Extremely strict colleges...your thoughts?

[Steven2006]

College students are adults. Nobody calls me to check where I am. Neither did they when I was a freshman in college. Mom, Dad, friends, dorm, nobody.

Keeping the campus safe is the job of the school, to a large extent. Keeping tabs on every student is not.

Your post sounds like a rebellious teenager.

It is prudent for a school to have some type of system in place to keep tract of the students that are under their care. Yes I did say under their care, the students that are living on campus, in a dorm are under their care. If and when a student pays to move off campus then he/she is no longer under their care.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

That is a jump that a lot of people, especially college students, want to make jaigner, that

College students are adults.

While most college students are over the age of 18 most are simply not capable of being considered adults at this point. Many aspects of our society affirm this. They can vote, but they cannot purchase alcohol. They can work full time, and serve in the military, but they cannot be licensed law enforcement officers or fire fighters. In my state they must purchase a license for hunting or fishing and they can purchase long guns and ammunition, but they cannot purchase hand guns.


Some college students may actually be responsible adults but many are not. Think of a college student and ask yourself these questions:

• Are they working and paying taxes?
• Are they paying their own way through school?
• Can someone else claim them as a dependent on their income taxes?
• Are they on someone else’s family health insurance plan?
• Are they driving a car that is registered to and insured by someone else?

Are they regularly receiving financial assistance from a family member?

Now you tell me jaigner, how many of them are adults? I know that there are plenty of parents out there that think something magical happens on their child’s 18th birthday and after that it’s not their problem anymore, but the truth is that for several years still they are growing into adulthood.

Some kids need more guidance and direction than others. Some kids need stricter schools than others. Ever hear of a judge telling a young man or woman they will drop charges if they enlist in the military? Within the armed forces they have structure and rules some kids need. Yea, after basic it gets easier, but they still have to show up for work or someone will come looking for them.

No one is ever forced to go to one of these strict schools, it is a personal choice; a choice that many would not make, but so what? They don’t have to. A close friend that used to work in the administration of one such school told me once he told each incoming student, “That door you came in swings both ways, if you don’t want to be here don’t stay. Your parents or no one else can make you attend here, if you say they are I can kick you out right now and we can fix that.”

 

[glfredrick]

I am thankful tou're church is doing that. But probably like you have noticed, there are churches that our hopelessly up to date in terms of everything they are doing but don't ever see people saved. The reason is they're not telling the story of Jesus. I know churches who do all hymns, all in ties and dresses and all carrying KJV who are reaching people.

I am just thinking that a church who was seriously loving people and trying to reach them with the story of Jesus would be reaching the world.

The reason we're not reaching the world is that we're not trying.

One of the things that I do from time to time is church consulting for the Lawless Group. I've been in a number of those "up to date" churches. They are up to date for 1980, mostly. They are still working on being "cool" with a strummed guitar, and church staff in printed shirts... That has little to do with spreading the gospel. A church will only truly be "up to date" if they let their people drive their culture instead of their leaders. That can only happen if the leaders are secure enough to let that happen, and also if the leaders (notice the plural -- that eliminates the cult of the charismatic sole leader that is also so very prevalant) major -- just as you said -- on doing the work of ministry, including sharing the gospel and coaching people through the process with sound biblical counsel.

At our place, we are ever so free to try new things. We would freak out a lot of other church members and pastors, that's for sure. But we are also seeing the most amazing life changes as people are drawn to Jesus, justified, and begin their sanctification process.

Like I said, I've been in a ton of churches, and I've not experienced another anything like what we're doing -- for the most part -- save for a few exceptions across the nation that are noteworthy for doing similar things to us. Oh, we're also planting churches like crazy. We have 3 campuses that are united with us in various sections of Louisville, but have also sent out teams to many other cities across the nation. What we're doing here works everywhere, but may look radically different. Even in our 3 campuses in Louisville, the vibe from service to service (not to mention church to church) is different enough that changing times or places is like a whole new place, yet we are united together in Christ as one big family.

 

[Luke2427]

So then your answer is that your statistics are strictly opinion, with no researched statistical basis, based on no scientific surveys, correct? And thus you have no way to prove your charge that more fundamentalists grads leave the movement than stay. It's pure speculation.

Concerning fundamentalist schools and their graduates, an educated guess from the size of various fundamental schools I am familiar with is that several thousand are graduated every year from fundamental schools. Some of them are larger than you apparently think. Bob Jones U. and Pensacola each have several thousand students in their student bodies. (Someone else may have accurate stats.) Maranatha, Northland, Crown and various other schools each graduate one or two hundred per year.

I hope after the reprimand you have stats and sources to prove this.

