"We will shape a campus community that is more comfortable with and more readily accepts appropriate change."

Having just completed a consulting job with a college seeking reaffirmation of accreditation from TRACS, I know that this is a required initiative and document for ongoing accreditation. I see this as a direct benefit/result/consequence of BJU’s seeking of national accreditation and a positive one at that. However, the Strategic Plan must be revisited and deseminated strategically and regularly for it to have any meaningful effect and it should produce a cascade of additional documents, goals and initiatives as a result if it is being implemented correctly. The name of the game in higher education accreditation right now is Strategic Planning and Assessment that models a “bottom up” flow of ideas, thoughts, input and recommendations. Such an approach generally runs counter to how fundamentalist (and many other) colleges/universities have traditionally operated. It will be interesting to see if this is actually embraced by the administration or simply becomes the fulfillment of a TRACS requirement. I believe truly implementing the strategic plan and developing it fully would be a positive step for BJU and am glad to see them moving in this direction.

Sounds like someone is getting exceedingly skilled in bafflegab.

I don’t see how sounding pompous is a step forward.

I find the phrase “appropriate change” encouraging because change is hard for fundamentalists and often change is received with suspicion.

The first thirty years of church history was characterized by God-ordained change according to the book of Acts. The whole Bible doctrine of sanctification indicates the importance of the right kind of change in a person’s life. Young people will be better prepared to serve the Lord when they are anchored in Him and willing to make changes as He directs.

I applaud the Administration of BJU for being willing to make appropiate changes needed in the service of the King.

This is much needed. For so long the school has been so committed to faithfulness, that it hasn’t always seen what it means to be faithful in our particular time. There are truths that are timeless and applications that will change.

Seriously Don? You’re lecturing them on sounding pompous? If it’s bafflegab, I’m good at understanding it. It seems pretty clear to me.

[Don Johnson] Sounds like someone is getting exceedingly skilled in bafflegab.

I don’t see how sounding pompous is a step forward.

Shayne, I didn’t say I couldn’t understand it.

I said it sounded like bureaucratic bafflegab. You can find tons of this kind of sonorous rhetoric coming out of Ottawa, and I daresay Washington also. Mostly it provides activity for paper shufflers and accomplishes nothing.

You can think what you want, and throw water on anything you want. Can you point to one thing that’s “pompous?” It seems like if an organization is saying they need to be more open to change, that that’s the opposite of pompous. And to mislabel unpompousness as pompousness is pompous in my opinion.

So the statement says they need to be “more open to change”. Hmm… what does that mean?

Is that all there is to it? Can you offer ANY substantive changes that this document actually provides? It announces vague initiatives that will be commenced, now or in the future, and some of the things it supposedly espouses are activities the University is already doing. It’s all vague puffery. If this is what accreditation means, I’m agin it. The fable of the emperor and his clothes comes to mind.

Don,

I hate to compare the Bible with a BJU policy document, but I’m going to just to make a very limited point. In the Great Commission, we have Jesus casting a general vision for his disciples. At the point of the Ascension, the disciples probably had little substance, and lots of vision. Later they were told more of the plan (how to teach, go ect). Given your standards of what kind of details should be released NOW, if you were a disciple, you would probably be wondering about the specifics, but you wouldn’t call anyone pompous for not telling you everything in your time frame. I admit, Dr. Jones isn’t anywhere close to God so I forgive any lesser respect reserved for him. However, I you’re judging him by standards that reasonable people wouldn’t expect to see at the very beginning of implementing a five year plan.

Businesses do this kind of progressive strategic planning all the time. They lay out a vision to customers and supporters, then give specifics. Think of Apple’s Steve Jobs Keynotes. He hints at things, and gives some details but not all. He has a massive internal plan, but doesn’t lay out all the specifics in public. This is entirely appropriate for a business or organization. We probably do this in our churches as well. Pastors and leadership teams work on planning strategy behind the scenes, share their vision with the congregation, get them on board with the vision and direction, then finally they implement.

The document states that there is another document that is the action plan, so don’t judge a vision statement by action plan standards.

Shayne, I don’t think your analogy is even close.

But regardless, I just find this corporate obfuscation extremely tedious. If you have something to say, say it. If not, wait till you do have something to say.

But if bafflegab makes you happy, then enjoy.

How did they obfuscate anything? They are revealing more of their plan than they did last month, and they will discuss more plans when appropriate (as evidenced by the new communications strategy). I think they’re clear on the intended purpose, which a statement of vision and direction, not a plan. If you’re aghast that they didn’t give you all the plan on your time frame, then the “pompous” problem isn’t there’s.

Well, I think this argument is an argument about nothing at the end of the day. I’ll be happy to quit anytime now. A few responses to your last, though.

[Shaynus] How did they obfuscate anything? They are revealing more of their plan than they did last month

The language of the ‘vision statement’ thingie is typical of the bafflegab we see in corporate/governmental bureaucratic mumbo jumbo land. That’s what I mean by obfuscation.

As far as revealing more of their plan… well, what was announced that isn’t already basically known? Does anyone think they don’t have a plan, that heretofore everything has been reactionary/seat of the pants management? BJU wouldn’t have lasted its over 80 years now if that was the case.

[Shaynus] If you’re aghast that they didn’t give you all the plan on your time frame, then the “pompous” problem isn’t there’s.

Look, I don’t care if they announce their plan to me. Doesn’t matter. I just object to making an announcement, basically, about nothing, and everyone oohing and ahhing as if something wonderful and new has just been revealed.

Remember, I am a BJU loyalist. I generally support the university and Dr Bob in particular tooth and nail. But I do think this kind of vague corporate-speak doesn’t accomplish much.

[Don Johnson] Sounds like someone is getting exceedingly skilled in bafflegab.

I don’t see how sounding pompous is a step forward.

I neither perceived the document as “bafflegab,” nor did I find it reeking with an air of pomposity. Instead, I read something from BJU that, for the first time, let’s me know I can expect some clear, maybe even drastic, changes over the next five years. I welcome not only the publication of the document, but the entire process that led to it. Kudos to Stephen for leading this initiative.

Frankly, Don, your comments come across as if you neither understand the process the administration et. al. is going through nor the purpose of such a document.

[Don Johnson] The language of the ‘vision statement’ thingie is typical of the bafflegab we see in corporate/governmental bureaucratic mumbo jumbo land. That’s what I mean by obfuscation.

So in defining what you mean by obfuscation, you say it’s just like “bureaucratic mumbo jumbo land.” Kinda circular. What is being obfuscated other than they’re not showing all their cards right now, which is their right?

[Don Johnson] Remember, I am a BJU loyalist. I generally support the university and Dr Bob in particular tooth and nail. But I do think this kind of vague corporate-speak doesn’t accomplish much.

If you support Dr. Bob in particular, then you probably wouldn’t like this vision statement on sheer style. Nothing against him, but the University is basically implying that in the past, they didn’t communicate with internal and external audiences well. I can’t see how anyone with intimate knowledge of BJU would dispute this implication. It’s one thing, Don, to say you don’t like the new style of their communication. But it’s another to accuse them of being pompous with no grounds. Blunt instruments often do more damage than they intend.

Hi Brian

I am sure I don’t understand the process. Do I need to?