Tri-State Baptist College

Martin,

Let me add, that it was that paragraph in particular (the one that paidagogos quoted) that stood out to me as not good.

I looked at the various pictures of the college kids on that website, and they always looked to me to be classy, neat and orderly, clean-cut....just very nice. In fact, this school is going to go on my list of colleges to look at closer for where my kids might want to attend when they are of age.

Martin,
now I understand your viewpoint, while not agreeing with it. Im actually glad to see so many little colleges sprouting up who are trying to just provide an education for kids who are looking for a Christian Bible education. I loved the fact that the tuition was so affordable. Not everything has to be expensive (and I know you didn't say anything about that, it is one thing I think of).

And why is it questionable to have several faculty members who got degrees from the same college they teach in? The only time a faculty is legit is if they mostly all came from other colleges? I just don't see the logic.

Honestly, I think alot of people on these boards need to stop and look at their assumptions and presuppositions about anything IFB. (not whining, just an observation.)

 

bapmom:

You said:
Let me add, that it was that paragraph in particular (the one that paidagogos quoted) that stood out to me as not good... now I understand your viewpoint, while not agreeing with it.

==You are, of course, free to disagree with me on this. However I stand behind what I said.

================================

You said:
I looked at the various pictures of the college kids on that website, and they always looked to me to be classy, neat and orderly, clean-cut....just very nice.

==I was not being critical of the kids, I was being critical of the administration. Also lets not forget that the dress code was not the only thing I was critical of. Let's also not forget that I have made it clear that the dress code alone would not concern me. It is the dress code in combination with other factors(people tend to lose sight of these things).

=============================================

You said:
In fact, this school is going to go on my list of colleges to look at closer for where my kids might want to attend when they are of age.

==Thats fine. However if the school is still not accredited by that point it could be a problem (mainly if one wishes to go on to graduate school someplace).

==========================================

You said:
Im actually glad to see so many little colleges sprouting up who are trying to just provide an education for kids who are looking for a Christian Bible education.

==A Bible education is great. Small colleges are great and I realize that all schools have to start someplace. However I have concerns about this school for all the reasons I listed.

========================================

You said:
And why is it questionable to have several faculty members who got degrees from the same college they teach in? The only time a faculty is legit is if they mostly all came from other colleges? I just don't see the logic.

==The problem with this is they will have trouble gaining accreditation with that going on. Why? Because if a school is only hiring its students/graduates it can cause the focus of the school to be very, very narrow. What do I mean? Different views are not allowed in the door. For example let's look at their KJVOism. Where are the faculty members who don't hold to that view? Where are the faculty members who are serious about difficult New Testament textual study and who, therefore, reject KJVOism as nonfactual? They are not in that school. Thus the students don't get to see all sides of the issue. Also there is the problem that the students may not get the best teachers. If there is a great Bible believing teacher who happens to not agree with KJVOism who applies to the school (just an example) they will not get hired because they are not in agreement with the doctrinal statement of the school. The result is that the students don't get the best teachers the school can attract.
=====================================

You said:
Honestly, I think alot of people on these boards need to stop and look at their assumptions and presuppositions about anything IFB.

==I am not concerned if it is IFB, Southern Baptist, or Pentecostal Holiness. I am concerned about several issues I see with this school's whole approach. Again let's not narrow the focus to the dress code.

Martin.

 

paidagogos:

You said:
I would call this point very picky and petty.

==You are, of course, free to your opinion and views.

======================================

You said:
I find it strange how folks who plead for tolerance and broadmindedness are so picky toward others who differ from themselves.

==I am not picky towards folks who are different than I am. I am, however, picky when it comes to sound doctrine and practice. As I said the dress code is part of the larger picture with this school. Of course that points seems to get lost.

For example, in my original post, I said:
"However these pictures (along with the KJVO statement) make the school look like it may take things to extremes."

Then in a reply I said:
"Again it is the whole picture I am after here. Isolated from other factors I don't think it would be that big of a deal but including everything else it paints a picture that makes me uncomfortable."

=======================================
You said:
I suppose you think the Mennonites who wear long dresses and prayer bonnets are queer. Do you gawk at the Amish too?

==I will not reply to that since it totally ignores the issue I raised and takes things to an almost political level.

=======================================

You said:
I applaud and support these folks in their individuality. I despise slavish dullness and sameness. It seems all of American evangelicalism is developing a dress style, in many cases immodest dress, and cultural motif of monotony and flatness. This cookie cutter mentality is hateful for me. Style is a tyrant that rules modernity.

==I am not concerned with "style" or "individuality". All of that is fine and good and, honestly, for me a great big whatever. I raised issues about the dress code and several points in their doctrinal statement. I said in two posts, and I repeat here, that it is the whole picture that causes me concern.
==========================================

You said;
I say more power to these folks who follow a dress or behavioral standard, regardless of whether I agree or not, according to their belief. This is being true to their theology. I will not criticize these folks for being consistent with their beliefs. Some of the more liberated types need to conform their lifestyle to their own professed beliefs.

==I agree with the last part but this has nothing to do with the "liberated" types (who I take issue with as well). This has to do with a school that is very problematic in my view (for the reasons I listed).

Martin.

 

You were ridiculing these folks for the way they dressed!

You claim to base your criticism on doctrinal issues (KJVO) but you are pointing out superficial dress issues as well. Yet, I think you would criticize others who overly emphasize dress standards. From your own words, it is as much about dress as doctrine. IMHO, you are caught on this one and can’t let go. You could recant.

