Beale on Broader Evangelicalism
” …let’s just zero in on the most significant problem with Dr. Beale’s taxonomy—that there are only two groups in our day, Fundamentalism and Broad Evangelicalism” - Doran
- 108 views
Since Steve Pettit assumed the presidency of BJU has the school exhibited any of the signs of new evangelicalism such as working with liberals/modernists/apostates, joining with those that do work with liberals/modernists/apostates, forsaking Biblical truth for science, etc. Have they done anything that violates Scriptural teaching?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
If you haven’t, neither have I. Admittedly, I don’t know everything. But we have three church young people enrolled and doing well. I have seen new growth and maturity whenever they come home after a few months at BJU. I have a married daughter whose husband is on the faculty at BJU, and I am aware of none of the issues Ron asks about. I have ongoing relationships with several other BJU faculty members, and have heard nothing that gives me concern. I preached at a strong Greenville church recently, and saw and heard nothing to concern me.
Unless I have clear evidence, I am forced to conclude that the “concerns” expressed by some are related to peripheral matters—cultural, traditional, Christian liberty issues, rather than Bible doctrine. (I don’t want to insult anyone, but one of the weaknesses I see in Fundamentalism is greater loyalty to traditions than to Biblical exposition and application.)
G. N. Barkman
Don, this comment of yours is at the heart of the issue, IMO.
“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.”
I think many would deny your convenient classification of two possible directions. At least I would. There have been, are, and probably will be more changes at BJ. Isn’t there another possibility? It seems to me that BJ has not veered one iota from a God-pleasing, Christ-honoring purpose. The changes might actually be more in a gospel-centric direction rather than a man-pleasing, movement-oriented, culture-bound direction. God is the ultimate judge for the motivation behind the changes. Although I’m not intimately connected to the school I like much of what I see. There’s probably much I would disagree with as well but not to the point of criticism or separation.
Brother Steve
There have been many instances of cooperation and ministry with pastors or others who would call themselves evangelicals. Many who would call themselves fundamentalists have objected, expressed concerns, etc.
Some applaud these changes, usually evangelical-leaning erstwhile fundamentalists. Some decry the changes.
You can call it what you want, but the changes are undeniable. If the changes mean increased cooperation with evangelicals and decreasing support from fundamentalists, what direction would you say change is going?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Probably the big issue in terms of BJU, unless I’m misinformed, is the question of what degree of separation we’re talking about here—I personally support primary separation on the basis of the theological fundamentals but not so much secondary or tertiary separation—and the question of exactly what constitutes “the fundamentals” on which basis we ought to separate.
From my perspective—that the fundamentals properly include the original five fundamentals plus the Trinity and the truths in the Apostles’ Creed—I think that the moves I’ve heard of from BJU are in a great, and very fundamental, direction. If you’re keen on secondary separation and cultural fundamentalism, you’ll disagree with me. But it’s important that we get our terms straight here.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Can’t really re-engage (on vacation so I need to vacate!), but I did want to make clear that I don’t agree that the issue with Beale’s comment is about secondary separation. That’s the problem with his taxonomy. I don’t think BJU has abandoned so-called secondary separation (aka from disobedient brothers), nor have we (DBTS). Every semester our students must affirm this statement as part of enrollment:
We believe that believers and churches must separate from those who deny essential doctrines of the faith (Jude 3; 2 John 9–11; Rom 16:17); that believers and churches must separate from those who compromise the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith (Rom 16:17; Phil 3:17–19; cf. 2 Thess 3:6–15); and that believers and churches must strive to reflect God’s holiness and to live differently than those who have not experienced the saving grace of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:15–16; Eph 4:17–19).
Contending for the Faith has never been about only separating from those who deny some essential doctrine of the Faith. It has also included separating from those who disobey God’s commands on this point. As I preached at the 2009 FBF annual meeting, the issue that fragmented fundamentalism was disagreement on identifying the disobedient brother(s). Some prefer to stick to labels/camps. Others have adopted an approach less controlled by labels and old boundary lines and more controlled by evidence of commitment to either drive out or pull away from error. I favor the latter. Back to vacating.
