Beale on Broader Evangelicalism

Don, have you ever heard of Elon Musk and Steve Jobs? It varies by industry, but yes, I know of a bunch of corporate leaders who do not wear a suit and tie to work. Wearing a suit to work is rare in Silicon Valley, for starters. Even politicians are starting to tone it down, especially when they’re not on legislative floors where suit & tie is still required by custom.

Besides, why should our “standard” be to wear what corporate and political leaders do? What difference does it make to the church, except for probably making us more likely to ignore James 2:2?

[Don Johnson] Yes, styles change. But when you see business execs, politicians in their legislative assemblies, etc regularly showing up to work in tight jeans and the like, then I will concede that those standards have changed.

Don, do you work in corporate America? I’ve worked in the corporate world since I graduated from college (1997). Business executives at my company routinely wear dark wash jeans, a buttoned shirt, and a brogued oxford or double monk-strap, and if they are going to an important meeting they might throw on a blazer… It’s called business casual. I’m a director at my company, and I regularly wear jeans, a button down, and capped oxfords to work (before covid). No more ties. Very rarely a suit. In fact, if you wear a tie to the office, people will ask if you have a job interview. But, I’m a hiring manager, and most guys coming in for an interview (in the pre-covid days) also wear business casual.

Even my friends who work for Chase and Nationwide wear business casual to work. BTW, no women I work with wear panty hose any more. Few wear dresses. Most wear jeans, dress slacks, or a skirt.

So, if corporate America is your example for “high standards” of dress, you’re out of luck. The only people I know who regularly wear suit/tie are news anchors, attorneys going into court, and politicians.

That being said, I hope there are significant, substantive changes at BJU besides dress standards that are causing people concern. Additionally, I hope people here aren’t still fighting the Steve Green wars of the 80s. If so, that is another reason why people fled fundamentalism and headed to conservative evangelicalism.

It is true that in some settings, attorneys in the courtroom and sportscasters for example, both dress up. Kinda comical the sportscasters - everyone else within 2 miles (except maybe team owners) are completely casual or suited up for the game. In any case, we might see those high-brow sartorial standards.

The question is why (motive) do people dress that way? They do so to impress other people, give off airs, etc. We have to ask ourselves, why are we dressing up? Is it to make a statement to people or to God? We can dress up or not dress up, but the motivation is what matters.

The overriding horizontal motivation is to love my neighbor through modesty. Modesty is not drawing attention to myself. I can draw attention to myself with clothing that is too revealing, too gaudy (wearing a 3 piece tux in a rural church whose congregants are mostly local and didn’t drive their Tesla to church), too rough or casual (wearing my tie dyed linen shirt, $450 hemp and cotton jeans, and favorite flip flops to one’s childhood church that remains heavy on liturgy, uses and organ, and celebrates the Lord’s Supper weekly). All of those are immodest, and I’ve said nothing about them being short, low, tight, etc.

Gotta ask ourselves why we’re doing it. Would we dress that way if we were worshipping remotely at home due to illness or restrictions? Might be a good self-test there.

[T Howard]

Don Johnson wrote:Yes, styles change. But when you see business execs, politicians in their legislative assemblies, etc regularly showing up to work in tight jeans and the like, then I will concede that those standards have changed.

Even my friends who work for Chase and Nationwide wear business casual to work. BTW, no women I work with wear panty hose any more. Few wear dresses. Most wear jeans, dress slacks, or a skirt.

Fair enough, I recognize that standards/culture are changing. However, regardless, there is still a concept of “dressing up” and “dressing down.” There is a “down” kind of dress that I bet would cause comment in your corporate world.

[T Howard] That being said, I hope there are significant, substantive changes at BJU besides dress standards that are causing people concern. Additionally, I hope people here aren’t still fighting the Steve Green wars of the 80s. If so, that is another reason why people fled fundamentalism and headed to conservative evangelicalism.

Yes, of course. I am not so alarmed at the dress changes at BJU as such. I think they are reflective of a greater change, not an agent of the change. I like the idea of an educational institution that promotes a higher standard than the average in culture. But that’s more a preference than anything.

My response was to the suggestion that there is no such thing as “dressing up” anymore.

BTW, in our church most men don’t wear suits. Some wear ties. (I wear a bow tie, except for weddings and funerals.) On Wednesdays, no ties. On Sunday, many of our ladies wear dresses, but not all. We don’t make an issue of it. It isn’t an issue.

