Bob Jones University Enters a New Era

Here is the topic. I have stayed within the topic by discussing how to view and uphold modesty.

Over the last decade, though, many of the university’s “unusual” rules have been discarded, and a kinder, gentler BJU has emerged, while still holding to the fundamental truths found in their creed. Movie theatres are no longer off limits (certain restrictions still remain in place), women can wear pants, and men are allowed to have beards and their hair has grown noticeably longer. The school has also embraced discipleship over a strict disciplinarian system.

Gentlemen (Don and John E), there is a problem here. First in this thread, I saw blame going on women for wearing clothing that you (in general) believe causes men to lust. I carefully explained that women do not cause men to lust, it is men’s own heart that causes them to lust. Lust is giving over to own’s sinful temptations when the choice could have been made to say NO, yet women are still being blamed. That is wrong. It is a heart issue.

Now, because you two don’t care for my message, you personally attack me. I believe there are rules about personal attacks here at Sharper Iron. I am not a troll. I have been reading here off and on for the last 5+ yrs. If you have a problem with what I am saying, then let’s discuss it like reasonable adults and stop the name calling.

Julie Anne is right; her post is well within the parameters of this discussion. If you don’t want to deal with what she’s saying, then don’t respond, and don’t exacerbate the situation by calling her names.

The comment policy is here, and I’m sure the mods will intervene if they feel it’s necessary.

1) First truth: It is not what a man sees that causes sinful lusts, but what is already in his heart. Jesus said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him because it does not enter his heart… What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” (Mark 7:18-23)

2) Second truth: Every Christian is responsible to not knowingly put a stumbling block across his brother’s path. “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung a round his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42) “Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” (I Corinthians 8:13)

So, Julie Anne is partly right and partly wrong. The woman who unintentionally becomes an object of a man’s lust is innocent. The man is wholly guilty. But a woman who knowingly presents herself as an object of lust is partly guilty. The man is guilty for his sinful thoughts, which should have been averted. The woman is guilty of knowingly trying to arouse sinful thoughts.

Julie Anne is right to observe that too many Christian men put most or all of the responsibility upon women and the way they dress. Christian men should put far more responsibility upon themselves to quench their lusts rather than savor them. But she is wrong to believe that the way a woman dresses is inconsequential. It is not. The Christian men who explain to women that the way they dress can provoke powerful and sinful desires in men is informing Julie Anne and others that they bear some responsibility in this matter.

Tyler,

I have to smile when you scoff at parents who think they need to send their kids to a strict Christian college that has lots of rules to keep them in line, because when you were 19 you didn’t need that but instead you…joined the military. :)

Also, an M.A. (basically 32 credits) is just simply not enough, all other things being equal, for vocational ministry. I have a B.A. and an M.Div. in pastoral ministry, altogether around 224 credit hours in Bible, theology, and pastoral ministry, and there is not a single thing from my undergraduate or graduate studies that I think was superfluous or unnecessary. And I’m not even a senior pastor, I’m “just” an assistant pastor!

I’m not suggesting everyone MUST have both a Bible college and seminary degree; I can sympathize with the argument for someone to get a secular undergraduate degree and then get an M.Div. But an M.Div. would be the very minimum requirement in my mind for vocational ministry.

I think the discussion regarding modesty is distracting from the the main thrust of the OP. Perhaps this modesty/lust issue needs a thread of its own. That being said, ones view may be affected by the way they interpret the David and Bathsheba incident. I’ve heard preachers denounce Bathsheba for taking a bath in a place where David could see her, I’ve heard preachers blame David for acting out his own lust after seeing a beautiful woman washing herself (no immodesty), and I’ve heard preachers blame David for his act and blaming Bathsheba for being too attractive.

But a woman who knowingly presents herself as an object of lust is partly guilty. The man is guilty for his sinful thoughts, which should have been averted. The woman is guilty of knowingly trying to arouse sinful thoughts.

But Julie isn’t talking about that. She is talking about a man deliberately inspecting female students to see if they pass a dress code. There is a huge difference between the two situations.

Furthermore, how do Ron or Don or Julie or you or I know what the heart’s intent is anyway? How do we judge that with any reliable measure? That’s between whoever it is and God. He will deal with that. We can’t.

In the context of BJU, I would agree that any inspection or “policing” of female modesty should be handled by the female staff/administrators. Men (including those on staff) *will* occasionally notice immodesty on women even when they are not specifically looking for it. That has nothing to do with being creepy. It would be reasonable to get a female colleague to then take care of any disciplinary issues. I do think it’s also better (along with my points earlier in the thread) if whoever needs to handle dress infractions (male or female) to go to the student and handle it rather than doing it anonymously. That would allow for some discipleship alongside the discipline.

