What’s Important to God?

In my last post I covered the three aspects of our salvation: justification, sanctification, and glorification. Paul’s writings state that just as there was nothing that we could have done to merit salvation, and just as there is nothing that we will ever accomplish to attain glorification, so today we are unable to make ourselves more pleasing or lovable to our righteous God in the process of sanctification. The work that God is performing in us today is a work that He undertakes thanks to the imputed righteousness of our Savior, not due to any goodness on our part. At the moment of salvation, God begins restoring in us the image of Christ that humanity was intended to bear before the fall. It is our joy to embrace that process, and to participate in it with abandon.

So a question that might arise at this point in the conversation concerns what role standards play in the Christian life. We already know by what we’ve read in Galatians 3 that “doing things for God is the opposite of entering into what God does.” We know that we cannot please God with what we do, because Scripture clearly teaches us that “all our righteousness is as filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6). There’s no qualifier on that passage in Scripture: “all righteousness is filthy before salvation, but after that, well, the stuff you do starts to look pretty good to God.” Nope. And time and time again in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians we’re warned to stay clear of rule-keeping systems (Galatians 2:15, Galatians 2:19, Galatians 3:11, Galatians 3:21, Galatians 5:2).

So why is it that some churches and institutions insist on a virtual litany of externalized standards? Christian schools around the nation are intent upon looking a certain way, cutting hair a certain way, making sure that some garments are long enough and that others aren’t too short. Churches that follow after these kinds of trends abound as well. But if these things have no impact on how God views us, then why observe them with such religious fervor? The answer often given is that we constrain ourselves to certain choices for expediency, “for the sake of ministry.” But what does keeping my hair short and my skirt long have to do with love? The usual answer is that we do these things because we do not want to offend, and so we defer on these issues in order to put the emphasis on Christ.

But to whom do we defer? The saved or the unsaved? The unsaved don’t recognize these external standards as having any connection to love. So we are deferring to the saved–and, obviously, really to those who hold these standards as important. Many other believers don’t hold these standards, but we must defer to those who do, for the sake of love, right?

But wait: what if some believers come up with an odd standard? (Feel free to insert your favorite regulation here: pleated pants, patterned hose, big-knotted ties, unpolished shoes, etc.) Am I supposed to follow this restriction for the sake of love? What are believers who hold these kinds of extra-biblical standards really saying? That any believer who wears pleated pants is unspiritual? Worldly? In some way deficient? This conclusion is equivalent to saying that unless I follow all of the man-made rules that might be conceived, I am not pleasing God. What then of grace? I cannot earn God’s pleasure with anything that I do. So when I place everyone else’s rules either equal to or above what I believe the Holy Spirit has led me to believe, am I not denying the grace that God has given to me?

This is exactly what Paul addresses in Galatians 5:1-6:

Christ has set us free to live a free life. So take your stand! Never again let anyone put a harness of slavery on you.

I am emphatic about this. The moment any one of you submits to circumcision or any other rule-keeping system, at that same moment Christ’s hard-won gift of freedom is squandered. I repeat my warning: The person who accepts the ways of circumcision trades all the advantages of the free life in Christ for the obligations of the slave life of the law.

I suspect you would never intend this, but this is what happens. When you attempt to live by your own religious plans and projects, you are cut off from Christ, you fall out of grace. Meanwhile we expectantly wait for a satisfying relationship with the Spirit. For in Christ, neither our most conscientious religion nor disregard of religion amounts to anything. What matters is something far more interior: faith expressed in love.

We all agree that Scripturally-prescribed external standards do exist. Scripture teaches that we are to conduct ourselves soberly, righteously and in a godly manner, for instance. We would also agree that there is a “synergy”– a working together of man and God in sanctification. But when the human side of that synergistic equation is out of balance, we tread on dangerous ground. Philippians 2:12, “work out your own salvation,” takes more precedence over Philippians 2:13, “for it is God that worketh in you.” Passages that clearly teach the work of God in salvation, such as Ephesians 3:17, “May Christ dwell in your hearts by faith,” take a back seat to human-centered imperatives: “Let Christ dwell in you.”

