Beale on Broader Evangelicalism

Recommended reading.

Another sample…

Dr. Beale’s definition was accurate from the mid-20th century for the next few decades, but probably has been outdated since the late 1990s, certainly by the early 21st century. Beale’s taxonomy presents two coherent groups, Fundamentalists and Broad Evangelicals, but the ecclesiastical landscape is not at all like that. At least Kevin’s definition recognizes this somewhat, and he has acknowledged elsewhere that defining Fundamentalism is not an easy task.

Accepting Dr. Beale’s definition on its face, though, means his charge against BJU is false. I have seen his explanation for the charge and it does not prove that BJU prefers “to identify with false teachers under the broad umbrella” or that they are guilty of “joining liberals in ecumenical campaigns.” This is the flaw in seeing the world only in terms of Fundamentalism and New/Broad Evangelicalism.

Who published the new edition? BJU Press published the first but, considering the unflattering portrait of Dr. Beale’s former plave of employment, I suspect that they didn’t publish this edition.

BJU Press doesn’t usually make money on these books, so the authors have to seek other publishers. Other BJU professors have had this problem, even though they have written excellent books.

I believe it is self-published. (Xulon Press)

Self-publishing is very different today than 10-15 years ago. Amazon helped change perceptions and financials. An accepted way of publishing today.

I agree with Dave that Dr. Beale’s terminology is incorrect. It does confuse the reader, since there are “evangelicalisms” at least as much as there are “fundamentalisms”.

However, despite the confusion, no one can deny Dr. Beale’s main point, which is that the changes at BJU are in the direction of evangelicalism, not fundamentalism. The folks at BJU might protest the evangelical label, but they are no longer separatists as they once were.

To me, that is a tragedy. Many others applaud the changes. I wonder if Dave does?

I am grateful for the acknowledgement that there are “evangelicalisms” as well as “fundamentalisms”—that’s a helpful start toward navigating the current landscape. Yet, the question still is built on the assumption that things haven’t changed all that much. To use the analogy in my post, acknowledging that the Soviet Union no longer exists is good, but continuing to treat all of its former members the same way doesn’t make sense. There are states that were in the Soviet Union which are now members of NATO. Does the USA forming an alliance with the Ukraine indicate that we have gone soft on communism? Not at all. They changed, so we respond differently.

So, until we actually address who is a separatist as defined biblically (vs. historical label), I don’t think we can have meaningful discussions about direction, etc. For my part, I have been separating from both professing fundamentalists and evangelicals for a long time and, by God’s grace, will continue to do so. As for BJU, I am not going to answer questions for or about them beyond saying that I still welcome Steve to our pulpit and I feel comfortable preaching and teaching there. The point of my blog post was the inadequacy of Beale’s taxonomy, not an assessment of BJU.

You are about where they are. Probably explains why you react so strongly to Dr. Beale’s comment. I agree he should have used a different term and also that he should have explained more about what he meant in the book.

But ultimately, the argument we are having is how close we should work with Evangelicals. My answer is, “Not very.” Yours is??

Don, you just don’t seem to get it. You acknowledge there are “evangelicalisms” but then still press on about “work with Evangelicals” as if there is only one group. No having your cake and eating too.

Not sure what else to say at this point. You are comfortable working with people I am not; I am comfortable working with people you are not. Both of us will give our accounting to the Lord about that and I’m content to leave my assessment to Him. I’m sure you feel the same for yourself.

I agree that Beale is not being as nuanced as he should be and BJU is certainly not turning into Saddleback or Willow Creek in their philosophy. However, I think an honest observer will note that BJU is not where it was 10-15 years ago.

Personally, I think many of the changes have been good. BUT… I do worry if the pendulum is swinging to far. In conversations I have with other pastors in Western PA, they also are expressing this same concern. In the past, I chalked it up to the same old objections of the “old guard” fundamentalists. I doubt that I share the objections Don has, but, as a “younger fundamentalist,” I also have seen some concerning things.

My advice to people who express that concern is to reach out to the BJU administration directly. I have found them generally accessible and open to discussion. That being said, things are definitely changing. From my perspective, some of that change is welcome and good. I just hope they can center the pendulum rather than let it swing so far that BJU loses some of what distinguishes among other Christian Universities.

First, of course there are subsets in evangelicalism. Not denying that.

I’m just not willing to cooperate with any of them.

I object to the soft philosophy of evangelicalism. That is not to say we don’t have our own problems

Philip, I don’t want to get into a detailed discussion of another ministry, but I’ll just say that there hasn’t been a decade since I graduated with my BA from BJU where I didn’t hear this same complaint. BJ III faced it in the late 80s & early 90s (which is why some other colleges started). Stephen faced it. Now Pettit faces it. It’s inevitable since the context within which they each led was changing from the days which preceded it.

Biblical principles never change. Applications of those principles do. Applications, but definition, demand constant evaluation of the context in order to remain faithful to the principles. Each generation has to wrestle through what the fresh, faithful application of biblical principles looks like. Historically, many Christian educational institutions have failed to do this well. Doing it successfully is not a given, especially when so many other factors and pressures are at play.

Frankly, I still favor the mandatory light bells, family style dinners, room checks, etc. of my era. And I would have no problem passing hair check any more. I will say this, I had the privilege of preaching in chapel a few weeks ago and I was really encouraged by the attentiveness of the students. I have been doing this for a long time and that isn’t always a given on college campuses. Doing chapels at BJU and Faith this fall was very encouraging. I think God is doing something good on these campuses.

Dr. Doran,

I absolutely agree with you that cultural changes require an adjustment to how issues are approached. My concern is not so much centered on the rules, I think almost every recent change to the handbook and expected conduct among students has been positive. My concern is more towards Philosophy of Ministry and their approach to ministerial training and I, like you, don’t think a detailed discussion of that is helpful here. We had a BJU intern here in Pittsburgh last summer (2020) and his heart for ministry and attitude towards the Lord was excellent. This is no doubt a result of the refocus on biblical discipleship at BJU. I am thankful for what God is continuing to do there and pray that by God’s grace the University continues for the glory of God. I am still a supporter and would recommend the school, but there are just some nagging concerns in the back of my head.

Just to be clear, I was cracking a joke about the rule book. My main point on the principles/applications is that this is true for separation too (and has been a bone of contention in every decade since I graduated). As an illustration, look at the FBF through the decades and how it has changed too. Or the GARBC. New times and challenges require new responses. Some of those responses seem out of step with earlier ones. Some are. Some aren’t. None of our churches and ministries are exactly the same. As has been admitted, there is no Fundamentalism, but clusters of Fundamentalists with their own distinctives and concerns. Ministries trying to serve in that reality are not going to satisfy everyone’s concerns. I have had my concerns with “our” educational institutions through the years and expressed them (as well as received such concerns re: DBTS). I have always known that I will have to accept some of what I don’t like precisely because these institutions serve churches that differ with ours on some matters. Here’s what has always been the bottom line for me—will a student’s heart be turned away from a church like ours? If so, we don’t encourage students to go there. Might be simplistic, but it fits our focus on the primacy of the church. BJU has always been broader than us on separation (with whom we would work and fellowship), but they have not turned hearts away from a church like ours.

Thanks for interacting. Need to bow out.

[Dave Doran] I have had my concerns with “our” educational institutions through the years

The solution to ‘ “our” educational institutions’:

• Go to a state school.
• Be a missionary
• Connect with the “Navigators”