Bob Jones University Enters a New Era

I was thinking about BJU’s pretense of being a military academy, and beyond the fact of what Jay pointed out, and beyond the fact that pastors don’t tell parishioners to charge machine gun nests or be court-martialed, beyond the fact that the rules at USMA have very specific purposes not generally seen at BJU, and beyond the fact that BJU’s qualifications are nothing like those at USMA and the like, there is something else that really, really bothers me about the model.

Specifically, at the time BJU was attempting to model itself after USMA at a time when the charter of West Point was to generate officers who would be competent to lead people who were drafted—in a very real sense, slaves. Historically, it’s the same charter as had the top infantry of Xerxes, the Republican Guard of Iraq, and the top infantry of the Soviet Union in WWII—to stand behind the front line infantry and kill them if they stopped fighting the enemy. Biblically, it’s the same thing Solomon learned when he used conscript labor—it generated rebellion.

In our country, when the soldiers stopped believing in the mission in Vietnam, you had rampant drug use and fragging to the point that the Army withheld fragmentation grenades (hence “fragging”) from soldiers. In civilian life, when companies tried that model, often by hiring retired officers, they often found just how quickly their workers could unionize, and many companies saw their employees actively sabotage their products.

Obviously it’s not just a problem with BJU, and I don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg; was the model chosen because people were predisposed to it, or did authoritarianism become a problem because they adopted the model? I think it’s sufficient to say that the model certainly didn’t help, and it’s my hope and prayer that Pettit can see clearly enough to get rid of it as quickly as possible.

Yes, of course, parents are responsible to raise their kids. The Bible says so. No, BJU isn’t there to replace parents but to partner with them and continue godly training for life (assuming these young people got some of this via church/home beforehand). BJU also isn’t a church. Nor does it claim to be. Conflating the two is inaccurate and rather a strawman.
Few who would consider enrolling their children at BJU give a care about these endless debates about the value of rules or what age a young person becomes mature (topics that really should be their own threads). They already get it. The campus is a wholesome Christian-atmosphere training ground to further equip their kids for life while they pursue an academic degree, and they like that. And I’d add that there are a good number of families, in spite of hard economic times, who still find this option appealing. Hence, the recent growth in enrollment.

Nobody is forcing you to send your kids to BJU, Maranatha, Faith, Pensacola, or anywhere else that has a resident program with rules intended to continue to develop Christian character and equip young people for life. This thread has become rather silly, IMO. If you don’t like subs, then don’t go to Subway. Those who do like Subway have no problem sending their kids there. No need to debate the value of meat slapped between two slices of bread. If you don’t like a place like this, God bless you, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with you. Send your kids somewhere else and stop whining about it.

All Christian colleges or universities have rules, but they have them in lesser or greater degrees. BJU would be considered stricter than Liberty, but Baptist College of Ministry would be stricter than BJU. At one time BJU was known as the West Point of Christian colleges or universities; I’m unsure whether they’d own that label today. It was also known as the “world’s most unusual university.” Distinctiveness was a plus. BJU still believes in biblical standards, and yes, they still have a good number of rules (some institutional and some biblical). Some people like that. Some don’t really care. Some hate it. Again, if you don’t like subs…
Rules at these Christian institutions fall into two categories (an apparently overlooked fact here). Some have to do only with the local campus (walking on the grass, doing room jobs, getting to class on time, sitting in your assigned chapel seat, and so forth). Keeping these rules may be annoying to some, but they teach discipline and submission to authority (good training for life, IMO). The military does the same (but for some bizarre reason, based on this thread, military rules are awesome but Christian college rules are off base). If you don’t like the rules, then you don’t like them. There’s nothing wrong with them if that’s what you want for your kids. Other rules have broader applications for life both on and beyond the campus (no smoking, dancing, imbibing alcohol, cussing, or watching indecent movies, for example); these are all based on biblical principles. When I was at BJU in 1991, most of my friends already believed in these biblically based standards when they stepped on campus, and they still believed in them when they left. They may even abide by some of them in their homes today, because they are good standards for life. A safe guess is that most SI readers already abide by most of these standards, no? So what’s the beef?
What began this debate is that certain BJU standards, some established for decades (and based in biblical principles per published writings, I might add), have been changing and are changing still. Inquiring minds want to know why. Simply changing a biblically based standard that was that way—again, for decades—isn’t persuasive in itself, because the standard is also one some of us personally believe in. This isn’t about walking on the grass; this is about what we teach our daughters to wear when they are in public. Both BJU and some parents share a concern about modesty, but standards on campus are changing. This is why some of us care (and are concerned) about changing standards there and would like to know more. I would guess that some Christian schools even take their cues from Greenville. Changes at a certain campus in South Carolina never occur in a vacuum.

