BJU begins accreditation process

Wasn't Maranatha the school of the Wisconsin Baptist Fellowship? I don't remember ... I never had anything to do with it. I could be confused.

2atlow8, I still think the nature of hte accreditation is what the difference is. If they were pursuing regional accreditation, I would agree with you. But their position was always regarding the secular influence of accreditation. TRACS does not have secular influence. Therefore, it doesn't violate what they said regarding accreditation.

 

This is not apples and oranges. This is the crux of the whole matter. Think it through. John Bunyan spent 12 years of his life in prison because he refused to be licenced (you might call it accredited) by the Anglican church to preach. His accreditation came from God not man. Who calls man to preach: man or God? Who ordains man to preach: man or God? It is God in both cases. An ordination service is simply man's recognition of the call of God that has already taken place in the preacher. It is God that ordains a man to preach.
In the same manner who gives permission to marry: God or man? It is the right of the pastor, ordained of God to marry a couple. This is a God ordained right, which the government ought not to have any control. Yet you willingly submit to it without any thought??

To blast another institution for accepting accreditation, when it doesn't change their curriculum, their standards, or interfere in any way with their day to day operations; when you accept the government interference into a God given right such as the marriage of a couple is absolutely hypocritical and wrong.
Furthermore, the principle of separation and church and state has more to do with churches, not universities or colleges.
DHK

 

To be clear, I think accreditation is a great thing for BJU to do. I think in the long run it will make a great academic situation even better. It will also take away some of the stigma of attending a "religious" school. 25 years later I still get "the look" when folks find out where I went to college.
I sincerely hope accreditation does one thing, I hope it changes the "inbreeding" of intellectual ideas. A BS, MS and PHD all from the same institution is considered invalid in many academic circles.

 

I disagree. God calls a man to preach but that call is recognized by his church. If the church body does not recognize the gifts and calling of God and does not ordain a man to preach, then he is not qualified to preach. The church body is the sending agency for pastors and preachers. They ordain, not God. Their authority to ordain does not come from them as individuals, but from them as a church body.

To answer your question, Both. Both God and man give permission to marry. They are not in tension with one another until man violates what God says. Marriage is a God-ordained right about which civil government has an interest. This has always been this way.

But as far as willingly submitting to it, Where in Scripture is a pastor commanded to marry anyone? Where in Scripture is the church even said to be involved in a wedding? Nowhere. We have, out of tradition, added a lot of stuff in, like church weddings and pastors performing. God never instructed a pastor to do that. The solemnization of marriage has always been an affair of the state.

It is true that God ordained marriage. But the state, ordained by God, has established what it means to "be married." So long as the state does not contradict what God says, then we are fine. The state does not force me to marry anyone. They permit me to do it. God does not force me to marry anyone. A marriage is in the sight of God, but it is also in the sight of the state.

As for a license to marry, most states now do not require it. Michigan is one of those states; Ohio is not. I recently married a couple in Ohio and had to get a license to make it legal. To marry them otherwsie would have been an illegal marriage. But when I performed the ceremony, I was performing a service to the state. It was not a part of my "pastoral duties" as outlined in Scripture.

Furthermore, the state does not require anything with respect ot marriage, other than that I be a licensed or ordained clergy man of the church at which I serve.

But we are rather off topic here.

Apples and oranges. Your first statement is, as yet, unsubstantiated. The second is simply wrong. Performing a legal marriage is not government interference. In fact, if a couple does not get legally married, they are living in fornication, no matter what they may intend. If I had refused to get a marriage license for Ohio, that couple would be living in sin.

I haven't seen anyone here invoke the separation of church and state, though perhaps I missed it. The discussion was about who has the authority to set the standards in a Christian institution? Can a non-Christian serve as a viable guide for what Christian education ought to be?

 

Very true, Circuitrider would be able to speak more specifically to the specifics of the Wisconsin Fellowship, and the history of MBBC.

The answer, when it comes to a school that is saying that one of its goals is a liberal arts degree, or a pre-professional degree, is yes.

A school that only has ministry or Bible degrees may not see the benefits of accreditation, but MBBC, Faith, Cedarville, Clearwater, BJU, etc, all have strong secular degree programs, and as such, should subject those programs to the same rigorous academic standards that purely secular schools undergo.

An interesting fact about Maranatha's Liberal Arts programs. I graduated with a Liberal Arts degree, and my wife recieved a certified Elementary Ed degree, we both took enough credits in Bible and church ministries to earn a Bible degree at most schools in addition to the general education and specific degree related courses. IMO, a school with that focus is prepared not only to turn out great preachers and other "full-time" ministry graduates, and also very well educated lay people who can be invaluble assets to a church because of their Bible and Church ministries training. This is proven by the graduates from MBBC that are out there, at least in most cases. One advisor at MBBC actually recommended that students looking to go into ministry should take the General Studies degree at MBBC, with a Bible or Church Ministries minor, and than attend seminary to complete the academic preparation.

