Beale on Broader Evangelicalism

[WallyMorris]

The changes in BJU’s dress code and other practices are symptoms of a deeper problem/change. Discussions about specific clothing styles and “secondary separation” tend to obscure important discussion and questions about the wisdom of the changes at BJU. I know missionaries who graduated from BJU not that long ago who tell me that they don’t recognize the school any longer. The group which has responsibility for BJU is the Board of Trustees. In my opinion, they are the ones who have failed. Their goal seems to have been to keep the school open. They have achieved that goal, but at what eventual cost?

Wally, I’m confused again. What specifically is the “deeper problem/change” with BJU that has your Fundamentalist spidey sense tingling?

[Bert Perry]

Josh, whenever these issues come up on SI today, there is fierce advocacy on the part of some here on their behalf. We can debate what the effects are of these policies, for good or ill, but let’s not pretend they were left behind in the 1980s. Really, the big part of the objections come with Steve Pettit assuming the Presidency of BJU, and he took that job in 2014.

Regarding secondary separation in particular, the Graham crusades are a good example, IMO, why our first look ought not be secondary separation, but rather the kind of ministry being done. The big failure in the Graham crusades, one that ought to let us wonder whether he led people to Christ or inoculated people against Him, is the ~98% rate at which those who reported a salvation decision did not become integrated into a Bible believing church, and that derives primarily from very weak follow-up plans on the Graham organization’s part. Allowing liberal Christians to volunteer was certainly not helpful, but it’s not exactly like the evangelicals (and fundamentalists) he partnered with were showing the world how to do it, either.

I don’t agree with this Bert. We don’t evaluate a ministry by its effectiveness in winning the lost but by its biblical obedience. Also, it wasn’t just a matter of “allowing liberal Christians to volunteer” although that was happening as well. I make no judgement on BJU on most of the issues because I don’t have enough information. I do find it troubling that they would partner with SP and that people would defend it with “yeah but fundy’s do this.”

Regarding the taboos, I agree that their is often an unhealthy focus on externals that persists to this day in parts of fundamentalism. My concern is that those that don’t have that problem somehow use it as a get out of biblical requirement free card.

[josh p] I don’t agree with this Bert. We don’t evaluate a ministry by its effectiveness in winning the lost but by its biblical obedience. Also. It wasn’t just a matter of “allowing liberal Christians to volunteer” although that was happening as well. I make no judgement on BJU on most of the issues because I don’t have enough information. I do find it troubling that they would partner with SP and that people would defend it with “yeah but fundy’s do this.”

So, your issue with BJU is secondary separation, correct? On the other hand, Wally’s issue is about something deeper?

[T Howard]

josh p wrote:

I find it interesting that anytime so-called “secondary separation” comes up, people start trotting out the fundy taboos of the 80s as if that somehow negates the biblical principle. A principle applied wrongly does not negate the principle.

I agree in principle. However, “secondary separation” has been so misused and abused within Fundamentalism that it no longer resembles the biblical principle it seeks to uphold. Separatist Fundamentalists were using “secondary separation” to break fellowship over all kinds of perceived compromise and downgrade, real or not. And, if you didn’t agree with them that there was legitimate compromise taking place, you were yourself separated from. Secondary separation became like crack cocaine. Once you had a hit, you had to keep going back for more to prove you were a bona fide Fundamentalist.

So, that is why I—today—view secondary separation very suspiciously. I would rather give the benefit of the doubt and assume positive intent before I write off a Christian brother, ministry, or church.

Nowhere? There isn’t any fundamentalist ministry that does not abuse separation? I think this thread has had contributions from two seminaries that have tried to consistently apply separation and maintain unity as much as is possible.

I doubt there is anyone here that would disagree that separation has been abused. I also want to give the benefit of the doubt but is that extended in the other direction? I suspect, based on his comments here and elsewhere, that Don would separate from some I would not. But I want to extend grace in both directions. I’m thankful to see believers trying to obey God even if they might take a stricter stance than me.