This kind of improper emphasis leaves us poorly equipped to deal with disagreements with fellow Christians about standards such as are covered by Paul in Romans 14. The congregant or the Christian school student hears that we must all be ruled by the weakest brother (for the sake of love/ministry). But Paul commands explicitly: “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth” (Romans 14:3). He does not say, “everybody stop eating so as not to offend the weaker brother.” (Some might be inclined to bring up I Corinthians 8:13 where Paul asserts that he will refrain from eating meat in order to keep from offending a brother. But what that argument is missing is the recognition that that Paul’s abstinence was a constraint he voluntarily placed upon himself. When institutions and churches impose their standards on a body of believers, they often insist that what they require is gospel truth and that there is no room for variance. Those who do vary are viewed suspiciously, or worse yet, find their entire spiritual condition called into question. There’s a very big distinction between the two.) Those who find themselves in the unfavorable situation of being asked to keep a memorialized set of standards and rules soon realize that it’s not an exercise in spirituality at all; religion ceases to be about Christ and instead becomes an exercise in works-righteousness, just as Paul warned that it would in Galatians 3:12:

Rule-keeping does not naturally evolve into living by faith, but only perpetuates itself in more and more rule-keeping, a fact observed in Scripture: “The one who does these things [rule-keeping] continues to live by them.”

If salvation–including sanctification–is a work of divine grace in the life of a believer, then the process of growth proceeds at God’s pace and in God’s way. If a person is truly a child of God, then He is at work in each life, despite differing choices. We should let God work out matters of choice that are not in violation of Scripture. This is Paul’s argument in Romans 14. To say that failure to follow certain standards of behavior reveals spiritual deficit is to deny the fact that nothing we do will ever be enough to warrant God’s favor. Such misguided direction robs both the believer and the Spirit. Rather than having the opportunity to learn the leading of the Spirit and recognize inward motivation that leads to outward transformation, the Christian instead learns a counterfeit compliance borne of externalized enforcement. It’s this kind of “hothouse Christianity” that leaves people spiritually unprepared, struggling to survive in the winter of an inhospitable world.

To over-emphasize standards over-emphasizes the human side of sanctification and suggests that we can earn God’s favor. It cheats the believer out of two of the most precious truths of the gospel–grace and joy. While I might mess up again and again and again, I can rest in the fact God’s love for me did not begin with my own effort, and that His love for me now isn’t due to any work on my part. Instead of being saddled with the futile task of earning God’s favor, I can rejoice in the fact that He has favored me already because of Jesus.

So with these things in view, and with the acknowledged agreement that we must have some standards for conduct, how should we figure out what those standards should be? Our standards should reflect the emphases of Scripture. And Scripture does indeed emphasize externals. When you think about it, that’s the only thing that can be emphasized because we can’t see what’s in a person’s heart. But the externals prescribed by Scripture are far different than the usual list of do’s and don’ts that we hear. The “vices and virtues lists” in Scripture include these on the “do” list:

Other Lists to Consider:

When you look at what’s emphasized in these lists, you begin to realize the vast differences in the externals that are important to God and those that are important to man. Dress code, decorum, and obedience to authority are important, but these are the very same standards that are externally enforced in pagan corporate America. So why in the world do we take the same God-bereft, externalized approach when attempting to teach people how to live life from the inside out? If these standards are how a moral business man can live without Christ, then surely our institutionalizing and enforcing those same externals does nothing to foreground Christ. The emphases in the above Scripture passages are much, much more important. These are the things we should be foregrounding, not small-minded standards that change with the winds of culture.

I’m thinking of a couple of typical children’s songs: “Obedience is the very best way to show that you believe.” But what does Jesus say is the very best way to show that you believe? (See John 13:35.) This song does not match Scripture’s emphasis. And according to the song about Jonah we all know, what was Jonah’s problem? He “did not obey God immediately.” According to Scripture, Jonah’s problem was a lack of compassion. (See Jonah 4:2.) Obedience was not the real problem. We blunt the force of Scripture when we teach obedience and cheat compassion (the kind of compassion that allows us to live a Romans 14 Christianity). And when the cart of obedience gets before the horse of a transformed heart, the result usually ranges from numb compliance to hardened bitterness. The result is flawed because the approach was flawed.

