Hi Keith

Ok, I see your point. However, the rules I am concerned with at BJU are directly related to character formation in areas that I am concerned with in my own children. So while you have a ‘sorta’ point, I’m not just dissatisfied because they are changing picky rules that are just there ‘because I said so’.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

You confused holiness and character by calling the restraint of the “flesh” character building. The “flesh” is, Biblically speaking, the old man, the natural man, the sinful habits.

If you are just arguing that resistance builds muscles, well then there is little disagreement. Of course, even then, it is important to give the right resistance to build the right muscle. You can do sit ups all day long and it won’t build your bicep.

I think that you are also confusing the kind of character needed for military exercises with the kind of character needed for other things. Character is not monolithic and the term is not copywrighted by military types.

By your definition of character, non-resistant soldiers in Hitler’s army had character. They’d been given plenty of resistance and meaningless (as well as evil) orders. They submitted to that resistance.

It is important to build character. However, the methods used will determine the type of character that results.

Keith, you are confusing terms. I am talking about character, not holiness. Both of these are goals in training children and young people, not to mention old dudes like us. Character is an important goal, but it isn’t the first goal, I realize that. Nevertheless, I think character is important to function well in this world, to be equipped to lead, to be useful. Can you have holiness without good character? Maybe not. But you can have character without holiness (look at most of the products of the real military academies). I am not after character alone, but I think it is an essential aspect of child training/disciple making.

BTW, you should do some word studies on “nurture” and “admonish” in eph 6.4. I don’t think you would be talking so much about provoking to wrath as you do here.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

“And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Ephesians 6:4

Either of your examples (forbidding jeans or requiring jeans — merely to restrain) would provoke to wrath because they have nothing — in and of themselves — to do with godly character. If these rules were intended to teach respect for others, or modesty, or some other truly good thing, and that were to be properly explained — well that’s different. But, restraint, just because “it’s good for you”, is exasperating.

The flesh chafes at restrictions against sleeping with every attractive member of the opposite sex. However, disciplinary measures aimed to restrain that behavior would be attempts to restrain the flesh.

On the other hand, a person might chafe at a prohibition against eating salad, but such a prohibition would not be restraining the flesh.

There is nowhere in the Scripture which teaches that restriction simpliciter is good or godly. Sin is to be restricted and conflict within the body is to be restricted. However, random, arbitrary things are not to be restricted.

Just the opposite. Christ came to bring freedom. Christianity is not asceticism or stoicism.

And, Hebrews 13 makes my point:

“Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so.” v. 9

Keith

Hi Keith

Does the flesh like restriction in any way? Suppose we were to turn it around and require that someone wear blue jeans and t-shirts only, to every event. The flesh would come to chafe at that as well. Discipline builds character. Read Heb 13.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3

If it is not a sin to wear jeans, then how is it restraining the flesh to prohibit the wearing of jeans? It might be teaching one the character of being able to happily submit to authority in matters indiferent, but how is it restraining the flesh?

If some school, “to build character” or to teach military type submission to superiors, required everyone to wear black shoes, or to part their hair on the left, no one would say that the removal of those requirements was the removal of restraints on the flesh. They’d just say that it was the removal of one technique for teaching subordination.

It seems, Don, that you are providing exhibit a for the case that BJU’s “procedural” rules were convoluted with morality, character, and spiritual maturity.

Roger, you and I see things pretty well the same, other than Calvinistic leanings! As for the rules, I’d say I actually don’t mind any of the rule changes (except light bell) individually. But collectively they seem to be a trend in the wrong direction.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

You and I actually don’t differ all that much on the rules at our alma mater. Back to that in a minute.

I am glad that you didnt hear the promoting of WCBC at the board meetings or in private. I know it happened a couple of years ago (in private) because I know the board member who said it. Glad he isn’t part of an upswing.

You are correct that there is a misunderstanding of revivalism on both sides. As one who is pretty calvinistic, I still have invitations. I still bring in evangelists sometimes. What I was referring to yesterday was a Bible College president saying, If you do this, this, and that God will send revival. No! We ought to be doing this, this and that because it honors and glorifies God. When God chooses to send revival is up to Him. Yet, many revivalists of our movement promote God will always send revival if we live right and that does not mesh with Scripture.

I loved the discipline at BJU. God definately used it. But for the first three years there, I was unsaved. I was a good Pharisee. I lived by the handbook, it was my life. That was not the fault of the university, it was my sinful heart.

That being said, I don’t mind them tweaking areas if that are not sinful if they wish. I don’t think you do either. But there are some out there that do. Dave did hit on something with the inter-racial thing. I, too commend Stephen for his handling of that issue. Of course, i did sign the open letter to him (I think I was one of four pastors that did).

Hi Dave

I have some specific reasons to suggest that there is some catering to the flesh behind the changes, but I won’t go into those right now. I had a conversation with my youngest son a couple of weeks ago as I was preparing to take him off campus, him in jeans and a sports shirt, no tie. I asked if that was acceptable dress for off campus and he said it was. He also commented on how much he liked it when that rule changed. I replied, ‘the reason you like it is because your flesh doesn’t like restraint. It’s not that it is a sin to wear jeans and a sports shirt (not tucked in) and no tie, but when the flesh is restrained, it resists and pines for loss of restraint.’

As for the persecution, I don’t fault the university for the fact that it exists to some extent, students come with all sorts of baggage. But there are problems in the discipline structure, with people in the chain of command taking the side of the persecutors and putting ungodly people into positions of leadership. Again, not entirely avoidable in a system as big and complex as the university’s, but one would think that you would get more godliness and support for godliness the higher up the chain of command you go. That has not been my universal experience lately.

There may be some FBF men moving more towards WCBC, but that isn’t the sense I got out of board members. I don’t think that we are unfriendly to them, but I don’t get the sense of promoting that direction or viewpoint.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3