College, Consistency, Context, and the Condition of the Human Heart

One short quote in David Beale’s excellent new book Christian Fundamentalism in America is getting a lot of attention,

After being the premier Fundamentalist academic institution for eighty-seven years, BJU elected Dr. Steve Pettit in 2014, as the president who steered the University out of separatist Fundamentalism into the inclusive, broad Evangelical movement (p. 179).

I have a lot of respect for David Beale and his perspective. That statement is a bombshell, especially coming from him.  I would expect a further explanation will be forthcoming.

While ecclesiastical relationships must be carefully considered, I hear more concerns, especially from parents, about the cultural shifts taking place on Christian college campuses–and more than just one college. I am not trying to single out a particular school here. These concerns are pervasive.

It is heartbreaking to send a young person away to college for four years only to see them encouraged (in the dorm, in their new church, and sometimes in the classroom) to abandon their fundamentalist sensibilities once they graduate. This is one reason why many fundamentalist pastors are now encouraging college students to stay home, remain faithful to their local church, and attend a local college. They are having a higher success rate in retaining those young people, not only in their local churches but also in faithfulness to their theological roots. It is not necessarily a good thing, it is just the present reality.

I would suggest this. If you have concerns about whether you should send students to a particular school, visit the school during the school year, sit in the classes, walk through the dorms, observe the students on campus, ask the pertinent theological/ecclesiastical questions, and determine for yourself whether that is the environment where you want your young people to live for four years. Parents should do this as well as pastors and youth pastors. Do not assume it will be exactly like it was when you were a student.

One great source of the consternation many are now facing is the tribalism based on college loyalties that has been characteristic of Baptist fundamentalism. We have had the Pensacola, Faith, BJU, Maranatha, West Coast, Heartland, Hyles-Anderson, and in years past the Tennessee Temple, Clearwater, Pillsbury, and other tribes. Each of these groups developed its own culture, atmosphere, and in some cases even theological nuances. When your tribe changes it can be quite disconcerting if your sense of loyalty is limited to only one tribe. Loyalty to Christ should exceed loyalty to an alma mater—that is obvious, isn’t it?

The present tensions remind me how extremely difficult it is to keep any ministry (including churches) on track theologically, culturally, and spiritually. It gives me a deeper appreciation for the fundamentalist leaders of previous generations who guided their respective institutions with such clear focus. It is hard enough to keep a local church on track! I do not envy the present leaders of these institutions. The rapid expansion of technology combined with a culture in free-fall has made their task incredibly difficult—but it cannot be impossible.

“We are just trying to be consistent.”

This is the justification I hear most often for making changes in institutions, churches, and even in families. I do not doubt the integrity or sincerity of those who are seeking consistency.  I am just deeply concerned that it is a trap.

Making consistency the goal will lead to imbalance.

We all want to be consistent. We want to develop policies that will make our decisions for us as we move through the myriad of nuanced ministry choices that confront us. Make no mistake, the consistency siren is a trap. It will eat you up. While consistency is a reasonable consideration in decision-making, it is a devious taskmaster. Most decisions we make regarding personal standards in our lives or ministries are finely nuanced. We want clear biblical lines regarding music, art, entertainment, dress, and other things, but consistency is only one among several considerations.  Those of us who grew up in the 1970s remember the “second beat fourth beat” and “syncopation” critiques of contemporary music. While it was a valiant attempt to create an easily definable line, it failed the consistency test. However, because it was not a consistent standard does not mean it should not have been a consideration at all. If you draw a line, and everybody does, there will be choices you make that will seem to others to be inconsistent. Splitting hairs is unavoidable.

Enslavement to consistency defies context.

There is no getting around “reading the room.” When I was a young person, fundamentalists did not wear facial hair, even though the heroes of the faith like Spurgeon a century earlier did so. While some considered it legalism, the cultural context of the 1960s and ’70s made facial hair an identity factor with worldliness and the hippy movement of the time. Letting consistency be the deciding factor would have been the wrong decision. It is also wrong to judge decisions made 50 years ago as if they were being made in our present context. Consistency can become its own sort of legalism. It can lead to choices that are too narrow or too broad.

In the same way, things that were funny when I was a young person communicate a very different message now. It was funny in the 1970’s for a young man to don women’s clothes for a camp skit. It is not so funny now. We should find no humor in the prevailing sins of the age. It takes discernment in the moment to make such decisions. These kinds of choices cannot be put on auto-pilot.

Parents must not be slaves to consistency when disciplining their children.  The discipline so effective for one child can be pointless for another.  Inconsistent expectations are exasperating to a child, but rules without context can be exasperating as well.  Godly children can only be encouraged in discipline when they understand that the purpose is Christ-likeness and the motivation is a love for God.

Rebels often argue for consistency.

Children are born lawyers.  They will seek to negotiate everything from bedtime to what’s for dinner.  “But you let HER do it!” becomes the gotcha argument of a rebel (and yes, sometimes the truly confused) heart. Rebellion tends to manifest itself in similar ways regardless of age.

There is no rule or philosophy that makes up for an un-surrendered heart. Our local Christian school can expertly teach a biblical worldview, but if the students do not have hearts surrendered to Christ, they will abandon that philosophy like last week’s leftover broccoli. The core issue is a matter of affections.  1 John 2:15 describes it succinctly—you have to make a choice—love God or love the world.  You cannot have both.  If you love the world, you will abandon your loyalty to God.  You might maintain the outside illusion of some sort of Christianity, but it will only be a shell.

We must love God with all of our hearts.  Because of that, we cannot love the world.  We cannot be the Bride of Christ and have a boyfriend on the side.  That must be our guiding ethic.

 

Photo in the public domain on Flickr.