Bob Jones University Enters a New Era

Greg, you are focusing on the rules, as many on this thread have also. It’s not about the rules as such, but what the rule changes and other changes suggest about a philosophical shift. The way you pose the question suggests that it is just a matter of legalistic view of rules, which it most certainly is not.

I don’t have time right now to address Greg’s comment and some other comments. I’ll spend some time reviewing all the posts and give some comments next week. However, Don is correct that the concerns myself and others have expressed are not about the rules, as such, but relate more to the philosophical shift that has occurred at BJU over the last 10 years. Our concerns have been labeled “cultural”, but they go far beyond any particular culture. EVERYONE here is being influenced by our culture, including those who have criticized myself, Don, and others.

Don, what he’s doing is not an accusation of legalism. What it is is a simple question of whether the BJU behavior standards can, or should, be transported to even the churches, not to mention society as a whole.

And if they cannot, then we must question whether the student handbook—either the old one or the new—is helping students prepare for adult life, or whether it’s hindering that process. My take is that if student rules are completely different from the rules of life in church as an adult, they’re actively hindering young people’s ability to thrive in adult life.

In that light, I would suggest that, inasmuch as the new rules are closer to what we’d see happening in most churches, they are a significant improvement in this regard. Doesn’t go as far as I’d recommend, but it is yet a significant improvement.

Don and Wally,

I’ve been careful not to articulate any particular point. I’ve only asked questions.

Here’s the thing. No matter how you answer the questions I asked, society and even the Christian landscape is such where not everyone is going to come in with the same default assumptions. If the goal is to actually have the opportunity to pass some of the same philosophical and doctrinal conclusions to the next generation, you actually have to pass those on to students (if you are a college).

Is it possible that some of the students coming in with the “more relaxed” entrance standards actually leave with stronger personal principles?

From where I sit as a pastor, I want our church to have room to disciple people. Entry-level people need time and room to grow. As you look at trends—not talking about behavior here—young people in their late teens and twenties tend to be less responsible than they were generations ago when they were off fighting wars, starting families, and so on. I’m not slamming millennials here, but the trends are for them to live at home longer, defer marriage, take longer to settle into careers, and so forth. This is something fairly observable to most of us, and statistical studies demonstrate this.
If an institution like BJU wants to pass on their distinctives, to much of this generation it’s going to have to be able to introduce them to those principles. Perhaps in the past you could successfully maintain a model that forced strict compliance and adherence to minutiae, in part because even secular homes often had more personal discipline than many do today. That model doesn’t work anywhere near as well today. There is more freedom of choice coupled with less responsibility. It’s how things are.
I would not be so quick to assume that these changes necessarily mean a radical shift in philosophy. It’s at least possible that the changes are a shift in how they pass down their distinctives, and who they are able to influence. But whatever else, incoming students are not the same as they once were. If you want the pictures to have a chance to come out looking good, you don’t want to use oil painting techniques you used to use effectively on canvas when now you have a paper sketch pad.
If the worst that comes out of this is that we have BJU graduates preaching the same truths, living by the same principles, and loving the same Lord, only some wearing jeans and beards… well, there are far worse outcomes. :D And who knows? Maybe some who came with jeans or a beard leave 4 years later looking differently.

[Ron Bean]

Are Stravinsky and Bolero still off limits?

Ron, I don’t remember that being the case even in the 80’s. I had recordings of Bolero, and Stravinsky’s Firebird Suite and Rite of Spring, and I played them in the dorms. Either they weren’t against the rules, or they were and I didn’t know about it. Either way, I wasn’t called on it even once.

[Greg Linscott]

I’ve been careful not to articulate any particular point. I’ve only asked questions.

Greg, you often ask questions like this, and I think you think you are not expressing a particular viewpoint, but trust me, you fail!

[Greg Linscott]

If the worst that comes out of this is that we have BJU graduates preaching the same truths, living by the same principles, and loving the same Lord, only some wearing jeans and beards… well, there are far worse outcomes. And who knows? Maybe some who came with jeans or a beard leave 4 years later looking differently.

If that was all that was at issue, I would have NO complaints.

I don’t think it ever was banned. I know I had it on an LP* and played it in the dorms.

*LP = ancient form of CD**

**CD = ancient form of downloadable tracks***

***downloadable tracks = ancient form of streaming audio…

etc.

Maybe I’m just way out of the BJU loop, but even when I was there, I didn’t look at BJU rules as “Rules for The Only True Christian Life (TM).” They were simply for the school itself. The students came from many different churches, and many different denominations (I came from an independent Methodist church myself), and some of the students weren’t from Christian homes at all. But the schools’ rules were for everyone. I’m fairly sure that most of the students (at least all those I talked to) thought the idea of having to live by BJU’s rules either between semesters or in the summer was a little (or more than a little) ridiculous. But for the time we were at school, we all considered them valid, even if we didn’t agree with each one. I don’t think any of us thought that all of them would apply in our home churches.

I never got the feeling that BJU was trying to standardize churches on a set of fundamentalist rules that everyone could agree on. However, any organization needs a set of rules that it goes by, and those were the BJU rules. Any church has its own set of rules/standards that will be laid out in its constitution and church covenant. I’m sure there is quite a bit of overlap between BJU standards and the those of the various churches that would send students there. Most likely the school did some thinking along those lines when they first organized. However, since the school and supporting churches are not the same, there is no reason to try to enforce school rules in any particular church. Not only are they not the same organization, they are not even the same types of organizations. There really is no comparison.

