Bob Jones University Enters a New Era

Larry, my comment was not directed at you. I was reminded of an incident. I have 2 sons, both BJU grads BTW. One is an officer in the Navy the other is a stage actor. I had a well-meaning friend who is a retired Navy officer quietly pull me aside and express his concern that one of my sons was in a line of work where he was surrounded by sinful and wicked people and wondered how and why a Christian man could choose such a profession. I told him that he knew what the Navy was like when he enlisted!

As to rules, as a former BJU student and Christian school administrator I remember being told repeatedly that one of the reasons for rules was to teach obedience expose rebels.

[TylerR]

I believe the faster your method dies, the better off fundamentalism will be. I don’t say that to score cheap points, I say it because I’ve pastored a church where this brand of fundamentalism had reigned for a very long time, under a variety of fundamentalist pastors. That place did more spiritual damage than good, and produced a host of false converts, and hurt a lot of people. That approach is reflected in some of the more draconian approaches BJU and other institutions used to take (some still do). This approach should die and it must die, and I’m very happy whenever it does.

You are still doing what Larry has pointed out, equating your NARROW experience with ALL of fundamentalism and with what you perceive to be the culture at BJU either in my era there or now.

You and I had a personal face to face conversation where you described more of the details of your experience with your former church. I don’t recognize that experience as typical of “this brand of fundamentalism.” It may be typical of another brand, just not “this brand.” By “this brand” I would suggest I mean most of the churches in the BJU/Maranatha/Northland/Central/Detroit orbit, for want of a better description. Do you mean something different by “this brand”?

If we mean the same thing, you are letting your narrow experience define the broader experience. Several guys here, Larry, AndyE, G. N. Barkman, Adam Blumer and I, while we have some differences and distinctions between ourselves, are generally of that “brand” and we are saying that your experience doesn’t define the fundamentalism we inhabit or the BJU we experienced.

Yet you keep on with the same narrative, heedless of what others say, regardless of their experience. It seems useless to talk about it any longer. You have your narrative and you are sticking to it. I guess we’ll have to leave it at that. Over time, things will fall out the way they will fall out and we will see who is correct about these matters.

I view the FBFI, in general, as broadly reflective of some of the worst tendencies from that stripe of fundamentalism. The unfortunate hit piece by Bro. Unruh from last year’s Frontline edition is a perfect example. We will indeed see how that brand of fundamentalism shakes out. Actually, when you look at the current state of the FBFI, we’re already seeing it, and it ain’t good. It’s an organization that is increasingly isolated, insulated, trending older, and on its way down in flames. There’s a reason for that, and it’s typified by Unruh’s article.

There are spectrums of fundamentalism, and my own experiences are broadly reflective of some of the far-right versions, trending towards center-right. I peg the FBFI as center-right, trending further right, depending on what day of the week it is. Bro. Unruh’s unfortunate article reflects the kind of fundamentalism I believe should die, and die fast. BJU’s pivot away from the unfortunate excesses of the past is welcome, needed and necessary. I believe it is a breath of fresh air and sanity, and a retreat from some of the silliness and pettiness of the past.

We simply have a difference in philosophy and methodology. Much is the same about our perspectives, but there is a lot that is different, too. For those who have eyes to see, there is a great divide on this thread about methodology and philosophy of the Christian life, and discipleship in general. In the end, that is what this entire thread about BJU boils down to. Look at the various taxonomy charts floating around SI; that is the whole issue. This BJU issue is merely the latest nexus which has, once again, brought out this contrast.

I understand some of you are frustrated by my comments along this line. I love and respect you all, but just disagree with the approaches I’ve seen. I’ve never felt like I truly “belonged” in any Christian sub-culture. In my experience, fundamentalists were generally intellectually vacuous and/or overly legalistic, and evangelicals were wishy-washy about everything but Jesus and the Cross. I was happy beyond words to discover that fundamentalists actually had brains, when I went to Seminary at Maranatha! My pastor recommended I go there, because he came from hard right fundamentalism, and knew that flavor of fundamentalism was corrupt and worthless. How joyous to actually delve deep into theology!

