- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 10,569
- Reaction score
- 2,194
- Points
- 113
You are just full of substance and facts in your responses…..
A Serious Question...
- Thread starter Justice1976
- Start date
Good one!You are just full of substance and facts in your responses…..
If anyone on the forum has a TikTok account, look at comments to this video and we should be able to verify if this girl is HAC or not. She’s tagged to HAC. I read on another video she got suspended from her college due to her videos.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 3,022
- Reaction score
- 515
- Points
- 113
I could see hac suspending her she is crossing privacy lines if she on campus showing people . I'm sorry I didn't watch the video.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 3,022
- Reaction score
- 515
- Points
- 113
I just watched less than a minute. Look at her appearance she could not wear that jacket/ top showing any chest at hac. Too this day I do not wear anything tight because of that teaching. So I don't think she would be a student in her appearance this is just my opinion...........
I don’t think she’s on campus posting that video. It doesn’t look like a dorm room. She might be posting that video from home on a break from college like Christmas.
I agree. Her appearance does not fit with what I've seen from other HAC students - even when at home. But to be fair, I probably haven't seen a HAC student in the last 10 years.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,441
- Reaction score
- 635
- Points
- 113
The wimmin-folk wearing britches, in the picture I posted in post #64 of this thread, are almost certainly not HAC students. The reason I posted the picture is because, since such a picture has been posted on the official HAC web site, it may indicate a less militant and harshly judgmental attitude on this issue on the part of the HAC leadership. Then again, it may not.
Normally, any church or college that takes a militant, uncompromising position of opposition to women wearing slacks is not going to post a picture of any women, even visitors, wearing slacks, or publish such in their magazine or promotional literature.
Most IFB churches and colleges dropped the ban on women's slacks 20 or 30 years ago, and I think that's a good thing. However, if such churches and colleges continue with a harsh, judgmental policy of shaming and bullying people over other issues that are not even sin, it may not do them much good to allow the women to wear pants while continuing to bullyrag and condemn women, and men, on other similarly picky and inconsequential issues.
One other thing to consider is that the HAC administration may believe, rightly or wrongly, that they will lose considerable donations and even enrollments if they "go liberal" and allow the women students to wear slacks. We may regard the no-slacks rule as silly, and I certainly do, but HAC may possibly have a small but loyal hard core of supporters who regard the slacks ban as a vital fundamental of the faith, and who are willing to put their money where their mouth is.
[My apologies to the FFF constituency for making a post that does not insult anyone's mother or raise innuendos about anyone's sex life]
Normally, any church or college that takes a militant, uncompromising position of opposition to women wearing slacks is not going to post a picture of any women, even visitors, wearing slacks, or publish such in their magazine or promotional literature.
Most IFB churches and colleges dropped the ban on women's slacks 20 or 30 years ago, and I think that's a good thing. However, if such churches and colleges continue with a harsh, judgmental policy of shaming and bullying people over other issues that are not even sin, it may not do them much good to allow the women to wear pants while continuing to bullyrag and condemn women, and men, on other similarly picky and inconsequential issues.
One other thing to consider is that the HAC administration may believe, rightly or wrongly, that they will lose considerable donations and even enrollments if they "go liberal" and allow the women students to wear slacks. We may regard the no-slacks rule as silly, and I certainly do, but HAC may possibly have a small but loyal hard core of supporters who regard the slacks ban as a vital fundamental of the faith, and who are willing to put their money where their mouth is.
[My apologies to the FFF constituency for making a post that does not insult anyone's mother or raise innuendos about anyone's sex life]
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2013
- Messages
- 155
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 18
I think this is exactly it! As well as supporters who may not view it as a "vital fundamental" but see it as an "err on the side of caution" and don't object.
I attended Trinity Baptist College in Jacksonville in the early 80's and pants were not allowed. Period. I got called to the Dean's office and reprimanded because staff found jeans in my suitcase, in a storage locker! (I'd worn them on my solo drive from Illinios to Florida). They don't hold that belief anymore (and also removed "Baptist" from their name.) It all just makes me wonder what the passage of time has to do with supposedly fundamental beliefs/convictions. I kind of respect the hold outs.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,441
- Reaction score
- 635
- Points
- 113
It is my understanding that many years ago, the administration of Northland Baptist Bible College discussed the possibility of allowing female students to wear pants, in consideration of the severe winter climate of the tundra landscape of northern Wisconsin, and that President Les Ollila decided against allowing it, for fear of losing financial support if they made that change.
Some years later, they did make the change and allowed women's slacks, perhaps under the new president Matthew Olson.
"Northland went from a standard that did not allow women to wear slacks on or off campus to a policy that would require them to simply dress modestly and appropriately. . . .
"Some may ask, 'Are you fundamentalists?' If you are talking about believing the fundamentals of the faith, being willing to separate over them, and being committed to living a holy life before God—then the answer is a resolute, 'Yes.' If you are talking about our being willing to separate over 'cultural fundamentalism' and its demands to separate over Bible translations, music, dress, methods of ministry, secondary associations, etc., the answer is an equally resolute, 'No.'"
Shortly after all the big changes were made, Northland went broke and shut down. There was a lot of discussion as to whether Northland failed because they loosened the standards on women's slacks and other subjects, or because they didn't loosen fast enough, or because of their out-of-the-way location in the barrens of northern Wisconsin, or maybe it was their sponsorship of a "Big Daddy Weave" Christian rock concert. I'm not sure if that debate was ever settled to anyone's satisfaction.
For those who want to research the post-mortems on Northland, check these sites:
indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
sharperiron.org
Some years later, they did make the change and allowed women's slacks, perhaps under the new president Matthew Olson.
"Northland went from a standard that did not allow women to wear slacks on or off campus to a policy that would require them to simply dress modestly and appropriately. . . .
"Some may ask, 'Are you fundamentalists?' If you are talking about believing the fundamentals of the faith, being willing to separate over them, and being committed to living a holy life before God—then the answer is a resolute, 'Yes.' If you are talking about our being willing to separate over 'cultural fundamentalism' and its demands to separate over Bible translations, music, dress, methods of ministry, secondary associations, etc., the answer is an equally resolute, 'No.'"
Shortly after all the big changes were made, Northland went broke and shut down. There was a lot of discussion as to whether Northland failed because they loosened the standards on women's slacks and other subjects, or because they didn't loosen fast enough, or because of their out-of-the-way location in the barrens of northern Wisconsin, or maybe it was their sponsorship of a "Big Daddy Weave" Christian rock concert. I'm not sure if that debate was ever settled to anyone's satisfaction.
For those who want to research the post-mortems on Northland, check these sites:
Northland International University: <i>Plunging Headlong Into a Liberal Entertainment Approach Ministry</i>
Preface (2/15/13): In paragraph two below is a link to photos from the event itself. This is a video promotion for the I am Redeemed 2013...
indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
The Battle of Big Daddy Weave and Modern Music | SHARPER IRON
sharperiron.org
Northland: Another Compromise in Fundamentalism
Northland: Another Compromise in Fundamentalism
www.wayoflife.org
Money talks. When the kids start going to other schools, suddenly some of those Biblical “principles” will become spoken of as nothing more than “preferences.”
Although I didn’t attend, I have strong ties to Bob Jones University. I NEVER thought I’d see the day that girls could wear jeans there. PCC held out a long time too, but now they’re following suit. If HAC hasn’t already made the move, they soon will.
Although I didn’t attend, I have strong ties to Bob Jones University. I NEVER thought I’d see the day that girls could wear jeans there. PCC held out a long time too, but now they’re following suit. If HAC hasn’t already made the move, they soon will.