Compromisers Promoted At Bob Jones University

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Would people have had the same problem if BJIV had gone to Georgetown?

He did, I believe ... prior to going to Notre Dame. He has a master's degree in journalism from Georgetown, I think.

Notre Dame is catholic in much the same way that Harvard is Christian. Both started as religious schools, and have clearly abandoned that as their primary emphasis. Both have a divinity school, but neither pretends to be religious. As I understand it, BJIV went to Notre Dame to study church history under the mentorship of the leading scholar on church history in America (George Marsden).

While it may have been unwise to make that choice, it was completely overblown, much along the same lines as some idiots who tried to make a big deal about BJU having catholic art in the art gallery.

BJU has rightly stood against CAtholicism, though at times with a too abrasive spirit. It is unfortunate that many so-called evangelicals have not taken a firm stand against the apostasy and soul-damning doctrine of Catholicism. But to try to make hay out of someone going to what has become a secular school to study under a leading professor is simply ridiculous. </font>[/QUOTE]Larry, you seem knowledgeable of BJU and somewhat fairminded. What do you think BJU's take would have been on Jerry Falwell, Jr. going to Notre Dame in the 1970's? Do you see my point?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by foxrev:
Andy:

You need to check this out further before coming after me. I am not the offender in this. BJ III honored a man who is know as a "Womans Man" at the Green Acres web site on the internet. Tom held meetings in a SBC church in Greenville, SC. These meetings were promoted on BJU's HomeSat by Gary Moore. That is compromise my friend and NEVER would have happened 12 years ago.

BJU has played intercollegiate sports - with Furman University.

Looking at the overall picture? I surely am. BJU has departed from their OWN SEPARATIST stand that I was taught as a student. I am NOT applying MY positions on them.

The standards of separation from the world are NOT what they used to be at BJU! Students are allowed to take part in the most recent fads in fashion and dress. That was forbidden up until the last 5 years or so. Pictures of girls in skin tight jeans in the BJU Review have been shown - never would they have been allowed to dress looking like a prostitute on the corner until the last 5 years.

When I am hearing from LOYAL retired faculty their dismay at what BJ III is doing to the school - something is WRONG. For you to defend BJ III and his compromise is to aid him in his effort to "Mainstream" BJU. There is NOTHING that sets BJU apart from other Christian schools any more - all because BJ III does not want to be unique but accepted by the mainstream of Christianity and the media. That is why he lied to Larry King and America about Interracial Dating at BJU.

Foxrev has taken a bit of rough handling by members on this board and thread. Whether you agree with his views or not, he is generally right that BJU has made changes. They are doing things today for which they harshly criticized and ridiculed others in the 1970-80's. This should bother anyone because they staunchly declare that they haven't changed one iota.

You must understand that Foxrev, regardless of your agreement with his beliefs, is correct in his criticism of BJU because he is consistently applying what he was taught. How would you feel if you were taught to believe certain doctrinal and pragmatic teachings by your school only to have them withdraw from it years later? Would you feel betrayed? Abandoned?

Foxrev is being loyal to the convictions and principles that he was taught and believed--he is consistent. On the other hand, he must be brokenhearted because he really is loyal, I believe, to BJU and the principles he learned there. Perhaps, some should respond with more understanding, compassion, and reason than with venom and ridicule.

Tis passing strange that those who castigate BJU for their hard stances are the ones who are the most biting and bitter toward BJU and others in their posts.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Don Sailer:
foxrev,

Reveal yourself. You went to BJU. Remember what they taught you about hiding behind anonymity?

Why don't you contend for the faith and teaching of Jesus?

Intolerance? Read your original post.

Disobedient brethren? Because we follow the Scriptures concerning loving one another and bearing with one another.

Finding fault? Read your original post and take off your bitter-rimmed glasses. Why not look to Jesus and preach the good news and leave your condemnations behind. Read the parable about the wheat and the tares that Jesus preached, and get back to me about whether your original post is out of line.

Oh, I forgot you were one of the tolerant types. What I concluded from your post was that you dipped your pen in venom. Remember these loving and kind words are your own:

"Your original post is pathetic. I also could at least respect you a little bit if you had the decency to post your real name as you rip into others.

I am no fan of BJU's abusive separatism either. As for "Biblical separation," you folks don't have a clue. What kind of personality type spends their whole life finding fault with other Bible-believing Christians?"

Well, you do sound rather harsh yourself. Did you learn this at BJU? You seem to be a disgruntled former student! BTW, what kind of personality type are you?

 

[scubablt]

OK Dr. Bob, what do you think about this issue. Seriously, I want to hear from Dr. Bob on this heated topic, as he really does have good light and wise words to shed on tough stuff like this. To me, it sounds like they are splitting hairs on hairs that are not there! Like looking for a hair to split on the head of a BALD man!