The real issue, I believe, is not about internals or externals, law or grace, bondage or freedom–those issues too easily get us off-track. The true issue is about those things that are important to God. Spirituality is not about having some other spiritual “stuff” put inside us, and it is not about looking right and acting right. Looking right and acting right are important, but they’re due to our change of position before God, due to a change of values that God gradually works in us. Spirituality is axiological, not ontological. Being “spiritual,” therefore, means ordering your life by those things that are important to God. If that Spirit-led ordering is taken care of in a believer’s life, then the other minor, external details will, in time, take care of themselves.

Aug 2, 2007

Leave A Reply

Comments

Ken Killen (Seth's Dad) (Aug 03, 2007)

These truths are precious to the church and have been a battleground for her from the beginning (Acts 15) There is a reason for this. If the enemy can cause us to focus upon the way we look or the way we behave rather than the one who brings about these things, he has accomplished his goal. I believe it was D. L. Moody who said, “Satan doesn’t care which side of the horse we fall from; he is pleased anytime we are knocked out of the saddle. It takes a great deal of spiritual acuity to stay in the saddle. Most days of my life I could walk onto any “Christian University” and be in dress code. But I dress like that because I like it and it doesn’t draw attention to me, not because I want to be in dress code thus pleasing the administration. If my motivation is to please men I can’t be the servant of Christ. There is a subtle difference, the heart is desperately wicked,. That’s why spiritual acuity along with ruthless honesty with ourselves is a must. I commend you on both. Stay humble, walk close, be courageous!

The Men in my Life at A Time to Laugh (Aug 03, 2007)

[...] side of the sidewalk he should stand in order to protect his lady from the carriages riding by. He’s still protecting me. From Grant I understand how selflessly and assertively Christ loves His [...]

Mark Rosedale (Aug 03, 2007)

This was very good. I had to struggle with these very things after I left BJ especially when I was looking for a church. My “pastor” (quotes required since I don’t technically have a pastor) and I were having a lengthy conversation about BJU and other churches like it. He points out something that I think is very true about the external rules that you point out. He said that living a Christian life like that is easy. Basically he is saying that living a life with set rules is much easier than what the Bible actually says. And when you think about it he is right. The Bible tells us to live a moral sanctified life, but gives us no list to abide by…he leaves a lot up to the Holy Spirit and our own personal walk with God. That is difficult.

When Lynn and I were searching for churches we wanted to find something that would be out of our comfort zone for this very purpose to see if our convictions were our own or just what we grew up with.

Thanks for this, Grant. I will have to share this with Lynn.

admin (Aug 03, 2007)

“…about BJU and other churches like it.” Calling BJU a church was probably unintentional on your part, but isn’t it funny that we DO think of it that way? Consider this, though: since BJU carries out neither of the ordinances of the church (communion, baptism), it therefore is not vested with any of the authority that belongs to the church. And yet how often do we see it trying to exercise that authority reseverd by God specifically for the local assembly?

Weird the things you begin to see when you’re out from behind the fence.

Brian Jeffords (Aug 04, 2007)