I was truly blessed to stumble upon the GARBC, which has its own problems, but generally presents a sane version of fundamentalism. To be sure, it’s “convergent” fundamentalism, but I think it’s a better, healthier, and more edifying approach. This is the mindset I bring to these discussions.

Ciao.

You are still doing what Larry has pointed out, equating your NARROW experience with ALL of fundamentalism and with what you perceive to be the culture at BJU either in my era there or now.

With all due respect, Don, how do we know * you * aren’t arguing based on your ‘narrow experience with all of fundamentalism’? You are far more heavily invested in BJU (eleven degrees, I think is what you said) and with ‘fundamentalism’ (as a Board member of the FBFI, administrator of Proclaim and Defend) than anyone else on this discussion is. I also seem to recall that you were, at some time in the past, a Board member at BJU.

I could argue that you have an even more constrained view of fundamentalism than anyone else here simply because you’re a relatively ‘big fish’ in the pond.

Why had BJU’s student body shrunk from over 6000 to the low 2000’s. Why have the FBFI and the ACCC declined in numbers over the last 20 years? I remember 30 years ago when the World Congress of Fundamentalists filled the campus and the amphitorium at BJU. What happened?

I suppose it could be chalked up to the “we’re in the last days and we are the remnant” explanation or people could admit that they need to change and can change without surrendering Biblical truth.

I was told today that one of the reasons for business failures (and maybe for ministry failures) is that when decline starts and continues leadership often enters a state of denial that they might cover with the false hope that the decline is temporary. They often find it difficult to discern why people aren’t coming to their stores or using their services. Sadly when criticism of their business is heard it is dismissed as insignificant, not realizing that many people, when poorly served, just walk away without a word.

I don’t know for sure but I would suggest several things:

1. Lack of Regional Accreditation when it became more important due to proliferation of diploma mills
2. Downturn in the economy along with rising tuition costs
3. Going to the Supreme Court over the interracial dating issue – this occurred at the height of their enrollment and I think this policy has created a great deal of ill-will toward the school that they are still trying to overcome – I think this poor perception is changing.
4. Jack Van Impe’s book, Heart Disease in Christ’s Body — this came out when I was in school and I think it had a larger impact than most people give it credit for — I think it hurt the reputation of the Jones’s and contributed to the school’s loss of influence within Fundamentalism. I don’t think anyone has really filled the leadership void within Fundamentalism and that has contributed to the demise of fundamentalism in general. There is much more that could be said about this but that is my take and I could be completely wrong.

The problem with the rules, Larry, is that we teach our children to obey the rules because the authorities are divinely sanctioned (Romans 13), and then if they disobey, treat some instances as deliberate rebellion instead of honest mistake when that isn’t warranted. Nor are we willing to go back and confess when we (the authorities) were wrong to do so.

What do you mean by “we”? “We” don’t do that. You might. And others might. But that wasn’t my experience, typically. Sometimes deliberate rebellion was treated as an honest mistake.

Or then people look at the rules and realize that some of what they have been told (Biblical warrant against interracial dating, for example) as biblical doesn’t hold water and they get confused or decide that all of this has been made up or misapplied.

I have long said that the decline of fundamentalism at large was due to their success in telling people that the Bible was the authority. People read the Bible and actually believed it.

But not all of those rules are good, promote a right understanding of God and His character, or can effectively restrain a sinful heart and desires. Those kinds of rules should be changed or dropped as appropriate.

I am glad you agree with me on that. Some kinds of rules are bad ones. Others can restrain a sinful heart in some ways and protect both the individual and those around them in some ways. Rules should be changed or dropped as appropriate.

Why had BJU’s student body shrunk from over 6000 to the low 2000’s.

I think there are a number of reasons:

1. Regional accreditation became more and more important when it previously wasn’t.
2. There were a growing number of “acceptable” options among fundamentalistic type Christians (in the best sense of the word fundamentalistic).
3. The coming of age of a certain generation who no longer valued the same things their parents had and decided to send their kids elsewhere.
4. The growing cost of BJU as an educational option alongside the amount of student aid available that couldn’t be used at BJU.
5. The reputation of legalism and rigidity (surely earned to a certain degree, though probably not entirely perhaps).
6. A decline in fundamentalist (again in the best sense of the word) churches and thus a declining student population.