[G. N. Barkman]

Un-Biblical separation is as much a sin as failing to practice true Biblical separation. Take a close look at Galatians chapter two. Peter, Barnabas, and others separated from Gentile Christians, apparently because they did not restrict themselves to Kosher food. Paul excoriated Peter for this, accusing him of serious sin. Paul said that such un-Biblical separation undermined the Gospel of Christ. (Think that one through very carefully.)

Practicing one truth while ignoring another that is equally taught in Scripture, leads to misunderstanding, imbalance, and sin.

Agreed. In your view, would BJU be in sin for separating from SP?

[T Howard]

josh p wrote:I don’t agree with this Bert. We don’t evaluate a ministry by its effectiveness in winning the lost but by its biblical obedience. Also. It wasn’t just a matter of “allowing liberal Christians to volunteer” although that was happening as well. I make no judgement on BJU on most of the issues because I don’t have enough information. I do find it troubling that they would partner with SP and that people would defend it with “yeah but fundy’s do this.”

So, your issue with BJU is secondary separation, correct? On the other hand, Wally’s issue is about something deeper?

Yes I find that concerning but my original post was that I find it interesting that individuals (on a fundamentalism forum) argue against secondary separation based on certain abuses.

I’ll let Wally speak for himself.

[josh p]

Yes I find that concerning but my original post was that I find it interesting that individuals (on a fundamentalism forum) argue against secondary separation based on certain abuses.

Primary separation is fairly easy. Secondary is harder, and harder still to do consistently. And, as you noted, it’s been often poorly done. As a result, it seems many just throw up their hands and declare that if it’s impossible to get 100% right, and because the abuses have been so visible, it’s better not to worry about it too much.

I certainly agree that it can be very hard to do well, but who ever said the Christian life was easy?

[josh p]

Agreed. In your view, would BJU be in sin for separating from SP?

This really shouldn’t be the issue but it has now become the issue. BJU didn’t need to “separate” from SP, they just needed to channel the students energies elsewhere. Why SP and why now? This isn’t even an evangelism question pre se. Its a charitable works situation. Why SP and why now? Why not Catholic charities or Islamic charities? How did this further the mission of BJU? Why was this necessary?

If it raised the concerns of the constituency of BJU for whatever reason, it was unwise. Some of us have a dog in the fight. I’m a grad as are my kids. So is Don and I think some of his kids. We care about BJU and wish that others will get what we got.

We keep going back to silly issues like dress … let’s get over that for now. There are larger issues at stake, the slippery slope not withstanding.

What does Harvard, Yale, Andover, Rochester, Crozer, Colgate, Princeton, Mercer, Stetson all have in common? Not only are these schools no longer orthodox, they are hardly Christian. How did this happen? The gatekeepers didn’t protect the gates. The wolves came in and the sheep were ravaged. In none of these stories was it an isolated misstep that resulted in their current location. It was a series of gradual, incremental steps that drew the institutions away from founding principles. And lest some accuse me of broad brushing, no these schools are not all at the same location, some are further away from orthodoxy than others.

The only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history.

So very sad.

No, I would not consider BJU to be sinning if they separated from Samaritan’s Purse. I, personally, have chosen not to support Samaritan’s Purse, even though a former member of our church worked as a personal assistant to Franklin Graham for several years. There are several things about SP with which I am not enthusiastic. However, neither will I condemn those who choose to support them. I think this is one of those areas where brotherly love demonstrates patience and kindness. I will say that I am impressed with Franklin Graham’s strong denunciation of any number of social and religious issues. He is clearly much stronger than his father. He is willing to say things that are hugely unpopular at the risk of losing support. This, I applaud, and would think that other Bible believers should do the same.

Many years ago BJU played Furman in a soccer game during the Thanksgiving season. This was the first time BJU had ever done that. At the time the BJU administration explicitly stated that this was a “one-time” event and would not lead to BJU developing an intercollegiate sports program. Well, look at what happened.

We’re talking about BJU being in a dangerous direction because they played a secular university in soccer? Is this serious?

What does Harvard, Yale, Andover, Rochester, Crozer, Colgate, Princeton, Mercer, Stetson all have in common? Not only are these schools no longer orthodox, they are hardly Christian. How did this happen? The gatekeepers didn’t protect the gates. The wolves came in and the sheep were ravaged. In none of these stories was it an isolated misstep that resulted in their current location. It was a series of gradual, incremental steps that drew the institutions away from founding principles.