It’s absolutely true that the extra-biblical externals are not what’s important to God. However, I think that one thing needs to be said, at least about BJU. They are treating students as they would expect parents to treat their children. That’s pretty much what they do. How many times I’ve heard parents say things like “Well, you’ve got to let your kids mess up so they learn.” Usually “mess up” means “sin” in one way or another. I fail to see where the God says that it’s ok to allow someone, especially your own child, to sin so that they learn. God says to teach them not to sin and even to prevent them from it if you need to. That’s what BJU is trying to do. Jesus tells us that we will not fit in with the world. In fact he tells us that if we find ourselves fitting in that we are not following Him. BJU is not saying that your hair being to long is a sin. They aren’t saying that wearing certain clothes are a sin. They aren’t saying that you don’t love God if you do such and such. They are trying to prevent students from screwing up long enough to help teach them how to not screw up when they get out. The hard part for many is that, when you sign your name on the paper saying you’ll follow the rules and then you don’t follow the rules…you ARE in fact sinning. Not following the rules IS a sin at BJU. Not because the act was sinful…but because you said you would and you didn’t. I see way to many believers justifying their actions by asking the wrong question. The wrong question is “What’s wrong with XXX?” For a Christian that is NOT the question to ask. Jesus says “If you love Me keep My commandments.” So…we then look at his commandments and we see that out of around 49 or 50 in the new testament only what, 4 or 5 of them? deal with “don’t” and the rest all deal with “do”. The Christian life is not one of “don’t do bad things”. Those restrictions are placed on us by ourselves, our church or others that we agree to place in authority over ourselves. The life of a Christian is one of Godliness. Godliness is not bearing fruit or simply Christ-likeness. Godliness is a foundation for these. Godliness is a Godward attitude exercised through spiritual dicipline that focuses upon God. From this attitude arises the character and conduct that we confuse to be Godliness. We try so hard to develop Christian character without taking time to develop God-centered devotion first. I think that BJU is sincerely trying to give people the time to develop this God-centered devotion by removing many of the pitfalls from in front of still immature believers. Is it the right way? There is no one way to do it. But, having seen the results from many many other Christian schools…my kids are going to BJU unless the Lord shows me He wants them elsewhere.

Mark Jeffords (Aug 05, 2007)

About externals. II Peter 2: 5-9 is a pattern of sanctification. Peter says “. . . Giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.” Immediately after the foundation of faith, Peter proposes virtue as the next step. Webster’s defines virtue as “a conformity to a standard of right, a particular moral excellence.” This virtue is obedience to the law of God that precedes even a complete knowledge of that law. Love is the culmination of the list, but also the last item on it.
This progression is mirrored in child-rearing. A toddler is expected to obey because “I said so.” He doesn’t understand the reason for the rule or the motive in making it. As a child grows, he may learn the reason that he isn’t to run out into the street. Later, he will understand that his parent made the rule out of love – and this child (maybe an adult by now) will now obey future commands or advice completely out of love and respect.
A Christian parent/church/university is perfectly justified in focusing (in part and temporarily) on externals. A baby Christian may not be ready to obey for the right reason, but he still must obey.

admin (Aug 05, 2007)

I think the passage of Scripture you’re after is 2 Peter 1:5-9.

Again, you’re missing my point. I’m certainly not saying that sanctification will not have an external manifestation. I’m not saying that at all because it’s just not true: Christ’s transforming work in our hearts most certainly effects an outward change in our behavior. What I AM saying is that it’s improper to expect or cultivate externals without first making sure that the internal motivation is in place. To do otherwise only engenders rebellion. To extend your parenting metaphor, “Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath.” (Ephesians 6:4) A more helpful paraphrase is as follows:

Fathers, don’t exasperate your children by coming down hard on them. Take them by the hand and lead them in the way of the Master.

If you win your child’s heart, parenting your child becomes a much more simple, joyful process because of the relationship that is there. Your child will much more easily do what you ask because he loves you, not just “because you say so.” A parent who seeks to model God’s love to his child firmly, patiently leads and lovingly corrects; he does not simply expect mindless obedience. The most effective parenting leads by the heart (internally), not by the hand (externally).

And as for whether “a Christian parent/church/university is perfectly justified in focusing (in part and temporarily) on externals,” that’s too broad an assertion to address. Go back and re-read what I’ve written. Externals have their place, but God’s externals do not include, for instance, the particulars of exacting dress codes. God looks on the heart, not on the outward appearance. The outward appearance will take care of itself when the heart is in order.

David Mathues (student of Camille) (Aug 06, 2007)

First, I appreciate the extended discussion of sanctification. I have been thinking this issue over for several years and am finally beginning to get a Scriptural handle on why the Indy Fundy Baptist view of standards is wrong. My parents were very good at showing me the error of such an approach, but they never gave me much of a Scriptural foundtion for their views beyond a perfunctory cite to a few passages. So thanks.

The BJU = parent analogy annoys me. The school likes to play that card, but as soon as there is a conflict between a “stricter” rule from the school and a “looser” rule from the parent, suddenly the parent’s authority means much less. I also question the implicit assumption that students are automatically spiritually imature. Some may be. But at BJU, the Administration always assumed that every student was as immature and deceptive as the worst student in the place. Perhaps that is similar to allow one to be ruled by the weakest brother’s convictions, and I think it rests on equally shaky scriptural grounds. Scripture is full of younger people who were greatly used by God (Timothy, David), and most of the time we find God (or his servants) encouraging weaker beleivers rather than treating them as if they were the least mature (think Gideon).

