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
[WallyMorris]John: My parenthetical comment is entirely fair because defenders of BJU’s involvement in intercollegiate sports have told me that unity is one of the reasons for beginning that type of sports at BJU, and a member of the administration told me that many alumni have expressed the concern that sports seem to be more important than Christ, and that impression is coming from somewhere. Can a school have sports and also emphasize Christ? Of course. But in daily reality among students, what are they really unified by and excited by? The BJU Bookstore is full of Bruins material. Difficult to find a piece of clothing without the Bruins mascot. That is the concern.
Wally, it is not fair to characterize the unity question as have only a single answer. As I mentioned by way of example and I have not seen an actual answer to, can a group of people, especially followers of Christ, have unity based in more than one shared value? Surely Christ is our ultimate and eternal Point of unity, but that does not preclude other, even temporal shared values as a point unity, does it?
So I stand by the point that to characterize BJU (or any other institution) as being allowed only one point of unity, Christ on the one hand or something else on the other, is unfair.
Some of us are not making any kind of slippery slope argument. Tom you seem not to recognize that. I am not claiming that BJU is on some kind of slippery slope. I’m not convinced about the redaction criticism because it hasn’t been argued substantively here. I have no idea what a Bruin is. No idea what the bear/crest thing is all about.
It just seems pretty obvious to me that a school that has been known as the fundamentalist school (especially to non-fundamentalists) partnering with the ministry that was the most recognized new-evangelical ministry is pretty noteworthy.
[josh p]Some of us are not making any kind of slippery slope argument. Tom you seem not to recognize that. I am not claiming that BJU is on some kind of slippery slope. I’m not convinced about the redaction criticism because it hasn’t been argued substantively here. I have no idea what a Bruin is. No idea what the bear/crest thing is all about.
It just seems pretty obvious to me that a school that has been known as the fundamentalist school (especially to non-fundamentalists) partnering with the ministry that was the most recognized new-evangelical ministry is pretty noteworthy.
Josh, honestly, at this point I’m not sure what the deep substantive issue(s) is/are. For some, BJU’s partnership with the son of Billy Graham was a bridge too far. For some, they just miss the good old days. For some, it’s BJU’s intercollegiate sports program. For others, it’s BJU’s slow walk away from cultural fundamentalism. Then, we’re told by others it’s none of those things–those are just smoke screens–there’s something even deeper wrong with BJU.
Like I said, I’m just trying to understand as an impartial PCC guy.
I saw a billboard in Greenville SC that advertised “Greenville’s Premier Christian University” (or words to that effect). It was for North Greenville University! Today BJU is simply a small college with less than 3000 students and, while still offering a solid liberal arts education with a distinctive Christian world view, is scarcely a blip on the evangelical spectrum
In the interest of full disclosure, at 3000 students, BJU is probably about 30-40% bigger than NGU. And for enough money, you can put whatever you want on a billboard. If BJU is a blip, NGU is probably less of one. But there are a lot of small colleges that are blips on the bigger screen but serve a purpose.
Been off line for one day, and look at what I missed!
Most of this is simply personal opinion. (Which is legitimate, but let’s acknowledge what we’re dealing with.) What I like or dislike (even if it rises to the level of “despise”) is not a Biblical argument. Agreed?
Poor BJU. When they were reluctant to change anything, they were faulted for being unwilling to change. When they make changes which are well within the bounds of Biblical fidelity, they are faulted for compromising because they, gasp, dared to CHANGE. Enough already! BJU is doing just fine. Let’s pray for them as they endeavor to be faithful to the Lord in a challenging and difficult time in history.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]Been off line for one day, and look at what I missed!
Most of this is simply personal opinion. (Which is legitimate, but let’s acknowledge what we’re dealing with.) What I like or dislike (even if it rises to the level of “despise”) is not a Biblical argument. Agreed?
Poor BJU. When they were reluctant to change anything, they were faulted for being unwilling to change. When they make changes which are well within the bounds of Biblical fidelity, they are faulted for compromising because they, gasp, dared to CHANGE. Enough already! BJU is doing just fine. Let’s pray for them as they endeavor to be faithful to the Lord in a challenging and difficult time in history.
Well said G.N.!
But a bunch of the same people griping about the same types of changes at a place called Northland are now, almost ten years later, leveling the same complaints about the same things at a similar place called Bob Jones University.
Well, that’s not right. Nobody accused the profs at Northland of practicing Redaction Criticism. So there is that at least.
I’ll repeat an earlier question - if you all don’t like or are ready to separate from Bob Jones, who DO you prefer? Hyles-Anderson? Inquiring minds want to know.
"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
North Greenville U. has an enrollment of 2578 and an acceptance rate of 65% or so. BJU’s got 3000 and an acceptance rate of 84%, but it looks like slightly higher ACT scores. One is SBC, BJU is of course independent fundamental. Whether BJU grads like it or not, they’re actually a worthy rival.
I wish both well, especially as both institutions wrestle with the question of which parts of their culture are Biblical and ought to be retained, and which parts of their culture are “just our culture” and can be jettisoned as people wrestle with the implications of Sola Scriptura and the first fundamental.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[T Howard]Josh, honestly, at this point I’m not sure what the deep substantive issue(s) is/are. For some, BJU’s partnership with the son of Billy Graham was a bridge too far. For some, they just miss the good old days. For some, it’s BJU’s intercollegiate sports program. For others, it’s BJU’s slow walk away from cultural fundamentalism. Then, we’re told by others it’s none of those things–those are just smoke screens–there’s something even deeper wrong with BJU.