So name the theological compromise that BJU is experimenting with. Give us a reason to be concerned. Soccer games, clothing standards, and “BJU partners with Samaritan’s Purse” isn’t the same as the wholesale capitulation of the schools you mentioned into German higher criticism and rank heresy. We’ve heard these stories before in our classes. I want to see actual evidence that BJU is theologically changing. We didn’t really get it for Northland (again, the fatal blows were all about music and dress standards) and I think we’re repeating history here.

T. Howard: One Example - A BIG change at BJU is the acceptance of Redaction Criticism as a proper tool for exegesis and interpretation. That is a theological problem. Yes, Stiekes gives the expected statements about limits using RC and his adherence to Biblical inerrancy. Nevertheless, his use of RC is a BIG change. Even many conservative Evangelicals would not agree with Stiekes.

[WallyMorris]

T. Howard: One Example - A BIG change at BJU is the acceptance of Redaction Criticism as a proper tool for exegesis and interpretation. That is a theological problem. Yes, Stiekes gives the expected statements about limits using RC and his adherence to Biblical inerrancy. Nevertheless, his use of RC is a BIG change. Even many conservative Evangelicals would not agree with Stiekes.

In general, I don’t really have any theological concerns with what is going on at BJU, unless you count the doctrine of separation. The issues I’ve been concerned about are those regarding practice. That’s been the rub between new evangelicalism and fundamentalism all along. The divide wasn’t so much over doctrine, it was over how you respond to promoters of false doctrine, and in some cases gospel-denying practice (like what Paul rebuked Peter over).

Bert: The BGEA’s problem was not weak follow-up. I have done a fair amount of primary research on the BGEA crusades. If you look at the planning involved for the crusades, they had extensive logistics worked out for follow-up. The problem was not weak follow-up. The problem was who they allowed to do the follow-up: liberal churches and Roman Catholics. The BGEA is still doing that today. They have not changed.

One of the problems with some posting here is that you want to see major theological compromise before you see a problem. That isn’t how theological compromise works. It starts small, then grows. By the time people see the problem, the church or school is too far into theological drift to save it.

Jay: You are not seeing the bigger issue. Of course the problem is not one single soccer game which BJU had with Furman. The problem is 1. That game WAS a change. 2. The BJU administration explicitly stated that it would not lead to other changes, yet that is exactly what happened. 3. Once the taste for intercollegiate sports began, people wanted more. 4. BJU saw intercollegiate sports as one way to increase a declining enrollment and help produce unity on campus (Strange, I thought Christ was what brought unity to a Christian school). 5. BJU began a major fundraising campaign to finance intercollegiate sports, yet the school was also laying off staff & faculty. All of this leaves a sour taste as we saw this unfold. People may honestly debate the place of intercollegiate sports at Christian colleges. That’s fine. But the BJU-Furman game began a sequence of events which illustrates how one seemingly small action can lead to other actions later. Additionally, when it was clear that BJU was going to develop an intercollegiate sports program, I asked a BJU Board member about it, and he said he knew nothing about it. Makes me wonder what really happened.

Andy: One of several resources which are helpful is The Jesus Crisis, by Robert Thomas and David Farnell. They have done extensive work in this area. As an example of change at BJU, the last class I took for my M.Div. at BJU was Synoptic Gospels, taught by Mark Minnick, the first time they offered the class. Dr. Minnick made the dangers of RC very clear. If you do a basic Internet search for “conservative criticism of redaction criticism”, you will find many articles by Evangelicals who oppose its use. For BJU to allow a Seminary professor to advocate RC is a HUGE theological change and is a symptom of something deeper happening at BJU.

[WallyMorris]

Andy: One of several resources which are helpful is The Jesus Crisis, by Robert Thomas and David Farnell. They have done extensive work in this area. As an example of change at BJU, the last class I took for my M.Div. at BJU was Synoptic Gospels, taught by Mark Minnick, the first time they offered the class. Dr. Minnick made the dangers of RC very clear.