Bob Jones University Enters a New Era

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(link is external) or a Roy Rogers(link is external), 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(link is external).

I’m pretty sure that they’re targeting things like ‘Mike’s Hard Lemonade’ which are ostensibly non-alcoholic but do have alcohol in them. I think that the lemonade and iced tea are safe for MBBC students to enjoy. :)

Jay, might be what they’re referring to, though almost any server or supermarket/liquor store checker will quickly disabuse you of the notion that alco-pops are non-alcoholic if you try and buy some and you look like you’re younger than 40 or so, even in Wisconsin. :^)

My take is that that section is so poorly written, it ought to give any prospective student pause as they consider “is this school going to be able to teach me to write well and succeed in life?”.

And really—per Adam’s comment about “if you don’t like it, don’t go there”, that is, more or less, why I’m making comments here. The churches I attend draw from BJU, Faith, Maranatha, and the like. What my pastors learn there affects my family, whether I sign up for the rules or not. Whether or not my neighbors will visit if I invite them has a lot to do with whether the movement as a whole has a good reputation. It matters whether the rules are actually Biblical or not. It matters whether the model of leadership is closer to that of Xerxes, Leonidas, or Christ.

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.

Jay, Can you point us to someone who makes a biblical argument for this so we can read it for ourselves?

Larry, regarding people claiming they’re Biblical, here’s an example from Adam: I’ve bolded the key parts.

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,

You can argue, I guess, that Adam wasn’t specifically defending anything about socks or belts or whatever, but he was in general asserting that a great portion of one of BJU’s most controversial features was, indeed, Biblically based. I think that substantially agrees with what Jay is saying.

And quite frankly, seeing as (I’d assume) Adam believes that, he should do so, and quite frankly, I’d like to see more of that. If there’s a case for BJU’s rules, or Maranatha’s, or for that matter the FBFI cultural positions or even some of the things of Sword of the Lord or Hyles, I’m game to see it. Worst I’ll do in response is claim/point out that it’s either bad exegesis or bad logic, really.

What I cringe at, really, is the assumption that all ought to part ways (“not go to Subway”) instead of hashing it out—quite frankly, isn’t this part of WHY the movement is so fragmented? Why towns that ought to have a decent fundamental Baptist church have five struggling works or zero? We’ve got this and that orbit around a prominent pastor (Brandenburg, whoever) and around prominent colleges (Northland, Pillsbury, Piedmont, Atlantic, Tennessee Temple, Clearwater, Maranatha, BJU, Faith), and the results indicate…we’ve got some circular firing squads going on.

We’ve got to find a different way.

I didn’t list things like belts or socks as “biblically based standards.” For that category, I listed things like not drinking, not swearing, and so forth, for which one can find biblical guidance. I would consider things like wearing belts and socks as institutional guidelines, not biblically based ones (probably to avoid sloppiness). Of course, you won’t find anything specific in the Bible about those things. There’s also nothing biblical about a parent setting a curfew of 11 p.m., yet parents do that sort of thing all the time. Nothing wrong with it. But certainly don’t tell your kids this is a biblically based standard.

“Four fingers from the collar” is also a manmade guideline; however, you are missing the bigger picture for that one. This guideline, I believe, is to help the ladies avoid showing cleavage. If you keep going lower, yep, you may run into that problem. When you have a thousand or so ladies, it’s easier to avoid the issue by simply making a decree about how many fingers from the collar bone a collar may be. I doubt anyone is actually laying down fingers and measuring and saying, “You’re ungodly if you’re even an eighth of an inch lower than this,” but it’s a general target for the ladies on which blouses would be acceptable to wear on campus. Does that make sense?