DMD
One Example: The BJU Seminary currently has a faculty member who believes Redaction Criticism is an appropriate tool for exegesis and interpretation. Even many conservative Evangelicals would disagree with that.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Wally, is this what you’re referring to? If it is, I think we need to be careful to differentiate between what Stiekes does, and what the form critics are doing. Stiekes is taking a look at who wrote it/taught Luke and the like, but without any attempt to undermine divine authorship. With reference to the first fundamental, that’s a critical difference.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
But I recall Don was leading the charge against the “convergent” Fundamentalists more than a few years ago and now it seems like he wants to lead the same charge against BJU for similar issues. I believe him when he says he doesn’t want to work with the various streams of evangelicalism but I do wonder who will be left to work with if he doesn’t want to work with BJU in the future. Hyles-Anderson? West Coast Bible College?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[WallyMorris] One Example: The BJU Seminary currently has a faculty member who believes Redaction Criticism is an appropriate tool for exegesis and interpretation. Even many conservative Evangelicals would disagree with that.Of all the things I might be worried about with BJU, and I do have some concerns, I am least worried about this this one. For those interested, here is a blog post on the subject from the BJU seminary (and some push back from another BJU faculty member). At worst, the author is guilty of using terminology that comes with unnecessary baggage. It would be a huge stretch to say he is introducing any sort of methodology that would undermine the integrity or inerrancy of the Scriptures.
Read what I said. There are changes at BJU that involve a closer relationship with some segments of evangelicalism. While I agree that Dr Beale’s statement could be more precisely worded, it is undeniable that BJU’s changes are towards evangelicalism.
Making that statement isn’t “leading the charge” Jay. It’s just stating reality
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
One of the questions in this discussion concerns the extent of changes at BJU and if some of those changes are negative in some way. Apparently everyone believes that BJU HAS changed. The disagreement focuses on whether some of those changes are good or bad. Even some who generally support most of the changes seem to have concerns about where some of these and future changes will affect the school.
I never stated that Stiekes’ beliefs “undermine divine authorship” or “undermine the integrity or inerrancy of Scripture”. But his acceptance of Redaction Criticism, even within the constraints which he places on his use of RC, are a BIG change at BJU. Therefore a question I have, for those posting here and for the BJU Seminary faculty: Is Stiekes’ acceptance of RC, even with the limits he places on his use of RC, a wise step for him and the BJU Seminary? Contra Andy, I AM concerned about what some of the changes at BJU will produce.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
While I agree that Dr Beale’s statement could be more precisely worded, it is undeniable that BJU’s changes are towards evangelicalism.
Fill a brother in, here. What changes are indicative of moving “towards Evangelicalism”? I’ve seen some charges here but most of them are practical issues, not anything doctrinal or significant.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
The changes at BJU are worthy of careful watching. Here is a link to a blog post which I wrote almost 5 years ago for Proclaim and Defend: https://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2017/02/23/why-is-compromise-always-one-direction/
Compromise, whether theological or political, is almost always toward a more liberal, “loosening” direction. I never hear of compromise toward a more conservative direction/position. The changes are usually small and appear insignificant. But the cumulative effect is dramatic.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
[WallyMorris] But his acceptance of Redaction Criticism, even within the constraints which he places on his use of RC, are a BIG change at BJU. Therefore a question I have, for those posting here and for the BJU Seminary faculty: Is Stiekes’ acceptance of RC, even with the limits he places on his use of RC, a wise step for him and the BJU Seminary? Contra Andy, I AM concerned about what some of the changes at BJU will produce.I don’t think this is a change at all. To quote Stiekes very briefly, all he is advocating is “trying to understand how the Lord led the human authors to write the very word of God.” Why do the gospels writers not include the exact same historical details? Trying to answer that question is not new. As Layton Talbert writes, “In other words, the basic idea of recognizing the distinctive selection and shaping of Gospel material is hardly the discovery of liberal scholars like Bornkamm or Conzelmann. Conservatives, it seems, were doing it on conservative principles before liberals were doing it on liberal principles.” The only thing Stiekes is guilty of is calling what conservatives have done and are doing “Redaktiongeschichte.” He is NOT bringing in the unbelieving presuppsositions of higher criticism. If he was, that would be a change, and that would be bad. But he’s not doing that. I don’t think I have ever had any personal interaction with Greg Stiekes, but all that I know about him from others, and from what I’ve seen from him online, I’m very happy that he is at the Seminary and BJU would be worse off without him.
Discussion