You don’t like BJU’s rules or the philosophy guiding them? You think this system just treats adults like children? Then BJU isn’t for you or your children. God bless you, you’re welcome to your opinion. But what’s the point? I don’t see the place shutting its doors or retooling anything just because you don’t like it. Some folks still see value in a place like that, and that’s probably why God hasn’t closed its doors.

I’m not a huge fan of BJ (didn’t attend, haven’t agreed with all of its rules and positions), but I completely agree with Adam’s post. This thread has gotten far afield and quite silly IMO.

On the other hand, other than perhaps modesty, I still don’t understand what specific changes at BJ some disagree with and why. From what little I know, I’m glad they are relaxing some of these things and focusing more (perhaps) on discipleship as a whole rather than a rules-based, military-style system of teaching discipline.

You wrote:

Keeping these rules may be annoying to some, but they teach discipline and submission to authority (good training for life, IMO). The military does the same (but for some bizarre reason, based on this thread, military rules are awesome but Christian college rules are off base).

In the military, I was paid to endure that - and paid well ($55k annually as a 21-yr old E5)! At many Christian universities, students are paying them to endure their silliness. That’s a big difference! :) And, the military isn’t a finishing school for “young people.” It treats people like adults, gives them responsibility, and lets you know it trusts you. Again, I compare the MM3 on watch on the engine room, or myself working a fatal traffic wreck at 20 … to the university junior who hopes he can make his assigned chapel seat before attendance is taken. No matter which way you slice it, these two institutions treat people very differently.

Who is paying or being paid to be in this environment doesn’t change the point I’m making.

Yes, I get it:

Military rules are great.

Christian college rules are bad.

Just say it over and over again until you believe it.

I agree with the idea that “If you don’t like the way BJU runs things you don’t have to go there”. I preached it when I defended the school, including their pseudo-biblical convictions against inter-racial dating and accreditation. I remember proudly declaring numbers of times that BJU actually had a black student (Willie Thompson) and summer ministry teams in the 80’s being schooled in how to handle questions about the racial position of BJU. It appears that large numbers of people took that advice and enrollment nose-dived. Today, things have changed but maybe the mantra “if you don’t like it–you don’t have to go” still applies.

Adam,

If what Ron Bean described (above) is accurate, I’m surprised anyone would be proud to graduate from that institution. The Pharisees would have loved the place. The more BJU graduates share their storesi about the “old days,” the more horrified I become. I’m actually re-thinking sending my son to Maranatha for undergrad. Now, I’m even more grateful for BJU’s course change.

In the military, one wears the uniform because to not do so in combat is a war crime, and it’s crucial to fellow soldiers figuring out how to interact with you quickly. At BJU, one wears a sort of uniform…..OK, why?

In the military, one shaves because a beard prevents a gas mask from sealing. At BJU, one didn’t because hippies wore beards.

In the military, one shines one’s boots (where appropriate) because wax preserves the leather from the mud of the trenches. At BJU, it’s simply a matter of appearances, really.

In the military, class attendance is required because one soldier’s failure to learn can “ruin the whole day” for many other soldiers. At BJU, it’s simply an issue of whether that student learns.

The military restricts (restricted?) fraternization because of discipline problems if officers date enlisted personnel. BJU did it because of race.

The Navy prohibits alcohol on board ship because a drunken sailor can destroy critical systems. BJU prohibits alcohol ….well, their latest student handbook doesn’t really give a reason.

I hope all can see a pattern here. Yes, both BJU and the military have restrictive rules that outsiders do not always understand. However, when one takes a close look at the rules and the justification for them, I’d argue that the military has far stronger grounds for its rules than does BJU, old or new. Again, I hope that BJU starts to look closely and correct this; rules do not make any old school a military academy, as thousands of graduates of “military boarding schools” will tell you.

