A Failure to Stay the Course [Handbook changes at BJU]
- 490 views
More:
While the University has failed to stay the course in its disciplines, its alumni have failed to hold its administration accountable for its direction. Fundamental pastors, so quick to point out the flaws and failures in other ministries in the past, have been all but silent while the board and leadership at BJU steers the University away from its fundamental moorings. Why the silence? Why the accommodation of changes we know are not welcome in our own ministries, but are being thrust upon us and our children by an institution we loved and trusted?
I personally have no strong opinion one way or the other on whether the school should have adjusted its dress code, but the idea that doing so is a betrayal because the kids will be exposed to standards less strict than those they were raised with? They’re going to be exposed to less strict standards for everything all their lives unless they live deeply embedded in the fundamentalist ghetto.
The kids are going to have to live in the culture we have, not the culture we might wish we had. Is it really all that huge if they start living in something a bit more like it a few years sooner rather than later? Isolation can only accomplish so much, and only for so long. (Unless, again, the plan is “stay in the ghetto”… but there is not much left of the ghetto, so I suggest a different plan.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
This is a complex topic that often has “red herring” arguments. Anyone who didn’t see this coming wasn’t paying attention. As far as “silence” among some people, I and others have expressed concerns to the BJU administration and got nowhere. The issue is not “being exposed to different standards” but the issue is “What should those standards be?” Everyone has their arguments pro & con. But at a minimum BJU is beng influenced by our casual culture and is adjusting its policies accordingly, probably to maintain enrollment. Using Biblical arguments to support the changes is a cover for the real reason: keeping the school open. I’m not going to say anymore on this - don’t have the time. The arguments that will appear in this discussion are the same arguments used over & over by all positions on this issue, and no minds/opinions will be changed or convinced one way or the other.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
I will use quotes from the author:
Admittedly, there were some things in BJU’s Student Handbook that did not make sense in my era (for example, guys wearing ties to classes in the morning, but not in the afternoon; men wearing suit jackets to dinner and ties to go off campus; women wearing hose year round). All of those irritants are gone now, but so are many of the disciplines that instilled distinctive Christian virtues in the student body.
So the author admits that some “disciplines” turned into “irritants.” But, honestly, how do disciplines of dress instill distinctive Christian virtues? Yes, there are standards of modesty. But BJU isn’t saying they don’t have standards of modest dress. They are just saying they are modified. And how do the particular standards the author refers to instill Christian virtues? They only do if you are doing them for the right reason, pleasing the Lord. The fact of dressing a certain way in and of itself does not.
The distinctive disciplines that set BJU apart from the likes of Furman University, Liberty University, and Cedarville University are eroding as is the polished character that was BJU’s hallmark.
If the measurement is to be “more modest in dress than these other schools,” then he would be right. But we don’t base what to do on what other institutions do, but what pleases God. If we compare ourselves with others, we are not wise (I think I’ve heard that somewhere).
What the author is saying is that BJU standards are changing and he doesn’t like it. He has the right to do that, I guess. But this isn’t like the Northland bait-and-switch from the past decade.
Culture and appropriate clothing will always change, not Biblical doctrine and principles. It seems to be a common fundamentalist error to place dress code and clothing standards on the level of doctrine. Not that everyone makes this error, thankfully, but it can be pervasive.
Culture and clothing will always change. Always. That’s not pragmatism. BJU is probably the campion at being the slowest to change, but gets criticized for not being even slower. People have always disagreed about clothing standards, whether too tight or too loose. I’m glad BJU still has any clothing standards at all when most schools have dropped them completely.
But by all means, let’s avoid equating changing dress code to changing doctrine.
It’s the end of the world as we know it … and I feel fine …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
The author admits that even in his day some dress code rules didn’t make sense. When I went to BJU in the middle 90’s, the dress code was even more relaxed compared to what the author experienced in his day (late 70’s). We didn’t have to wear ties off campus nor suit jackets to dinner and the girls could wear denim skirts.
So, was the relaxing of the dress code from his time to mine bad (wrong, slippery slope to destruction) as well?
If not, then how were those changes OK, but these changes are not?
Just trying to get at the logic of the author’s arguments.
Northland didn’t close because they relaxed the dress code. They closed because of stupid leadership. And while a relaxing of the dress code can be a litmus test of potential relaxing of other, more important standards, you need to show me more than just the dress code changes before I start fussing at BJU.
