Modest changes at Liberty U, world’s largest Christian university

Wally, would an unmarried couple “doing more than hand holding,” a man wearing some kind of ponytail, or someone watching any R-rated movie be grounds for church discipline in your congregation?
I’m not suggesting these developments are the best, but at the same time, why is it we believe schools should be able to exercise more control than a local church?

I never mentioned church discipline. However, discipline would depend on what the “doing more than hand-holding” would be.

Anyone who has dated and every pastor knows that young couples (and the not-so-young) usually end up doing a lot more than “hand-holding”, which has been going on at Liberty for awhile - Liberty is just making the rules conform to the practice.

Ponytail? Although not popular today even among Fundamentalists, 1 Cor 11 condemns long hair for men and makes the argument from nature, not culture. Interesting how Fundamentalists have avoided this issue in recent years. Although many who participate in this website will laugh and piously criticize the “long hair” argument, it is still a valid argument from th passage.

Movies brings up the reason Christian colleges do have rules that churches do not have - the development of self-discipline in young adults who need help in difficult areas. The rules allow the college to control behavior while Biblical truth is learned.

If these development are “not the best”, then why implement them? What’s wrong with the previous rules in these three areas? Seems like more change to reflect the culture, not the Bible.

Movies brings up the reason Christian colleges do have rules that churches do not have - the development of self-discipline in young adults who need help in difficult areas. The rules allow the college to control behavior while Biblical truth is learned.

I understand your point, and more-or-less am in sympathy with it. At the same time, Christianity has never been streamlined in the application of these things.

Illustration: which is technically shorter?

I understand the need some have for establishing parameters and instilling an institutional culture. At the same time, in the applications we are talking about, it isn’t as cut and dried in today’s world. Enforcing R-rated movies may not be something we want to encourage, but in a day where “unrated” fare is accessible on a device in one’s pocket, an institution might not see the same kind of need to maintain that kind of a rule. You may see the wisdom of limiting interaction before marriage to hand-holding (or even refraining from that!), but plenty of people see no harm in a hug or a kiss goodnight. I’m not going to argue who is correct, only observing that the text of Scripture is not as precise on the limitations, and that Christians have not universally agreed on the definition of the lines.

Frankly, I think there is plenty in many PG-13 rated films that Christians should not be comfortable with. There are R-rated films, on the other hand, that might have intense content but is not necessarily gratuitous or titillating (such as the NC-17 rated Schindler’s List).

But when you make the argument that the college or institution should have authority to enforce and require that the church does not… why? Do new Christians require less self-control than their Christian college counterparts?
I am not necessarily defending LU. I am trying to look at this from a different perspective than the one I might be inclined to take if left on my own. Strict conduct guidelines may still have their place in some contexts, but make them too precise and you may not leave yourself enough room to actually influence people in the development of godly sensibilities. Churches, at least the good ones, have been able to disciple people effectively without formally dictating and enforcing every last detail. Colleges are going to find it increasingly difficult to disciple by dictating conformity, and you have to ask yourself are they really going to be effective in shaping sensibilities if that’s what they rely on? At the very least, there has to be more than rules to adhere to, and sometimes, teaching people to make better choices at least has to allow for the possibility for the wrong choice to be made.

I’m with Greg here. The New Testament records five times that believers are to greet one another with a holy kiss—if Liberty students were to try that (or BJU I’d guess), they’d get demerits. I think Scripture does give us a hint about where the line in terms of physical affection, personal appearance, and the like ought to be drawn, and that place is (IMO) emphatically NOT at hand-holding and the prohibition of ponytails. Or, to use an example friends of mine had from Moody, to ban beards while pictures of the bearded D.L. were all over. Just because something is conservative does not mean it is Biblical.

Really, can’t we take a lesson from the travails of Bill Gothard, the Duggars, and Doug Phillips and realize that Colossians 2—especially verse 23—speaks a strong word to us who would impose man-made rules? That they are useless for restraining indulgence?

Really, Wally, what you’re doing is called the “slippery slope” fallacy—hand-holding will lead to a hug, which will lead to a kiss, which will lead to petting, which… OK, sorry, but I’ve given a lot of hugs and even some kisses to people that I didn’t sleep with.