I did not say more leave than stay. You misrepresented my statement. Many hundreds, no doubt, stay and function as perfect little automatons and carbon copies of the staff of the "extremely strict" institution they attended.

And I am sure that a few actually maintain their individuality and do not become carbon copies.

But my experience, having attended one of these types of "institutions" and having been exposed to "fundamentalism" for better than two decades says that most are just little copies of whatever IFB hero that particular institution is fashioned after.

 

[Luke2427]

My family went to movies on occasion. I dated from the time I was sixteen without adult supervision. When I left home I went to bed when I wanted too, went where I wanted, and did what I wanted. And, horror of horrors, I listened to, and still do, CCM. Therefore, I would not attend a school with such rigid rules. So, it seems to reason that those who go to these schools already agree with the rules because that's the life that they would lead otherwise. Some kids are there because they have proven themselves unable to handle life on their own so mom and dad send them to a school with rigid rules for their kid's own good (hence my comment that John took exception too. No offense toward his family was intended.). Otherwise, I can think of no other good reasons to subject myself or my child to a school with a legalistic leaning atmosphere.

I concur. And BTW, John just gets a little touchy sometimes. He's a sensitive sort.:thumbs:

 

[Luke2427]

One of the interesting points about schools (and others who adopt similar tenets) is that there is still "culture" involved. The question is, which era, and what makes that particular era more right than another era.

The rules put forth by some of the schools we have been examining seem to stem back to 1940s - 1960s American (and more particularly, southern) church practice. I can imagine a culture of neat hair cuts; dark suit, white shirt, and colored tie; music from a hymn book, played by either piano or organ; and other cultural indicators of that era.

The funny thing is that all that stuff was also once "modern" and considered "sinful" by prior generations who had their own culture. There is no such thing as a universal "Christian" culture that is dictated by Scripture, but many have tried to make it so anyway.

I can only imagine how those culturally-locked schools might respond to someone like the Apostle Paul with his torn up body, stink from walking the world, wearing robes, sandals and such, instead of suit and tie, speaking in a language unfamiliar to most at the school, and calling people to true righteousness instead of social issues that take the place of the gospel.

There is a place for colleges to set down rules of conduct for students, but not of those rules are in fact nothing more than a forced enculturation to a bygone era, and that merely for the sake of retaining something that the oldsters who run and finance those schools remain comfortable in having.

I'm sure we'll reach the world with the gospel with that understanding... :BangHead:

Very good. Once again, I concur!

 

[rbell]

My bias likely comes from how my 18-22 years went--

I was completely on my own after my first semester at college. Paid my own way. Car, insurance, gas, spending money, health insurance, the whole bit. Full-time at school, plus full-time employment.

(can you tell it was a few years ago? Probably not possible now...)

Anyhow, some of you are right that many 18-20 year-olds are likely not ready for complete freedom...

I was. (not saying I handled things perfectly, but I took care of my business, and didn't live in idiot mode--though I visited once or twice).

Jerome, sorry that my posts irritate you so much. Perhaps an analgesic cream would help?

 

[jaigner]

Your post sounds like a rebellious teenager.

It is prudent for a school to have some type of system in place to keep tract of the students that are under their care. Yes I did say under their care, the students that are living on campus, in a dorm are under their care. If and when a student pays to move off campus then he/she is no longer under their care.

I'm actually a responsible adult with a wife, dog, 2 jobs and close to 200 college credits. I think that qualifies me to say this stuff.

Schools have the responsibility to keep the campus safe. When I was at Baylor, we could leave any time we wanted, but we'd need our ID to get back into the dorm. That's a must for music students, who sometimes have to practice during the wee hours.

Heck, the library was open 24 hours.

Schools are not responsible for the behavior of legal adults who pay them to live on campus.

 

[jaigner]

Now you tell me jaigner, how many of them are adults? I know that there are plenty of parents out there that think something magical happens on their child’s 18th birthday and after that it’s not their problem anymore, but the truth is that for several years still they are growing into adulthood.

If a student is on Mom and Dad's dime, driving their car, etc., then they answer to Mom and Dad for how they use those things. My point is that parents shouldn't be worried about the school. Don't think your kid is ready to be on their own, don't send them away to college.

 

[Steven2006]

Don't think your kid is ready to be on their own, don't send them away to college.

But that is the point people are making on this thread. Living in a dorm on a campus is not "being on their own". It is not unreasonable for a parent who pays for his/her teenager to live in a dorm to expect the school to have some involvement in that teens welfare. Your all or nothing, black or white line of thinking is too simplistic. Moving from home to a dorm is a progression preparing them for being on their own.

