Compromisers Promoted At Bob Jones University

foxrev,

I am not trying to divert. I am trying to understand why you feel that these two incidents you have mentioned are cause for great alarm.

I took the time to visit the website of the church of the pastor you mentioned. If you are interested, the address is http://www.byronbible.org/. I have lived in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area, and my in-laws still do. Though I am not personally familiar with this church, I did discover that I have some dear friends who must now be members here. I also saw evidence that this is a very traditional, fundamental church, especially for Kent County, Michigan. Reviewing their missionaries, hearing their music (via their website), and even seeing what they preached led me to believe that if I were moving back to GR and was looking for a church home, this would be one I'd probably have to consider.

I understand your concern over their affiliation with the IFCA. I recently left another church due to a transition in ministries that faced similar issues- it was a GARBC church. In my experience with the GARBC, there are churches that are very solid, militantly fundamental, and conservative in their methods- and committed to remaining so. There are also many that are pushing the envelope. Some good churches have left the GARBC, as they have the IFCA. I would guess that in the IFCA's case, some have chosen to stay and take a stand as long as they can, just as many GARB churches have. Agree or disagree with the methods, there is historical precedent for that (W.B. Riley and the Conservative Baptists come to mind).

History shows that BJU has always maintained ties with fundamentalists across many denominational associations and persuasions. Whether you agree or disagree with this choice, inconsistent is hardly a word I would chose in this case. If anything, it is illustrative of the University's heritage and long-time practice of welcoming preachers from diverse backgrounds and fellowships.

Final note: You are right when you say I can't judge your motives. But, whether you like it or not, your motives will be questioned and scrutinized by people like myself, especially when presented in such a anonymous, shadowy, conspiritorial manner. That's the nature of a forum such as this. Say what you will about a man like, say, David Cloud- he can be outspoken and critical against compromise (or, as some here would probably say, "percieved" compromise), but he does stand behind his views with his personal reputation, and offers substative information, not enigmatic, "witness-protection-program" contacts.

 

I don't know, foxrev... the link below, outlining a message Dr. Gegory preached on separation, sure doesn't make him sound like a "compromiser" to me.

http://www.byronbible.org/study/separation4.htm

 

It sounds to me like you are confronting on illegitimate grounds, and getting upset because your opinion is not accepted. The reasons you have listed here are questionable at the very best. Confrontation is not a guarantee that you are right. You very well may have confronted wrongly.

Standards have not declined. The changing of rules should not be equated with declining standards. Again, it sounds like you have too high an opinion of your own opinion, and those who disagree with you are rejected as compromisers.

 

Regarding Missions list- the ones I would guess you would have concern with (the ones I would, too, BTW) have, I imagine, long-time established relationships with the church that are not easily severed. There are missionaries we support at my current church that I have my concerns about myself. But those are issues I am evaluating very carefully.

Regarding GARBC "Flux"- Having been in the GARBC recently, I would say that one could make a case that Bible separation has become much less of a priority than it has been historically in the GARBC.

Regarding dress- Personal opinion, but I believe that this is an issue that they had some slack to give. Slacks on women is not an issue that you can make a definitive biblical condemnation against. Better to teach modesty that students can take with them beyond their time on campus than try to force them into wearing unusual garments that can be just as immodest in many situations.

Hey, brother, I love you. But it wouldn't be loving to just smile and nod (virtually speaking) if I believed something else to be the truth.

 

But as i already pointed out, changing rules does not mean changing standards. I know John Daulton. I know very well what is going on at BJU. Most of these changes are very good. WE do need a good dose of 1 Cor 13 to respond to those that we disagree with in love. We also need to recognize that your personal standards are not the same as biblical truth. In none of the rule changes that I know about have any biblical teachings been compromised. What has been compromised if your personal application of biblical standards.

The GARBC is not substantially different than the IFCA. They are not in flux and haven't been for a long time. I know people in both. They are in many ways more consistent than the FBF, though I do not belong to any of them.

