agree with Jim that you are going to have a tough time proving that Jews of the 1st Century were shaving despite the Torah prohibition of cutting the corners of one’s beard.
Agreed as well with Dr. Straub that sometimes rules are necessary. The trick is to make sure they are relevant and understood—hopefully no one here is supporting a pious sounding form of libertinism. I certainly am not! But to borrow one of Jeff’s examples, if the seminary in India were to allow American style dating, that would be a huge offense to many/most of the parents. On the flip side, if BJU or Central were to endorse Indian style arranged marriages, let’s just say that would take some explaining, too.
And to borrow one of Tyler’s examples, the reason that the Armed Forces banned beards in the early 1980s is that the gas masks they had in those days wouldn’t fit over a beard. That regulation actually played a role in my coming to Christ, as the Methodist church at Michigan State thought it was horrible that the Army was forcing black soldiers to shave—but conveniently neglected to mention that a possible side effect of not shaving would be an excruciating death from poison gas. Political liberalism helped me walk away from theological liberalism.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Jeff Straub]Finally, no one “complains” about the rules in the military. They make you cut your hair, tell you when to go to bed and when to get up. They regulate your diet and exercise. They make you wear a uniform and shine your shoes … As if a buzz haircut or a polished pair of boots will make you a better soldier … What a bunch of nonsense. How could any parent allow their children to be subjected to such treatment?
This is a bad analogy and your example of the school in India is just paternalistic. Here is why the military reference has no place.
Militaries need command structures for control and coordination (as do businesses and institutions [a caveat exists if the purpose is spiritual] ). We know that God has put apostles first in the Body of Christ so one would think (to follow your idea) that Paul would have been ordering everyone around. He didn’t. Paul recognized the reality of the New Covenant (we are all brothers and Christ is Head).
Christian soldiers (metaphorically) fight the flesh, the devil, and the world but victory does not derive by coordinating with other Christians but by the Spirit. The military relies on fleshly means but a Christian has completely different foes, it (the means) do not apply.
Fundamentalists (I have concluded) are carnal in their means: outward appearance, achievements, rules, etc. Whereas Paul counted all his natural advantages as dung.
And, Jeff, I do not want any back and forth either but you said something that should be countered. I am out the door anyway.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
“There are some people and organizations within the Christian movement that have every right to establish arbitrary standards. A Christian school, for instance, has the right to establish a standard of dress or deportment. Their purpose is to educate their students. They have to define the right parameters (in their opinion) that best create a positive environment for learning. They may choose to not permit tattoos, or extreme hairstyles (as defined by them), or certain clothing styles (even styles that are not immodest). All schools, public and private, have the right to do this, too.
A Christian school is even within its right to have students sign on to certain standards of behavior that do not necessarily have moral connotations (like not allowing them to attend any and all movies or permitting them to engage in any and all types of dancing—even ballet and tap). These issues may unnecessarily complicate matters for them, but independent Christian schools have every right to impose arbitrary standards on nonmoral issues.
Where they create huge problems for themselves is when they give these arbitrary standards “spiritual” weight. By trying to use the Bible to defend their position on nonmoral issues (like goatees, sideburns, or nail polish), they drive an unnecessary wedge between them and the student as well as between the student and God. Shrewd Christian schools do not make this mistake. They simply state their school policy and give students the option to take it or leave it. They do not present policies as “Christian” standards but as school standards. If parents and students do not wish to sign on for these standards, fine. But if they sign on, they are responsible to abide by them, regardless of how arbitrary or silly the standards appear to be.
Christian camps, Christian businesses (like a bookstore), and churches have the same right to create these arbitrary standards for people who work within their systems. As long as they don’t spiritualize them, these standards can serve them well. But the moment schools, camps, businesses, or churches place some kind of moral or biblical weight on arbitrary standards, they establish a legalistic system for the people within their authority. And legalism is one of the most toxic mind-sets any Christian ministry can embrace.”
- Why Christian Kids Rebel (29-30)
Can an institution actually have arbitrary rules without moral and spiritual weight? Let’s take the example of movie bans, common at fundamentalist Bible colleges, right? Student watches a Roy Rogers film, the matter comes before college administrators, what happens?
They are punished, of course, for breaking the rules. And whether watching Roy Rogers is a sin or not, the connection is made in the minds of the students. Watching Roy Rogers is wrong.
So I would submit that a church, Bible college, or other institution can no more make arbitrary rules without moral and spiritual import than can the government for the simple reason that those same institutions punish infractions of those rules. As conservatives have reminded us for years, at a certain level, all law is moral law, and in the same way, are rules are moral rules with spiritual and moral import.
If this is correct, then we ought to be very careful about making rules, because if those rules do not have a clear, and enunciated, moral justification, we are going to be confusing people about what is, and what is not, right or wrong. The end result is tremendous damage to the Gospel.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion