Bob Jones University Enters a New Era

[Don Johnson]

Jay wrote:

Don, are schools like BJU there to build discipline or to educate? You have made several comments along this line now.

What is education? Just filling heads full of facts?

I agree that education is not the transmission of facts in a vacuum (which ain’t possible anyway). So—what does it mean to “maintain discipline” with regards to preserving a learning environment?

What other people are wearing, listening to, or watching on the weekends doesn’t affect the ability to learn, especially not during class time.

If someone applies to and is accepted to a school (or job or organization etc.) they should also comply with whatever standards are required. IMO the sticky wicket of ‘spiritual standards’ is the motivation for and the intended results of those standards.

If someone applies to and is accepted to a school (or job or organization etc.) they should also comply with whatever standards are required.

There is a massive difference between rules put in place to maintain a smooth and orderly environment in a school or workplace and Don (and the others’) idea that rules should be developed and maintained to mold Christian character.

I can’t think of an instance in the Bible where the Scripture is given to directly mold character like this. It’s given to make us aware of God and His commands (Romans 7:7-17). That type of molding must be done by parents and peers in our formative years (Deut. 6:4-25).

Which, indirectly, puts us back at trying to understand what Don is seeking to accomplish with rules and what, exactly, he sees wrong with the spiritual environment at BJU.

….doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a good idea. One can say “their school, their rules” until the cows come home, but that doesn’t prevent the consequences of that decision, and it certainly doesn’t make it smart to refuse to listen to those who point out those consequences. To draw a couple of pictures, I’d be surprised if enrollment at HCA didn’t decline significantly this year (Maddi Runkles case), and I’d guess many of these matters have a lot to do with the long term decline of BJU and other fundamental institutions. This kind of authoritarianism leaves a mark that is not healthy for the movement in the long term.

[Jay]

If someone applies to and is accepted to a school (or job or organization etc.) they should also comply with whatever standards are required.

There is a massive difference between rules put in place to maintain a smooth and orderly environment in a school or workplace and Don (and the others’) idea that rules should be developed and maintained to mold Christian character.

Which is why I said, “IMO the sticky wicket of ‘spiritual standards’ is the motivation for and the intended results of those standards.” Judging by the reactions we see to various schools, colleges, and other Christian organizations changing their standards, there appears to be a strong link between strict standards and their reputation for being ‘spiritual’. But those ‘strict’ standards are what? No jeans, wear a shirt and tie, keep your hair off your ears and your skirt below the knee…and that somehow makes one place more ‘spiritual’ than another?

If we really believe these schools can ‘mold’ Christian character with their standards, and that’s the overarching goal, then why aren’t those standards more in line with the things Christ emphasized as essential? Why is it always about hair, movies, and clothing?

….per Susan’s comment at 2:52, that if a BJU student were “unlucky” enough to get an invitation to a wedding, and if he were “foolish” enough to celebrate that wedding through the typical dances, he’d be put on probation(p. 43, BJU student handbook). And if he were foolish enough to quench his thirst there, he’d be suspended.

Nothing says “spirituality” like telling our Lord that His first miracle occurred at a place where one ought not be, and that those who partook of it are guilty of a “major moral failure.” Note as well that the student handbook makes NO attempt to justify this classification in Biblical or rhetorical terms.

Brothers and sisters, this is the kind of thing I’m getting at when I say that how one argues the rules matters even more than what the rules are. Sure, they’ve got the right to their rules. In the same way, parents and prospective students have the right to say “what on earth does this have to do with spiritual growth?”. I know that question was asked in my family.

But the attitude generally here seems to be that at 18 we cut them loose to learn on their own. I disagree with that. It also matters in a large group setting where standards are different than for small group settings. It seems like a lot of pie in the sky kind of idealism that simply isn’t reality. Your daughters are correct. Many people at that age are not adults because they aren’t prepared to handle life. Being 18 didn’t magically change that.

Not quite. There’s a positive side to what I’m saying and a negative.

The positive side of what I’m saying is that by 18, adults shouldn’t need a ton of guidance about things like what music to listen to, how to dress, or why it’s important to show up for classes that someone is forking five figures per year over for. My whole point is people are fairly well formed by the time they are 18, and you can put whatever rules you would like on top of them temporarily, but they’re fairly well formed at that point and those rules can paint over issues, but they can’t patch holes.

On the flip side, I do think that if teenagers haven’t learned those basic life skills by the time they are 18, then what they really do need is to start running into hard consequences like getting diseases, being fired, running up their debts and falling behind, losing a job because they aren’t on time, etc. That was TylerR’s point much earlier in the thread. There is [likely :)] a reason why one of the qualifications for an elder is that they have raised children that are walking with the Lord and generally productive people (1 Timothy 3:4-5).

I married my wife at the age of 26, straight out of grad school. I was seriously - grossly - unprepared for living on my own, and then when she got sick, I had to grow up very fast and learn a lot of life skills I should have had a long time beforehand. So I’m not talking about theory here. If I hadn’t gotten hammered by the school of hard knocks for about two solid years, I would probably still be immature in a lot of ways. But I managed to keep most of the rules at BJU and even NIU just fine at 18-24 (I took time off between undergrad and grad school).

How would you react if your local county attorney failed to charge, say, some 18, or 22, or 25, or 28, or whatever year old (the suspect in some terrible crime) as an adult, on the basis of, “he lacks the maturity to be an adult.”

In that situation, would you view adulthood as a objective standard (attainment of a specific legal age) or a subjective standard (degree of maturity)?

In my view, you are confusing legal issues with moral ones. But mental illness or mental debilitation of some sort or another is often a factor in charging and sentencing decisions, which again, supports my view. It is commonly known that this is the case. We talk about a 25 year old with the mentality of a 10 year old. Well, that’s my point. Being over 18 says nothing about the mind and maturity. We see it in the news most often in death penalty appeals in which a convicted killer is requesting leniency because of his mental state. So the principle to which I am appealing is well recognized.

I think it is also the confusing realms—the realm of society in providing a orderly community and the realm of family and community in teaching and raising responsible citizens. Simply put, law enforcement and prosecutors have a different role and goal then parents and teachers.

I am not sure how to respond here for several reasons, partly because I find it challenging to even understand how this is disputable and partly because I don’t want to go down this rabbit hole timewise. I think Susan is correct and I am not sure why Jay agrees with Susan for making my point, but doesn’t agree with me when I make the same point.

As I think about this conversation, it seems to me that there are two basic sides and two basic approaches. There is the side that focuses on the idea of legality (which is arbitrary as Greg points out) and the side that focuses on morality. To me, being an adult is a moral state in which one is able to care for themselves and live responsibility and respectfully towards others. For some that happens in their mid-teens and for others that happens quite a bit later. For me reaching the moral idea of adulthood requires training until it is reached. It doesn’t magically happen on a birthday, which is the other side, that adulthood happens on the 18th birthday come hell or high water.

There are also two basic approaches. There is the either/or approach, in which we either train and discipline them like children or we cut them loose and let them go. Conversely there is the both/and approach that recognizes that people mature at different rates and different ages, and need different things to help them get there. Again, I am clearly on one side while many are on the other side.

Think about how we as a culture deal with the mentally challenged people in the 20s and 30s and up. That is a de facto admission that being an adult is not an age.

Think about the arbitrary nature of this as Greg pointed out. You can vote and fight in the army at 18 but can’t drink until 21. Why? If you say they should be able to drink at 18, why not 17? Or 19? Why not 15? In fact, what is the basis for having any age? There are an awful lot of 17 year olds out there who can handle alcohol responsibly. Who is the government to tell them otherwise? Or marriage. There is a legal age requirement. But it’s different if the parents approve (in most states). On what basis do we decide that?

Now, I would say those things prove my point, namely, that while there are exceptions and/or differences, the good order of society makes it wise to have certain rules that may be somewhat arbitrary.

Now, on specifically and quickly to Bert’s comments.

We’re comparing college students to octogenarians now, Larry? Huh?

It seems that you overlooked that I was responding to your claim that adults know what they need to attend. I pointed out a real-life situation that appears to contradict your claim. So I wonder, are you saying an 80 year old is not an adult? Or does your claim need revision? It seems like you have to do one or the other.

In my view, we need to be more careful in our claims and consider the evidence. My objection from the beginning was these broad and sweeping statements that simply cannot be made with any legitimate foundation. You have no way of attesting to the adulthood of 18 year olds as a whole, or saying that adults know what they need to attend and what they can skip. You simply cannot know that, unless you think that being an adult is simply a day on the calendar.

I would also have thought that the relative lack of problems at MIT and Brown, given their Ivy League/nation-leading status, would be obvious, but apparently this is wishful thinking on my part.

Yes, it is wishful thinking because it is without foundation. I have no idea about the problems or lack of problems at MIT and Brown. But you said “we see” that class attendance is a very weak predictor of academic success and wanted to know where we see it. It is wishful thinking that “relative lack of problems” being “obvious” leads to the conclusion you drew. You made the claim that most students not in class were either sick or on their way out of the school, which you seemed to indicate was rare. My point was that there was evidence that skipping class was more widespread than that and not for those reasons.