Brian, I agree that disobeying BJU’s rules when you are at BJU is a sin because you are breaking a promise. That’s why I obeyed the rules when I was there. I did not want to make myself a liar. But I respectfully disagree with your analysis. Doesn’t it then follow that the one sin a student is then guilty of is lying? But lying is never what is addressed as such. I submit that students *are* judged and told that if they fail to obey, or even fail to agree with, certain standards, they are sinning. I have been there and have had friends there.

Finally, let me share a quote from one of my favorite authors, Ravi Zacharias, that captures your post’s focus on the role of Christ in sanctification: “The problem with morality as a badge of spiritual attainment is that is leads to the worst possible mental state–an illusion of absolute autonomy.”

admin (Aug 06, 2007)

I also question the implicit assumption that students are automatically spiritually imature. Some may be. But at BJU, the Administration always assumed that every student was as immature and deceptive as the worst student in the place.

I believe the chief reason that the students encounter such mistrust from those in leadership positions at BJU is due to a basic misunderstanding of the power of Christ’s wonderful, sanctifying work in the heart of the believer. If those in leadership do not understand it, if they do not trust it as being sufficient for victorious living, and if they do not live day-to-day in the light of its liberating power, then the students stand no chance. To understand that Christ miraculously changes our direction after salvation, transforming our natural bent so that it is now God-ward is to begin each day in victory; to misunderstand it is to begin each day in defeat. And of course, if you start each day with a fundamental mistrust of yourself, then every other believer is viewed with mistrust as well.

To capitalize on your quotation by Ravi Zacharias, we’ve all read about the near impossibility of a rich man entering Heaven (Mark 10:25). In similar fashion, it’s very difficult to convince a moral man that his works mean nothing to God. The Catholic church has been spouting that error for literally centuries; it’s very, very unfortunate to find that those who puport to foreground the “fundamentals” are becoming ensnared by that same lie today.

Seth Killen (Aug 08, 2007)

Brian, I hope you will be able to see my heart in my words. I truly write in love, not contention. I write because about three years ago, I would have taken the same approach as you. I now hold a different view.

It’s absolutely true that the extra-biblical externals are not what’s important to God. However, I think that one thing needs to be said, at least about BJU. They are treating students as they would expect parents to treat their children. That’s pretty much what they do.

I absolutely agree with you that Bob Jones is viewing themselves as the parents. However, they are not parents, and we’re not talking about children. We are talking about adults, yes young adults, and possibly immature adults, but we are talking about adults. These young adults are professed believers and that means that the Holy Spirit is indwelling in them, instructing them, and growing them. The problem, as I see it, is that by laying down the amount of external rules that are present at Bob Jones, it is easy (I speak as an alumnus) to desensitize to the Holy Spirit. I recall after graduating, picking out music for a church choir and thinking, “Would we have sung this at BJ?” While I should have been praying, reading, and thinking, does this honor God? (So, I know you are probably thinking, “Well, Bob Jones didn’t TEACH you to do that,” and you are right, but I will address my discrepancies a little later.)

I fail to see where the God says that it’s ok to allow someone, especially your own child, to sin so that they learn.

Our righteous God allows man the freedom of choice, freely forgives us when we choose sin, and teaches us from our failures. For example, consider Genesis 3. I can’t answer why God allows them to sin, but he doesn’t stop them. Or how about Jonah? (Jonah 1) I am not condoning sin, not even saying it shouldn’t be addressed/punished, what I am saying is that Bob Jones is trying to control the sin of their students by controlling the externals. I Sam. 16:7:

…For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.

