Bob Jones University Enters a New Era

I did an MA without any Bible undergrad. I did a secular undergrad. My son is starting Koine Greek in homeschool next week, so he’ll have 3-4 years when he is college-aged. You don’t need a Bible undergrad. I don’t have one. It’s why I have a job today.

I don’t want to go too far down this road, Tyler, but as I said, I agree that one doesn’t need a Bible undergrad. My point is that an MA is pretty thin to equip a man for pastoral ministry in most cases and a Bible undergrad can help offset that lack. A man with only an MA is missing 60+ hours of concentrated training in languages, theology, exegesis, and pastoral ministry. That’s going to have an effect in many different ways. When you compare the requirements of an MA and an MDiv side by side, you can see significant gaps. It’s not impossible to get on your own, but it is typically harder.

Think of it this way: A guy with only an MA in English Bible can’t even compare translations to original languages to know why a translation translates something the way it does. He doesn’t even have to take a full course of systematic theology. To me, that is a major lack of preparation that sets one back from the start. It is starting off in the hole.

If I were doing it again, I would not get a Bible undergrad. But that’s because of what I did later. When I got a BA in Bible and an MA, I was done. I said the next degree I got someone was going to give it to me. So I went an earned three more degrees.

I think it is good if, as someone suggested, that BJU is focusing ministry preparation more on the seminary than on undergrad.

First: A church is somewhat different than a school/college. I would think people would understand that. Perhaps not. Most churches are small, 100 people or less. The Christian colleges we are talking about have 100s of students, who spend most of their time on campus eating, sleeping, and in classes, in the same limited physical space. Such an environment requires rules to insure safety and proper behavior. If we say that Christian colleges don’t need rules, then why have rules/policies about cheating, for example? Isn’t cheating a “heart issue”? So if we don’t need rules for “heart issues”, then let’s eliminate the rules about cheating and see what happens.

Second: We have church policies concerning funerals, benevolence ministry, membership and voting rights/procedures, marriage, church discipline, and even bathroom use (because of the transgendered). We do not make our policies public except to members or to those who attend our church. That is our right as a private organization.

Third: But here is an example - To help insure fairness and consistency, we provide flowers for funerals in specific situations: member, close relative (defined as husband, wife, son, daughter, mother, father). We provide a meal after funerals for the family of those who died who were members or regular attenders (defined as attending at least 2x/month). These “rules” help to make sure we are consistent in our practices and not unknowingly treat people differently. These “rules” are made available to all who attend our church so that everyone knows what they are.

People are complex and can create a wide variety of difficult situations. Rules are simply an attempt to handle complex situations with fairness to all. People who say that we don’t need rules and should just “look at the heart” are woefully naive and are setting themselves up for inconsistencies in how they treat people.

Concerning College Degrees: A college degree in Bible was never intended to “fully” prepare someone for the ministry. The degree is only a starting point.

#1 If the rules for music and dress are Biblical shouldn’t they be required of church members? I’ve seen young pastors ruin churches by enforcing these kinds of rules in their churches in the same way that they were enforced in school.

#2 Many will say that the Bible provides no specific definition for what constitutes modesty or good music. That being said, we are left with making our/their definition of modesty the rule and treating that definition as Biblical.

People often confuse rules and principles. Principles are general statements of Biblical teaching on a specific topic. Rules are specific applications of those principles to individual situations. Biblical principles concerning music and clothing would apply to anyone in any situation. Rules may or may not apply beyond the specific situation or organization.

The Bible does not “define” a lot of topics or words. The Bible never “defines” love, faith, or hope but gives many descriptions and characteristics of those qualities, which are then applied to specific situations.

I had to ask my wife to explain your answer to me. She couldn’t understand why I didn’t understand it. What we realized is that in my Christian life (I wasn’t saved until I was 28) I was never taught about principles. I have always had a “right or wrong” or “black or white” view of things and the nuance of principles was something I just missed. Part of my comprehension problem was that I have lived in places where Biblical principles were treated like rules. An example would be that skirts above the knee, facial hair, jeans (tight or not), popular music, and CCM were considered and called sinful and treated as such whether in the world or in the church.

[WallyMorris]

Contrary to Julie’s comment about Dads: Yes, daughters DO need to hear from their fathers about modesty. It’s the responsibility of BOTH parents (Eph 6:4).

Wally, you go ahead and use that verse to justify what you think is your job. Are you also going to teach your daughters how to insert tampons and use lubricant when they get married and begin having sex with their husbands? You want to teach your daughter about modesty, but you might want to listen from a woman unless you are speaking in general about modesty of the heart; otherwise, this is womens’ territory. You need to deal with your sons.