I am sure you were very independent as you have told us, but that does not change that fact that your view would be in the minority from what most parents would expect of a school where their child is living on their campus.

I even doubt most freshmen if asked would consider living in a dorm as "living on their own". Living away from home yes, but until they are paying for an apartment, and stop eating in a cafeteria, they are far from "own their own".

 

[jaigner]

I even doubt most freshmen if asked would consider living in a dorm as "living on their own". Living away from home yes, but until they are paying for an apartment, and stop eating in a cafeteria, they are far from "own their own".

I take your point, but in my experience, "on my own" meant nobody was in charge of my whereabouts and behavior on a day-to-day basis except myself.

 

[John of Japan]

My family went to movies on occasion. I dated from the time I was sixteen without adult supervision. When I left home I went to bed when I wanted too, went where I wanted, and did what I wanted. And, horror of horrors, I listened to, and still do, CCM. Therefore, I would not attend a school with such rigid rules. So, it seems to reason that those who go to these schools already agree with the rules because that's the life that they would lead otherwise. Some kids are there because they have proven themselves unable to handle life on their own so mom and dad send them to a school with rigid rules for their kid's own good (hence my comment that John took exception too. No offense toward his family was intended.). Otherwise, I can think of no other good reasons to subject myself or my child to a school with a legalistic leaning atmosphere.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't really think that you intended offense to my family, but the way you stated things that possibility was there.

It's very true that students who go to such colleges are usually already used to the strict culture the college represents. However, I can't recall off hand any case whatsoever where kids were sent to the colleges I know about because they couldn't handle life on their own and needed rigid rules. In the fundamentalist culture such kids are sent to a "home" of some kind to get their life in order.

 

[John of Japan]

I hope after the reprimand you have stats and sources to prove this.

The size of these schools is of public record, unlike your guesses. See www.collegeprowler.com.
BJU: 3903 undergrads (not counting the grad school)
Maranatha BBC: 908
Northland International U.: 617
Crown College: 1294
etc.

I did not say more leave than stay. You misrepresented my statement. Many hundreds, no doubt, stay and function as perfect little automatons and carbon copies of the staff of the "extremely strict" institution they attended.

It certainly sounded like you thought more leave than stay. Here's your original statement, talking about 1000s who excape the conformity, but "many more become disillusioned." I hope you soon learn to state things more clearly.

Originally Posted by Luke2427
Nobody said all of these things were true for everybody who attended one of these bible bootcamps. We are saying it is the tendency. You and yours may have escaped it. Many thousands, no doubt, do.

But many more become disillusioned with fundamentalism and quit the ministry bitterly or turn out to be little automatons who just pretty well are carbon copies of their professors.

That's my educated opinion based on having attended one of these silly colleges of which is in question on this thread and observing fundamentalists around the country.

And I am sure that a few actually maintain their individuality and do not become carbon copies.

So now it's only "a few" who maintain their individuality instead of 1000s? Keep working. I'm sure you can find more ways to be abrasive on this thread.

 

[Luke2427]

The size of these schools is of public record, unlike your guesses. See www.collegeprowler.com.
BJU: 3903 undergrads (not counting the grad school)
Maranatha BBC: 908
Northland International U.: 617
Crown College: 1294
etc.

Then I was right. You're certainly NOT graduating thousands, are you?

And I am curious to know if BJU really qualifies as one of these "extremely strict" colleges. I honestly don't know.

It certainly sounded like you thought more leave than stay. Here's your original statement, talking about 1000s who excape the conformity, but "many more become disillusioned." I hope you soon learn to state things more clearly.

I hope you can learn to read more thoroughly. The very quote you provided showed extraordinarily clearly that I said that many more become disillusioned and leave OR BECOME LITTLE CARBON COPIES. Pay attention, John. Carbon copies stay. If you are going to make smart alek remarks like "I hope you learn to state things more clearly" then at least have a point. 10-4?

So now it's only "a few" who maintain their individuality instead of 1000s? Keep working. I'm sure you can find more ways to be abrasive on this thread.

I am being abrasive. I apologize. You are right. I hope you will try to understand that I have been burned by one of these institutions and one of these movements and they seem almost evil to me. I do, however, realize that there are many wonderful servants of God who come from them- like yourself- in spite of these silly, suffocating, personality wiping, carbon copy making, automaton programming institutions.

I do believe that these movements, at least the ones in the Southeast for the past few decades are issue oriented rather than Christ exalting. They are more concerned with the "old paths" than The Way. They make more of standards than they do the Savior. Many of their pastors and leaders are popes who speak ex cathedra with no bible whatsoever to support their positions. And these types are evil and do ten thousand times the harm than the little good they produce.

