BJU faulted for response to GRACE report

[Larry Nelson]

Mostly about BJU’s response to the GRACE report:

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2015/3/30/bob-jones-university-sexual-abuse.html

Among other tidbits:

“…at a recent talent show, [BJU] students performed the soft rock song “Oceans (Where Feet may Fail)” by the Christian band Hillsong United, and it was extremely well received.”

As was mentioned above, this is the kind of continual media coverage and controversy that continues when you don’t adequately deal with a situation. Berg is referred to four times in this article. I get it that al jazeera would already be biased against BJU; however, yet again we are seeing negative attention about BJU. This is not to say that BJU should make their policy based on Katie Couric or al jazeera’s feelings, but this makes BJU look like they they still don’t understand the magnitude of the situation.

Up next at BJU, Big Daddy Weave & Skillet. Whoo-hooo!

Chip I was not going down a rabbit trail for nothing unless you are just pointing out the position BJU will take. If not, Jay hit the nail on the head. You don’t believe in PTSD or as you said before just phsyco babble. You have to admit though Jays position sounds very stable both biblically and from the pure commonsense point. Like I said Ben could run the whole counseling at BJU and resolve the problems almost overnight. Chip if your a true believer in Bergs counseling just say so. Since it was the counseling that caused all the problems at BJU along with the non reporting. This whole thread has brought a lot of good discussions and hopefully you pastors out their will use it to help BJU be pushed in the right direction. I assume that is one of the key purposes of this site.

My hunch is most who support BJU stopped reading this thread about 2 pages ago.

Maybe not…

[Bert Perry] Perhaps even another tendency noted by the GRACE report—to blame the victim—has a lot of its roots there, though I’d still want to discard the notion that ladies can indeed “lead men astray” through clothing choices. Not exactly Biblical, either.

Not to start another rabbit trail, but the Bible does actually address the issue of using clothing to allure / seduce:

• Tamar - Gen 38:14-15
• The adulteress - Prov 7:10

So, yes, women can and do use clothing to attract attention to themselves and suggest their availability to men. That being said, I’m not suggesting that these abuse victims were doing that. Nor am I suggesting that dressing provocatively excuses the crime / sin of rape or sexual abuse.

[T Howard]

Bert Perry wrote:

Perhaps even another tendency noted by the GRACE report—to blame the victim—has a lot of its roots there, though I’d still want to discard the notion that ladies can indeed “lead men astray” through clothing choices. Not exactly Biblical, either.

Not to start another rabbit trail, but the Bible does actually address the issue of using clothing to allure / seduce:

• Tamar - Gen 38:14-15
• The adulteress - Prov 7:10

So, yes, women can and do use clothing to attract attention to themselves and suggest their availability to men. That being said, I’m not suggesting that these abuse victims were doing that. Nor am I suggesting that dressing provocatively excuses the crime / sin of rape or sexual abuse.

Agreed wholeheartedly that attire can suggest availability and draw attention. The trick is that the testimony of those in the GRACE report is that the victims were being blamed because of their attire—and an interesting corollary point to that is that we’re talking about BJU students, and I’d have to assume that those who choose to attend BJU are more modest than average. Per my earlier comments about “review those counseling materials closely”, they need to make sure that the point they’re making is that it can invite attention and suggest availability, but avoid saying ladies please don’t lead men astray through your clothing choices.

I might ask them for a date, but rape them? That’s quite a leap.

The 2 verses you sight are about prostitutes. Are you saying that BJU students dress in a way to suggest they will take money for sexual services? Even if they did, that still is not rape.

Regarding (thank you Jay) the picture of PTSD. Again, I’d like to point us to the fact that Jeremiah draws a tremendously bleak picture of the terror that those who had experienced the destruction of Jerusalem would remember. If we remember God’s warnings in Deuteronomy, the prophets, and elsewhere, I’ve got to suggest an intriguing possibility:

God wanted Israel to have flashbacks to the end of the siege of Jerusalem and to the horrors that followed.