One modest correction of Greg’s comment; Schindler’s List is rated R, not NC-17. Most movie theaters will not show NC-17 movies simply because even the pagans stay away from places that show “blue” movies.

Sorry for the delay in responding - We’ve been in Wisconsin on a retreat with limited internet access.

Of course these issues aren’t always “cut and dried” - That’s 1 reason we have so much discussion about them. Nor am I talking about dictating conformity in churches. But churches do expect some degree of conformity. Churches are different than institutions somewhat in the way that churches are different than businesses. Many businesses require dress codes, even uniforms. Many reasons for that - business identity, prevent certain problems, etc. People at businesses and colleges interact on a daily basis, which creates the need for certain rules which churches do not need, at least not in the same way. Colleges have always enforced rules that churches do not. For example, even many secular colleges have dress codes. I doubt any secular college would tolerate a female professor wearing a bikini every day to class (Well, maybe some in California would). Nor would they tolerate students doing so. The same with churches. One church in our area calls itself the “Come As You Are Church”, but they really don’t believe that since they would not allow bikinis or speedos every Sunday. So the problem is not the principle of dress codes, movies, etc but what are the rules and limits for the dress codes, etc. And churches do have dress codes, even if they are unwritten, such as the bikini example.

One problem with conformity in our time is not so much the conformity principle itself but the independent, even rebellious, attitude of many people, including Christians. I find it curious, almost funny, that Christians say they don’t let the culture affect them, and then show how much the culture is affecting them. I am more interested in the reason why someone refuses certain rules more than the rules themselves. Underneath is an attitude in the heart that is more important then the rules. The rules are often the tool to reveal problems.

Concerning hair, I don’t care who in the past had long hair - Bunyan or anyone else - how does that fit 1 Cor 11? Concerning ponytails, why is the person wearing his hair like that? I suspect there is an underlying pride, rebellion, or conformity to the culture in order to be “cool”. Liberty University is conforming to the culture because its students have been for a long time.

Concerning “holy kiss”: Verses which reflect cultural norms usually come near the beginning or the end of the epistles, rarely in the middle of the text. This is 1 reason why the qualifications for pastor are not cultural. To use NT commands about the “holy kiss” is not a good argument since the “holy kiss” does reflect 1st cent culture and handshakes have replaced that practice, at least in churches I am familiar with. However, I have been in churches where a lot of hugging occurs between men and women. Interestingly, often the men tend to focus on the younger women.

Beards - One reason beards were prohibited was the association with the 60s culture of rebellion and drugs. As that association has disappeared, beards have returned. To refer to D. L. Moody as an example of MBI’s inconsistency is unfair to the leaders at Moody who had reasons for the policy. I wonder if any of those students who criticized the policy took the time to research the history of the policy and try to understand the reasons for the policy. Only then can they offer honest criticism.

Slippery Slope - Yes, the slippery slope argument is usually criticized, nevertheless the argument has validity, despite what philosophy professors say. People argue philosophically against the slippery slope argument, yet every parent knows that it has validity. All of us push the limit on what we can do, especially teens and young adults, who do not have the experience and (often) self-control to prevent problems. “Man-made rules” can help prevent problems. Of course those rules do not make someone more Christlike, but they do restrain outward “indulgences” while maturity develops. Of course those rules do not by themselves change the heart. But they create boundaries and time for heart transformation. “Useless”? No, they are not useless. As far as “hand-holding, hugging, kissing” - that is exactly what happens with many teens and young adults. Immorality started at some point. Perhaps that is 1 reason Paul wrote 1 Cor 7:1. I have heard many testimonies from people who say that their immorality began with what seemed innocent physical contact. My wife and I dated while I was a student at a state college. No rules forced on us, but we both saw the need for strict self-imposed rules for our relationship. We also saw what happened when we didn’t follow those rules. We were not immoral, but it could have ended up that way. The heart is deceptive. The current debates in Evangelicalism and the Evangelical Theological Society concerning inerrancy illustrate the validity of the slippery slope argument (See my series on this topic at proclaimanddefend.org). What begins as denial of seemingly minor texts grows to denial of other texts, such as the historicity of Adam. The slippery slope argument can be used inappropriately, but it does have validity.

