Bob Jones University Enters a New Era

I’m no great expert on BJU, and while I applaud accreditation and the other changes that are being made, the school’s reasons why, and how they’re presented, are going to make all the difference. Are the old policies simply going down the memory hole, or are they going to say “the former policy was not Biblical”, or “times have changed, and this risk is no longer as great as we once feared?”. The answers are going to communicate a lot about the intellectual mood about the school.

And regarding the beard policy, I’m reminded of friends who attended Moody, which then had (a) a policy against beards and (b) pictures of DL with a gorgeous beard all over the place. The arguments, if I remember correctly, were mostly guilt by association—“hippies have beards so we ought not.”

Poor BJU. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Sigh…

When you write, “Poor BJU. Damned if you, and damned if you don’t. Sigh …” what are you referring to? Not the article, I hope.

Lets be honest here, these changes have been taking place every year since the school started. When I was a student, men had to wear ties in the morning. My father-in-law had to wear ties all day. I don’t think they always need to defend each change, nor should look at it as a slide. Everything changes. Oftentimes we look at these institutions and the rulebooks and view them nearly as equal as Scripture and when one changes, we need to dogmatically understand all of the theological implications.

[G. N. Barkman]

Poor BJU. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Sigh…

GN’s got a great point here. While we’d all like to think that we’re all Biblically oriented and making decisions according to sound logic and Scripture, in reality BJU is caught between a traditionalist faction that will NOT take things like accreditation and allowing movies lightly, and a modernist faction that has always felt that their rules were misguided at best. They’ve been (as was Northland) closer to the traditionalist camp, and now, in a manner of speaking, they’ve invited Big Daddy Weave to campus.

So in this light, there is a big question of how they justify the actions. They need, really, to persuade the more traditionalist group that the old policies were misguided while simultaneously persuading the more convergent fundamentalists that they’ve backed away from wrong policies while not simply adopting “evangelicalism lite.”

I think it’s something BJU needed to do to survive, but we’re kidding ourselves if we think that the long knives aren’t coming out from some quarters. I’ll be very glad if I’m wrong, but I think wherever we are, we’d agree that this is to some point the lay of the land.

I’m not sure if GN’s got a great point here (I’m still unsure what he meant or to what/whom he was responding). Outside of the regional accreditation, the changes I wrote about are several years behind us. This past summer, I spoke to several of my BJU faculty friends, and for the first time in years they were all equally optimistic about the school’s future; the friends who have been pessimistic have changed their tune. I don’t remember the numbers they told me, but the enrollment trend plateaued for a couple of years and is now trending up. Whatever knives are coming out would have already come out. Besides, those who hold the knives are probably no longer in BJU’s marketing plan.

The article is written to people who have only heard rumors of fundamentalism and BJU. While writing it, I knew that if it reached the larger PJ Media audience (which has yet to happen), many of the positive changes I mentioned would be viewed as still strange. My hope is that the article will be read by conservative parents who are outside of the fundy orbit and who have kids approaching college age. I want them to know that there is another good option out there that isn’t as weird as they may have heard.

At this moment, I’m supposed to be writing an article about Sally Quinn and spirit cooking. Back to work.

I love my alma mater, and I’m excited about good things they are doing (no issues with accreditation). But when you check the student handbook at the website, you will notice some changes but only if you are aware of the rules in the past. Before you start shooting arrows at me, I’ll concede that not everyone is going to agree on where exactly some lines should be drawn. I’m not here to argue about those. We may not agree on everything, and that’s fine. But that doesn’t remove the fact that changes have been occurring incrementally over several years. Unfortunately, their student handbook doesn’t show what has changed based on last year or even two or three years ago.

I could be wrong, and I’d invite any BJU readers to correct me if that is so, but I believe the women’s dress code was stricter about mini skirts, for example, only a few years ago. At that time I believe skirts had to “cover” the knee. Now, as you’ll notice below, they need only to “touch” the knee (which, if you think about it, is pretty ambiguous; where does the knee begin and end?). I believe there was also once a statement about the tightness of apparel, particularly skirts and pants. That rule appears to have vanished.