 

When you start claiming that rules changes are the tossing off of standards and teaching, you show that you are trying to enforce your personal standards. You have complained about dress standards changing. You have yet to use one piece of biblical support (for obvious reasons ... you don't have one). You are trying to force BJU to hold to your personal standards. I disagree with that approach to this issue. If you are going to complain about lowering standards and call that compromise, then you need to come with Scripture. Otherwise it is just your personal opinion.

I have no blind allegiance for BJU. I would not have anyone from BJU to speak in my church. I have some serious disagreements with them. But they are disagreements about biblical issues, not the issues you have brought up here.

The GARBC is not really in a state of flux as of recently. The flux in the GARBC took place about 20 years ago or so, in the mid 80s. As a whole, the GARBC is towards the new evangelical position. But as in the IFCA and the SBC, there are exceptions. This fellow may be one of them. I don't really know.

 

My statement was, " I would say that one could make a case that Bible separation has become much less of a priority than it has been historically in the GARBC." I know many men that serve or have served in GARBC leadership. My personal observation is that issues related to the practice of separation have been dodged to avoid controversy, such as the recent handling of the approval system issue, in light of compromise that was obviously present at Cornerstone, Cedarville, and Western. One could argue that they have gotten back to what they should be- a group of churches working together. My problem with that is that they never clearly addressed the drift in a public matter.

 

The rules and regulations in place for students when I was in school were not the same as when my parents went to school there in the 50’s and 60’s. Similar changes have taken place since I graduated. Change is needed to adapt to the spiritual needs of students today. Fashions that may have been worldly in my parent’s day or in my day are not necessarily worldly today. Stands that were important to take in the 60’s may not be needed today. Tweaks in philosophy and approach may be appropriate to help students deal Biblically with today’s issues and realities. One problem with your complaints in this area is that you have exaggerated the situation by saying that students are dressing like prostitutes or allowed to wear the most recent fads in fashion and dress. These statements are simply not true. I work at a secular university. I know what the latest fads in fashion and dress are among college students. Bob Jones does not let its students dress like that, nor do they let their girls dress like prostitutes. How can we take your complaints seriously when you make claims like this?

The area of separation is often a subjective, rather than objective, practice. The issues are not always so clear. And what may be clear to you is not always so clear to others. We’ve been talking about the differences and similarities between the IFCA and the GARBC. BJU has had GARBC speakers in the recent past. Are you just as concerned about the GARBC speakers as you are with the IFCA speaker? But the real issue is that BJU has not developed a pattern of forsaking their well-know practice of separation. There may be instances where we would disagree with a selection (and, again, I would not have invited Gregory; and I probably would not have done what Gary did with Tom Lester, although I’m still unclear as to what exactly happened. I’m not a big fan of secular “celebrity” endorsers of Christianity.), but that does not mean that BJU has changed its direction. It certainly is not moving towards ecumenism as you implied in your latest post.

Andy

 

There was no one dressed like a prostitute in any BJU review. There is no following of the most current fads and fashions that is compromising the biblical teachings.

As Andy said, How can we take your claims seriously when you make claims like this? It simply cannot be done.

 

I didn't pull the accusation of ecumenism out of thin air.

Andy

 

When I see "biblical" Christians debating over whether the IFCA or the GARBC are compromising, it makes your position laughable.

Is it no wonder that many of us who have attended and or graduated from schools like BJU, NBBC, MBBC, etc. want nothing to do with your requirements for "fellowship."

I have never met a more Pharisaical, self-righteous, obnoxious group of Christians than the legalists I met at the self-proclaimed institutions of fundamentalism. If you went back to the true nature of the modernist/fundamentalist controversy, you would find that the many folks you label new evangelicals are nothing less than historic fundamentalists. I for one am disappointed that a truly good descriptive term like "fundamentalist" has been hijacked.