The problem with Gothard, Duggar, & Phillips was not, in principle, the “man-made rules” but the heart. If they thought that the rules by themselves would protect them, then the problem was not the rules but the attitude and heart. Certain “rules” could be helpful (or harmful), but by themselves do not make Christlike, which is what Col 2 is teaching.

My original post was not intended to create a discussion about these issues, but only to call attention to the many changes at Liberty University, most of which reflect significant change in that school. Anyone who is familiar with Liberty should not be surprised at these changes. Despite what many say, these changes do not reflect a more mature outlook on the Christian life but instead reflect deterioration, immaturity, and lack of wisdom. More changes are coming from Liberty (and other Christian universities), and I wonder at what point some pastors will see the danger.

…but you’re building your argument on the slippery slope fallacy (which is NEVER sound reasoning) and the guilt by association fallacy—that’s your comment about beards being associated with the counterculture. To understand why it’s wrong, note that glasses, pants, shirts, and skirts were also part of the counterculture. Are we going to ban those, too?

We would, of course, get that bikini example you’re talking about if we did that, and that’s part of the counterculture, and then when we got rid of that, well, THAT is part of the counterculture, too. So we cannot get away from the counterculture—they drove the same kind of vans we drove, drank coffee, etc.. Guilt by association is a logical dead end because it leaves us no place to go—there are always associations to make.

Now let’s take the difficulty we pose with someone coming to school in a bikini every day; what do we do about this? It turns out we don’t need a man-made rule at all, because Leviticus 18 uses a neat Hebrew word picture for heterosexual sex: “uncover nakedness”. We would infer from that, as well as from the prophetic passages that note that the skirts of virgin Israel will be lifted in the day of God’s wrath, that there was a certain exposure of the torso and upper thigh that the Hebrews viewed as an invitation to sex—either voluntary in Lev. 18, or rape in the prophetic passages (a tradition when a city was captured in old times and modern).

The question then is whether we see things the same today, and to answer that, let’s ask a question; what happens to the hem lines and bodice lines of a starlet or singer who isn’t getting parts and popularity? To paraphrase Laura Ingalls Wilder’s comment on the same, “the dress becomes a belt”, more or less. So we acknowledge in our popular culture that we also understand this word picture.

And so we tell the bikini-clad professor (or the real case of the naked guy in Berkeley a decade or so back) that whether she (he) intends it or not, they’re sending a signal to the world that they are available for an unlawful relationship. No man-made rule is necessary here.

Which is a long way of saying that I think there really isn’t a great need for man-made standards at churches. Do I really need to worry whether someone is wearing a bespoke suit, off the rack suit, shirt and slacks, or ratty jeans to church? Really? Do I really need to police affection between couples at church if they’re not violating the “uncovering nakedness” principle with their eyes or hands? If we understand the principle of “uncovering nakedness”, do we really need to police what kind of movies people watch?

I really don’t think we do, and I praise God that Liberty is starting to realize this. May other “fundagelical” institutions follow suit and honor Colossians 2:23 in their student handbooks.

I hesitate to relate this example, because a few people on SI take immediate offense whenever the school involved is mentioned in any way in which they construe negativity, but here goes:

1. This is an excerpt from the Student Handbook of BJU:

”The following music conflicts with our mission and is therefore excluded from performance, personal listening on and off campus, or use in student organizations, societies, student productions, outreach ministries or social media:

• Any music which, in whole or in part, derives from the following broadly defined genres or their subgenres: Rock, Pop, Country, Jazz, Electronic/Techno, Rap/Hip Hop or the fusion of any of these genres.

• Any music in which Christian lyrics or biblical texts are set to music which is, in whole or in part, derived from any of these genres or their subgenres.”

http://www.bju.edu/life-faith/student-handbook.pdf (p. 27)

[Emphases mine.]