Like I said, I’m just trying to understand as an impartial PCC guy.
At this point I should probably bow out since I don’t want to just pile on. In the course of this thread it was brought up that BJU partnered with BGEA. I did not know that and was surprised to hear it. For me it’s not the “son of Billy Graham” that is the issue but the fact that they are a decidedly non-separatist organization.
When Bauder wrote those “Fundamentalism Worth Saving” articles I was encouraged and I hoped to see that come to fruition. It seems like people take one of two positions on fundamentalism-1. It’s hopelessly corrupt-let it die/morph into Conservative evangelicalism. 2. The idea is right and I hope to see it preserved in its best form (with debate about what that is of course). Most here seem to be category one. I’m still in category two and I have believed that BJU is part of that. I want to see them succeed and I am encouraged about some of the changes. Not this one. That’s my whole argument. The rest of the stuff seems periphery by comparison but I’ll let everyone else hash that out.
It seems like people take one of two positions on fundamentalism-1. It’s hopelessly corrupt-let it die/morph into Conservative evangelicalism. 2. The idea is right and I hope to see it preserved in its best form (with debate about what that is of course).
I don’t think the two sides are opposed. Many of us (especially me) are fed up with ‘movement fundamentalism’ after watching it for many years but we are still very committed to the idea of the idea and do ‘want to see it preserved in its’ best form’. As I mentioned before, I work within the dreaded ‘conservative evangelicalism’ once the FBFI was kind enough to make it clear that they aren’t interested in their own heirs. Nor can they imagine a Fundamentalism that is separate from the cultural trappings they love so much (see the resistance to change on this thread, the discussions on Northland, the Convergence article, the Frontline magazine published by Mark Ward and counter-response by the hardline folks, the article on alcohol that had to be pulled because it ruffled feathers, etc etc).
Unfortunately, there are some very vocal proponents of the ‘movement’ that seem to be equating the movement with Christianity itself. I’ll leave that debate as a waste of time and continue doing what God calls us to do - preach the Gospel, make disciples, and build each other up in the faith. The husk of movement fundamentalism isn’t worth saving even if it wanted to be saved. If the guys in charge of what’s left of the ‘movement’ aren’t interested in staying united to the Body of Christ, then I’m leaving them behind. I have better things to do with the limited time God gives us than worry about if playing soccer with Furman is compromise or not.
Feel free to PM me if you want to carry on the discussion.
"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
I am grateful for the influence of men like Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran in the fundamentalist movement. But they are not really typical fundamentalists. The drift of most of the fundamentalist movement is decidedly in the opposite direction…“Fundamentalists” who tied themselves to the movement got sidetracked into fighting and dividing into ever-smaller and less significant factions. They managed to start with the all the right ideas, all the right enemies, and all the best men—and reduce their movement to virtual insignificance in less than a hundred years.
”Dead Right” by Phil Johnson, 2005.
"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
When I lived in Greenville in the 60’s and early 70’s, it was “North Greenville Junior College”, a small, largely unknown school. I was surprised a few years back to discover how much it had grown. I have since learned of several more formerly small SBC colleges that have grown impressively. My opinion is that when nearly all the “old” colleges divorced from the SBC because of the conservative resurgence, many in the SBC started looking for more conservative colleges that remained in the SBC. The departure of schools like Furman, Wake Forest, etc., was a boon for colleges like North Greenville. Although some Fundamentalists act as if nothing has really changed in the SBC, the evidence points in another direction. The resurgence was significant. In spite of their problems, today’s SBC is more conservative than the SBC of the 60’s, 70’s, and early 80’s.
Which raises the question, “If it was OK for BJU to send Ministry Teams into SBC churches in 1971 (as they did), why is it wrong today?” The subjective nature of secondary separation is problematic. The “strong separationist leader of Fundamentalism” of 1971 (the “old” BJU) was, arguably as vulnerable to accusations of compromise then as the newer, friendlier BJU of today. Shouldn’t Bible believing Christians exercise caution toward others before accusing them of compromise?
G. N. Barkman
Has anyone already verified the exact relationship between Samaritan’s Purse and BGEA? So far, I can see that they share a few board members and the doctrinal statement. I couldn’t see that Samaritan’s Purse is a ministry of BGEA though. I did send a message asking the BGEA about this question. I will share the response that I get from them.
I ask because if they are independent from one another, then we need to remember and note that distinction in the interest of being honest.
[Jeremy Horn]Has anyone already verified the exact relationship between Samaritan’s Purse and BGEA? So far, I can see that they share a few board members and the doctrinal statement. I couldn’t see that Samaritan’s Purse is a ministry of BGEA though. I did send a message asking the BGEA about this question. I will share the response that I get from them.
I ask because if they are independent from one another, then we need to remember and note that distinction in the interest of being honest.
The relationship between Samaritan’s Purse and BGEA? They are separate organizations. Look it up on https://www.guidestar.org/
My take on the Christmas boxes: I’m not in favor of. Our church does it, I choose to not do it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/12/20/filling…
Although Samaritan’s Purse does many good, long-term projects through its humanitarian aid efforts, I believe this kind of giving is a bad idea, similar to the Tom’s shoe company’s “buy one, give one” model or food giveaways to deal with chronic hunger.
Except in response to emergencies, this form of charity suppresses local markets, creates feelings of dependency, and does not address systemic problems or empower local leadership.
But to participate is not fellowship with an apostate
https://trainingleadersinternational.org/articles/618/why-i-wont-be-fil…
b/c WP may be behind paywall
Discussion