This emphasis on externals weakens the student’s personal dependence on the Holy Spirit. By emphasizing the trivial outward conformity, the much deeper issues are being ignored. I’ll defer to Francis Shaeffer (True Spirituality, p. 5):

If we are considering outward things in relation to true spirituality, we are face-to-face not with some small list, but with the whole Ten Commandments and all of God’s other commands. In other words, if I see the list as a screen, and I say this small list is trite, dead and cheap, and I take hold of the screen and lift it away, then I am not face-to-face with a looser thing; I am face-to-face with the whole Ten Commandments and all that is included in them. I am also face-to-face with what we might call the Law of Love, the fact that I am to love God and I am to love my fellow man.

By focusing on the externals (lists) the full scope of God’s plan is narrowed down to a measuring stick of spirituality.

In my years at BJ, I never once heard of a Dorm Supervisor or member of the administration dealing with sin on the internal level. People were always in trouble for the outward: speech, dress, etc. not receiving loving counsel on the inward attitudes.

BJU is not saying that your hair being to long is a sin. They aren’t saying that wearing certain clothes are a sin. They aren’t saying that you don’t love God if you do such and such. They are trying to prevent students from screwing up long enough to help teach them how to not screw up when they get out.

Really? I think you are paying attention only to their verbal communication and not to their non-verbal communication. I whole-heartedly agree that they are not preaching, actions/externals will allow you to gain favor with God; however, I think they are missing what there actions are communicating to the student body. Students are promoted/demoted through a system of SPIRITUAL leadership. They primary factor in promotion is adherence to extra-biblical externals. The general excuse I encountered was that they could not possibly know the spiritual condition of 5,000 students. Ok, I’ll give you that, but STILL, you have to realize the message they are sending to students. Obey the rules, be placed in spiritual leadership, thus, YOU ARE CONSIDERED SPIRITUAL.

(I hate “Well, when I was at BJ,” stories, but I’ll share a couple because they are relevant.)

I had a roommate that was put on spiritual probation because when asked if he would be an APC he said, “No. No, because I do not feel I would be good at it, and it is not something that I feel led to do.” (His story, don’t know if it is entirely accurate. What I do know, is that after living with him for a year, he was the most courteous, genuine, gracious, loving Christian roommate that I encountered at BJ.) At the end of the year, after discussing it with him at length, I decided to recommend him to be an APC. He had come to the point that he thought he could answer “Yes” and do a good job. (Partly, I believe, because I had lived a transparent, “confessing your faults one to another” life, and he could see that you could be an APC and still readily admit your shortcomings.) Well, when I recommend him, I was called into the Dorm Sup’s office and my discernment was questioned because I had recommended him. I explained the situation, the strength of my recommendation, and the answer I got was, “He is on Spiritual probation, you can’t recommend him!”
I had a friend demoted because he was over heard humming the tune to, “In the Jungle, the Mighty Jungle,” while he was removing barrels from the girls’ dorms.

Let me give an illustration that I think you can connect with. Let’s say YOU are a student at Bob Jones, you are an APC, all your guys love you for your spiritual insight, for you love for them, and for your leadership. Since the word is in your vocabulary (and I’ll admit it is in mine as well), let’s say you are over heard using the phrase, “Screw up.” Depending on who you were overheard by this could cause you to loose your APC-ship. Ask yourself what message this sends to the students. Your no longer deemed suitable to be a spiritual leader. What are they to think? Am I exaggerating? I don’t think so…I saw very similar situations.

Simply put, the University’s actions are communicating to the students so LOUDLY that their biblical verbal communication cannot be heard.

“Jesus says “If you love me, keep my commandments.” So… we then look at his commandments and we see that out of around 49 or 50 in the New Testament only–what, 4 or 5 of them?–deal with “don’t” and the rest all deal with “do”. The Christian life is not one of “don’t do bad things”. Those restrictions are placed on us by ourselves, our church or others that we agree to place in authority over ourselves.

I keep coming back to your words:

It’s absolutely true that the extra-biblical externals are not what’s important to God.

So, if we agree that the Christian life is not about a list of, “don’ts,” then why do we accept and promote an institution that makes their school about, “don’ts” under the guise of teaching biblical living. I believe the crux of the issue is that Bob Jones is trying to develop godly character by affecting the outside, rather than affecting the inside and letting the outside follow along. Shouldn’t the institution follow suit with the model of God’s word? “If you love Me keep My commandments.” YES! I sadly missed this while at Bob Jones, and I can only speak on my behalf, but I was so wrapped up into the culture of BJU, that I stopped thinking and depending on the Holy Spirit, and started conforming. I believe many others have missed this as well.