Tyler,

Even though my experiences at BJU that I wrote about above were not quite as rosy as some of the other descriptions (mainly having to do with certain aspects of the “discipline atmosphere” there), I’d have to put myself in the same camp as Don, Andy, and the others as to what BJU’s “brand” is. In spite of the fact I didn’t like the way certain things were sometimes handled, those are the things that have (IMO) changed for the better, even though some of the other men would disagree, and it’s why I’m really optimistic right now about the school’s future.

As Andy pointed out, BJU has never really inhabited the same extremes as the other schools you mentioned, and it should go without saying that having strict rules is not something that of itself would put them there. Now, I’m definitely glad that some of the “cultural fundamentalism” baggage is going away, not to mention certain cultural traditions that BJU was simply behind on. I’m sure no student today misses the whole “dress for sit down dinner” that we had in the 80’s, even if some of the men here do. I sure don’t. (Just an aside as a point of reference, my parents, unsaved at the time, attended Oregon State University in the mid 50’s, and lived in the fraternity and sorority houses. They also had to be dressed properly for dinner, and be there on time, and were even fined for “manners” infractions at the table. They had curfews, and the men had to bring the women back to the sorority house by 10 (I think it was) after dates, and there were chaperones that watched couples at the sorority house. BJU was just some years behind in ditching something that culturally, was really no longer a “thing.”)

As to maturity levels, as I’m sure you know, that’s pretty much an individual thing, subject to how the students were raised (reared, for you grammar nazis), and their own personal bent. For myself, I’m fairly certain I would have made a poor MP at 19, even though I came from a military family, and certainly experienced my share of discipline and hard work. Did I absolutely need the structure provided by a place like BJU? I don’t really know, but having those expectations (even though not every rule was from a Bible principle) was probably more beneficial than not. Hearing the word daily in chapel was also a big help.

People could certainly break rules back in the 80’s just like they can now. I think institutional rules at a place like BJU are there not because they can intrinsically increase sanctification, but they are there to help things run smoothly and guide those who want to do right. They certainly cannot prevent a student from doing wrong. In my opinion, the structure provided by a place like BJU can be really helpful to some students, and it will certainly have a better overall spiritual atmosphere than your average state school. It’s not intended to replace a good church, but can definitely supplement a good church when done right.

I’d be the first to agree that there are many ways for Christians to be trained, and an education at BJU just represents one of those. However, since I wanted to go into math/computer science, higher education was more for me than the military was, and I chose to go there. I didn’t completely know what I was getting into, but even though I didn’t like everything, it ended up being really good for me. Obviously, God took you down a different path. That’s not necessarily better, just different. I believe there is still a place for schools like BJU, that uphold the fundamentals of scripture, and provide a place where students can learn in a distinctly Christian atmosphere.

While this was not one of your points, as to schools like BJU losing students, just spend some time googling small regional (non-Christian) colleges, and you will see that many are facing the same thing. I don’t believe the major factor has anything to do with fundamentalism. With the cost of education going up way faster than inflation, students and parents rightly ask whether what they might invest in will be worth it. When I went to school in the 80’s accreditation was not that big a deal. I never faced any issues having a degree from an unaccredited school, though I did also get a grad degree from an accredited institution. Now, that’s definitely not the case, and before BJU got the accreditation, they had a hard time justifying the cost of the education for what the students would be able to do with it afterwards. Look at a place like PCC, which is even a different fundamental brand than BJU, and even more “strict,” in at least some measures, and to my knowledge still not accredited. They have almost double the enrollment of BJU, but the costs are highly subsidized, and in many cases the senior year is free.

No one here will claim BJU is a perfect place, but there is still a place for their type of education. The fact that they have made a number of changes to be more scriptural, less southern culture, more discipleship, and even to not dismiss questioning out of hand is only in their favor. They still won’t be for everyone. I’m glad they are not trying to be.