For an educational institution with a former reputation for leadership and excellence, though, the noticeable changes bespeak a shift in philosophy. In my opinion, it makes them less unique and less attractive. Why travel all that way for something not much different from some school closer to home?

That’s just on the cultural level.

When it comes to the ecclesiastical issues, I have much bigger problems, and I think those changes, as we’ve discussed in this thread to some extent represent a significant philosophy shift. They used to take a leadership rule in fundamentalism. Just isn’t happening anymore.

[Don Johnson]

For an educational institution with a former reputation for leadership and excellence, though, the noticeable changes bespeak a shift in philosophy. In my opinion, it makes them less unique and less attractive. Why travel all that way for something not much different from some school closer to home?

That’s just on the cultural level.

When it comes to the ecclesiastical issues, I have much bigger problems, and I think those changes, as we’ve discussed in this thread to some extent represent a significant philosophy shift. They used to take a leadership rule in fundamentalism. Just isn’t happening anymore.

Don,

During the week of Thanksgiving, my older son and I traveled to England and spent several days in London and a day in Oxford. While in Oxford, we took two tours of the University. The first tour was of Oxford’s Divinity School and Duke Humfrey’s library. The second tour was a longer tour of Oxford University in general, and we toured Queen’s College in particular. Some of the fascinating bits of information we learned during our tours were the traditions (i.e. rules) that the university and various colleges expected of its students. Some date back to the founding of the university and the various colleges. However, almost all of the traditions have either ceased or significantly changed since the 18th Century.

Now, if you’re nostalgic for the “good old days,” you will bemoan all the changes in tradition since 1096. For example, Queens college no longer puts on an annual hunt for wild boar to celebrate its Boar’s Head Gaudy and Ceremony. Women are now granted degrees at Oxford University, but before 1920 they were not. Etc. Do these changes in tradition make Oxford less a leader in higher education?

I think some would argue that BJU is taking a leadership role in fundamentalism by purposely being less fundy-mental. It is becoming less tied to cultural fundamentalism and trying to major on the majors and minor on the minors. For someone stuck in 1980s fundamentalism, however, that looks a lot like compromise and downgrade. Thankfully, 1980s fundamentalism is dying. Many young men who grew up in that environment chose to leave it and move to conservative evangelicalism when they became pastors.

I assume, BJU has recognized this trend. I know colleges like Clark Summit, Cedarville, etc. have recognized this trend. When I was a student at Baptist Bible Seminary (Clark Summit, PA), I remember having conversations with the faculty about how young men from GARBC churches were choosing to attend SBC and other conservative evangelical seminaries instead of traditional IFB seminaries like BBS. Further, the significant change in the learning model from resident student to distance student significantly impacted higher education. Most IFB colleges / seminaries were not prepared to adjust and adapt to that change. Some resolutely refused to accomodate distance learners. Does their refusal to adapt and change make them more a leader than those that began offering online / distance options?

If people want a conservative evangelical school that distains any semblance of “cultural fundamentalism” there are tons and tons of choices out there. Those of us who are fundamentalists, and value Biblical separation and view issues of personal holiness as not just preferences but living a life of non-conformity to the world in obedience to and love for God, what are we supposed to do? BJU has always been distinctive in these areas and a leader in these areas. If the plan is to become a new Liberty or a new Cedarville, or new Masters (wait, are they back on the naughty list now, I’m not sure), that would be pretty disappointing.

On the other hand, I just happened to watch the chapel service yesterday. It was really good. Dr. Pettit’s message was outstanding. That is true for most chapels that I have seen. I thought the Thanksgiving service was also great. One of my daughters was playing in the front row of the orchestra for that event, and I got to watch her play and sing these great hymns of the faith, and I broke down crying, watching her over Livestream. There is nothing like seeing your children as they grow older serving God with their whole heart. So, while I have real concerns, I also have real gratitude for what is still there and thankful for the opportunities my children are getting, even if not perfect and not exactly like I would have it.

Years ago, I was a member of a well-known fundamentalist church in Greenville. Then we moved to Victoria as church planters. We still got the newsletter from the church in Greenville. In one of them, the pastor wrote an article answering the question, “Are We Still Fundamentalists?” His answer, essentially, was, “We believe the fundamentals so we are fundamentalists.”

Well, it is a bit more than that. He should have known better, considering his own history.

That would be Walt Handford at Southside Baptist. Not a fundamentalist church anymore.

I’m afraid a lot of people have moved on from 1980s fundamentalism (your term) and congratulate themselves that they are still fundamentalists because they believe the fundamentals. I don’t think that’s the way it works.