Jay, I’m taking a guess here on leggings and skinny pants. I’m sort of surprised that I have to explain. Have you seen how much of a woman’s body is out there for all to see when she wears these? Even some public schools (this is the world) have banned leggings due to the modesty problem. Delta Airlines even had an issue with them (see note below). Some folks really struggle with leggings, and I see I’m not the only one, because BJU guidelines address those specifically. (Someone, I expect, will now say it’s not leggings but a man’s lust problem that is the issue. I think we’ve hashed that out. Yes, men need to guard their eyes and curb their thoughts, but out of deference, the women can avoid wearing certain things that attract male eyes to certain parts of her body.) Not everyone may agree, but that’s the standard they’ve set if you plan to attend as a student. And I don’t believe they are saying someone is unspiritual for wearing them at home; but if they plan to walk around on campus, this is the guideline they’ve set. I think for the sake of helping the guys in their pursuit of purity this is wise. (This is not Walmart but a ministry that believes in biblical principles of modesty.)

I can tell the rules aren’t for you. No problem. But some of us are rather glad for them.

Note: Here’s the BBC on a leggings controversy: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39401960
Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/america-vs-leggings-united-airlines-bans-girls-…

Thanks to Wally and my wife I received a late in life education on Biblical principles. As near as I can tell they are the application of Biblical standards that may not be specifically defined. For instance, the Bible says women need to be modest and the ensuing Biblical principal is practiced by defining modesty as skirts of a certain length. The Bible warns against worldliness and worldliness is defined in cultural terms like movies and rock music. The problem arises when these Biblical principles become an Oral Talmud with nearly the same weight as Scripture.

BTW, I took my walk on campus today and, while in the archives room, observed the evolution of the BJU student handbook from 1927 on. I couldn’t help but wonder how a 1930’s graduate of BJU would have responded to the 1970’s BJU.

[Adam Blumer] I think for the sake of the guys this is wise.

I’d recommend that you read several pages in the current student handbook to get a feel for the philosophy guiding the whole concept of biblical principles and rules on campus, since not everyone may be getting the undergirding philosophy. Some are making snap judgments about specific rules without understanding the philosophy of why they are there. You can find the handbook here:

http://www.bju.edu/life-faith/student-handbook.pdf

Steve Pettit writes in his opening letter, “As you read this handbook, you will see that many of the guidelines are rooted in biblical commands and principles for daily living. Others are included to help thousands of students, faculty, staff and administrators study and work together effectively and efficiently on campus each day.”

Page 7 says, “Our code of conduct cannot produce Christlikeness; however, it reflects what Scripture describes as wise and virtuous and what helps mature a Christian for faithful service.”
To understand how this philosophy is applied, I’d recommend that you especially read Dr. Pettit’s opening letter and pages 5-9.
Some may roll their eyes at this request (that’s okay), but it seems unfair to make premature assumptions about rules without understanding why they are there. This may help.

Thank you for adding your thoughts. I agree and appreciate that. Well said.

[Ron Bean]

Thanks to Wally and my wife I received a late in life education on Biblical principles. As near as I can tell they are the application of Biblical standards that may not be specifically defined. For instance, the Bible says women need to be modest and the ensuing Biblical principal is practiced by defining modesty as skirts of a certain length. The Bible warns against worldliness and worldliness is defined in cultural terms like movies and rock music. The problem arises when these Biblical principles become an Oral Talmud with nearly the same weight as Scripture.

BTW, I took my walk on campus today and, while in the archives room, observed the evolution of the BJU student handbook from 1927 on. I couldn’t help but wonder how a 1930’s graduate of BJU would have responded to the 1970’s BJU.

This is actually one of the reasons I object to what most fundamental schools are doing. I can get to a modesty standard from, say, Leviticus 18 and other passages that tells both boys and girls “in most cases, you will want to have loose fitting attire which prevents the hips, bust, and upper thigh from being seen directly, or being seen due to tightness, by others.” I can not, however, get to the point of telling young people that a skirt is appropriate, but loose fitting slacks are not, and I can not get to the point of even specifying that the material ought to look sort of like wool (even though it’s probably polyester/microfiber these days). Never mind what would happen if a young man came to class dressed like Jesus!

