Compromisers Promoted At Bob Jones University

[identicaltwin]

Is this the person who has a child, jan Gregory and a son, Rick? Jan was in school when I was...if my memory is right...seems right anyway.

Maybe if this is true, and it seems like she had a brother Rick, (is that Dick?) then maybe it's "old news" and something that's been going on since before I attended (in the early 80's). It seems like I remember some "fellow students" there by that name.

Didn't the IFCA used to be good? My dad was part of it in the 1970's in a Bible church in Deringer, WA. He was pastor.

Becky P.

 

[foxrev]

Greg:

You say: "1.) BJIII chooses to fellowship with men who share his fundamental, sepratist convictions"

Look, Gregory is ONE example of many. There have been several speakers over the last decade that are invited to come and speak from the chapel pulpit and bj3 has never checked their stand on separation. For you to make such claims is a clear demonstration, that: 1. You do not know the longstanding teaching of BJU and separation. 2. You do not know bj3.

You do not have any ground to stand on to make your suppositions. None. If you were a Bible major/ministerial student at BJU, say, 12 years ago or before that time, then, indeed you would know something of BJU's postion.

"Would you not consider it a good thing if, by some working of the Spirit, the IFCA did ultimately take the right stand?"

That would be fantastic if the IFCA said, "Hey, we have been accepting/promoting ecumenical evangelism. We are now opposed to it." Or if they said, "We were wrong in 1967 to join up with ecumenism and not oppose it." Wonderful!

However, we need a Great Awakening in the USA for that to happen.

[ October 25, 2004, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: foxrev ]

 

[aefting]

foxrev:

One problem that I have with all this, even being sympathetic to many of your concerns, is that we really have no idea what BJ3's thinking about this actually is. I don't know his realationship to Gregory; I don't know what things he even knows about him; I don't even know if he is aware of all the issues regarding the IFCA. He may not agree with the choices made by IFCA leadership through the years but perhaps he doesn't feel that inviting Gregory really promotes the IFCA and those questionable associations. Not all separation issues are cut and dried.

BJU has a pattern of promoting fundamentalism and separting from New Evangelicalism. They occasionally have speakers that you and I would not choose. They had the Sword conferences, including Jack Hyles, back in the late 80's. Does that mean BJU has gone in that direction or was going in that direction? No. Neither does having people, whose associations I would never had known about until you brought it up, mean that BJU has rejected is well-established fundamentalist philosophy.

I do have one question for you. You came on this board to expose and condem BJU over these issues. What in particular did you hope to accomplish by doing that in this particular forum?

Andy

 

[foxrev]

Hyles, was not a New Evangelical Andy, they still are not. Different in their practice, yes, but not neo.

Andy says:
What in particular did you hope to accomplish by doing that in this particular forum?


Other men need to be aware of what is going on and confront bj3 for what he is doing. That is, after all what we are to do according to Matt 18. Of course, BJU is not a church, it is a "Christian Business" as bj3 says himself. So, you cannot bring him before a congregation. Another problem of schools run outside of the local church - they can do as they please - even with a board. Several men have confronted bj3 for his doings, to no avail thus far. The whole purpose must be to restore BJU to its stand as it is indeed drifting, though gradually, towards New Evangelicalism.

 

[aefting]

Hyles, was not a New Evangelical Andy, they still are not. Different in their practice, yes, but not neo.

The problems with Hyles and some of the other Sword men were much worse than any compromise that Gregory is involved in today with the IFCA. People wrote BJ3 about those things back then, just like you are writing BJ3 about Gregory today. I was told BJU was heading into compromise back then, just like you are telling me they are heading into New Evangelicalism today. It wasn't true back then and I'm not convinced that it is happening today.

I also agree with others who say that it is not right to publically confront BJ3 in anonimity, as you are doing. Why should I write a letter to BJ3 based on an anonymous complaint? Anonymous allegations wouldn't fly in my church, I can tell you that.

Andy

 

[Paul33]

The best thing that could happen to BJU is for BJIII to lead them into the "conservative" stream of evangelical fellowship!

Hopefully, all of the nut cases in the KJVO group will drive BJU into the mainstream of Christianity.

We need more fellowship and love for each other in these last days, not less.

Stop throwing rocks at each other because one is Calvinistic, the other Arminian; one is covenantal, the other dispensational; one is a cessationist, the other open to all the gifts, etc.

We don't have to be in denominational fellowships with each other, or give up our distinctives, but we sure don't need to be throwing rocks at each other either.

Some day in heaven, I'll be quiet when I walk past the dwelling place of the separatist fundamentalists. You know, so that I don't have to upset you about God being a compromiser. I wouldn't want you to realize that I'm in heaven too.

 

[foxrev]

Andy Says:
Anonymous allegations wouldn't fly in my church, I can tell you that.

I have personally confronted bj3 along with several other pastors.

In addition, the pulpit of BJU and their HomeSat is open to the internet (Chapel Notes on their website) and broadcast via satellite. There is nothing hidden about the compromise taking place at BJU. This is not a private sin, rather public.

