Compromisers Promoted At Bob Jones University

Sure I've heard of the Downgrade Controversy, and his ensuing depression after he withdrew. But until the time he withdrew, he was in it. That's all my point is. Also, Martin Lloyd Jones threw away his cigars, or pipe, or whatever it was, but until such a time as he did throw it away, he was smoking. History gives us 20/20 vision. Up until the time Spurgeon withdrew and Martin Lloyd Jones quit smoking, etc., there was a "cause" so to speak. Only History will be able to give a true picture of what Gregory or Lester, or whoever...fill in the blank...was really like and what their legacy is/was, and even then it may not be accurate. Only God's picture is really accurate since He knows it all. Unfortunately "Christian politics" isn't pretty and it is alive and well in fundamentalism.

Most BJU grads aren't "100% loyal" as I know them, anyway. Most of us were taught to think--began in Freshman English. There will be some in any camp, however, who do it just because someone says, but I'd say the percentage in the BJU camp is quite a bit lower than say, in the HAC or even the PCC camp, though I don't many people from PCC. But in truth, I have an easier time hearing criticism of BJU from a BJU grad than someone who never set foot on campus, much less took a class there. Those are the ones who rankle my nerves, even though I don't consider myself "blindly loyal", I am proud of my alma mater and am glad I am a grad.

But, one of your main problems seems to be BJU's "nonKJO stance." My parents were both there in the 50's and they weren't KJV when they came out either--Dr. Bob Sr. was there then. This isn't a "new issue" to BJU and I can't see any difference from what I was taught in the early 80's and what my parents were taught in the 50's and what I've seen in written form nowadays. BJU's stance on the issue isn't what has changed. I think that the general radicalness of the IFB churches has caused them to appear as if they have changed, but in truth, they've never been KJV only --at least not from the 50's on. But, I've never gotten an "anti-KJV" stance out of a Bible teacher when I was there. It is possible that if you did, it was a reactionary thing. The teachers there aren't perfect either just as the teachers at MBBC, NBBC, PBBC, and all your other schools. They're just people too, as we all are.

Becky P.
www.family.solidrockpl.org

 

There have been things that I had a problem with with the school, but this is neither the board nor the place to discuss those things because they won't help anyone else. Let me just say that I began to "grow up" while there. I was pretty innocent. I think I finished my growing up amidst some some pretty "hard hitting political moves" here on the mission field. Without the stability of the Word of God and knowing my godly parents' desire and example to do right even if it isn't the popular thing, or the thing that will get you invited to speak on a certain platform...we'd probably not still be here--it's for sure I wouldn't want to be here! Politics in Christianity "aint pretty" and it starts in the dorms of schools such as BJU and NBBC--at least in FBF circles. What is important, though, is doing right and I'm so glad that God knows it all!!!--our motives and our actions--that noone else knows. It is such a comfort.

The problem with "picking on" BJU is that from what I hear and know about human nature, these things are just as bad if not worse at any other conservative Christian school "out there". Among SBC schools, I'm sure it is a problem, and maybe even worse, due to the varying range of belief systems included in the SBC...all the way from rank ecumenism to conservatism.

There were plenty of people criticizing BJU for many things out there, from BOBby IV going to Notre Dame to the handling of the Art Gallery issue, to the building of buildings (for making a profit) and making money, to the "worldly" advertising techniques that they use to try to get students, a "grad school" as opposed to a seminary, Bible teachers who've never been in the pastoral ministry, wordly teachers, etc.... Sigh. My only problem with each criticism, which may be valid is that in order to find that "perfect school"...with all people doing what "we want them to do"...you'd either have to come up with yourself, maybe that's the reason for some of the schools that have come into existence in the last 10-20 years (VanGelderen's, Comfort's, Crown)..each pastor/evangelist felt like he could "do it better." Some may. Some may not. Only time will tell.

(As for me, sometimes I think it's an ego trip.)

Becky P.
www.family.solidrockpl.org

 

BJU's "grad school" instead of seminary is one of the things that I agree with!