But I recognize on the same token that there are many wonderful IFB pastors- like Clarence Sexton whose church I have attended, whose pastor's conference is very good, whose history hall is awesome whose preaching is expository and often christocentric, whose college is overly strict and a bit stifling and carbon copy making but at least it is a copy of good men like Sexton and Scott Pauly.

But on the SAME TOKEN Sheldon Smith tossed Sexton from the Sword conference!

 

[John of Japan]

Then I was right. You're certainly NOT graduating thousands, are you?

I'd estimate at least a couple of thousand IFB grads per year. There are quite a few schools I didn't mention, some sizeable.

And I am curious to know if BJU really qualifies as one of these "extremely strict" colleges. I honestly don't know.

I went to BJU in 1970-72, and it was quite strict then. Our newest missionary got his M. Div. there some time ago, and says it is still strict.

I hope you can learn to read more thoroughly. The very quote you provided showed extraordinarily clearly that I said that many more become disillusioned and leave OR BECOME LITTLE CARBON COPIES. Pay attention, John. Carbon copies stay. If you are going to make smart alek remarks like "I hope you learn to state things more clearly" then at least have a point. 10-4?

IMO you've been unclear before, and I stand by my statement that, to me at least, you were unclear this time.

I am being abrasive. I apologize. You are right. I hope you will try to understand that I have been burned by one of these institutions and one of these movements and they seem almost evil to me. I do, however, realize that there are many wonderful servants of God who come from them- like yourself- in spite of these silly, suffocating, personality wiping, carbon copy making, automaton programming institutions.

Thank you for the apology.

I have been burned by fundamentalists, too. One leading fundamentalist wrote a pamphlet against my grandfather in the early 1970s (with his name in the title), alleging among other things that granddad had bribed me to switch colleges, which was a lie. So I was slandered by a fundamentalist leader to the broader movement. I got over it, and you will too.

I'm still a fundamentalist not because of the personalities, but because I believe the practice of "earnestly contending for the faith" is right and Biblical. All movements have their critics, and all movements have genuine failures that should be criticized. On the other hand, every movement has people that go overboard and are nasty in un-Christian ways. According to my family, after the 1957 New York Crusade when fundamentalists criticized Graham for having liberals on the committee, Graham himself kept quiet, but one of his relatives wrote some very nasty stuff. I've read that relative's biography, and he did do a good work for Christ, though he lapsed that time. The trick in such a case is to keep our eyes on Jesus, amen?

I do believe that these movements, at least the ones in the Southeast for the past few decades are issue oriented rather than Christ exalting. They are more concerned with the "old paths" than The Way. They make more of standards than they do the Savior. Many of their pastors and leaders are popes who speak ex cathedra with no bible whatsoever to support their positions. And these types are evil and do ten thousand times the harm than the little good they produce.

But I recognize on the same token that there are many wonderful IFB pastors- like Clarence Sexton whose church I have attended, whose pastor's conference is very good, whose history hall is awesome whose preaching is expository and often christocentric, whose college is overly strict and a bit stifling and carbon copy making but at least it is a copy of good men like Sexton and Scott Pauly.

I wish you could have been at Tennessee Temple when I was there. I still appreciate the great ministry of Lee Roberson, and the godly teachers I had in the college and seminary. Those who came out automatons did so because they ignored the teaching and example of these good men and women.

But on the SAME TOKEN Sheldon Smith tossed Sexton from the Sword conference!

I've met both men, but have little contact with either one nowadays. I will say this, though. When granddad was considering who should follow him as Sword editor, he came to the conclusion, "God doesn't ordain institutions, He ordains men." So both of these men, and both you and I, will someday give account of our ministries to the Lord Jesus Christ. But we don't need to give account to each other. May we be faithful in both contending for the faith and loving the brethren.

 

[Luke2427]

I'd estimate at least a couple of thousand IFB grads per year. There are quite a few schools I didn't mention, some sizeable.

Fair enough.

I went to BJU in 1970-72, and it was quite strict then. Our newest missionary got his M. Div. there some time ago, and says it is still strict.

How strict I wonder? As strict as the OP states?

IMO you've been unclear before, and I stand by my statement that, to me at least, you were unclear this time.

You are a stubborn cuss aren't you?:smilewinkgrin: You know you are wrong this time- it's obvious. Just admit it.:thumbs:

Thank you for the apology.

You are more than welcome. It was warranted.

I have been burned by fundamentalists, too. One leading fundamentalist wrote a pamphlet against my grandfather in the early 1970s (with his name in the title), alleging among other things that granddad had bribed me to switch colleges, which was a lie. So I was slandered by a fundamentalist leader to the broader movement. I got over it, and you will too.