Fathers are in a little bit different position than at a university. Again, while I would agree that fathers should not be “checking out” their daughters to see if every modesty standard is met (that can usually be handled by the mother, when present), as Andy and others have said, it’s not wrong to point out something that was noticed and that might draw that same type of (maybe unwanted, but maybe, from immature girls, also desired) “checking out” behavior from other males. I have two daughters of my own, and when they were still under my care, I was responsible for them, and if something was too short, too low, or too tight, I would mention it to them, and say why I thought it was unwise or unacceptable (including the possibility of being a stumblingblock for someone else), but I let my wife handle the specific details of their clothing with them.

***** MODERATOR NOTE *****

Let’s not go too deeply into the side trail of exactly who is responsible to handle specific aspects of modesty. This thread is about what regulations are and how they are handled at a specific institution. Please try to stay close to that topic. If someone desires a thread about how men should appropriately and biblically approach the subject of female modesty, please start that as a separate thread from this one.

For reasons I briefly explained here, your comparison of the military to Christian university is fallacious.

• In the military, you are given real responsibility, learn a real trade, and are treated like an adult and expected to act like one. This has not been the approach traditionally taken by fundamentalist undergrad institutions over the past 60 or so years.
• My experiences were not unique; I know countless young men who flourished at 18, 19 or 20 years old, had jobs of real responsibility and importance, and rose to the challenge.
• I remember, at 18 years old working emergency dispatch, trying to get a frantic mother to explain to me where she lived, so I could get an ambulance to her dying daughter. She couldn’t tell me, the daughter died, and she told me I was responsible for her daughter’s death.
• I was an adult, treated like an adult, and forced to live and act like an adult. Or, I suppose I could have gone to BJU and lived in fear of walking on the grass and spent my time dodging demerit Nazis … Which is the better and more realistic finishing school? Let me think for a minute … :)

People just have different ideas of the role a Christian university should play in an adult’s life, and the mode and manner of theological education. These different ideas come from our own contexts and experiences. I respect people who disagree with me. I just ask that those who do disagree try and understand their traditional model isn’t the only way. It may not even be the best way.

I know countless young men who flourished at 18, 19 or 20 years old, had jobs of real responsibility and importance, and rose to the challenge.

Someone (I think it was SusanR) mentioned this a long time ago on a different thread, but there is a long line of men and women who were given immense responsibility even as young as 13/14/15 years old. Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and George Washington might be examples we mentioned. Christopher Columbus might be another.

I agree with the others on this thread that a BA or MA in Bible/Pastoral Studies simply isn’t sufficient to pastor. Tyler mentioned that he would have been run over by a tank if that was all the life experience he had when he was pastoring. My attitude if my church hired a pastor that wasn’t at least thirty would likely be something along the line of ‘throw the fish back and let him grow some more’.

We talk a lot about pastoral qualifications, but I keep going back to something that I read in the book The Coming Evangelical Crisis - the age for Levitical priests as 30. The age for Levitical musicians was 40. Everything in I Timothy 3 indicates an older man - the fact that he is married (3:2,4), that he has children and that we can see the spiritual direction they are going in (3:4-5), and even the fact that a pastor is called an ‘elder’…all of this points to the fact that Biblical pastors are older, established, and stable. That’s not what a 20/24 year old is when they are straight out of Bible College. Maybe by the time they are out of seminary. I wish I’d gotten a BA in something else, and I’m fortunate that I ended up in the job that I have, but too many men graduate from seminary and wind up in untenable situations if the church budget has to go down by 5-10%.

I think we all agree there’s more than one way to skin a cat and get a man trained for pastoral ministry. I am glad BJU is doing well, and I wish them all the best in the years going forward. Of course, Maranatha is better, but nobody can be perfect … :)

[TylerR]

Or, I suppose I could have gone to BJU and lived in fear of walking on the grass and spent my time dodging demerit Nazis … Which is the better and more realistic finishing school? Let me think for a minute …

Tyler, with all due respect, you don’t know what you are talking about. You are caricaturizing, based on very limited (if any) actual experience with BJU. What you are saying is not an argument, it is propaganda. I will grant that you know more about military life than many of the rest of us, but I think you should perhaps grant that those of us who attended BJU probably have a clearer idea about what the environment there was like than you do.

Having spent 12 years at BJ, I think I can speak about the school and its rules. My experience was largely positive. I received an excellent academic education, good Bible teaching, outstanding Christian examples from nearly all the faculty, and a large dose of Christian commitment. Many students were serious minded Christians, and my life was molded and motivated for Christian service.