As a woman, to think that a man, and especially my father is looking me over to see if I’m immodestly dressed is disgusting. That would mean he is looking at me in a sexual way to see how clothes are fitting around my breasts and hips, etc. Fathers, take it from me, a woman. No daughter wants to be talked to by her father about modesty and to know that her father is looking at her to see if she is modest or immodest.

[Ron Bean]

I share your sentiments on fashion police. When I visit BJU I’ll take my wife, she’s better at that stuff anyway. You two would make a good pair.

I hope when you go for a walk with your wife that you enjoy each other’s company. I can’t imagine going on a walk and purposefully look at the attire of other people. That’s weird.

Julie said: ” I can’t imagine going on a walk and purposefully look at the attire of other people. That’s weird.”

I used to date a dorm supervisor at BJU and that’s what she did on every date. Wonderful lady and a great friend but she was always “on duty”. I’m glad those days are gone when students knew they were being watched by other students who could and would give them demerits.

[Julie Anne] As a woman, to think that a man, and especially my father is looking me over to see if I’m immodestly dressed is disgusting. That would mean he is looking at me in a sexual way to see how clothes are fitting around my breasts and hips, etc. Fathers, take it from me, a woman. No daughter wants to be talked to by her father about modesty and to know that her father is looking at her to see if she is modest or immodest.

This is long, so thank you for suffering through.

BJU seems to be:
1. More focused on heart change (the goal of biblical discipleship)
2. More clear on what the actual fundamentals are. The school is returning to the true historic fundamentals of the faith. Much that was termed “fundamentalism” in the 70s, 80s, and 90s was cultural preference and application. Export it to a non-Western culture and it becomes quickly obvious that at best these were preferences and not biblical fundametals.
3. Clear-eyed about the implications of a hyper-individualized, uber-informed, and economically-challenging culture.

Parents and young people spend many waking hours on a highly-personalized device to access people and information that they have curated for themselves. They carry the same reality into educational choices. That is not BJU’s fault, but it is their reality. Should BJU call young people to consider others as more significant than themselves? Yes, and they do. Indeed, a sense of community on the campus feels stronger now than 20 years ago, IMO. But kids come to school (often with parental blessing) with dramatically different expectations than 20+ years ago. No cutting off the phones at 10:55pm.

Further, consider that 40% of BJU’s students come from a homeschool setting. Talk about individualized! Up to 12 years of one’s educational life in a structured setting with rules, schedules, and a demerit-like system may be completely foreign to many new BJU students. Surely then can benefit from learning some of this structure. But if young folk have not experienced anything like the “old BJU / Christian West Point” by the time they enroll in an undergraduate program, then a university has to deal with that reality as well. Thus discipleship, in addition to addressing the heart rather than externals, might be pragrmatically more pallatable. That said, I firmly believe BJU is focused on discipleship not because it more pallatable but becuase it is more biblical.

The days of parents and potential students mostly chosing from the colleges that sent out ministry teams or that so-and-so from my church graduated from are gone. Information <> wisdom. But folks know about a lot more high-ed options, which translates into higher expectations and lower tolerance for heavy-handedness. It is what it is.

On the economic front, yes a higher % of BJU’s students are in non-ministry majors. First, the raw material (student) a school receives is what it is. If enough students are not applying to ministry majors, that’s about 90% on the churches/families and maybe 10% on the school.

Secondly, people are tired of spending a lot on an education - state, private, or Christian - and not seeing a lot of financial return on the investment. So they are looking to “what can I learn that will allow me to make a decent living?” And to point out the obvious, many of those folks are the ones that will give to their local church. For the USA reader, read this from the WSJ on the growing doubt about a college degree: https://www.wsj.com/article_email/americans-losing-faith-in-college-degrees-poll-finds-1504776601-lMyQjAxMTI3NzAyNzIwMzc2Wj

On dress/modesty, it is nearly impossible to make a pair of jeans that are “modest” by some well-meaning folks’ standards. Having worked for 20 years in the textile and apparel space, technical and manufacturing realities exist. Surely someone can make their own, but without causing anyone to stumble with word pictures, it is nearly impossible to make an actual jean (a cut and make of a garment, not necessarily blue denim) to fit a female that doesn’t fit snuggly at some points. You can make other garments - say a 70s jumpsuit - that are not that way, but even there some of how they fit is achievable becuase they are secured by the shoulders too. This is the reason that a pair of men’s bib overalls can fit much more loosely around the waist than can a pair of men’s Levi’s jeans. Also, unless you can drop $200+ on a bespoke garment or are really good with a sewing machine, you have to buy from what is offered in the market. The brands love stretch denim, as it lets more people wear your product with less worry about fit.