BTW, a number of college professors actually require attendance and have consequences for those who don’t attend. So my position is not out of the ordinary, nor is your the only one being used. You can google it and find all sorts of evidence for teachers taking my position that failure to attend class should have significant consequences.

BJU’s policy of taking attendance (see the student handbook) might actually hinder student achievement.

How so? Are you suggesting that if attendance wasn’t taken, more students would stay at school and graduate? Perhaps, but is that a good reason? Doesn’t this say something about their character when they would drop out of school because too much is required? A lot of businesses would still have employees if they weren’t so strict on showing up for work. Let’s face it, taking work attendance might actually hinder employment rates. What if an employee decides just not to attend a mandatory safety training session on the grounds that they are adults who know what they need to attend?

One of the ways we help young people mature is, after all, granting them the right to make some mistakes. Maybe BJU, and the fundamental community in general, ought to consider this.

Of course. BJU and everyone else does. The difference is in teh consequences for those mistakes. Should we let them be just natural or should we impose something else? If we say “only natural,” we might be setting up a disaster because a person might get away with it for a long period of time and assume there is nothing wrong. Then disaster hits that was unnecessary because they weren’t properly taught.

And one of the ways we help people mature is by helping them until they can help themselves, or giving them guidelines.

I think there is a very distinct difference in the way we view human nature and the way we view adulthood, and certainly in the way we view training for life. I continue to be of the view that we train people until they don’t need it anymore, rather than training them until they reach a certain age.

[Larry]

In my view, you are confusing legal issues with moral ones.

Likewise.

[Larry]

But mental illness or mental debilitation of some sort or another is often a factor in charging and sentencing decisions, which again, supports my view. It is commonly known that this is the case. We talk about a 25 year old with the mentality of a 10 year old. Well, that’s my point. Being over 18 says nothing about the mind and maturity. We see it in the news most often in death penalty appeals in which a convicted killer is requesting leniency because of his mental state. So the principle to which I am appealing is well recognized.

Who said anything about mental illness? My example dealt solely with perceived immaturity.

Let me rephrase the question: If some 18, or 22, or 25, or 28 year old held you up at gunpoint, would you be satisfied if “the system” chose to not prosecute him as an adult due to somebody’s perception that he is/was too immature (behaviorally/societally, not mentally) to be charged as such? Or would you expect, even demand, that the objective standard of his being of “legal” age take precedence?

Who said anything about mental illness? My example dealt solely with perceived immaturity.

That “perceived immaturity” may be mental illness. It may not be. My point is that the perceived immaturity, whatever the cause, is often taken into account in legal settings.

Let me rephrase the question: If some 18, or 22, or 25, or 28 year old held you up at gunpoint, would you be satisfied if “the system” chose to not prosecute him as an adult due to somebody’s perception that he is/was too immature (behaviorally/societally, not mentally) to be charged as such? Or would you expect, even demand, that the objective standard of his being of “legal” age take precedence?

It is hard to respond to hypotheticals. But held me up at gunpoint? I would expect that the legal objective standard take precedence. But what should we do as a sentence? And what place does mitigating factors take? I don’t know the answer to that. It is easy from our armchairs to deal with hypotheticals, but when I look at my office window and see a guy walking down the street talking loudly to himself, it’s a bit different.

And what if that 28 year old with the mentality of a 10 year old drops his pants to urinate a public park playground? Should he receive the same treatment as someone who intentionally exposes himself to children? Perhaps the answer is no.

Again, my point is that mental and moral development take place over time, and it does not always take place at the same rate for different people. It requires training. People who don’t need it, don’t need it. But they generally aren’t bothered that other people need it, unless they are immature and arrogant.

Larry, I do think your point makes sense when it comes to general relativity of maturity. At the same time, even retirees can “relapse” into very immature behavior. Look at how many “mature adults” in the world today make irresponsible, immature, and selfish decisions when it comes to marriage and sexuality (say, Bruce Jenner). At what point do we stop “training” with rules and simply exhort people to do what is right? I’m not sure the conditioning rules are the best answer, at least eventually. There comes a point where the person should know better, and simply chooses to do it or not, regardless of “maturity level,” doesn’t there? At some point, either they comply or they are living in open rebellion. We sometimes can use terms like “immature” and “juvenile” to describe what the Bible simple calls sin or foolish.