 

paidagogos,

You said:
You claim to base your criticism on doctrinal issues (KJVO) but you are pointing out superficial dress issues as well.

==As well being the important phrase there. Btw issues of dress are not superficial because Scripture deals with it. Scripture also deals harshly with legalism and false doctrine. On all counts I have concerns with Tri-State. You can try to make this about dress-code only but that is not what this is about.

===================================

You said:
Yet, I think you would criticize others who overly emphasize dress standards. From your own words, it is as much about dress as doctrine. IMHO, you are caught on this one and can’t let go. You could recant.

==Why would I "recant" and compromise? This is not politics. If I said "I recant" I would be a liar. Their dress code reflects their doctrine and, as I have said, it is the whole picture that concerns me. The dress-code is part of that picture to be sure but it is not the only part. And, as I have said several times already, if the dress-code was the only issue I would have said nothing about it. The whole picture with this school is problematic (at best). I have problems, serious problems with their Bibiology, their dress code, and their poorly written doctrinal statement. Also why are they not accredited? What about the faculty which of the ones listed on their homepage 5 out of 8 instructors have their degrees mostly/only from that school? What about high academic standards?

As I have said the dress code is just part of the picture. I am all for conservative dress styles and modest behavior. I believe the church is in need of more of that. However I am against going to extremes. Which, in the case of their dress code and Bibiology, this school is doing.

Martin.

 

-cough- Honestly, if they were to dress modest, how else would they dress? Really. I see nothing wrong with their dress code. I abide by it every day.

BTW, I have two friends at Tri-State who are cheerleaders. =D

 

Thanks for not being ashamed to identify with these people and to stand for your convictions. You have my respect.

 

I am a Conservative Baptist and am not aware of any stringent dresscode in our denominational schools. I am also an old man whose passions are mostly now subsided.

However, I would still prefer that we Christians err on the side of modesty if we are to err at all. While I disagree with some aspects of legalism, I disagree more with thoughtless Christians by their dress (or lack thereof)arousing unsanctified thoughts in or offending the values of other "weaker" Christians.

We must support each other and if that means dressing modestly, then that is a small price to pay to keep Paul's teaching in Rom 14 and Peter's somewhere else in a Letter.

There is quite enough distraction in the world ; we do not need it in God's House too.

 

I AGREE!

 

Martin,

I would point out that DOES NOT mean that you should quote long sections in their entirety ...

There is a quote feature, and there is a quote block feature ...

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Well said, brother!

 

==I think this whole point is rather unimportant. However I guess it does not really matter.

Martin.

edited for proper formatting kr

[ October 13, 2005, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Squire Robertsson ]

 

I also agree. =D (about the dressing modestly thing)

 

I ought to know better than getting involved in this discussion about a college and modest dress . . . , but here's my opinion.

None of us would propose or desire that a Christian institution allow immodest dress. There are churches and colleges, though, in which how one dresses is akin to one's level of spirituality and becomes a point of pride: "We're not like other so-called Christian colleges because we don't allow our women to wear slacks."

This is, obviously, a dicey matter, with opinions strongly held across the spectrum. Nevertheless, a college is entitled to have whatever dress code it wishes as a private institution. However, as a prospective student or the parent of one, I would share Martin's concern about the way the cheerleaders (and the basketball players for that matter---no shorts?) are dressed. It may reflect a position that presupposes that the dress of a certain bygone era was more modest and, consequently, more "spiritual."

I write only out of my experience, having been at Hyles-Anderson for two years (1976-78) and having taught at a fundamentalist Christian school for five years. There exists the mentality that a certain way of dressing or appearance (no slacks for women, men's hair short and tapered in the back, no open-toed shoes for women, etc.) is the modest and spiritual look.

Well, I know I'll rue the moment I decided to jump into this discussion .

BTW, what would cause me greater concern about Tri-State than its dress is its faculty. They may be fine folks, but I do not believe they are academically qualified, as a whole, to be teaching baccalaureate classes, much less master's classes. At least they're not offering the ThD, PhD, DMin, DAR, etc.

Bill

 

Plain Old Bill.
Looks like most of their faculty are grads of Tri State-
I wouldn't go there.

 

How convenient!

 

Hmm, I just have a question. No one hurt me for this. I'm just wondering about it. But, like if they graduated from there, wouldn't you think that they'd be qualified to teach there? I mean it's kinda like what happens at my school in some teacher's cases (I go to public school) but, one of my teachers graduated high school from the school, went to college, then came back to teach at the school in which he graduated. Is that the same thing? It was just itching me. =D

 

Hi Casey,

That's a good question, and I'm glad you asked it.

Graduating from high school, then graduating from a college, and then going back to the same high school to teach is a little different. The high school is not that person's highest diploma. The teacher at the high school received a higher education elsewhere and brings to his teaching perspectives which he learned elsewhere.

Receiving one's highest degree from the college at which that one now teaches is not necessarily bad, but if most of the faculty received their highest degrees from that same college, it is usually looked down upon. Why? When most of the teachers at a college received their highest degrees from that college, there develops a very narrow way of seeing things.

It is more healthy when college teachers have received their education at various other colleges. Their students profit from the various insights provided which probably would not have been communicated had most of the instructors received their education at the college at which they now teach.

I'm sure others will have additional reasons, but this is my view.

Blessings,
Bill

 

Oooh, I see. Thank you. I just had to know that. =D