Plus we might be pressing our own “apparel signaling paradigm” on today’s college student. From what the trade tells me, young people nowadays consider what they wear less of their personal image than in the past. Doesn’t mean modesty is negotiable, but they’re not trying to make as much of a statement as we may have been in our day. For them, it is more about likes, social media, and having the latest iphone. If we want to be concerned, be concerned about what is happening on those devices that we cannot observe when they walk in front of us on the sidewalk or bend over at the nursery desk.

What one wears - within the rules that should certainly be enforced - is actually a wonderful window into the heart. Once past the elementary years, I prefer no school uniforms for secondary school students. Why? Becuase it allows parents insight into their young person’s heart

Ramble now over.

[AndyE]

I agree with Wally that Fathers have a responsibility here. I don’t know why you make it out to be creepy. My daughters are really good and careful about how they dress, so it’s not a subject that comes up very often, but we’ve had conversations about it occasionally and it’s not creepy or awkward at all. The best way to deal with this issue is before it ever becomes a problem. In my family the way it happened was in our daily Bible reading. We came across a passage in Leviticus that mentioned “nakedness” and that prompted a discussion about what that term meant, the shame of nakedness, when that occurs, and what all that means for modesty and how we apply that for our family. They were pretty young at the time and they tell me now they don’t even remember the conversation but it stuck and made a lasting impact on them.

That sounds a lot better than the context I was referring to. I was referring to drawing attention to a daughter’s (or any female’s) immodest clothes. If you as a father identify clothing that your daughter or some other female is wearing as immodest, then you have just looked at her and her figure, and that’s not cool. You have objectified her. Your daughter does not want to know that you are looking at her or anyone else’s body to see if she/they passes your modesty test because that means you are looking at body parts (breasts, hips, rear end, etc). Please don’t do that. The same goes for my husband and boys. Women are not to be treated as objects to be evaluated to pass modesty tests.

I have never seen a group of men so fearful of seeing skin - as if that is what causes people to stumble. Nope, it’s the desires of your heart and lusting that causes you to stumble. If a woman walked in front of you naked, you are responsible for your thoughts. Love is what overcomes a multitude of sins. If you see a woman dressed immodestly, treat her with respect and love her for who she is - an image bearer of Christ.

I agree with Wally that Fathers have a responsibility here. I don’t know why you make it out to be creepy. My daughters are really good and careful about how they dress, so it’s not a subject that comes up very often, but we’ve had conversations about it occasionally and it’s not creepy or awkward at all.

Actually, Julie does have a point, and I know of several women that would feel the exact same way. What she said was:

As a woman, to think that a man, and especially my father, is looking me over to see if I’m immodestly dressed is disgusting.

Young women with dysfunctional upbringings, especially those with abuse and/or exposure to pornography, will rightly be adversely affected or traumatized by being ‘checked over’ by a man because of their dysfunctional background. It all depends on what their formative experience is with their father and other men. If it’s poor, it would not be received well. If it is good, like I’m assuming Andy’s is, then there won’t be.

[Jay]

Youngwomen with dysfunctional upbringings, especially those with abuse and/or exposure to pornography, will rightly be adversely affected or traumatized by being ‘checked over’ by a man because of their dysfunctional background. It all depends on what their formative experience is with their father and other men. If it’s poor, it would not be received well. If it is good, like I’m assuming Andy’s is, then there won’t be.

Jay, you mean well, but I respectfully disagree. It is not appropriate to “check over” any woman. This is not about women who have dysfuntional backgrounds or healthy women. This is about men crossing the line into an area where they ought not be.

Furthermore, I would ask all of the men who read Mr. Bean’s comment (about intentionally looking to see if young women were dressed modestly/immodestly), why they did not say that it was inappropriate? Gentlemen, I plead with you. If you are in church leadership or the father of daughters, please examine your hearts. This thread has been very discouraging to me as a woman. The only immodesty I have seen here has been the hearts of men who think *they* are the ones who get to judge women’s attire.

The thread will get side-tracked if you respond to off topic comments.

“don’t feed the troll”

Don and I don’t often agree. So when we do, it should probably be booked as pretty close to certain truth :)