Bob Jones University Enters a New Era

Two side notes; if indeed RIte of Spring and Bolero were allowed at BJU, but clean rock & roll was (and is) not, somebody there had a little bit of trouble figuring exactly what deserves separation and censure! Follow the links if you don’t get what I’m saying here; for starters, not every ballet is greeted by a riot at its opening. Stravinsky and Ravel are OK, but Baptist Buddy Holly is not? Say what?

Regarding modesty, there was comment by Julie Anne about how she assumed that a man would have to look at a lady in a sexual way to figure out if she was being immodest. Now if we’re talking about the difference between four fingers from the collarbone and five fingers from the collarbone, or between two and three inches below the knee, that might be true, but the kind of things I help my daughters understand are things like “jeans ought to have a bit of ease and should not be ‘painted on’ ”; things that really can be determined at a glance. Really, the things that tell me “make doubly sure you’re looking at her face.”

The reason that questions like this seem disingenuous is that (1) Greg is a smart guy with many years in pastoral ministry and it seems like he would already have a handle on the right answer to these questions; (2) only the people publicly advocating for stricter standards or concern were targeted; and (3) any answer I give is just going to set me up for having to defend more things, or deal with some “gotcha,” and since we’re already in the minority it sort of feels like a waste of time. That’s me speaking, though, not the others.

I’m not a pastor but here it goes:

Question 1

No, I wouldn’t recommend regulating the behavior of the membership of a church the same way as a school.If I was a pastor I would (1) try to model what I believe to be correct standards and surround myself with like-minded staff that would do the same. (2) I would, depending on the issue, teach what I believe the Bible to be teaching and let the Holy Spirit either confirm the teaching in the people’s mind or not.(3) For church music and those involved in the public platform ministry of the church, I would try to set reasonable guidelines that should be followed for those occasions that are consistent with the teaching of the church. There is more that could be said here, and all sorts of devil-in-the-details type things, but that a high-level approach that seems reasonable to me, and consistent with what I’ve seen done elsewhere.

Question 2

We try to be as judgmental and self-righteous as possible…seriously, though, this happens all the time, and I’m sure it happens for everyone no matter what type of standards they hold to.We know that others don’t take the same stance on certain things that we do and we are gracious with people.And it depends on what it is.Are they marrying an unbeliever, watching Game of Thrones, dressing immodestly (to what degree), using euphemisms or worse, using other bad language, going to a rock concert, or what???It all depends on what it is and our relationship to them.

Question 3

Yes.I don’t feel it yet at BJU but it already happens in other contexts.

Question 4

Too complex of an issue to give an easy answer.Institutionally enforced penalties can help people avoid natural consequences of bad actions and in general I think that’s a good idea.Just like I want to teach my children obedience that will help them avoid larger issues down the road by enforcing punishments for minor infractions along the way.

[Greg Linscott]

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.

As I recall it the change in the on-campus Sunday School was to give the intra-mural Societies more opportunities for leadership, as I understand it. Instead of the denominational Sunday Schools, you met with your Society. I think the charges about sending good Baptists off to BJU and having them come back Presby, or what have you, were more AFTER this change than before. The change was made in the mid 80s, so the complaints of the 1990s and 2000s were related to the society SS, not the denominational ones.

During the denominational SS era, you had to attend the denominational SS of the church you were in when you enrolled, you were NOT allowed to change. I was stuck in Ecumenical Boys (I mean, Interdenominational Boys) because we were the misfits from the sparsely represented denominations. I didn’t grow up in a Baptist church. So we had quite a mix in that class. Now that they don’t have on campus church anymore the question is moot.

As for your questions, I agree with AndyE’s opening paragraph.

I mentioned the Maddi Runkles link before but put the wrong thread - this is the discussion that I was thinking of. You likely need to go two pages or so into the thread before the discussion on institutional power starts manifesting itself explicitly.

As for the questions:

Do you (or would you) regulate/limit the behavior of the membership of your church the same way you’re wishing that BJU would continue to? Why or why not? How is that (or would it be) enforced at the local church level?

No.

When you or your children encounter believers who do not honor the same behavior standards you do, how do you typically respond?

Shock and fear. Sometimes I even run in the other direction screaming. :)

I use it as a lesson and discussion point. I understand that people are different. I don’t expect believer-type behavior from unbelievers. I expect that sinners are going to sin, and I am there to meet them at their need when they are ready to get help.

There is a man that I work with who is a wonderful guy. We are the same age and share a lot of the same interests. We get along great because I held his job at another institution so I know what he goes through. He’s met and was very impressed with my wife, and we have a great time together.