You hit a lot of the respective nails on the head regarding the reasons for BJU’s decline. Thankfully they’ve had the wisdom to start addressing them in a meaningful way. I’m interested to see if there will be any attempts to address the other groups.

Appreciate your comments. For some people, a full four years at Christian university would be a good thing. I like what BJU has been doing. I like what Maranatha has been doing. My own son is going to get an AA, and transfer into Maranatha on campus for his last two years, because he wants to be a preacher, and I think MBU is the best place he can go to get that training.

I’m just saying there are many ways to skin a cat. Some people can do just fine without a fundamentalist Christian university experience. Others would benefit.

[Jay]

I also seem to recall that you were, at some time in the past, a Board member at BJU.

I could argue that you have an even more constrained view of fundamentalism than anyone else here simply because you’re a relatively ‘big fish’ in the pond.

First, no, never a board member of BJU. I doubt they would ever want me.

Second, granted I have a particular point of view, it isn’t narrowly limited by experience in one church in fundamentalism. There is a difference.

You wrote:

… granted I have a particular point of view, it isn’t narrowly limited by experience in one church in fundamentalism. There is a difference.

I’ve been in five fundamentalist churches, Deacon in two (soon to be three), youth pastor of one, and senior pastor of one. These churches ranged from mildly Ruckmanite to West Coast GARBC-flavor, ranging from Sicily to Olympia. My experience certainly isn’t narrow. :) In fact, it’s pretty wide-ranging. You cannot discount my perspective by claiming it’s an anomoly. Hopefully I misunderstood you, and you weren’t suggesting this.

[TylerR]

You wrote:

… granted I have a particular point of view, it isn’t narrowly limited by experience in one church in fundamentalism. There is a difference.

I’ve been in five fundamentalist churches, Deacon in two (soon to be three), and Pastor of one. These churches ranged from mildly Ruckmanite to West Coast GARBC-flavor. My experience certainly isn’t narrow. In fact, it’s pretty wide-ranging. You cannot discount my perspective by claiming it’s an anomoly. Hopefully I misunderstood you, and you weren’t suggesting this.

Ok, so it’s five not one. You seriously think that experience in five churches gives you a broad perspective of fundamentalism? I’ve probably preached in close to a hundred fundamentalist churches (I haven’t kept count), have personal connections with hundreds of fundamentalist pastors, and I’ve been around awhile. I’m saying you have made up your mind what fundamentalism is based on your limited experience and now you are pontificating about it as if you know. Seriously, think it over.

As far as I know, you have never been to BJU, yet you are talking about the culture there as if you know what it is. I don’t see how you can make such statements, especially in the face of testimonials of several grads in this thread. Now Dave Barnhart has added his 2c and I think Jay also had positive things to say. While there may be things to criticize about BJU from the perspective of say, Jay and Jay-like folks on the one hand, and Me and…(well… maybe I’m all by myself!, but folks sort of in the general direction of my point of view) on the other, your criticisms sound like the criticisms of someone who has never been there and has made up his mind about it based on rumors and half-truths, or a mis-perception of the culture based on the well-known disciplinary tradition. (That’s a terrible sentence, but as usual I’m pressed for time.)

All I am saying at this point is that you should dial back the pontificating a bit. You aren’t describing what the rest of us have experienced in your critiques. Perhaps take the time to listen before pontificating.

This is just disappointing, Don. We’re talking past each other, and you refuse to consider input that doesn’t fit your narrative. I have admitted the fundamentalit Christian university may be appropriate for some people. I don’t claim to know everything, but I do have opinions from what I’ve observed. At what point does anybody have the credentials to critique fundamentalism, according to your standards? What I;’ve heard from you and Larry is that (1) I don’t have the wide-ranging experience to understand fundamentalism, and (2) I must live a sheltered life, have a high (or low?) view of depravity, and not get out much.

I say again, look at your organization and tell me whether it’s thriving?

I shall retire now. I feel we’ve said everything substantive that can be said on this thread.