So how is it supposed to work? Never change any traditions or cultural standards because someone will accuse us of compromise? Or make sensible changes that reflect Truth, because that’s what best pleases the Lord. It also reflects true Biblical leadership by demonstrating that our utmost loyalty is to Scripture, not to a movement.

It’s not much unlike the abortion case before the Supreme Court. Do they stick to Woe v. Wade because they are bound to tradition? Or do they acknowledge that a previous court was mistaken in Roe, and its time for correction?

If you think the “old” BJU was nearly perfect, you won’t like the changes. If you think it missed the mark in some areas, you are happy to see corrections. I’m happy so far. I hope I will not become concerned about actual Biblical compromise in the future.

[AndyE]

Those of us who are fundamentalists, and value Biblical separation and view issues of personal holiness as not just preferences but living a life of non-conformity to the world in obedience to and love for God, what are we supposed to do? BJU has always been distinctive in these areas and a leader in these areas. If the plan is to become a new Liberty or a new Cedarville, or new Masters (wait, are they back on the naughty list now, I’m not sure), that would be pretty disappointing.

Andy, I’m curious what you mean by the above statement. Do you wish BJU continued its race-based dating policies? Do you wish BJU continued its 1980s dress standards and student policies? One of the problems with 1980s fundamentalism is that it taught obedience to and love for God had to look, act, and sound a specific way. If you didn’t conform to those cultural standards, we would separate from you because you were compromising and conforming to the world. There was also the “man of God” worship of certain fundamentalist leaders, and if you weren’t in the “right group” or didn’t have the imprimatur of the right school or leader you were shunned. Andy, this isn’t a type of fundamentalism worth saving.

As I’ve said, I graduated from PCC. In some churches, guys like me would not be welcomed because of the school from which I graduated. My friend in college went to Brazil as a missionary. One of the questions he was routinely asked by churches while on deputation was the college he attended. He related to me that most “BJU” churches (meaning, the pastor was a BJU grad) would not support him just because he graduated from PCC. This type of fundamentalism was more concerned about loyalty to one’s leader or tribe rather than to the gospel or the fundamentals of the faith.

Again, this isn’t a type of fundamentalism worth saving.

[Don Johnson]

Years ago, I was a member of a well-known fundamentalist church in Greenville. Then we moved to Victoria as church planters. We still got the newsletter from the church in Greenville. In one of them, the pastor wrote an article answering the question, “Are We Still Fundamentalists?” His answer, essentially, was, “We believe the fundamentals so we are fundamentalists.”

Well, it is a bit more than that. He should have known better, considering his own history.

That would be Walt Handford at Southside Baptist. Not a fundamentalist church anymore.

I’m afraid a lot of people have moved on from 1980s fundamentalism (your term) and congratulate themselves that they are still fundamentalists because they believe the fundamentals. I don’t think that’s the way it works.

Well, then, how DOES it work? As I read my copy of “The Fundamentals”, I’m struck by the fact that fundamentalism was, ahem, initially characterized by the adherence to five theological principles. Per Dave Barnhart and others, I’d add the Trinity and the Solas, as well as the Apostles’ Creed to the mix, but having looked at Southside Baptist’s website, I’m at a loss to figure out exactly where they’re disagreeing with any of the fundamentals. I do disagree with their naming of women as pastors, so at the very least, I can say I don’t agree with how they’re applying the first fundamental and Sola Scriptura, but I don’t think that accusing them of being outside of the faith altogether ought to be discussed—and that is the fence that the original fundamentalists were trying to erect.

My view here is that most of the “cultural fundamentals” that many seem to hold to far stronger than the theological ones—opposition to modern music with a beat, proscription of going to that wedding at Cana, adherence to decades-old standards of attire, etc..—are really cultural choices of upper middle class and wealthy members of mainline Protestant churches from the Victorian and Edwardian eras. Those cultural choices were, in turn really part of the “social gospel” and, really, theological liberalism. So why Fundamantalists today hold to these distinctives so tightly quite frankly perplexes me.

Andy can speak for himself about all the changes, but for starters, I’m personally happy that the ban on interracial dating is gone. On dress standards, some loosening was a good thing (did we seriously need to wear a tie to go out for fast food or always wear a coat and tie to a dinner that might be hot dogs or fried chicken?), but there is obviously now some crossing the lines on modesty that I wish were not there and is indicative (at least to me) of different thinking as regards personal holiness, not just preference. I’m also glad the whole “man of God” thing is mostly history, along with taking shots at other fundamentalists over differences in man-made standards. So it’s true that some “1980’s fundamentalism” (actually, more like 1950’s) things are better left in the past.