He’s also married to another man and very open about that.

I suppose I could cut myself off from him and not talk to him at all, but how do I expose him to Biblical christianity and the gospel if I do?

Do you perceive that a climate like BJU is adopting will ostracize people who continue to maintain a personal standard of behavior that is different than the requirements of the school?

Yes, it will. We saw this when NIU started changing and some people turned on the school. I suspect that the people with a higher personal standard would self-select out of BJU because of compromise. Maybe we’ll get to see that again on P&D at some point if BJU continues to change.

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)?

It’s up to the edicts of their personal conscience, within limits of Romans 14 and I Cor. 10, as long as there are no clear violations of Biblical teaching.

I appreciate your response, and I’m not trying to nail you. I do know how I would answer the questions… I’m trying to demonstrate how you and others would as this matter of discussion gets considered.

Working backwards…

• There are things that even the most strict of institutions gives leeway on. No one (obviously) polices evil thoughts. :) But people can make derogatory comments, harbor bitterness and resentment, gossip, be greedy… and not necessarily were awarded demerits under the old system. At some point, we give room for the conscience and the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
  
  Institutional penalties have their place, even in the loosest of institutions. My eldest is a currently a student at Minnesota State-Mankato. In the dorms last year, they had noise policies and quiet hours that were enforced. Plagiarism carries penalties.
  
  The question for a Christian institution like we are discussing is how much freedom vs. how much enforcement? If a student comes from a rich family and pays his school bill, do we punish them for overindulgence and wasteful spending? Do we give out demerits for flashy, attention-seeking kind of dress when it is adequately covering the body but flaunting one’s wealth and status? These can be spiritual issues as much as an exposed thigh or form-fitting blouse.
  
  The questions aren’t easy. I get that. I’m saying here with BJU, though, that by changing the rules they are not necessarily saying these modern ways are better or the older standards were undesirable. They may just be thinking that good or bad, they are presenting an obstacle to having influence with students of this present day that they had opportunities with in days gone by. I have met Pettit and Horn, and other men on the board like Mike Harding, though I don’t know them all extremely well. From what I do know of them, though, i find it difficult to believe that they value modesty any less than their predecessors, or that they are nonchalant about the spiritual health of their students. If anything, I suspect they want increased opportunities to influence and educate this generation.
  
• ​With that said, I also cannot believe that students with convictions that compel them to wear skirts instead of jeans, let’s say, would be allowed to be the target of scorn and contempt. If a dispensationalist and covenant theologian can peacefully coexist on campus, why not people with different ideas on dress?
  
• With Q2, all I’m trying to say there is that we all face challenges to how we apply our obedience and compliance to Christian living… even from other Christians. These rule changes don’t throw out all the personal discipline one receives from a BJU education. I think that needs to be said. If anything, they might help better prepare today’s students for the challenges they are certain to face in local churches and Christian ministry in the contexts they will face after graduation.
  
• I think your answer to Q1 is reasonable. I am learning after nearly 10 years here in Marshall that not everything is as clean cut as I once envisioned it. “Platform standards”—working with a congregation where over half are first generation immigrants from impoverished refugee camps—well, my perspective is not what it once was. :D Again, knowing what I do of the men in influence at BJU, I am prepared to give them some room to figure this out. I’m not convinced they are throwing off the shackles of repression here. I think they are managing things more like you would in a church… giving grace, leading by example, not threatening with penalties on some of the peripheral matters, allowing for development from immaturity to maturity.
  

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[Don Johnson]

…Now that they don’t have on campus church anymore the question is moot.

As for your questions, I agree with AndyE’s opening paragraph.

As I told Andy, I’m not trying to nail anyone here. We may have different conclusions, but I am trying to give you and others a chance to contrast your concerns with mine and others and have a respectful conversation in the process.

Regarding the earlier things, thanks for your perspective from the past. You would obviously know better than me. :) My point in raising the example was not to tie them together, but to demonstrate that this rule change is not the first time in the history of the school that adjustments have been made to accommodate changes in the constituency and appeal to (potential) incoming students. I’m sure that when the denominational to society SS class changes were made, not everyone approved. When the Baptist influence became more prominent, I suspect your Free Methodist and Free Presbyterians weren’t thrilled.

You may not be thrilled with all these changes. Whatever else, though, I don’t think that you and others have been marginalized to the extent that you and your progeny have no place there anymore. There will just be more of a sense of sharing the space with others with different conclusions. From where I sit, that seems to have been part of BJU’s heritage through the years, too.