I think that three years of grad school (seminary) should net a student a Ph.D, just like any other field!

 

I spoke with a very conservative Fundamentalist preacher today about this (original) topic. He had what I believe was a very wise perspective. While he granted that the speakers mentioned could be cause for concern, he also observed that the overhwelming majority of speakers in chapel for BJU (even this year) have been unquestionably Fundamental. Men like Ralph Colas, Fred Moritz, Tom Farrell, Ken Hay, Les Ollila... You have to examine the big picture. What is BJU attempting to promote? What cause is it striving to forward? Consider that, friends.

 

It depends on your field of study. Three years of seminary education yields you an MDiv. A ThM is typically another full time year, plus writing. A ThD or PhD on top of that is typically another 2 years, plus writing.

A seminary and grad school are not really the same thing, although the differences are minimal practially speaking. An MDiv is designed to prepare pastors. A PhD is designed to prepare teachers.

 

Yes, I know all that.

And after earning an accredited M.Div., a student should be able to earn a Ph.D. in less than the "three" additional years that you mentioned.

 

I think that the M.Div. should be reserved for students without an undergraduate "religion" degree.

What Christian colleges need is a pre-Ph.D. degree. Come here for four years, and then go on and earn a Ph.D in three years somewhere else! Seminaries should offer this three year Ph.D. for undergrad religion majors! I think they are missing a great opportunity.

The practical learning of ministry is all on the job training anyway! Anyone who says differently is just blowing smoke!

 

foxrev.
You're right. I was never in Preacher's Boy class. It would be curious to hear from a current student. Maybe I'll write one of our contacts who is currently there and ask him if they discussed those people. But, this Gregory person...when I was a student there was someone with the last name of Gregory there whose father was a pastor, but maybe it wasn't the same person.

I'll ask one of our "team members" who has been here the last couple of years. Maybe they can shed some light on this. Maybe it was even talked about in Preacher Boy class.

Becky P.

 

It depends on how fast you want to do the class work. For many, it is impractical to go full time. If I went full time, I could do it in 1 or 1 1/2 years of class work. The writing is the biggest part and can take up to five years.

Why is that?

Many do. The pre-Ph.D. degree is a baccalaureate degree. Most Christian colleges offer them, though some offer only Bible college degrees or associate's degrees. Any standard four year baccalaureate degree is a pre PhD degree. At BJU, for instance, you can get a PhD in three years. It is 96 or 94 hours of class work and then the writing. At BBC in Clark Summit, you can get a PhD from an MDiv with 60 additional hours or from a ThM with 38 or so additional hours.

 

Hi Larry,

BJU is the only "orthodox" school I know of that offers the Ph.D in three years.

None of the seminaries want to do it (TEDS, DTS, GRACE when they offered the Th.D.

Larry, don't confuse "length of time" with credit hours. I'm talking about credit hours.

BJU has the right idea. Now I wish the "evangelical" schools would follow suit.

 

Previously I was talking about length of time in my assessments on the previous page, rather than credit hours ... guess we were just talking past each other ...

 

No.

I AM saying that, in this light, one may conclude that 1.) BJIII chooses to fellowship with men who share his fundamental, sepratist convictions, and 2.) BJIII must see a reason to fellowship with Dr. Gregory because A.) He believes Dr. Gregory shares his convictions or B.) He believes Dr. Gregory is close enough (perhaps even to be persuaded to make the transition).

Would you not consider it a good thing if, by some working of the Spirit, the IFCA did ultimately take the right stand? If Dr. Gregory is a second-generation man, does he not have the ability to make decisions independent of the past? Do we not have the obligation to judge him by his choices and actions apart from the actions of his predecessors?

Say what you will, but this Dr. Gregory, from what I've seen and heard (granted, via the interent since this post originated), is no Billy Graham. Say what you will about the IFCA (and I'm not defending it here), but it hasn't taken radical plunges such as joining the NAE or NCC.

I'm just not prepared to make BJIII the sacrificial lamb over this. Let it play out...