I can’t think of an instance in the Bible where the Scripture is given to directly mold character like this.

1 Tim 4:8 seems relevant here. 1 Cor 9:27 seems to speak to this. And most of the book of Proverbs. And other passages as well.

IThat type of molding must be done by parents and peers in our formative years (Deut. 6:4-25).

Which returns us to the question: When do those formative years stop? At 18? Or when a person is able to form himself? I say the latter. It may stop at 15 or 16 or some things or some people. Or even 9 or 10. It may be 25 for other things. I don’t think there is a “one age fits all” answer to it, or a “one size fits all” method of going about it.

Greg, I agree. I would point to a “general relativity of maturity.” Generally, sometime around 18-22 we begin to see the things take shape more. In answer to “when we stop training with rules,” the answer seems to be when they are no longer needed or when there is a demonstrated incorribility and hard-hearted rejection (the scoffer or mocker in Proverbs). As I said above, there is no “one age fits all” or “one method fits all.”

Per Ron’s comments about Ikea, when I was working at a little electronics factory, one thing I learned quickly was that in general, the hourly people doing the machining and assembly knew exactly what was wrong with the process. So when some of the failures of that process came to the NMR area (nonconforming material), my task was generally to print out the current instructions, figure out which operators were involved in building the bad product, and simply ask them about what they think caused it. 9 times out of ten, they solved my problem, and my only task remaining was to write up the changes they’d recommended into the build instructions and fill out my 8D report.

Ron says something similar. But my guess is that you probably didn’t do this with a first day hire right out of high school who had never had a job before. And you probably didn’t do it on his second day. Perhaps you started on the third day. Or fourth. Who knows. But you knew that his lack of experience at the job and in the workforce period meant he was unable to contribute much of anything to the discussion. You understand that he needed to mature in the job and gain a little experience before being able to contribute much.

And at least that 1 time out of 10 (assuming your numbers are accurate), you to tell the person he was wrong.

But let’s go from there. These employees tell you a better way to do it, so you write it up and change the policy. Then you have an employee or two who refuses to do it. What do you do? Don’t you have a graded scale of consequences? Perhaps the first time or two, you just give a verbal warning and some instruction. Here you decide whether it is inability (as in “can’t do the job”) or refusal (as in “won’t do the job”), and you would probably handle this differently. Then you might give a written warning or two for the file. Then you might give a day suspension, or a week. And then you might fire them. Of course, you might fire them on the first time if it is serious enough departure from policy. None of those are natural consequences of the actions. They are all somewhat arbitrary.

If one of them were as Christian and were to say, “What’s your Bible verse for that?” you would tell them you don’t need one because you recognize that rules without a verse are perfectly acceptable in life.

This is company policy at almost every company outside of very small family type businesses (who would have a very similar process, even though it isn’t formalized).

Again, it seems to me that you would recognize the value and necessity of rules to train and to help at a corporate level along with nonnatural consequences as well as natural ones.

The positive side of what I’m saying is that by 18, adults shouldn’t need a ton of guidance about things like what music to listen to, how to dress, or why it’s important to show up for classes that someone is forking five figures per year over for.

Maybe they shouldn’t. But don’t they often? Again, it seems like we are at the idealism state in talking about what “should be” rather than what actually “is.” To me, we have to deal with what is, regardless of what we think should be.

My whole point is people are fairly well formed by the time they are 18, and you can put whatever rules you would like on top of them temporarily, but they’re fairly well formed at that point and those rules can paint over issues, but they can’t patch holes.

People may be “fairly well formed” but what does that actually mean? And is there no more room for growth?

Should we really quit teaching and training and expose people to diseases simply because we think they should be handle to make a right decision? Should we let them run up $20,000 in credit card debt by 22 because we think they should learn the hard way?

There is [likely [Smile] ] a reason why one of the qualifications for an elder is that they have raised children that are walking with the Lord and generally productive people (1 Timothy 3:4-5).

This actually isn’t the qualification. The qualification is to manage his own household well and children that walk obediently. A man is not disqualiifed because his children are still young.

I married my wife at the age of 26, straight out of grad school. I was seriously - grossly - unprepared for living on my own, and then when she got sick, I had to grow up very fast and learn a lot of life skills I should have had a long time beforehand.

Doesn’t this prove my point that 18 was not some magical point in your life? That you still needed help and guidance after this?

Here’s the odd part of this to me. It seems like everyone here agrees with me about the issue: That people around 18-20 should be mature and able to handle life responsibly although some are not. The difference is in what we should do about it .