Thanks ahead of time Dr. Bob for setting them straight.
BLT

 

[Pastor Larry]

Paidagogos,

Marsden wrote several good books on fundamentalism from an outsider's perspective. His Reforming Fundamentalism is an excellent history of the beginning of New Evangelicalism and the decline at Fuller. He does not agree with Fundamentalism and so paints it in a particular light, but his knowledge is wide and deep. I would study church history under him in a heartbeat because he knows it, perhaps as well as any current scholar. When you want to be "good" in a particular field, you try to study under the best available mentor. Marsden fit that category, and I am fairly sure that is why IV went there. If Olasky said that (and I don't doubt you; I just haven't seen it), then I think he is right. I think IV is a conservative evangelical who doesn't see eye to eye with III and Stephen and the university. BTW, I don't think IV ever finished his work at ND.

IV was never going to fit in at BJU although I think there was an effort made in the mid-90s. It was always Stephen that was going to fill that role.

As for ND in the 70s, I think several things. First, ND was probably more catholic then than they are now. Second, I have no idea what Falwell's son went there for. Third, Jr. was a much rougher cat than III is, and probably would have been publicly stronger. Fourth, they may have just been inconsistent.

III is the kindler, gentler Jones, whether for better or worse, richer or poorer ... well, you know the drill. Another well known perspective was that when Miss Barker and Jr. were off the scene, there would be a softer, gentler BJU. They were really the last remaining icons of the "old guard" so to speak. There have been many changes made to be sure. In deference to BJU, I don't think they look at those changes as theological in nature (again, whether right or wrong). They do not believe they have never compromised their theological convictions; they have changed the application of some of them though.

I wonder if some of this isn't that there was a failure to clearly delineate between doctrine and application. Foxrev talked of those who blindly follow BJU today. But I can't help but think he is one who is blindly following the BJU of yesterday. He eagerly soaked up the teaching and application of that era and thinks that it is the only right way. But, as with areas that have been shown here, there were clearly some applications involved, not doctrine. He held BJJr in a high regard (as many did, and rightly so). But you still have to make a distinction between doctrine and application. The one is infallible; the other is not. BJJr was well known for shooting from the hip when he talked to the "preacher boys." And when you shoot from the hip, your aim is quite often off target. And quite often, he was probably giving his opinion about matters, rather than saying everyone had to agree with him to be saved.

I think preaching from all sides (from rabid KJVO to radical liberalism) is infected with this failure of clear delineation between doctrine and application and it is something that we preachers and teachers have to be very conscious of.

But I have gone on long enough. Hope that is clear ...

 

[superdave]

I'll say amen to that, even the stuff I don't know what you are talking about.

I especially agree with the last part about defining clearly what is doctrine and what is application..

And to take that further, what is Biblically based, whithout need of extrapolation, and what is logically derived from Biblical principles.

There is plenty of room for disagreement among friends is there not? When it comes to extra-biblical matters, and somewhat obscure applications of the text.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Paidagogos,

[snip]

As for ND in the 70s, I think several things. First, ND was probably more catholic then than they are now. Second, I have no idea what Falwell's son went there for. Third, Jr. was a much rougher cat than III is, and probably would have been publicly stronger. Fourth, they may have just been inconsistent.

[snip]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. This was purely a hypothetical question. To my knowledge, Jerry, Jr. did not attend Notre Dame.

My whole point is that BJU has changed, whether for better or worse, if they now tolerate or do those things that they once criticized or criticized others for doing. On the other hand, they vehemently denied any change.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by superdave:
I'll say amen to that, even the stuff I don't know what you are talking about.

I especially agree with the last part about defining clearly what is doctrine and what is application..

And to take that further, what is Biblically based, whithout need of extrapolation, and what is logically derived from Biblical principles.

There is plenty of room for disagreement among friends is there not? When it comes to extra-biblical matters, and somewhat obscure applications of the text.

The Bible doesn't say, "Thou shalt not dip snuff or chew tobacco." However, I don't think I would be part of a church where the pastor did.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I have been asked to comment (again) on the issue. Already have weighed in and since I have no love/hate for any of the faux Dr Bob's, I defer any opinion.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by paidagogos:

My whole point is that BJU has changed, whether for better or worse, if they now tolerate or do those things that they once criticized or criticized others for doing. On the other hand, they vehemently denied any change.

Has there been one school that has not gone down over time?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:

My whole point is that BJU has changed, whether for better or worse, if they now tolerate or do those things that they once criticized or criticized others for doing. On the other hand, they vehemently denied any change.

Has there been one school that has not gone down over time? </font>[/QUOTE]I do know of one school that has improved tremendously from 35 years ago. North Greenville College (Tygerville, SC) has an entire Bible faculty that believes in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. Their behavioral expectations have greatly improved (drinking, drugs, etc. not tolerated). Their faculty and academic quality have greatly improved and their enrollment has more than tripled. Perhaps I, personally, would like to see some other changes but they most certainly have gone up (i.e. improved). This is one school.