–––––––––––––––––––-

2. Question: Is Bluegrass music a subgenre of Country music?:

“Bluegrass music is a form of American roots music, and a subgenre of country music.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluegrass_music

“Bluegrass is generally considered a sub-genre of country music that developed in the second half of the 20th century.”

http://americasmusic.tribecafilminstitute.org/session/view/country-and-…

[Bluegrass is] “A type of country music that originated in the southern United States, typically played on acoustic stringed instruments and characterized by rapid tempos and jazzlike improvisation.”

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bluegrass

“Bluegrass is a type of country music that’s quick and lively. Bluegrass is played with banjos and guitars.”

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/bluegrass

Answer: Yes, Bluegrass is a subgenre of Country music.

–––––––––––––––––––-

3. So, as a subgenre of Country music, Bluegrass music is by definition expressly prohibited to BJU students.

–––––––––––––––––––-

4. How is this applicable to BJU? Steve Pettit’s former evangelistic team, The Pettit Team, was widely known for playing & recording Bluegrass music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxgcgDxAQ4w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R91XwT4dj68

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9EXDp_7zk0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8Sxk2BKweo

http://heartpublications.com/music.html

–––––––––––––––––––––—

5. The resulting problem is that BJU students technically are prohibited from listening to much of the music produced by their President’s past evangelism team.

[Has this ever come up on the campus, or been enforced? I doubt it…..]

–––––––––––––––––––––—

On a further note, needless to say the Pettit Team’s recording of the song Shout to the North, by the CCM band Delirious? (the “?” is part of their name), is by a strict reading of the Handbook also prohibited (per the second bullet-point in the Handbook excerpt):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrxMRuQDCVs

[This is just a brief clip.]

–––––––––––––––––––––-

A final note: I have nothing but the highest regard for Steve Pettit. I think his leadership at BJU has been outstanding.

You raise an example of BJU’s inconsistency in music standards/practice, which they are changing, despite protests to the contrary from the school.

In order for Pettit to re-use Shout to the North, I think he would need to listen to it first in order to make changes.

I wonder how much other CCM he has listened to.

I am not as enthusiastic about his presidency as you are.

…BJU and many others could read Psalms 149 and 150 for comprehension, and figure out that since percussive instruments and dancing are mentioned as legitimate ways to praise God, that maybe, just maybe, they shouldn’t be banning music just because it has a beat, and that there is a difference between a waltz and a tango or samba. That’s really what they’re getting at by banning rock, country, rap, and the like.

For that matter, they could take a very close look at some of the stuff coming out of “Patch the Pirate”…about five years back, I notice that something I was teaching kids to sing out of that program was to a tango beat. Don’t worry, I didn’t hand out any feather boas or have them dance mostly disrobed on floats in the Carnival parade.

(really, Ron Hamilton does some fun stuff sometimes that I’m pretty sure his bosses in Greenville simply don’t understand…otherwise he might have been fired years ago)

Concerning hair, I don’t care who in the past had long hair…

I understand your point, Wally. I don’t think that because Bunyan had longer hair that makes everything okay, either. My point is that Christians have differed in their specific applications over time. I do doubt that Bunyan was mistaken for a woman in his day… even now, one type of woman’s hairstyle is known as a pageboy. How long is long? Can someone have a short ponytail? Is it wrong to conform to culture in every way? If so, shouldn’t we be wearing burlap robes just because the rest of the culture doesn’t? ;)

…I wonder at what point some pastors will see the danger.

I would personally be more concerned with doctrinal/practical matters with Liberty than this kind of thing. At the same time, the way we look at a place like Liberty is changing in current context. It is quite possible today that you have active LU students in your congregation right now because of distance learning. Enforcing conformity just isn’t the same kind of thing today as it used to be.

Again, I am not saying this rule change should necessarily be celebrated. At the same time, it is not in itself an absolute reason for alarm. I probably wouldn’t have changed those rules, myself. But as far as “pastors seeing the danger,” there are bigger things to get worked up over than this, even at Liberty.They have been actively targeting a wider constituency for some time now. I’m surprised that some of these things have remained “in the books” as long as they have, frankly.