Jay, I’m afraid I’m a bit of a disappointment to you because I do not fit your proposed paradigm about the BJU and Runkles situation dividing SI readers into the same camps. I was a strong supporter of Runkles school being respected for enforcing their own rules without complaint from the offender, but I am also a supporter of BJU’s rule changes. Rules are a fact of life. Every institution has them. People may or may not agree with the rules. If they do not, they have the option to select another institution. If they place themselves under the authority of a particular institution, they ought not complain when they are penalized for breaking the rules. However, rules are not necessarily forever, and if an institution decides to change their rules, they have the right to do so. Again, people may or may not agree, and they have the same option as before. But whatever institution they choose, they should abide by the rules of that institution. The “I only obey the rules I personally agree with” attitude is not a Christ-honoring one.

I’m still not convinced that Maddi had the attitude of ‘I will obey the rules I personally agree with’, and I think it’s sinfully malicious for participants on SI to ascribe those motives to her from afar, particularly when our comment policy explicitly says ‘Do not engage in rude or other un-Christlike conduct’. I suppose someone could argue that Maddi isn’t a participant here so it doesn’t apply, but that’s a weak excuse.

The core of the issues on this thread is what Greg Linscott is trying to get at - what is the purpose of rules, and what part in sanctification/discipleship should they play? My argument (and TylerR’s) is that at 17/18, these are already fully cognizant and formed adults. Treating them as children is foolish and counterproductive. Don, Adam, and others argue that rules are necessary (no quibbles with that there), but that the school operates in loco parentis and therefore has a greater claim on measuring/maintaining conduct. I completely and strongly disagree. BJU is not a reform school or a finishing school. It’s an institution to train students for their respective vocations, and the more responsibilities and roles they claim, the less productive they will become because they spend time doing things that are not the core mission. HCA claimed a lot of responsibilities for Maddi’s behavior; far more than I felt was warranted. Maddi was 18, made her choices, and is bearing the necessary and appropriate consequences. I felt that the institution she attended took on more responsibility and even authority than was warranted, and you can see that in my second post on the HCA thread.

Finally, my point earlier isn’t that the lines precisely break down along the same lines, but a lot of the participants seem to be falling in line with how they reacted to the HCA issue. There’s a fault line there, and we keep watching symptoms when we should be looking at roots. We need to talk about the fault line, not the fruit.

But you missed my main point. I supported HCA. I also support the change at BJU. Unless I’m completely missing what you are saying, my position is the opposite of your conclusion. Do I misunderstand your proposition?

[Greg Linscott]

My point in raising the example was not to tie them together, but to demonstrate that this rule change is not the first time in the history of the school that adjustments have been made….

Once again, you and others are fixated on rule changes. It isn’t just rule changes that are the concern. The OP mentioned much more than rule changes.

Granted, rules have changed. Some of them I like. Some of them I don’t. But the changes of philosophy and direction are the ones that concern me more.

[Don Johnson]

Granted, rules have changed. Some of them I like. Some of them I don’t. But the changes of philosophy and direction are the ones that concern me more.

Sorry, Don… it appears I’m being lumped in with others. I checked into this discussion late. I visited SI yesterday for the first time in a couple of months.

So if it’s not too much to ask, could you humor me and summarize what your specific concerns of “philosphy and direction” are? Again, not trying to nail you here. But it doesn’t seem to me that what is happening at BJU currently is drastically different than what is happening under Jim Tillotson at Faith… and you seem to have a favorable impression of him, as I recall. Faith’s institutional scope and purpose is much narrower than BJU’s, and so pastoral and seminary students will naturally be of a higher percentage. But maybe I’m attributing things to you that you aren’t actually thinking.
If you don’t want to re-hash this, I understand. But I would find it helpful, and I’m sure others reading might too.

Hey GN - I am speaking in general, and I understand that you don’t think that I’m right. I think that you’re one of the exceptions that prove the rule, so to speak. It’s something that I am seeing, and maybe if some more people weigh in, we can test it better. I don’t think that you’re necessarily wrong, and probably do agree with you that you’re being consistent in application between the two cases.

Another side comment, again as a result of Greg’s post:

You [Don] may not be thrilled with all these changes. Whatever else, though, I don’t think that you and others have been marginalized to the extent that you and your progeny have no place there anymore. There will just be more of a sense of sharing the space with others with different conclusions.

