Don, regardless of your feelings about foxrev's positions, he doesn't have to reveal his identity to you or anyone else if he doesn't want to. Lighten up. If BJ III had these men in, it is clearly a departure from where BJU stood under Jr. That may be good or bad, but is a legitimate point.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Compromisers Promoted At Bob Jones University
- Thread starter foxrev
- Start date
Yeah, right.
BJIII is doing here exactly what you want him to do – earnestly contend for the faith. KJV-onlyism promotes a dangerous false doctrine. You should be glad that your alma mater is standing for the truth. As a graduate you would know that BJU has always defended sound modern versions (even participating in the translation of the NASB) while condemning unsound versions such as Good News for Modern Man and the RSV.
BJU has always held leaders to a different standard than laymen. Tom Lester does not represent the his denomination and his appearance on BJ’s homeschool network does not promote his denomination in any fashion. It’s not like they had Albert Mohler promoting the Billy Graham School of Missions at Southern Seminary.
Fundamentalist pastors often have stricter standards for who they will allow in their pulpit than BJU does. BJU is not Baptist and there are many IFB pastors who will only allow fellow Baptists in their pulpit. BJU is a school – not a church. While they should guard carefully who stands in the pulpit, the type of separation they practice for chapel speakers will and should be different than for special convocations (e.g., allowing Catholic political candidates to speak such as Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes) or classroom settings (such as having former Ohio congressman John Kasich speak to their business students or Tom Lester speaking on HomeSat).
I am all for separation but let’s practice it Biblically.
If that is what BJIII is trying to do, he’s doing a pretty poor job of it. Think about it – no movies, no rock music, no ccm, hands-off dating, no intercollegiate sports program, required attendance at plays and operas, dress codes, demerits for missing class, etc, etc – most people even on this board think BJU is strange! You are not looking at the situation rationally. Just because BJIII is making different decisions than you would does not mean that the school is rushing headlong into compromise. You need to look at the overall picture – overall BJU is still preaching and practicing separation and trying to combat worldliness.
Andy
Greg Linscott
<img src =/7963.jpg>
I have no official ties with BJU- never went to school there or anything. One of the reasons I chose not to attend was because of the dating ban. Specifically, I have a Filipina mother and a white American father. I didn't want to have to "declare my race."
For what it is worth, I am satisfied with the current administration's handling of this issue. If you are seeing conflicting responses on their part, it must be motivated at least in part, I believe, due to a wish to remain loyal to the overall vision and positive spiritual legacy of the University and its founders. Did they make mistakes? Yes. Was this policy wrong? Yes. Is it there now? No. Is it being defended now? No.
Does it have anything to do with the original topic? No.
The other matters that originally began this discussion- again, it is possible that this man is in the process of taking a stand, and BJU is supporting him by having him speak?
I believe that others have drawn an appropriate parallel between the actor in question and the political figures that have spoken at the campus over the years. No one is questioning the University's position on the Charismatic movement because John Ashcroft, a confirmed and outspoken member of the Assemblies of God, has been on campus to speak. You must consider the context.
For what it is worth, I am satisfied with the current administration's handling of this issue. If you are seeing conflicting responses on their part, it must be motivated at least in part, I believe, due to a wish to remain loyal to the overall vision and positive spiritual legacy of the University and its founders. Did they make mistakes? Yes. Was this policy wrong? Yes. Is it there now? No. Is it being defended now? No.
Does it have anything to do with the original topic? No.
The other matters that originally began this discussion- again, it is possible that this man is in the process of taking a stand, and BJU is supporting him by having him speak?
I believe that others have drawn an appropriate parallel between the actor in question and the political figures that have spoken at the campus over the years. No one is questioning the University's position on the Charismatic movement because John Ashcroft, a confirmed and outspoken member of the Assemblies of God, has been on campus to speak. You must consider the context.
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.
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.
Which loyal retired faculty are you talking about?
Greg:
Thank you for making my point! The context of the BJU Homesat program was MISSIONS. Tom Lester was upheld for his missionary efforts to Hollywood. Hollywood was praised for its programs of the 1960's! Was Petticoat Junction a wholesome family program? Don't think so. Yet, Tom Lester and Gary Moore on the program said that it was. Gary honored an practicing SBC man for his evangelistic efforts. That is NO DIFFERENT than saying Billy Graham is great for his efforts in ecumenism. As I mentioned before, BJU Promoted going to see a SBC man in two SBC churches in Greenville, SC. That, my friend was a violation of Scriptural Separation.