Ok, it is 1:00 AM… I worked a 12-hour day… I’m going to bed!

Camille (Aug 08, 2007)

And it’s examples like that that I’ve heard over and over again that make me think it’s more litigious than it used to be — more extreme, more petty, and more burdensome. I never heard such stories when I was in school. And while I don’t doubt that I can be a dingbat at times, I don’t think I was THAT unaware. Maybe some of my own classmates can correct me, if I’m wrong.

One thing I’ve noticed over the years. . . . when we were school, we women students joked that the men had it so easy compared to us. Our side of campus was so much more rigid. It’s not that way now. The men’s side is much, much more tedious.

But I’m the only one insisting that it’s changed. Everyone else says it’s so easy-greazy. I dunno. . . .

David Mathues (Aug 10, 2007)

Seth, as a fellow Chi Alpha member, I would be curious to know what has changed your mind on such matters. Your focus on verbal/nonverbal communication clarified something I have been thinking about BJU and my church back in South Carolina for a long time. It’s not what is said, but what is not said or not done. Kind of like how a squishy mailine Christian might sign a creed saying “Jesus is the Son of God” but not mean it or live it the way you and I would.

Camille, I think it depends on how you define “change.” On one hand, I think some rules are much easier–it’s easier to get off campus, no more rising bell, no family style meals, no more hose, etc. On the other, perhaps there is more pettyness among the students. I don’t know. Like you, I didn’t see firsthand that much when I was there because I was too busy studying. I will say that from what i hear from my sister, it is still much worse on the girl’s side.

I wonder how much of this stems from the evil (yes, I said evil) reliance on anonymous tips. There is no greater foundation to either Biblical or civic american justice than facing one’s accuser (and no better way to ensure that the accuser also has the right heart). Sadly, BJU repeats the error of the Spanish Inquisition in this matter.

Matt Edwards (Aug 11, 2007)

Wow! Let me prepare all who read this that my posting will not be as esoteric as everyone before me–Grant, you and Camille will understand! You guys, all I can think to say is, I’m so happy for you! Kelly and I have felt this way for quite some time, and began making our changes shortly after we moved to Baltimore in 1993. I can’t say that we spoke as elegantly as you, but we had roughly the same ideas!

If I may be so crude as to mention a CBS movie, that corporation’s film “Jesus” premiered one night about 8 years ago. I don’t remember the circumstances exactly, but I happened to turn it on, probably several minutes late. And I probably started quickly noting great little tidbits as to where they “got it wrong” or other minutiae about the way I “knew” it had been. But as I watched, I began to see something; Jesus seemed to like the people around him. In fact, he looked into their eyes with love, and it didn’t matter how they appeared. I know, I know, it’s just a movie made by some evil empire. But the Jesus in that film who ate dinner with scoundrels, and extended grace to the prostitutes, and laughed with his friends–THAT Jesus is the one I read about in the Bible. I suddenly couldn’t reconcile a Jesus who looked out more than in, who saw long hair instead of pain, who saw a harlot instead of a girl who felt hopeless. The logic of this comment from above…

“Love is the culmination of the list, but also the last item on it.”

….is frightening. Last on the list? As if God will show us love ONLY AFTER we have conformed to a numbered list. That is, without doubt, conditional love. And my God loves me UNconditionally. Just ask the thief on the cross, if you’re still not sure.

That’s all I got at 20 minutes past midnight…..miss you guys!

Ed McNickle (Nov 24, 2008)

It is a fact that God looks on the heart. Man sees what he sees. There might be 200 in attendance on Sunday morning but I don’t really know any of them. God sees them as they are. As far as dress codes, if a person comes in jeans is alright with me. That person might be more loving and God like than the one who is dressed with the finest.
I think that the clothing issue is a trap that the enemy uses. If we worship God in spirit and in truth we will be free from the MANY traps that we fight against. Satan loves for us to get side tracked. Let us keep our eyes on God and we will “be more than conquerors through Him that loved us”.