On the other hand, I really appreciated the “elevatedness” in music and worship. I come from an independent Methodist background and I was glad to see some of that had survived from Dr. Bob Sr.’s time (he was also originally Methodist), though even in the 1980’s, a good many of my fellow students who were Baptist thought they were being washed in Anglican ceremony (one in particular made that exact comment). That taking of worship seriously, together with the emphasis on excellence in fine arts, and commitment to being non-denominational made BJU a rather unique experience. Going there now, it feels less unique, though as Andy said, the chapel messages are usually still excellent.

I think that many of us graduates are just concerned that some these external changes are a possible precursor to change in theology and direction. I hope that’s not true, and that a slippery slope does not exist there. I realize no man-made institutions can stand forever, and even good churches come and go, but although I find some of the changes at BJU to be a really good thing, I don’t want to see BJU eventually go the way of compromise. Hence the concern while still being appreciative of what they do offer.

[T Howard] Andy, I’m curious what you mean by the above statement. Do you wish BJU continued its race-based dating policies?

Do you wish BJU continued its 1980s dress standards and student policies?

I One of the problems with 1980s fundamentalism is that it taught obedience to and love for God had to look, act, and sound a specific way. If you didn’t conform to those cultural standards, we would separate from you because you were compromising and conforming to the world.

There was also the “man of God” worship of certain fundamentalist leaders, and if you weren’t in the “right group” or didn’t have the imprimatur of the right school or leader you were shunned. Andy, this isn’t a type of fundamentalism worth saving.

As I’ve said, I graduated from PCC. In some churches, guys like me would not be welcomed because of the school from which I graduated. My friend in college went to Brazil as a missionary. One of the questions he was routinely asked by churches while on deputation was the college he attended. He related to me that most “BJU” churches (meaning, the pastor was a grad on BJU) would not support him just because he graduated from PCC.

[AndyE]

Quote:As I’ve said, I graduated from PCC. In some churches, guys like me would not be welcomed because of the school from which I graduated. My friend in college went to Brazil as a missionary. One of the questions he was routinely asked by churches while on deputation was the college he attended. He related to me that most “BJU” churches (meaning, the pastor was a grad on BJU) would not support him just because he graduated from PCC.

It was PCC that put out the leaven of fundamentalism video. The church I’m in now has a big mix of both BJU and PCC grads (and other schools secular and not). We all get along fine.

Just to clarify, I agree PCC was part of the problem. I was there when the Dell Johnson videos were filmed and produced (I still have the VHS tapes in a box in my basement along with David Sorenson’s book, Touch Not the Unclean Thing). BTW, fun fact, the infamous “leaven in fundamentalism” tapes were a response to allegations from Hyles Anderson that PCC was going soft on its KJV stance.

Anyway, I agree that now it’s not uncommon for IFB churches to have a mix of grads from different schools. In the 80s and 90s, things were different.

This thread is interesting to me. I wonder how many here have actually read Beale’s book? All 616 pages worth. He makes exactly two brief comments about BJU that are poorly nuanced. Its not fundamentalism vs. broad evangelicalism.

Where is BJU on the continuum? With BJ’s participation in Samaritan’s Purse Christmas boxes, one wonders just how far things may go. Is there anything wrong with sending Christmas boxes to kids? Of course not. Is there anything wrong with aligning with Franklin Graham’s work? Well, is this one example of a larger course shift in Greenville? Time will tell.

The conversation about dress re: BJU is more than about ties vs. business casual. But this is really a side issue.

Some of the perceptions of 80’s fundamentalism must be related to one’s own personal experiences, beliefs, and church situation. Most of the stuff that is thrown around is so foreign to me and my experience. I grew up on the West coast, and over there, it was BJU that was shunned and ridiculed, for being too strict and having pink and blue sidewalks.

In regard to PCC, I was at BJU in the 80’s and I always considered PCC a sister school. I don’t recall any animosity at all towards them. The only “negative” thing I ever remember hearing was an off-hand comment by my math professor, Dr. Guthrie, who had some recent interaction with PCC where they came out against set theory in mathematics. He was dumbfounded by that and made a comment, and that’s all I ever heard. It wasn’t until the Dell Johnson videos that I perceived any ill-will between the schools. Does PCC still promote KJVO there? I’ve been wondering about that.