Maranatha was forced by the accreditation process to ensure and prove that they were doing what they claimed were their goals for each degree program, their Bible programs did not change, they were validated by the process as well, as fulfilling the goals of the catalog. It essentially is a truth in advertising exercise, something that many schools would probably benefit from, if they were wise and humble enough to submit to the scrutiny of fellow educational professionals.

 

I cannot speak to each of these men since I don't know enough about them. I was speaking to the biblical pattern laid out in the NT, which is our authority. There, the local church is the ordaining body, after seeing the evidence of call, gifts, and character.

First with respect to Israel, they were a nation, and their marriage laws were part of the civil law. In Israel, there was no church state distinction. To say that the laws of the nations in which they lived never played a part makes no sense. They were a nation unto themselves.

As for the church, there is no indication in the NT that the church played any role in marriage. The NT indication is that the believer is to be subject to the state. In teh issue of marriage, when the state tells a couple ot get a marriage license, they must get one in order to be biblically married.

I would deduce no such thing. His reference of marriage is a reference about the law. That has nothing to do with teh church. To abide by government dictates about marriage licenses, whether performing the marriage or being married is biblical obedience. There is no capitulation here whatsoever. A couple living together without a valid state marriage license is living in fornication.

The authority comes from God and is given to the state. As I have poitned out, there is not one indication that I am aware of that marriage is defined solely by the church or the religious institution. In fact, the fact that there are married unbelievers shows that it is not solely a church issue.

I don't remember seeing it there. Sorry. Since BJU or MBBC is not a church, I don't think it applies really. I believe that there is a valid principle of separation of church and state. But it is not applicable here since there is no church involved.

 

Pastor Larry said:

If they can't, why does an institution like BJU have professors with advanced degrees from secular institutions? I know of two men who teach there right off hand who hold degrees from Boston University and the University of Kansas. I have no problem with that. But both men I am thinking of got undergrad degrees from BJU, went to obtain further academic discipline at these institutions, and eventually came back to teach. What is the difference between attaching the credentials to the name of an individual teaching at your school and attaching it to the institution itself?

Besides, it is not the Christian aspect that accredidation evaluates, but the educational aspect. I would think that at a school like BJU, with a broad range of liberal art type majors, accredidation would be more important. I mean, if we are evaluating the quality of, say, the nursing program, aren't there things that need to be consistent with the secular counterparts? A "specialty school" like a Bible College seems to have less practical need for such affirmation.

With everything said, accredidation or no, I would be tickled pink if my daughters end up at BJ.

 

Because Boston U or Kansas isn't telling BJU what they have to teach or what they have to include. When those profs came to BJU to teach, they knew where BJU stood and agreed with the philosophy. Under SACS, a professor from a place like Boston U or Kansas could tell BJU that they have to teach a certain way, or include an unbiblical philosophy in a class.

The educational aspect at a place like BJU cannot be separated from the Christian aspect. What BJU has always said is that the two are so closely tied as to not be separated.

Interestingly enough, the nursing program is already accredited, as is the aviation program, and the education program. Now if you want to talk consistency, there is where you should be hitting ... ... Nursing and aviation require accreditation to even exist. Education is accredited through the SC Dept of Ed. Those are mandatory, which is BJIII's reason. They have to be accredited to exist. Regional accreditation is a voluntary subjugation of Christian philosohpy and ideals to secular criticism and mandate.

I am not saying he is right, mind you. I am saying that is his argument.

 

Pastor Larry said:

But BJU has no obligation to follow their mandate- they could simply drop their accredidation credentials. There is a difference between advice and mandate.

Here's something to consider- Couldn't one of the potential benefits be that an institution like BJU is revealed to have even a higher standard than its secular counterparts? After all, it was the propgation of Christian principles during the Reformation that led to the Renaissancein culture. To be able to be salt and light as part of the peer review teams would also give the chance to express Biblical perspective and share the gospel.

 

Can you give Biblical evidence for this so-called Biblical pattern?

Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
--Paul on his three missionary journeys, ordained elders in every church that he went to. The church didn't ordain the pastors. Paul himself did.
Paul chose Apollos to be the pastor at Corinth, not the church.
Paul chose Timothy to be the pastor at Ephesus, not the church.
Paul chose Titus to be the pastor at Crete, not the church.

The church at Jerusalem had James as their pastor. I doubt that he was ordained by the church, but rather chosen by the Apostles. The only thing recorded that the church chose were 7 servants whose primary purpose was serving tables and taking care of widows (Acts 6:1-4)

The church at Antioch speaks of the sending forth of Paul and Barnabas as missionaries but that is quite a bit different then the appointment or ordaining of a pastor. Even then the church isn't even mentioned, only the leaders are.

Civil law yes. But the civil law was of the nation of Israel, a theocracy given of God. They were not permitted to marry between the nations. What was the result of the proposal of marriage after the rape of Dinah by Shechem? What was the result of the intermarriage between the Israelites and Moabites, at the suggestion of Balaam? Israel was a nation called out by God. So is the church.

The Bible is silent on the issue. It certainly doesn't indicate that the government played any role in the affairs of a marriage. One would think that if the church was duty bound in caring for the widows, it would also care about such important God-ordained institutions as marriage.