As to you supposition that Hyles was worse when he came and spoke, Jack was never in a New Evangelical Fellowship of Churches. No way! If you are referencing a personal issue of his life. Jack is with the Lord. And, as Dr. Jones Jr. stated, "NEVER, say anything in criticism about a man when he is dead."

I am no fan of Hyles, even today, but they are not Neos and running with a bunch of spineless compromisers who support ecumenism - AKA "The one world church."

 

[Paul33]

Hyles was the worst kind of compromiser. He flagrantly disregarded the Word of God in teaching and practice. Only God knows if Hyles is in heaven.

 

[Greg Linscott]

You do not have any ground to stand on to make your suppositions. None. If you were a Bible major/ministerial student at BJU, say, 12 years ago or before that time, then, indeed you would know something of BJU's postion.

But I do have ground. BJU alum, wonderful people that many of them are, do not have an exclusive defining rights on what constitutes "compromise" and what measures up to "biblical separation." Personally, I would not have many of the political speakers that BJU has in (and I am a somewhat active Republican in my personal life), but hey, that's me. I'm not going to label BJU as a compromised institution because they let Alan Keyes (a Catholic) or John Ashcroft (Assemblies of God) speak to the student body.

I'm sorry you feel your alma mater is slipping. I really am. As an "outsider" by your definition, I have personally benefitted from its ministry, and been encouraged by many of their developments. I will continue to ocassionally purchase books from their press, listen to their speakers, enjoy their ministry teams, and support the two students from my church attending there. I may one day send my daughters there. I will continue to watch and evaluate, as I do with any organization or institution.

Question: if you and your friends truly believe this constitutes blatant compromise, why not leave on principle? I read you saying things like "you don't know whaty BJ3 would do" and so on... WHO CARES? If these are your convictions (which you apparently seem to be convinced of), take your stand! Make a decision, regardless of the consequences. Be ostracized- if it is from a compromised, "neo" institution, why should you care, anyway?

If you don't really believe that, in my estimation, it's not really compromise in the strict sense of the term- it is a concern. write your letter of concern, move on, and serve God where you are.

 

[2atlow8]

I agree with Paul33. Good post and in line with what I feel. Having left the IFB church for a very sound SBC church I have much more freedom.

Mainstream Christianity is getting the Gospel message out. Extreme Fundamentalism is hurting the cause of Christ, in my opinion.

 

[foxrev]

Greg:

You do not have any ground to stand on. You are not a BJU Grad and have NO CLUE what we were taught there neither did you sit under the teaching of our teachers - by your own admission.

As for what I will do, that is not for you to be telling me. Have I said I am still with BJU? Don't think I have. Again, you continue to assume what people are thinking, whether me or bj3.

Greg says:
why should you care, anyway?

Again you manifest your lack of understanding of the situation. BJU grads do have a binding obligation. Unlike other schools, we sign a document that states in part, if I ever see the university depart from its stand, I will do everthing within my power to correct it. So, having a conscience and sense of respect, love and gratitude for my Alma Mater, I speak because "ITS DEFINIION OF COMPROMISE/SEPARATION" is being violated and again, there you have no idea of what you are addressing Greg.

 

[2atlow8]

Please tell me when I signed such a document. I would like a copy. They occasionally said that from the pulpit but signing something... I think not.
Class of 1982.

 

[Paul33]

The real hypocrisy at BJU when I was there in the early 80s was that they would never invite good evangelical pastors and teachers in to speak or hold seminars, etc., but they had no problem bringing in nonbelievers to perform opera and musical shows.

Unsaved artists were acceptable.
Sound, Christian teachers and preachers, not!

What hypocrisy!

If you're going to separate from John R. Rice or DTS or TEDS or GRACE, then how can you justify bringing in unbelievers to sing favorably about adultery like they did when I was there? BTW, the student body cheered wildly! We were then rebuked in chapel the next day! I think most of us were just cheering to see how long the group would do encores.

 

[Paul33]

As for signing any documents. I was a preacher boy, and I don't recall signing anything.

 

[2atlow8]

Paul33,
When were you there. I was there 1978 to 1982, BS in Business.

 

[Paul33]

I was there Fall 1981 through Fall 1982. I took 70 credits there and was one semester from graduating before I got the hook!

 

[foxrev]

Look fellas, it was optional, not mandatory. Paul, you would not have signed one since you did not graduate. It was done in a meeting practicing for graduation, prepping us on what and what not to do. All of our class signed it. I know it has been done since the very first class in Florida until now.

 

[2atlow8]

Nothing that important to them would be optional.

They did not do it in 1982.

 

[foxrev]

2atlow8

You must have missed it, it was a requirement started by Bob Jones Sr. at the schools inception and maintained to this day.

 

[2atlow8]

FoxRev:

Two posts ago you said it was optional, now you say it was a requirement. It can't be both. I did not sign such a document.