In the same way, I think we need to remember why people banned denim and beards—it was a simple association with the counter-culture in the 1960s and 1970s, and before that, it was seen as workingman’s attire. Guilt by association is a basic logical fallacy—we should no more be making policy on it than we should be using ouija boards. The same fallacy is at the root of prohibitions of the kind of music described in Psalms 149 and 150, and for that matter in prohibitions of one mode of praise prescribed in those same Psalms.

In other words, it is in many regards an Oral Torah—not the kind where people say they think they’re saved because of it, but still a kind where people deny fellowship to those who disagree, and it’s one that quite often denies the clear meaning of Scripture. It’s far better for young people to be wearing yoga pants and jeans and beards with flowers in their hair while dancing if they understand the Scriptures, than to conform to a student handbook that requires them to ignore significant parts of the Scriptures.

[Adam Blumer]

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.

Adam,

The only problem I see with your post here is that the current powers-that-be at BJU seem to want to make BJU more receptive of a place for those who may have found it unnecessarily restrictive to one degree or another.
The question I would have for you and others is why the place loses its value to you because of some of these relaxed expectations—not the exposed cleavage, but things like the apparent scandalization some sense when they see girls in jeans. From what I am taking away from this conversation, it makes it seem like as if the value was for more you and others found in the distinctiveness, as opposed to the content or principles. I’m “reading between the lines” when I say that, but that’s how it strikes me when you say these were the things you liked, “BJU isn’t for you…” and you are a proud alumnus, etc. It’s like this was your niche, and now they have taken that distinctive label away, so there’s less to distinguish between you guys and the next run of the mill Christian college.
What am I missing here?

The only problem I see with your post here is that the current powers-that-be at BJU seem to want to make BJU more receptive of a place for those who may have found it unnecessarily restrictive to one degree or another.

I’ve already written a good bit about my general support of the school and my concerns. Now you ask me to address an assumption I’m not convinced anyone here can make. I do not know that this describes the motives of those calling the shots. I’ve not heard anything they’ve said or read anything they’ve printed to support this. Yes, it’s tempting to draw this conclusion, but I don’t really know any more than I know why certain standards have been loosened. I’m not entirely sure where else you are going with this. I’ve already said a good bit about where my concerns lie.

I believe I was more or less addressing those who can’t seem to wrap their minds around the legitimacy of an institution like BJU. I restated some of the objections and merely concluded that, like Subway, you don’t have to go there. And you can say what you want about such a place, but it isn’t going to make any difference either way. But now I’m just repeating myself.

I’m not sure what you’re missing here. Sorry. Care to rephrase?

Larry, regarding people claiming they’re Biblical, here’s an example from Adam:

So the answer is, “No,” you can’t point to anyone making that argument. Thanks.

Anyone else have anything?

I believe I was more or less addressing those who can’t seem to wrap their minds around the legitimacy of an institution like BJU. I restated some of the objections and merely concluded that, like Subway, you don’t have to go there. And you can say what you want about such a place, but it isn’t going to make any difference either way. But now I’m just repeating myself.

Just for curiosity’s sake, Adam, what would you do if one of your daughters decided that she didn’t want to attend BJU? I know that you’re a big supporter of BJU, and there are several alumns of BJU that I know that have flatly told us their kids will attend BJU. It was in the works since before they hit high school

Several have said “if you don’t like the rules at BJU, don’t go”…but it’s the parents that pay the bills and veto or approve of the college plan.

My girls haven’t yet determined, with the definite decision-making influence of their parents, where they’ll be going to college. Sorry. And yes, this is no light matter, and we’ll definitely be part of this decision. They are thirteen and sixteen, so college is definitely a topic we discuss. But as AndyE said (and I agree), if you are looking for a good Bible college or university that has compatible standards, there are slim pickings.