Thanks, and I am certain that you are right. But there is a problem in fundamentalism over here that I'm not sure you are fully aware of. It is the degradation of fundamentalism into how tight your standards are.

This has produced a bunch of junk and pastors who are popes- and I predict, apart from a great revival, will be the poison that ultimately kills IFB.

I'm still a fundamentalist not because of the personalities, but because I believe the practice of "earnestly contending for the faith" is right and Biblical.

Yes, and I am a fundamentalist in that, the true sense of the word, for the same reason. But those who parade the title around where I am from (the southeast from VA to LA) are popes who emphasize standards over the Savior and do not even have Bible for the standards they emphasize.

All movements have their critics, and all movements have genuine failures that should be criticized. On the other hand, every movement has people that go overboard and are nasty in un-Christian ways. According to my family, after the 1957 New York Crusade when fundamentalists criticized Graham for having liberals on the committee, Graham himself kept quiet, but one of his relatives wrote some very nasty stuff. I've read that relative's biography, and he did do a good work for Christ, though he lapsed that time. The trick in such a case is to keep our eyes on Jesus, amen?

A big, heartfelt and hearty AMEN!

I wish you could have been at Tennessee Temple when I was there. I still appreciate the great ministry of Lee Roberson, and the godly teachers I had in the college and seminary. Those who came out automatons did so because they ignored the teaching and example of these good men and women.

No criticism from me against Tennessee Temple nor Dr. Roberson in the least. A very bright spot for IFB's in my opinion. A good friend of mine got his Master's there several years back.

 

[sag38]

My parents kept a leash (it got yanked when we messed up. Otherwise, it wasn't kept tight) on my sister and me when we were growing up. They taught me responsibility in making decisions. When I left home I didn't need a hovering parent or school to watch over me. I had been equipped to make good decisions and to accept responsibility for the bad ones that I made. I am doing the same with my son. My wife and I are trying to teach him personal responsibility, self-discipline, responsible independence, and discernment. Our prayer is that when he leaves home he will be equipped to live on his own without us having to hover over him keeping tabs on his every move. If not, I'll be sure to do one of two things. I'll send him to Pensacola Christian College where there are rules galore and folks to keep tabs on him. Or better yet, send him to the Army or Marines and let a drill sergeant do what I failed to do.

 

[jaigner]

I'm still a fundamentalist not because of the personalities, but because I believe the practice of "earnestly contending for the faith" is right and iblical.

But is it right and biblical to be legalistic moralists who care more about appearances than radical heart change? Because that's the experience most people have with fundies.

 

[annsni]

My parents kept a leash (it got yanked when we messed up. Otherwise, it wasn't kept tight) on my sister and me when we were growing up. They taught me responsibility in making decisions. When I left home I didn't need a hovering parent or school to watch over me. I had been equipped to make good decisions and to accept responsibility for the bad ones that I made. I am doing the same with my son. My wife and I are trying to teach him personal responsibility, self-discipline, responsible independence, and discernment. Our prayer is that when he leaves home he will be equipped to live on his own without us having to hover over him keeping tabs on his every move. If not, I'll be sure to do one of two things. I'll send him to Pensacola Christian College where there are rules galore and folks to keep tabs on him. Or better yet, send him to the Army or Marines and let a drill sergeant do what I failed to do.

But as I said, this is also the rule (the overnight check-in rule) at even secular colleges so there MUST be something to it.

Additionally, many colleges including my daughters have a zero tolerance policy to drugs and alcohol. In my daughter's college, even if you are 21, there is NO alcohol allowed on the campus. Is this still being overprotective or is it their right to do so?

 

[Jerome]

No criticism from me against Tennessee Temple nor Dr. Roberson in the least. A very bright spot for IFB's in my opinion.

From Tennessee Temple Student Handbook 2010-2011:

To keep track of students’ location and safety, we ask them to fill out permission forms with the Student Development Office, or their Resident Director, for any time they will be away from campus overnight. We ask that students let us know where they are going and with whom. Students are discouraged from being off campus overnight on Monday-Thursday, as this may be a hindrance to their studies. Permissions for Monday-Thursday may be limited if a student is gone a disproportionate amount of nights.

All permissions must be filled out, approved, picked up, and posted on the student’s door (only when in use) in order to be valid. A permission slip not picked up by the time it is needed is considered invalid. Any misuse of permission will result in points, disciplinary action, and/or fines.

I am puzzled why one is so critical at the OP school for its purported rule, yet have "no criticism" for "bright spot" Tennessee Temple.