Thank you for making my point! The context of the BJU Homesat program was MISSIONS. Tom Lester was upheld for his missionary efforts to Hollywood. Hollywood was praised for its programs of the 1960's! Was Petticoat Junction a wholesome family program? Don't think so. Yet, Tom Lester and Gary Moore on the program said that it was. Gary honored an practicing SBC man for his evangelistic efforts. That is NO DIFFERENT than saying Billy Graham is great for his efforts in ecumenism. As I mentioned before, BJU Promoted going to see a SBC man in two SBC churches in Greenville, SC. That, my friend was a violation of Scriptural Separation.
Larry,
I cannot divuldge that as I would jeopardize the retirement of these men who are faithful servants of God. However, if you cannot see by the rules that are gone, the speakers honored in the BJU pulpit. I do not know what else I can do. BJU is also investing in a HUGE housing project and recently purchased an "Assisted Care Facility." Both open to the general public. Both open to anyone for anything. All to gain profit.
I cannot divuldge that as I would jeopardize the retirement of these men who are faithful servants of God. However, if you cannot see by the rules that are gone, the speakers honored in the BJU pulpit. I do not know what else I can do. BJU is also investing in a HUGE housing project and recently purchased an "Assisted Care Facility." Both open to the general public. Both open to anyone for anything. All to gain profit.
Being personally aquainted with the Jones family, it deeply grieves my heart to know that BJ III refuses to listen to any of his close aquaintances when he is confronted about the lowering of standards at BJU. His father, BJ Jr. often told us as students that, "When you see Bob Jones University going, don't send your students here." That and only that, will have an impact on the mind of BJ III to change the direction that BJU is headed. In addition, the University GREATLY needs our prayers for it to turn back to where it needs to be.
[ October 15, 2004, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: foxrev ]
[ October 15, 2004, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: foxrev ]
Greg Linscott
<img src =/7963.jpg>
foxrev,
You still haven't addressed the possibility of BJU trying to show support and encouragement to a brother making a stand. Is it possible in this case?
I am not going to argue with you on the actor thing. Without having seen the interview you mention firsthand, I see a possible context of a "mission" this man might have had to promote moral values in Hollywood programming, apart from the specific missions connotation in how we use the word in Christian circles.
And, for the record, I have never seen an episode of "Petticoat Junction" or "Green Acres," and have absolutely no idea what the premise of either program was about, other than having heard the "Green Acres" theme song as part of a Ford automobile commercial several years ago. So, I'm not defending this man- but I am willing to give some room for liberty and pure motives to an institution that has established a pattern of trying to hold the course.
You still haven't addressed the possibility of BJU trying to show support and encouragement to a brother making a stand. Is it possible in this case?
I am not going to argue with you on the actor thing. Without having seen the interview you mention firsthand, I see a possible context of a "mission" this man might have had to promote moral values in Hollywood programming, apart from the specific missions connotation in how we use the word in Christian circles.
And, for the record, I have never seen an episode of "Petticoat Junction" or "Green Acres," and have absolutely no idea what the premise of either program was about, other than having heard the "Green Acres" theme song as part of a Ford automobile commercial several years ago. So, I'm not defending this man- but I am willing to give some room for liberty and pure motives to an institution that has established a pattern of trying to hold the course.
Greg Linscott
<img src =/7963.jpg>
My son can say the same thing!
Andy</font>[/QUOTE]You've gotta have one good-looking, intelligent young man for a son then, Andy!
Greg Linscott
<img src =/7963.jpg>
In light of another thread in this forum, I don't believe it's fair to say that standards have changed at BJU. The students have the same rules to follow that they always have. The same moral conduct rules apply. Even in regards to separation: it is not as if BJU is hosting the NAE Convention with Robert Schuler as the main speaker. These examples you have cited, while it may not be out of line to even say that they are circumstances that bear watching, don't, in this poster's assesment, warrant a hasty desertion of anything BJU. While we should be willing to evaluate, we must also judge this school and other institutions by their established directions and patterns of behavior.
I don’t mean to be coming after you and I do understand your concerns. Probably 10 years ago or so, I got caught up in a similar series of accusations against BJU by a pastor friend that I highly respected. I heard stories of longtime faculty members weeping in BJIII’s office over certain speakers that they had at the time. I was shown correspondence between this pastor friend and BJIII that was supposed to show all the compromise going on at BJU. I really didn’t know what to do or how to respond. There was something in one of BJIII’s letters that helped me, though. He said to watch the school and see if they really are going down the wrong road. And so I did. What I saw was that the so-called compromises were basically just isolated mistakes/incidents – and often admitted as such. Some things were just differences of opinion. I also watched my pastor friend begin to grow hyper-separatistic, schismatic, and totally caught up in militant KJV-onlyism. Frankly, my pastor friend was wrong, maybe not about individual incidents but about the overall direction of the school.