Why would I feel that way, Tyler? I didn’t share Ron’s experience. It doesn’t even sound like the same campus, but I’m not calling him a liar. I’ve already written about the great experience I had there.
Just curious: Why on earth would scary stories about BJU in the old days negatively affect your decision about Maranatha? Apples and oranges.

I mean I’m not sure I want to pay to send my son to a fundamentalist institution for undergrad, because I despise the legalistic approach that fundamentalist institutions have historically taken to the undergrad experience. I looked at the MBU handbook, and the BJU handbook. I’m disturbed. I’m not sure what we’ll do now, honestly. I’d like him to have a sane and healthy undergrad experience. My wife and I will have to chat at length about this.

I tried to convince a bright young woman at my church to head to MBU for nursing school. She looked at the student handbook, declined, and enrolled at a state university, instead. I looked at the student handbook, and understand why she said, “No.” I hesitate to recommend a fundamentalist undergrad to anybody anymore.

Of course the purists can claim, “If you don’t like it, don’t go!” To be sure, they’ll take that advice. Many already have. That’s why fundamentalist institutions are dying off …

I really did enjoy my time at BJU. It helped that I was an older town student who could sleep in on Saturdays and take a nap when I could. I also was old enough to conform to the rules while realizing that many of them, while part of BJU life, were not practical for the real world. I made it 3 years without a demerit, even when I purposely didn’t wear a tie to my last chapel service. (The monitor/usher just rolled his eyes, smiled and said he couldn’t be bothered to write me up.) There were a few visits to the Dean of Students when I stepped outside the box as president of grad class. That’s where I learned that there were unwritten rules and that it was easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

BTW, I’m heading over to campus now for a walk and to enjoy the atmosphere.

You were “Go BJU” just a few pages ago. What changed? It wasn’t BJU or Maranatha. Hadn’t you seen the handbook before?
People really like to use the word “legalism,” but I’m scratching my head. How is this legalism? Nobody here is doing good works to try to earn salvation.

I’m “Go BJU” because I believe the school is headed in a better direction. I think it will continue to head further toward the center, and I’m grateful for that. As for the handbooks, no I hadn’t seen them. I didn’t do a Christian undergrad, and have a secular BA in a secular field. This entire discussion is foreign to me, because I’ve never been in the Christian sub-culture so many people here have spent their whole lives in. I didn’t grow up as a Christian, and never assimilated into a sub-culture after I became one.

That may help explain why my perspectives seem so baffling to many of you here. :) I’ve never felt “at home” in fundamentalism, and never felt like I belonged. I know that sounds pitiful, but I don’t mean it that way. If you’ve grown up in a Christian envirnment, in a particular fundamentalist sub-culture, you are (in some respects) blind to how bizarre some of the cultural mores are in fundamentalism. If nothing else, I am grateful this thread has reminded me of that. I recently read something from Michael Bird, where he wrote that, as an Austrailian, he feels like a foreigner entering into some of the theological discussions (i.e. inerrency) that dominate American evangelicalism. I can sympathize; I feel the same on this thread.

Here’s a link to part of their student handbook—a bit of Google-fu suffices pretty quickly—and suffice it to say that what I’ve seen (I’ve read a dozen or so pages of the handbook) really resembles what I see in BJU’s. If you like rules for no particular reason, you’ll be in Heaven there, but if you’ve been exercising a degree of freedom, or your wardrobe does not resemble “midwestern fundamental semi-casual”, you might be in trouble. I think that’s what Tyler is getting at, and it’s a big reason my kids aren’t really considering fundamental schools, either.

One particularly amusing (to me at least) excerpt from their student handbook:

It is also Maranatha’s policy that students may not purchase or consume so-called non-alcoholic beverages in restaurants, may not have them in residence halls, and may not patronize non-alcoholic bars.

Now I’d assume that what they’re referring to is things like a Shirley Temple or a Roy Rogers, non-alcoholic beverages that superficially resemble cocktails, but reality is that as written, it pretty much forbids a student getting a Coke or even a glass of water while eating out. Better order the soup, I guess, and I have to wonder whether the student cafeteria has both lemonade and iced tea.

I don’t call it legalism—nobody’s going to fess up to trusting in this stuff for salvation, after all—but I do have to wonder how people ever manage to even go grocery shopping if the sight of a maraschino cherry in a Coke sets them off, especially in Wisconsin.