For some of us, the female dress code at BJU is important (especially since I have two daughters, 13 and 16, and yes, modesty is pretty important to us), so when changes in this regard are taking place, we want to be informed and will be watching what changes next. It’s not so much where things are right now that are a concern to us (though we care about that too) but where changes may take BJU over the next five years. This is especially true since my girls will be considering where to go to college. (If we are a key demographic, BJU, you may want to take notice.) For the sake of full disclosure, I was a staff member at Northland and am fully aware of what upset the apple cart. Not here to argue about that, but change was a key ingredient in what went wrong, so change of this nature immediately puts up my antennae (whether rightly or wrongly). Granted, I could be overreacting because of what happened at Northland. Let’s certainly hope Big Daddy Weave is still not invited to campus. I suppose now I’ll be crucified for being frank about where my family and I are, but that’s where we are. If this isn’t where you are, may God bless you, my brothers and sisters in Christ.
See below. This is the most current general women’s dress code:
Women’s Dress Code General Requirements • Clothing should be modest and appropriate. The cut and style of shirts, skirts and pants should not draw unwanted attention to the figure. • Ladies may not wear skinny pants or leggings as pants. • Skirts and dresses, as well as slits in skirts and dresses, are to touch the knee whether standing, walking or sitting. • Necklines should be no lower than four fingers’ width below the collarbone. No cleavage should be visible. • The back of any article of clothing should not be lower than a normal bra band. • Midriffs are to be covered at all times. • Halter tops or sleeveless or strapless tops and dresses are appropriate student attire only when covered by a jacket or blouse. • Shorts may be worn in the residence halls; for day students, shorts are not appropriate away from home. (For exceptions, see Recreational/Work Attire, page 31.) 29 • Spandex pants and flannel pants (sleepwear) may be worn inside the residence halls; for day students, they are not appropriate away from home.
From: http://www.bju.edu/life-faith/student-handbook.pdf

They’re doing good stuff. Regional accreditation is good. Go BJU.

I don’t want to rehash the death of my alma mater here again, but I should note that some of BJU’s current standards are looser than NIU’s ever became. I also earned a MA from BJU later on, and I had to submit to BJU’s far more stringent rules even though I was a Grad. Assistant and 25ish at the time.

So you’ll excuse me while I publicly note all of the crickets that are chirping in the background regarding BJU’s changes. Especially regarding the music standards.

I don’t know anything about any changes at BJU in philosophy or music. And, truth be told, if there were “sinister” changes, any account of it I’d read online would likely have a partisan bent, so I’m just not interested. As long as Pettit doesn’t lie to people about there being “no changes,” then make changes anyway, then resign the presidency, then immediately return to the presidency, then resign again, then see the school closed, then I’ll be ok. :)

As an older (70) BJU alumnus who has recently retired to Greenville, I rejoice in the changes at my alma mater. The spirit on campus is wonderful. The students look and act like normal college students while maintaining a love for service and for Christ.

As to the long knives, there seem to be two groups. One is the malcontents who are now left gnawing on the gristle of past bad experiences, some of which were self-inflicted and others which are decades old or blown out of proportion. The other group are the cultural traditionalists who sometimes seem to equate slacks on women, beards, Getty music, and college students going off campus unchaperoned as departures from cultural fundamentals.

As far as marketing, there are now public high schools in the Greenville area who are visiting campus and inviting BJU to college fairs at their high schools.

While there is an easing of dress standards for women, a conservative parent I know who has strict standards for his daughters is sending his girls to BJU where they will dress according to their family standards and not be offended at those whose standards are different.

BTW, I learned this week that students no longer have to sign out if they’re leaving campus unless it’s overnight and you can walk on the grass!

See my article at Proclaim and Defend: http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2017/02/23/why-is-compromise-always-one-direction/

Please: Do not read anything sinister into what I wrote. Just a general article with some honest questions.

For reference, the music standards of BJU are on page 26 of the link Adam Blumer gave. Rock, rap, hip-hop, country, and the like are all still prohibited, and the rationale is that they’re more or less going to cause certain likely responses. So at its heart, that part is still Frank Garlock’s work, IMO. Clothing standards start on page 29. They do appear to be somewhat more casual than previously, with more skin allowed to be exposed.

Taking a glance at the student handbook, as well as the column Wally provides, illustrates in great part the thing I’m getting at with how it is critical that we explain why particular moves are being made. What Biblical justification is there for going from tea length to knee length skirts, for allowing short beards, and the like? If we don’t have one, lively minds will assume, at least partially correctly, that we’re more about enforcing our sub-culture than encouraging Godliness.