Think about it a minute—look at Psalm 137 as well. Whether those who remembered the destruction of Jerusalem were themselves involved in the idolatry and other gross sins that led to the fall of Judah, they were going to be exposed to the trauma of that early Tisha B’Av. Including Jeremiah, named the “weeping prophet” because of his response to this reality.

Now let’s counsel Jeremiah here—he’s having trouble coping with this, as we might expect. What do we do? Remember that if we tell him that his sanctification level is partly indicated by his ability to “get over” the destruction of Jerusalem, and he does, we eliminate the book of Lamentations and a good part of the book of Jeremiah from the Scriptures.

It suggests a new approach to the trauma experienced by those who are victimized, in my opinion. I’m not quite sure of all the conclusions, but it would be wonderful if Christian counselors would explore this more. In some mysterious way, it seems that God can use this for His glory.

The flip side of what you are saying, Bert, is I think found in Haggai 2:2-5

“Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and to all the remnant of the people, and say, ‘Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? How do you see it now? Is it not as nothing in your eyes? Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, declares the Lord. Be strong, O Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Be strong, all you people of the land, declares the Lord. Work, for I am with you, declares the Lord of hosts, according to the covenant that I made with you when you came out of Egypt. My Spirit remains in your midst. Fear not.

I find it really interesting that instead of allowing the people to wallow in their fear and sadness, God commands them to be strong and to follow him - and then He promises that He did not forsake the covenant that He swore to their fathers. He doesn’t tell them to stop thinking about it or to move on - He tells them to continue doing what they have been doing and to be encouraged. He roots a current attitude of hopefulness to a time even before the city fell to Babylon in 586 BC.

There’s also this, from the book of Ezra 3:10-13:

And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the Lord, the priests in their vestments came forward with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the Lord, according to the directions of David king of Israel. And they sang responsively, praising and giving thanks to the Lord,

“For he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever toward Israel.”

And all the people shouted with a great shout when they praised the Lord, because the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid. But many of the priests and Levites and heads of fathers’ houses, old men who had seen the first house, wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, though many shouted aloud for joy, so that the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shout from the sound of the people’s weeping, for the people shouted with a great shout, and the sound was heard far away.

There was much rejoicing, but there was also a lot of sorrow, and I think that’s the godly sorrow that leads to repentance (to borrow from the NT).

I guess I don’t get it. Joeb and others want to hang Berg for not being competent. Joeb even wants Ben to take over BJU’s counseling and declares that Ben would fix it “over night”. But Ben himself says, “To answer Dave Barnhart, I wish I had a great certain method! LOL! For the last 10 years, to be honest, I feel that I have been flying by the seat of my pants when it comes to a lot of counseling”

So, I need someone (maybe Joeb) to expalin to me how is that someone wno does not have a counseling method and is learning by the seat of his pants going to fix the problems of someone who did have a counseling method and admitted to learning by the seat of his pants.

Note to Ben: I do not have a quarrel with you or your post. My point is that some would use you as an example of a solution to BJU’s problems.

[Joeb]

Chip I was not going down a rabbit trail for nothing unless you are just pointing out the position BJU will take. If not, Jay hit the nail on the head. You don’t believe in PTSD or as you said before just phsyco babble. You have to admit though Jays position sounds very stable both biblically and from the pure commonsense point. Like I said Ben could run the whole counseling at BJU and resolve the problems almost overnight. Chip if your a true believer in Bergs counseling just say so. Since it was the counseling that caused all the problems at BJU along with the non reporting. This whole thread has brought a lot of good discussions and hopefully you pastors out their will use it to help BJU be pushed in the right direction. I assume that is one of the key purposes of this site.