BJU is not perfect, never has been. They have had speakers that I knew acted one way in BJIII’s presence and a totally different way the rest of the time. I’ve known things about some speakers that if BJIII had known the same things he would never have them speak. But BJIII is in a nearly impossible position. There is no way that he can know everything about the 100’s of guest speakers that they have every year. And there is no way he can make everybody happy. I’ve already said that I would not have invited Dr. Gregory, but maybe as Greg says, there might be something going on behind the scenes that would make me think differently.
BJU has never advocated separation over isolated events. There needs to be a sustained pattern of deliberate disobedience – that is not the picture of what is going on at BJU.
Why would Gary promote Greenville specific meetings to a national audience? What do you mean by “promote?”
BJU has played an occasional exhibition game but they do not play intercollegiate sports. The only intercollegiate activity they compete in is debate.
Spend the morning about 40 minutes down the road at Clemson University and then drive back up to Greenville and you will notice that the BJ students are not taking part in the most recent fads in fashion and dress.
Prostitutes? You’re not going to get an honest hearing about the so-called compromises at BJU if you go around making outlandish statements like this.
Andy
That's what I suspected. These anonymous sources are always handy. It doesn't sound like you know much about what you are talking about. You seem like you are very bitter. You have made false accusations that BJIII is anti-KJV. That is simply not true and you know it. BJIII did not produce those books. He played no part in the authorship. These kinds of charges tell us much about your perspective however and calls into question the legitimacy of your arguments.
I think we need to criticize BJU on legitimate things. The truth is that they have some speakers I would not have. But I am well aware of the university and the stand that they take and find your objections completely out of line.
Look, I love BJ III and you have no idea how close I am to him and if you did, you would realize why I am not divulging my sources. However, to be silent on the compromise is against the Bible and I will not be silent. BJ III had everything to do with the KJV/Text books. He hand picked half of the "committee" and JB Williams, who BJ III asked for help on this, picked the other half.
You are misreading my deep hurt and grief as bitterness. My blood runs BLUE AND WHITE, those are the colors of MY SCHOOL - BJU. I signed a form when I graduated to see that it stayed right. However, when BJ III is approached, he refuses to address the matters. Unfortunately, there is a growing number of BJU Grads finding the same thing.
You are misreading my deep hurt and grief as bitterness. My blood runs BLUE AND WHITE, those are the colors of MY SCHOOL - BJU. I signed a form when I graduated to see that it stayed right. However, when BJ III is approached, he refuses to address the matters. Unfortunately, there is a growing number of BJU Grads finding the same thing.
Greg Linscott
<img src =/7963.jpg>
foxrev,
Unless you're a current faculty/staff member, or your last name happens to be "Jones," I'm not exactly sure what you mean. If you don't want to be silent against compromise, then back up your position with your reputation. If you believe in your cause, be bold enough to put your name behind your conviction. I'm not trying to "out" you, but when your entire posting history on the BB is limited (as of this posting) to this particular thread, it does make you appear to be on a rather bitter vendetta. All any of us know here is that you are unhappy with BJIII for the reasons you have stated.
BTW- You still haven't addressed whether this Dr. Gregory is possibly taking this opportunity to stand and be counted with conservative fundamentalism. I'm not arguing that he is, but asking the question honestly because I don't know this man or anything about him.
Bottom line: if people here seem to be suspect of your motives and your message, I submit it is due in part that your first (and so far only) post was instantly sensational and scandalous- designed to draw a crowd and start a heated debate. There seems to be little eviddence of sorrow or a desire for restoration. If that's what you want, I'm afraid this forum probably isn't going to help you accomplish that.
Unless you're a current faculty/staff member, or your last name happens to be "Jones," I'm not exactly sure what you mean. If you don't want to be silent against compromise, then back up your position with your reputation. If you believe in your cause, be bold enough to put your name behind your conviction. I'm not trying to "out" you, but when your entire posting history on the BB is limited (as of this posting) to this particular thread, it does make you appear to be on a rather bitter vendetta. All any of us know here is that you are unhappy with BJIII for the reasons you have stated.
BTW- You still haven't addressed whether this Dr. Gregory is possibly taking this opportunity to stand and be counted with conservative fundamentalism. I'm not arguing that he is, but asking the question honestly because I don't know this man or anything about him.
Bottom line: if people here seem to be suspect of your motives and your message, I submit it is due in part that your first (and so far only) post was instantly sensational and scandalous- designed to draw a crowd and start a heated debate. There seems to be little eviddence of sorrow or a desire for restoration. If that's what you want, I'm afraid this forum probably isn't going to help you accomplish that.
You are misled on teh Bible. If you were a student at BJU, then you know that BJU has never changed its position on the text. The books in question took the correct position, though the argumentation/writing could have been better from what I understand. However, the position of BJU is well known and has been consistent for years. To call BJU and BJIII anti-KJV is simply wrong.