The rules were not a big deal. Yes, we students joked about them at times, but it didn’t take long to learn what they were, and get into the groove. I never worried about walking on the grass. After all, there were sidewalks everywhere. Why would any one need to walk on the grass? I considered this rule a reasonable effort to keep the grass nice, and eliminate muddy paths. The campus was always sparkling, a real show case of neatness and beauty. That was part of the training.

Was everything perfect? Of course not. No place on earth is. Were there some negatives? Yes, just like everywhere else. Was there room for improvement? Of course, as there is everywhere on earth. I really don’t understand the excessive fascination so many have with the rules at BJU. They were strict. They were clear. They were usually fairly enforced. There were occasional abuses and injustices, just like in real life. It really was good training. I benefited greatly from that time in my life.

However, that doesn’t mean I believe nothing should change. I’m happy with the changes I have observed so far. I think they are needed, and I thankful that BJU is taking some serious steps to make the school more attractive and effective in 2017. What would the naysayers prefer? To see enrollment continue to decline and the school eventuially close it doors? I think the core values are far more important than the incidentals, and I want to see BJU continue its long record of excellent Christian education.

Having graduated from a “daughter school” of BJU, with similar rules and educational philosophy, I encountered 5 types of students:

1. I LOVE RULES: These students found a sense of belonging and security in being told what to do, where to do it, and when to do it. They would be lost without the rules. They usually grew up in homes, churches, and day schools with lots of rules. These people made great floor leaders. Rules = godliness.
2. I DON’T AGREE WITH SOME OF THE RULES, BUT THAT’S OKAY: These students understood going in that there were some crazy rules at the school, but they did their best to obey them. They tended to come from Christian day schools, so they were used to the rules. Students of this group were careful to observe the rules, particularly regarding their dress, and they would encourage others to obey even if they agreed that a rule was crazy. Thus, it was particularly painful to these students when someone from group 1 would accuse them of breaking the rules or give them demerits for dress violations. Rules = submission to authority.
3. I UNDERSTAND RULES ARE NECESSARY, BUT YOU’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME: These students also understood going in that the school had some strict rules, but they didn’t realize the full extent of the rules, demerit system, “being socialed,” anonymous snitching, unwritten rules, etc that went on until they spent a few weeks on campus. For the most part, these students did what they needed to do to make it through the year without getting campused or socialed. However, they often voiced their disagreement with many of the more inane rules (or unwritten rules) and would engage floor leaders, RAs, and the deans office when they felt someone was being overzealous or partial in their enforcement. They would also engage the deans office when they felt a new rule was over the top. Rules = a necessary evil.
4. I HATE RULES: These students found a sense of purpose and excitement in flouting the rules. They despised the rules and those who enforced them. They purposely engaged in activities that either broke the rules or pushed the boundaries. These students came from a variety of environments. My freshman roommates my senior year fell into this category, and both were PKs from strict homes and day schools. However, I had friends who went to public school and less strict homes who found the rules onerous and draconian. Rules = subversive rebellion.
5. WHAT RULES?: These students lasted one or two weeks on campus then either left on their own or were the first batch to be shipped home. Rules = nope.

Having come from public school and a less strict home, I probably existed within groups 2 and 3. I wrote several letters of concern to the deans office regarding inconsistency, hypocrisy, and overzealousness when it came to those who enforced the rules. I wrote letters to the administration when I felt the school was mistreating students. But, I followed the rules for the most part and had a great experience at the school overall.

I took my anecdote about the grass from a conversation between you and Steve Davis. It is true I know nothing about “the grass,” but I gathered from this thread that (1) the grass exists, (2) people occasionally walk on it, and (3) they get demerits for doing so. Therefore, I felt comfy drawing a parallel between (1) worrying about overzealous demerit police vs. (2) being treated like an adult in the military. The point of the parallel is to show that I believe the “University as surrogate parent” approach is less than ideal.

As I said, there are lots of different concepts of the role of the University swirling about in this thread. Here are two questions that may move the discussion forward:

• Is it just the rule changes you object to at BJU?
• Why do you believe adults need these rules at 18, but not 22, in order to live healthy Christian lives?

I know a Pastor (a Faith grad) who didn’t send his daughter to Maranatha’s nursing program because he is done with what he termed a “legalistic” approach to discipleship. She was accepted into a nursing program at a state University and started last week. This is a mature young woman who already has her AA at 18. I suspect this trend will continue. She has learned to be a strong Christian in a secular society, and her parents felt she could do without the “fundamentalist Christian University experience.”