Government interference seems to be the watchword of most Americans I know. They hate it--so much so that I know one pastor who refuses to get a marriage licence from the government and marries people in defiance of it. Is it still fornication?? Or is he doing what God is telling him to do, (and not the government), and thus obeying God and not man--recognizing that God has the authority over the church, not the government.

I don't believe in taking a brother to court. I don't believe in divorce. But others do and will. The secular civil courts are there for a purpose. Secular shools serve a purpose as well, even though many of us have the option of Christian schools. Just as in education: Education is the responsibilty of the parent. The parent delegates that responsibility to a Christian school, a secular school, or takes it upon himself and home-schools. They have options. It is not the church's responsibility to educate all the children. The education of a child is the parent's responsibility. But marriage of beievers falls into the realm of the church. Why do Muslims only get married in a mosque? Sikhs in a Gudvarah? Hindus in a temple? Have we, as Christians, missed the boat somewhere??

Perhaps the better word would be "government interference." Most Americans, saved and unsaved alike, don't like the government interfering in their lives.

Have I ever tried to get licenced to preach? Nope, and never will. God called me to preach, not the government. I don't need a licence to preach. I've never heard of such a thing. I have preached in over half of the states in the U.S., but I don't have any such licence to preach. I actually don't know what you are talking about.

It may be overblown about many things. But IMO, marriage licences is one area where the government should give freedom to the church to perform without going through the government.

I agree with you here.

 

Link to TRACS web page

There is a great deal of info about TRACS on this site. I'm on a slow computer right now, so I didn't take the time to download the PDFs that may offer some more insight into what TRACS requires and what the accredited status offer.

What I do know is this: TRACS accreditations puts BJU into cooperation with a whole basketful of institutions with which BJU should not be cooperating if they were consistently applying their stated principles of secondary separation. I'll copy the list to the bottom of this post. Now, one could argue (and I count myself among them) that this is a legitimate level of cooperation, but BJU and its representatives have not historically provided for levels of fellowship concerning separation.

In fact, the chief advantage of TRACS is that it respects the religious identities of the members. That in itself makes BJU inconsistent. In the past, BJU has not shied away from political associations, such as people like Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes (both Roman Catholics) speaking on campus as candidates. However, any cooperation with a religious purpose has been anathema.

Additionally, one could easily argue that just as SACS or North Central (Faith and Maranatha's accrediting agency) could change in their requirements, so could an ecumenical association of Christian colleges.

By the way, SACS is significantly different in its requirements from North Central. That is one reason it has been harder for BJU to pursue regional accreditation than Faith and Maranatha. I believe that Clearwater is accredited by SACS, but they may have a different governing structure that makes it easier for them than BJU. That I do not know.

The real problem is that BJU has not simply admitted that they were wrong all along--on two points. The first is that Bob Jones III has engaged in public attacks on sister institutions in the past, as swaimj described. Northland has also been a party to these attacks. I've also heard second-hand accounts that corroborate these stories, but since they are of a more private nature I'll leave them alone.

The second error is that BJU has artfully avoided explaining what has changed to make TRACS a viable option. Read the news release, and you'll see the vague language about TRACS has all of a sudden now become a viable option after BJU has been watching them carefully over 25 years. What has changed with TRACS??? Perhaps there is something. It might be a good idea to explain it so you can't be accused of hypocrisy. I suspect that BJU's thinking has changed more than TRACS, but when you are such a dogmatic opponent of accreditation for so long, it's much easier to speak vaguely than it is to admit that you may have miscalculated.

Here are the TRACS-accredited institutions:
</font>

• Beacon University</font>
• Beulah Heights Bible College</font>
• Boston Baptist College</font>
• California Christian College</font>
• Christian Life College</font>
• Clinton Junior College</font>
• Faith Evangelical Lutheran Seminary</font>
• Heritage Bible College</font>
• Hillsdale Free Will Baptist College</font>
• ICR Graduate School</font>
• International Baptist College</font>
• International College & Graduate School</font>
• King's College and Seminary</font>
• Liberty University</font>
• Luther Rice Bible College & Seminary</font>
• Maple Springs Baptist Bible College and Seminary</font>
• Mars Hill Graduate School</font>
• Messenger College</font>
• Michigan Theological Seminary</font>
• Northwest Baptist Seminary</font>
• Northwest Graduate School of the Ministry</font>
• Piedmont Baptist College</font>
• Shasta Bible College and Graduate School</font>
• Southern California Bible College & Seminary</font>
• Southern Evangelical Seminary</font>
• Southern Methodist College</font>
• St. Petersburg Theological Seminary</font>
• Temple Baptist Seminary</font>
• Tennessee Temple University</font>
• Trinity Baptist College</font>
• Williamson Christian College</font>
• Word of Life Bible Institute</font>

 

MBBC has no official affiliation with the WFBC, although most WFBC churches would support MBBC and vice versa, and the same is true of Northland. There is a lot of overlap. (By the way, does NBBC have football yet?)

 

Hopefully, they will be able to further counter this misconception that keeps getting thrown out like it is actually true.