I’m not entirely sure what BJU’s new philosophy is that is now off-putting where it wasn’t before, but for any change, there will be men/churches who are against and those who are for. That’s just the nature of the beast. However, they still have nothing to do with our rules at home or in our churches.

Dave. I remember Bolero was on the bad list when it became popular via the movie “10” in 1979 and the “activity” it supported in the film. I tell my classically trained wife that I still hear it when I watch the auto-de fey scene in Flame in the Wind. I’ll have to check with her about Stravinsky being able to be listened to but not performed.

Don said “Greg, you often ask questions like this, and I think you think you are not expressing a particular viewpoint, but trust me, you fail!” And THIS reaction to questions (the assigning of motives) is why a generation with sincere questions about fundamentalism quit asking and just walked away.

[Don Johnson]

I don’t think it ever was banned. I know I had it on an LP* and played it in the dorms.

*LP = ancient form of CD**

All my recordings were on LP or cassette too. I knew a couple of rich students that had CD decks on campus in 1981 or 1982, but they were still rare and expensive at that time.

What it is is a simple question of whether the BJU behavior standards can, or should, be transported to even the churches, not to mention society as a whole.

And if they cannot, then we must question whether the student handbook—either the old one or the new—is helping students prepare for adult life, or whether it’s hindering that process.

Where did this idea come from that the only rules that an organization can have are rules that can be transported into a church? Why would you translate rules like being late to class or having homework done and turned in or some such into church? Or paying your school bill late or not at all. There are all kinds of rules for good order and living in community that aren’t necessary in church for various reasons, or would be handled differently in church. This seeming obsession with only having rules that work in church or with disciplship only taking place in church seems weird to me. It seems to me that no business, no organization, or no school could operate successfully under such a rubric.

[Ron Bean]

Dave. I remember Bolero was on the bad list when it became popular via the movie “10” in 1979 and the “activity” it supported in the film. I tell my classically trained wife that I still hear it when I watch the auto-de fey scene in Flame in the Wind. I’ll have to check with her about Stravinsky being able to be listened to but not performed.

Ron, even for the 80’s I was out of step with most of the students I knew, as classical music was a much larger percentage of my recordings than for any other student I knew outside the music department. I suspect that even most of the hall monitors, let alone students, probably would not have recognized that recording when they heard it, as they would not have recognized most classical pieces.

I’m running the risk of completely derailing this thread, but…

How much freedom should there be for people to live in compliance with NT living and experience the natural consequences of their actions vs. institutionally enforced penalties (i.e., being placed on academic discipline for lack of faithful church membership and failure to provoke others to love and good works—purposefully extreme example)?

There have been a few times when I’ve made parallels in my head from this discussion back to the Maddi Runkles/HCA issue from two or three months ago. It seems like we have the same ‘sides’ in the debate in terms of participants and the same basic question about the efficiency and efficacy of institutional rules and policies. Different issues on the surface, but the root debate remains the same.

Don,

We may have contrasting perspectives. You may think you know what mine are and how they differ from yours. But still, why not allow that to be confirmed, rather than assuming? If not for our own personal benefit, at least for others who are reading in this public forum. This is an opportunity to influence and persuade. Make your point… flesh it out!

As far as BJU goes… to hear past generations speak, they used to be broader in some ways across demonations, right? I’m not an alumnus, but as I understand it, there were SS classes after the Sunday service divided along denominational lines… Presbyterian, various streams of Baptist, Bible churches, and so on. In the 1990s and 2000s, as I understand it, there was more pressure to become more Baptist, after pastors lamented that they sent their students there Baptist and they left Presbyterian. With that said, there have been shifts before as they have adjusted to things. That one was good if you were Baptist… not so much if you were Free Pres.
This adjustment, whatever else it is, is not as seismic as some are making it out to be. And even if it is looser than some might hope for, where exactly is someone who maintains high personal standards not going to be confronted with occasional reminders that not everyone parses it out exactly like they do? I still would tend to believe that even with the changes being what they are, BJU would have a far higher ratio of people who would be friendly and encouraging of those who were more particular about specific principles of personal holiness than most places.

[Don Johnson]

If the worst that comes out of this is that we have BJU graduates preaching the same truths, living by the same principles, and loving the same Lord, only some wearing jeans and beards… well, there are far worse outcomes. And who knows? Maybe some who came with jeans or a beard leave 4 years later looking differently.

If that was all that was at issue, I would have NO complaints.

OK, so what IS at issue, Don? I’ve heard from you that you dislike intercollegiate athletics and like the old groups of 40-50 students, and that you think it’s a shame that they don’t seem to be enforcing the rules they have, especially in the area of modesty. You mention that BJU used to teach people how to live, but I’m not quite sure you’ve fleshed that one out.

You’ve referred to a general change of direction at the university transcending this, but I am no more getting a clear definition of what this is than I’ve gotten a clear definition of “convergent.” What are you getting at, brother? (on either question) I might guess that you would view the sum total of changes as something of a confession that they’re giving up on separation from the world, but I’d like you to write for yourself.

And if that is the issue, my response is that if indeed the old standards are not quite required by Scripture, and do not even come supported by valid inference, all that is going on is that BJU is retreating from “Enforcing southern culture absent mint juleps but claiming it’s a Biblical necessity.” And if they’re retreating from mis-representing southern fundamental culture as uniquely Biblical, that is a good thing.