As fundamentalists, we have a long history of breaking ranks with those who compromise, although we haven’t always done so perfectly. I’m not sure that Don’s issue is that he feels he has no place at BJU insofar as he is no longer willing (?) to support the school because of what he sees as a series of compromises in the wrong direction.

If that’s true, then Don really only has one option to deal with it based on Fundamentalist theology, culture, and training - to retreat / withdraw his support and find some place new to support. Adam Blumer is another one like this, and this was the dynamic that did so much damage to NIU. Don’s already said that he is backing away from BJU and is waiting to see what will happen:

We wouldn’t send our kids to BJU today, in spite of many friends on faculty/administration and alumni. It is not that some rules didn’t need to be changed, change is always necessary as culture constantly changes around us. The school no longer cultivates the kind of spiritual atmosphere I loved as a student and hoped for when my children began attending. I don’t think I would be enthusiastic about sending anyone there anymore. I think the Bible faculty still teaches a fundamentalist worldview, but I don’t think that’s the overall atmosphere.

A long time ago in one of the many FBFI threads, I mentioned that I was concerned about the drift of the FBFI further and further to the far right of fundamentalism and explicitly linked it to some of other, more extreme, positions that I thought it would likely end up at. My point wasn’t that it was happening right then, but that it would happen eventually because Fundamentalism continually separates over issues like ‘direction’ and continually fragments, and that we do that because we are unable to articulate what, exactly, the fundamentals are or should be. We saw that in Bauder’s history of the various fundamentalist organizations a few weeks ago. Now we’re getting another illustration of it here.

Please don’t misunderstand me…I think this is sad and frustrating because the fundamentalist movement is, in some ways, locked into a self-destructive cycle. But I don’t think that breaking that cycle is a likely outcome.

This sentence seems to be repeated in many forms: “The school no longer cultivates the kind of spiritual atmosphere I loved as a student…..”

While no specific examples of those changes in spiritual atmosphere have been given, I think that the spiritual atmosphere on campus is better today. I am not saying that it was bad before! Just better now. I enjoyed most of the aspects of the old atmosphere, but there were negative aspects of that atmosphere that are being addressed and changed and the people involved; current students, parents, faculty, staff are thanking God for the changes.

[Jay]

As for the questions:

Do you perceive that a climate like BJU is adopting will ostracize people who continue to maintain a personal standard of behavior that is different than the requirements of the school?

Yes, it will. We saw this when NIU started changing and some people turned on the school. I suspect that the people with a higher personal standard would self-select out of BJU because of compromise. Maybe we’ll get to see that again on P&D at some point if BJU continues to change.

Maybe I don’t understand how you are answering here. I agree that pre and post changes, there will be plenty who “self select out of BJU” either due to too many rules, non-denominationalism, too many rules changes, what have you. I don’t think that has to do with the question.

Over the last 5 years while my kids were there, they certainly noticed those who had “higher” (maybe “stricter” is the better term) standards, and though my kids didn’t always agree with those kids, there wasn’t a sense that the university itself would ostracize those kids who held the stricter standards. As to what the other students thought, who knows, and I’m sure there were plenty of immature kids who ridiculed others. That’s no different than it ever was.

On the topic of Maddi Runkles, you would also have to put me in the category of those who thought her Christian school was within their rights to enforce their rules in whatever way they saw fit. I thought the same of BJU even when the rules were stricter, and some were outright stupid or even unbiblical. Even though I like many of the changes they have made, I still believe that a student that attends agrees to follow the school rules, and then the school has the right to enforce them. I’m just glad they have changed some of the enforcement procedure. No school will be perfectly consistent in how they deal with rule infractions (even though I do believe they should at least try), but no matter what Maddi’s attitude actually was, which I don’t know, externally she sure appeared to want only enforcement that didn’t inconvenience her too much.

[Greg Linscott]

I’m sure that when the denominational to society SS class changes were made, not everyone approved. When the Baptist influence became more prominent, I suspect your Free Methodist and Free Presbyterians weren’t thrilled.

When I started there in 1981, they were already doing society SS, so that’s all I knew. I certainly was one of the few independent Methodists I knew (and I think all the others I knew of were from my home church). I was quite surprised to see the percentage of Baptist students, especially since the school had an explicitly non-denominational position, and of course the fact that Dr. Bob Sr. had been a Methodist. It wasn’t really a big deal, since I was used to most of the churches from my home area being Baptist churches, but I found it somewhat amusing that some of the Baptist students at BJU were “shocked” that there were fundamental non-Baptist students who were quite secure in their own denominational identity.