 

[Siegfried]

IV did his Master's work at George Washington, not Georgetown. I believe it was in non-profit administration. He completed his course work at ND but not the dissertation.

 

[superdave]

The Bible doesn't say, "Thou shalt not dip snuff or chew tobacco." However, I don't think I would be part of a church where the pastor did. [Big Grin]

I agree about that behavior, but I would make it clear that It is not a command, and is something derived from Biblical principles.

There are those who would question the salvation of those who partook in the enjoyment of burned weeds. And plenty of other more divisive issues.

I appreciate honesty and integrity in those who expound the Word. I don't mind hearing their opinion, and I respect it, but I think its only correct that it be made clear what is opinion, and what can be supported by the text.

 

[superdave]

BTW, Dr. Bob III (not the Dr. Bob of BaptistBoard fame) was at our church Sun. Night. I didn't hear any compromising. Just thought I would add that anecdote

 

[Dr. Bob]

Is he still using my name? Remember, I am the real Dr Bob!

 

[Greg Linscott]

Not to burst your bubbles, but we Faith BBC students and alumni know that this man (click for link) is the "true" Dr. Bob!

Just wanted to clear that up!

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Is he still using my name? Remember, I am the real Dr Bob!

Yeah, and his doctorate is honorary too!

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by superdave:
BTW, Dr. Bob III (not the Dr. Bob of BaptistBoard fame) was at our church Sun. Night. I didn't hear any compromising. Just thought I would add that anecdote

So what? Do you think he would say anything compromising, if he was compromising, unless your church was a compromising church? If so, then he is compromising by being at a compromising church and the compromising church would not recognize his compromise if it hit them in the face. Go figure.


As a good Philadelpha shyster...uh lawyer...I offer the following disclaimer:
1. I did not say that Dr. Bob, III was compromising.
2. I did not say that you are compromising.
3. I did not say your church is compromising.
4. I did not say that you would not know compromise if it hit you in the face.

I merely contend that this anecdote has no significance either way.

 

[Palmetto Boy]

Sorry to join this forum late in the game. I just happened across it.

Someone warned me once that too many fundamentalists--and Christians in general--love to play "gotcha!" They are looking for every chance to call another Christian on an error of any sort. As a young fundamentalist, I find this spirit repulsive. It is what I have seen in the conspiratorial accusations in this forum.

Returning to the original post...Let me remind foxrev that precedent does not represent a legitimate authority. That would be a Catholic view. The fact that BJU's rules are different than they were when you were in school means nothing. Compare where things are to Biblical principals.

As for Dr. Gregory, I heard him speak in chapel, but had no clue of the "skeletons in his closet." His visit certainly did not encourage the student body to embrace compromise.

Let's also remember that disagreement does NOT equal disobedience. This summer I was at a secular University and met some young and untrained Christians. I had to explain to them why I believe Catholicism is a false religion. Should I have separated from them? No, they were ignorant not disobedient. Even among mature Christians there are disagreements that are honestly held. These should not be grounds for separation.

Cal Thomas does a good job of describing the error of hyper-separation: "The circle grows smaller, and the number of true believers shrinks, and the last man dies convinced that only he knows and practices the truth, and the kingdom of God is thus diminished because the way of God has been ignored in the pursuit of the will of God by those who claim exclusive knowledge of it."

As a student seeking to grow in grace I have benefitted greatly from books by John MacArthur, Jerry Bridges, and A.W. Tozer--all men that foxrev could take down on some account. A chapter with these men could do more for me than a decade under someone "clean" preacher like Jack Hyles or Lester Roloff. To defend Hyles particularly by saying that 'although he was wrong about a lot of things, he wasn't a compromiser' is ridiculous. Hyles misrepresented and obscured Biblical truth--something far worse than associating with someone who associates with someone who...

Lets remember that God uses all of us in spite of our sinfulness and theological errors. To think that we are meriting God's approval and blessing on our ministries by our impeccable orthodoxy is, well, Catholic and pharisaical. Every Christian is blessed and used on the basis of GRACE. Realizing my own proud legalism in this area has helped me to be more humble as I evaluate men and ministries.

Returning to two other incidental topics:
1. I have been attending chapel at BJU for more than 9 years. In that time interracial dating has never been preached on. And it is true that until the 2000 election my generation never talked or thought about the rule. I understand that it was a more common topic during the early 80s supreme court case era.
2. The assisted living facility accusation was a cheap shot. The home was bought because BJU has run out of room at the hospital to house all of the ailing retirees. They are underwriting some of these expenses by making the extra space at the new facility available to those in the Greenville community (rather than kicking the current residents out). Is it wrong to house ailing unsaved people? Furthermore, is making a profit immoral? That's reminscent of Thomas Aquinas' misguided economic theories, and he was...Catholic. Remember that BJ uses its business component to underwrite much of its educational/discipling efforts. That is how they keep tuition low without government money.