This is partially about BJU, but it’s really about what kind of fundamentalism and Christianity is the best. Some people have very different standards about what they want their children to look like and be, and some people want their children, who they believe to be sufficiently mature at 17/18, to focus on getting an education without the parental hand of BJU dictating things that they should be able to handle all by themselves as adults living away from home.

Adam said:

Nobody is forcing you to send your kids to BJU, Maranatha, Faith, Pensacola, or anywhere else that has a resident program with rules intended to continue to develop Christian character and equip young people for life. This thread has become rather silly, IMO. If you don’t like subs, then don’t go to Subway. Those who do like Subway have no problem sending their kids there. No need to debate the value of meat slapped between two slices of bread. If you don’t like a place like this, God bless you, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with you. Send your kids somewhere else and stop whining about it.

So let’s ask this, then…What happens when your constituency dries up enough that you can no longer maintain a school and maintain those ‘biblically based standards’? It seems like some of us would say that then the school should close rather than compromise.

Adam also said:

When I was at BJU in 1991, most of my friends already believed in these biblically based standards when they stepped on campus, and they still believed in them when they left. They may even abide by some of them in their homes today, because they are good standards for life. A safe guess is that most SI readers already abide by most of these standards, no? So what’s the beef?

What began this debate is that certain BJU standards, some established for decades (and based in biblical principles per published writings, I might add), have been changing and are changing still. Inquiring minds want to know why. Simply changing a biblically based standard that was that way—again, for decades—isn’t persuasive in itself, because the standard is also one some of us personally believe in. This isn’t about walking on the grass; this is about what we teach our daughters to wear when they are in public. Both BJU and some parents share a concern about modesty, but standards on campus are changing. This is why some of us care (and are concerned) about changing standards there and would like to know more. I would guess that some Christian schools even take their cues from Greenville. Changes at a certain campus in South Carolina never occur in a vacuum.

You don’t like BJU’s rules or the philosophy guiding them? You think this system just treats adults like children? Then BJU isn’t for you or your children. God bless you, you’re welcome to your opinion.

I’m not as confident that the readership (not just participants) at SI are already following BJU’s principles at home. I might be surprised, though. I follow some of them, but not all.

I’d be curious to hear defenses for BJU’s ‘biblically based standards’ for pg. 30 and 31 on the student handbook from people on this thread, since modesty seems to be the big issue that people keep referring back to. I’d also like to hear what other standards are being loosened that Adam and others are concerned about.

I know what the response will be - that the Bible tells women to dress modestly. So my question is how do they get from big principle of Modesty to banning ‘skinny pants or leggings’ or why four fingers from the collar is OK but five fingers are not. Or for men, why a belt and socks are mandatory for class, and what makes the current dress standards of collared shirt and Dockers worse than the old policy of shirt, tie, and dress slacks.

I’m not saying that BJU is wrong to have those standards. I’m personally fine with those standards, and I’d probably put the same policies in place if I were responsible for running the school; I might even revert to higher standards for the men. I just don’t think you can make a biblical case for belts, socks, and four finger collars. That’s Biblical overreach and eisegesis, which is why I push on this point.

I tried to convince a bright young woman at my church to head to MBU for nursing school. She looked at the student handbook, declined, and enrolled at a state university, instead. I looked at the student handbook, and understand why she said, “No.” I hesitate to recommend a fundamentalist undergrad to anybody anymore.

You know, I grew up in a youth group of about 20-25. I was the only one to consider BJU even though I would up at NBBC when my dad refused to send me there. My old youth group produced a crop of 3 or 4 men who are currently in full time vocational ministry; I have a degree in Pastoral Studies but am not in vocational ministry. I think we managed to do just fine without sending men for the whole ‘West Point of Christianity’, as they are solidly grounded, love their people, and are shepherding their flocks with care and concern.

I also have another friend whose daughter just left for Liberty after 2 years in a local community college. If I had recommended BJU, they would have looked at me like I’d suggested sending her to BYU instead. She’s doing just fine without required lights out and some of BJU’s guidelines, and she’s getting a better quality education to boot because of the accreditation issue and because Liberty graduates are well known as being prepared to go on day 1 (and BJU has the same reputation in Greenville). I’m not worried about modesty, because her parents and church covered that just fine.