You continue to mischaracterize and cast unfounded aspersions on those who disagree with you rather than dealing with the content of their conversation. I have not denied the reality of PTSD nor have I advocated as a believer in Berg. I am on record elsewhere as advocating nouthetic counseling of the stripe taught by Jay Addams and Donn Arms. I cannot say where exactly Berg falls on the counseling spectrum, because I am only casually familiar with his work. However, when I asked Arms about Berg’s materials, he supported them. That does say a lot to me. Nouthetic counselors are commonly mischaracterized in just the way I have been suggesting you might be doing to Berg in this thread. A nouthetic counselor would never blame the victim for his/her abuse. That would be saying it is the victim’s fault rather than the abuser’s fault. On the other hand, a nouthetic counselor would counsel a victim that they alone are responsible for their response to the abuse (as well as for any sinful action they committed prior to the abuse without being responsible for the abuse itself). Just as the victim cannot be blamed for the sins of the abuser, the abuser cannot be blamed for the victim’s response as a “the Devil made me do it” kind of defense (Ezek 18:20). That is a primary difference between psychology and true biblical counseling. Psychology seeks to treat rather than cure; the victim remains the victim forever. Scripture teaches a different path whereby God’s grace is sufficient to heal our wounds and offer all the succor we need in times of need. He is still El Shaddai and Jehovah Rophe. It is this biblical truth which is being turned on its head by the mischaracterization that the biblical counselor is blaming the victim for their abuse, a mischaracterization which I am suggesting could be (and I think likely is) going on here with the Grace report and your refusal to investigate beyond what you are being spoon-fed by one side of the discussion.

I will be the first to say that I, like each one of us in this place, have just the same nastiness of sin hanging on me. We may not be able to see or smell it, but our dear Savior does.

These men are just the ones in leadership, ones who have been vocal, and certain of their words have now been put under a microscope.

There’s plenty of good to be put under the microscope, too, but that’s not what makes the news now, does it.

The line between making right and vengeance is perhaps very thin.

O.K., so this thread is quickly nearing 150 comments. Throughout it, as with just about any thread on SI that relates to BJU, an element that seems to pervade is that on one side are the “supporters” of BJU, and on the other side are the “critics.” (Not that those exact labels are used.) I really want to call out & challenge that thinking. Is the situation really that either/or? I for one do not believe so.

I submit that a “supporter” can at the same time be a “critic.” Conversely, a “critic” can also be a “supporter.” The roles are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Using my relationships with my own alma maters as examples, I can quite easily see myself in both roles. Since high school (“Go FBCS Warriors!”) I count four institutions as alma maters, tallying two undergraduate degrees, four professional diplomas (in banking fields), and one graduate-level certificate. The institution I would call my primary alma mater is the University of Minnesota, since I earned my B.A. there (and spent the most time on campus).

I am a life-member of the U. of M. Alumni Association. I follow it in the news. I visit the campus frequently. I have a multitude of good memories of my time on campus, and I am grateful for the education which I received. Am I also critical of some of its policies and decisions? Absolutely! I’ve felt free to voice my displeasure on more than one occasion to the office of the President. (The current President, Eric Kaler, very graciously personally responded to me not too long ago in reply to a “complaint.”)

So when it comes to my participation in threads relating to BJU, in what category do I fit? Am I a supporter, or am I a critic? I categorize myself as both.

I have no ill-will against BJU. Some here know this, but while in my twenties I applied to & was accepted to BJU’s Graduate School. In the interim between my acceptance & the start of classes, I spent three days at the school. I heard both BJ Jr. & BJ III speak, and I had a discussion with Jim Berg. I never did actually begin classes at BJU (longer story than this…), but I have no axe to grind against the school. Today, I know some fine graduates. (No ill-will!)

Yet it seems that whenever I make any comment or observation that is perceived as being negative (in whatever way) in regards to BJU, I am branded as, let’s say, a “non-supporter.” I really don’t see it that way. To my way of thinking, one can simultaneously be a supporter and a critic. I don’t think it does any favors to BJU to simply always “toe the party line.”

[Mark_Smith] I might ask them for a date, but rape them? That’s quite a leap.

The 2 verses you sight are about prostitutes. Are you saying that BJU students dress in a way to suggest they will take money for sexual services? Even if they did, that still is not rape.

Having gone to a competing conservative school for my undergrad, I can unequivocally state that some female students purposely dressed in a way to draw the attention and interest of guys on campus. Even when dating, some females would dress that way for their boyfriends. These women weren’t prostitutes … but they wanted and enjoyed the attention they received. As I said before, even if they dressed provocatively (according to IFB standards) that does not condone the sin / crime of rape or sexual assault. Nor should women be told that the reason they were raped or sexually assaulted was because of how they dressed.