FBFI warns of BJU "change of policy regarding the separation"

OK, guys. I wrote it. It did not consult anyone else about it. It is in our “in the news” column. It is intended to be a simple, factual, observation about a change in policy at BJU. There is no “warning” associated with this comment. Some may welcome the change, some may not. It just is what it is.

In 2014 BJU hosted Dennis Prager, speaking on the topic “The Consequences of Secularism”:

https://www.collegianonline.com/2014/02/14/acclaimed-talk-show-host-to-visit-speak-on-secularism/

https://today.bju.edu/news/dennis-prager-to-speak-at-bju-tonight/

At the time I was thinking that such a topic seemed tailor-made for someone such as Albert Mohler…..

It struck me both then and now that, under BJU’s particular application of Separation, it is acceptable to host a prominent socially-conservative commentator who does not profess faith in Christ, but not acceptable to host a prominent conservative evangelical from the SBC.

The statemement that BJU has a “long held practice of separation from the SBC” is a matter of perspective. I was at BJU in the days when SBC pastors and prominent laymen were regular speakers at chapel and Bible Conference. 1972 was the year when BJU declared that it was hereafter separating from the SBC. In those days, apostasy was increasingly dominating SBC schools and denominational organizations. Apostasy had been rife for quite a while, and many criticized BJU for being too slow to separate. They defended their pre 1972 decision for a while, then reversed themselves in 1972 to declare their official separation. I’ve often wondered why fellowship with Bible-believing members of the SBC was Biblical in 1971, and sinful in 1972. It seemed a bit arbitrary to me at the time.

But what seems more ironic to me is this. Today, the SBC is solidly orthodox. The liberals lost, and many have departed. The conservatives won and largely control the SBC and it’s many institutions. So today, the SBC is far more Biblical than in 1971, but it was OK to fellowship in 1971, but not today. (At least as far as the FBFI is concerned.) These secondary separation issues can get a bit tricky to say the least.

Perhaps we could just leave the FBFI alone. Kevin clarified his comments. Either he’s lying, or telling the truth - we should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s telling the truth! Let’s just leave everyone to go their own way, and worry about other things!

BJU firmly holds to primary and secondary separation. These two speakers at the seminary core conference are not in violation of that position. BJU has written out a thorough position on associations based on ministry partners and ministry affiliates. In certain areas of academic, theological, and social expertise BJU is willing to invite affiliates to help educate students and Christian leaders in their educational conferences. For events such as normal chapel services, Bible Conference, and similar events, invitations are restricted to ministry partners. The document on associations is still being edited and is not ready for broad distribution. It is a well-written and well-thought-out document that reflects the total educational mission of a fundamental Christian liberal-arts university. The application of this document requires great wisdom and discretion due to the fact that the religious scene is seldom static and usually in a state of flux. This is where the disagreements and discussions inevitably occur. It would be best for the FBFI leadership to request a copy of this document from the President of BJU.

Regarding KJV Onlyism the FBFI has passed many resolutions over the years criticizing and distancing itself from that position and has promoted books arguing strongly against KJV Onlyism. On the other hand, the FBFI has no problem if the KJV is the preferred Bible of a college, seminary, church, or individual Christian. KJV preferred is not a heretical or erroneous position. In most cases (not all) KJV Onlyism reflects either serious error and/or heresy on the doctrine of inspiration and preservation.

Taking into account what you posted directly above, and applying it to the Dennis Prager event I mentioned a few posts up, does that mean that Albert Mohler (for a specific example) could ever be welcome at BJU at a similar event?

Thank you in advance for what I hope is an unequivocal answer, one way or the other.

It just doesn’t matter. Good men will continue to disagree with how to apply separation. Nothing will change that. I just feel sorry for the BJU leadership; they can’t do anything without a microscope of suspicion being cast upon them.

Mike. I appreciate that clarification. I received an email from Steve early this morning stating something similar. It seems that a written policy is something fairly new for BJU on this issue. I would love to post Steve’s explanation if he is willing. This would be a good time to publish the policy.

I completely agree with Tyler’s last (edit - now last 2) post(s). If Bro. Schaal only means to make an observation, then I don’t like it but OK. We can write this off as an unforced error.

I still think that what BJU is doing is fine and commendable.

Larry, I have had lunch with Dr. Mohler on two occasions. In recent years he moved his church membership from a large SBC church in Louisville to Third Avenue Baptist Church where Greg Gilbert is the Senior Pastor. I have visited this church on a Sunday and it is a very conservative, traditional, God-centered, Calvinistic Baptist church with great expository preaching. This church pulled out of the Kentucky State Convention for doctrine-and-practice reasons. Though still in the umbrella organization which covers all the major seminaries and missions’ program, the church has demonstrated a separatist mindset. On the other hand, since Dr. Mohler is the President of the Flagship Seminary for the SBC, it would be difficult to invite him without the perceived endorsement of the SBC. I am not a fan of the SBC and never have been, though I greatly appreciate the positive changes which have occurred over the last few decades; therefore, I would want to avoid the appearance of that endorsement. For that reason I would say “no”.

[TylerR]

Perhaps we could just leave the FBFI alone. Kevin clarified his comments. Either he’s lying, or telling the truth - we should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s telling the truth! Let’s just leave everyone to go their own way, and worry about other things!

Note that Kevin did not give BJU “the benefit of the doubt” or assume they were trying to apply Biblical principles correctly.

In military terms, which Tyler I’m sure you understand, the FBFI was using a PSYOPS technique to shape the landscape of fundamentalism

….we need to communicate clearly, especially if we’re writing/speaking on behalf of an organization that has thrown as many bombs as the FBFI. People will tend to assume an attack is being made simply based on past experience, especially when the words used indicate that there is a departure from policies previously considered orthodox.