I don’t know for certain, but I would expect Pettit would’ve moved forward on these changes with the board’s approval.
As a BJU alumn, I have no problem with these changes.
[apward]The utter falsity of that statement makes want to snap my garters and tear off my powdered wig with rage.Culture and appropriate clothing will always change, not Biblical doctrine and principles. It seems to be a common fundamentalist error to place dress code and clothing standards on the level of doctrine. Not that everyone makes this error, thankfully, but it can be pervasive.
Culture and clothing will always change. Always. That’s not pragmatism. BJU is probably the campion at being the slowest to change, but gets criticized for not being even slower. People have always disagreed about clothing standards, whether too tight or too loose. I’m glad BJU still has any clothing standards at all when most schools have dropped them completely.
But by all means, let’s avoid equating changing dress code to changing doctrine.
[TylerR]It’s the end of the world as we know it … and I feel fine …
REM is still prohibited (at least officially) per the Student Handbook’s music section….. =)
Not to ruin everyone’s fun by saying something serious here, but as the dad of four daughters, I’ve got to applaud the modification of the athletic shorts requirement. Getting anything besides basketball shorts to go anywhere close to the knee for girls is tough, and girls often hate them because even those are generally cut more for a boy’s physique. Unless we’re going to sew all our own clothes, the dress code has to be possible when one goes to Macy’s or Kohl’s.
Hopefully these changes in the dress code will free BJU to see clearly what its Biblical mission ought to be.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Small Thought #1: Think of the radical changes between 1927 and 1977.
Small Thought #2: My wife recalls objections to the installation of carpet in the dorms because students wouldn’t know how to wax floors.
Small Thought #3: In the history of fundamentalist institutions, the most notable contribution of alumni has been criticism.
Small Thought #4: No one is forcing women to wear pants, They are simply allowing them to make a choice they will also make in the real world.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
“Dress and Grooming Standards
The dress and grooming of both men and women should always be modest, neat, and clean, consistent with the dignity adherent to representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any of its institutions of higher education.
Modesty and cleanliness are important values that reflect personal dignity and integrity, through which students, staff, and faculty represent the principles and standards of the Church. Members of the BYU community commit themselves to observe the following standards, which reflect the direction of the Board of Trustees and the Church publication For the Strength of Youth. The Dress and Grooming Standards are as follows:
Men
A clean and well-cared-for appearance should be maintained. Clothing is inappropriate when it is sleeveless, revealing, or form fitting. Shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles should be clean and neat, avoiding extreme styles or colors, and trimmed above the collar, leaving the ear uncovered. Sideburns should not extend below the earlobe or onto the cheek. If worn, moustaches should be neatly trimmed and may not extend beyond or below the corners of the mouth. Men are expected to be clean-shaven; beards are not acceptable. Earrings and other body piercing are not acceptable. Shoes should be worn in all public campus areas.
Women
A clean and well-cared-for appearance should be maintained. Clothing is inappropriate when it is sleeveless, strapless, backless, or revealing; has slits above the knee; or is form fitting. Dresses, skirts, and shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles should be clean and neat, avoiding extremes in styles or colors. Excessive ear piercing (more than one per ear) and all other body piercing are not acceptable. Shoes should be worn in all public campus areas.”
https://policy.byu.edu/view/index.php?p=26
[Bolded highlights mine.]
He did not mind a change from rules he did not like from the 70’s, but he does mind a change of dress code now.
I’m tired of old fundamentalist arguing that we need to have higher standards when those higher standards have nothing to do with Biblical commands or with modesty (in the case of dress). They want higher standards for their own sake, and they want the prerogative to determine what those higher standards should be.
Once again the issues raised are about application of biblical principles but not biblical issues. I was there in the culture of the 70s, tie, jacket, formal meals, dating parlor, etc. That was then. This is now. Times have changed. Culture has changed. Jesus hasn’t changed. The gospel hasn’t changed. As long as BJ stays the course on Jesus and the gospel I’m not only not concerned about the changes but encouraged by them. BJ is committed to the Word of God as the supreme authority in faith and practice. There’s room for disagreement in areas related to culture except for paranoid people trapped in their little sub-sub-culture who fixate on a golden past. It does not signify a drift.
BTW, I graduated in 1978 and a son who graduated in 2006. I don’t know which alumni the author refers to who have failed to hold the administration accountable or have “stayed the course.” Most alumni I know are glad for the changes.
Discussion