BJU Publishes Response to SOTL Book Review
[From the responsel] Prior to the publication of this critique, these failures were discussed at length with Dr. Smith by the author and the dean of the Bob Jones University Seminary in the editor’s office at the home office of the Sword of the Lord.This quote is for the record.
I am so grateful for BJ’s response. This is scriptural. They are and have been doing the right thing. God help us all to do the right thing.
Respectfully,
Lydia
Are people hungry for something different than this kind of stuff? Thankfully, there are more Christian publications out there than the Sword. For example, check out “Israel My Glory” published by the Friends of Israel. They don’t have a beef with other Bible-believing Christians but are not afraid to confront evil in the world and real compromise in the church. Most importantly, you’ll be blessed by the rich bible studies included in each issue. “Pulpit Helps” is another one of those really good publications.
There is life, ministry, and biblical, historical fundamentalism that exists outside of the Sword.
There is life, ministry, and biblical, historical fundamentalism that exists outside of the Sword.
Joe has me thinking of American Baptist fundamentalism and the issues they consider important.
“The Baptist Vision” (July/August 2009) magazine advertises the “For the Furtherance of the Gospel” conference on April 12-16, 2010 in Knox ville, Tennesse and the pictures of 55 speakers.
Wow.
One topic is “Issues We Face”. Maybe Shelton will tackle this topic of alcohol in the conference. I see Shelton Smith’s picture below Sam Davison and to the left of Jack Trieber. Interestingly, in the line of men pictured below Shelton Smith, there is John Vaughn.
The subtitle of the Conference is “Strengthening the things which remain and starting New Testament churches”.
“The Baptist Vision” (July/August 2009) magazine advertises the “For the Furtherance of the Gospel” conference on April 12-16, 2010 in Knox ville, Tennesse and the pictures of 55 speakers.
Wow.
One topic is “Issues We Face”. Maybe Shelton will tackle this topic of alcohol in the conference. I see Shelton Smith’s picture below Sam Davison and to the left of Jack Trieber. Interestingly, in the line of men pictured below Shelton Smith, there is John Vaughn.
The subtitle of the Conference is “Strengthening the things which remain and starting New Testament churches”.
[BJU response] This review exemplifies a deeper problem, and perhaps the most serious one of all. It is an unwillingness to allow for a serious analysis of biblical evidence. This unwillingness to accept biblical evidence, even when it supports a dearly held conviction, underscores the problem.Well said and a blessing to read.
Scriptural evidence and analysis which clears away weaker arguments for a long-held conviction, replacing them with valid support, exemplifies one of the great ideals of Christian fundamentalism—first carefully determining what the Bible actually says, and then deriving life applications from that accurate interpretation of Scripture. This simple principle for the ministry of the Word always brings with it a revival of biblical authority in the church, and that is a revival all would agree we need.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
…as to why they pulled the book then. Many people probably aren’t going to read this- certainly not as many as know that the book was pulled. The waters are still muddied.
That being said, I am glad they made the statement they did here.
That being said, I am glad they made the statement they did here.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Greg, I am confused about the apparent confusion. There is a big brouhaha about the book in which some persons misconstrue it, misinterpret it, or otherwise get its position wrong, and this appears to be causing questions about BJU’s position and hurting its reputation. BJU concludes that it would be wise to address these issues, so it pulls the book with the intent of revising it and reissuing it in clarified form. This seems relatively straightforward to me, yet apparently not to you. What are you seeing that I am not?
Brent
Things that Matter
Brent
Things that Matter
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
I have the first edition book. While some have miscontrued it, Jaeggli’s position is very clear, and in my assessment should not have been pulled. Statements like the one linked to here should have been made, and a eventual revised issue I suppose would be fine- though I honestly am not sure what could be restated that would satisfy most of those who have criticized the first edition. I think pulling the book sends the wrong message- that perhaps the critics had a point. Obviously, this statement shows that is not the case from BJU’s perspective- which makes the reason they pulled it even more inconsistent in my thinking. If you’re right, you’re right, and it seems to me they should have stuck to their guns and left the book in circulation.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott] [An] eventual revised issue I suppose would be fine- … If you’re right, you’re right, and it seems to me they should have stuck to their guns and left the book in circulation.I agree that if you are right, you are right (hard to disagree with that :)). However, being right is not always enough. Even when you are right, it can be a problem to look wrong. Taking the statement at face value, it seems that BJU felt that they were looking wrong to enough people and were being harmed now so that action was needed now. An eventual revision does not help now.
Brent
Things that Matter
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
Even when you are right, it can be a problem to look wrong.I’m not sure how else to say it, but BJU has an established pattern of “sticking to their guns” even when they “appear wrong” to critics. Sometimes they have been right and did the right thing by maintaining their position. Sometimes they have been wrong and maintained defended positions that should have been forsaken long before. I am not sure why this situation (in which they appear convinced they are right, and I for one agree they are) should have been a time to move based solely on appearances, especially when the accusation was that the book was unscriptural, and they steadfastly maintain it was based on Scripture.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott/Maybe this is the new “kinder, gentler” BJU. :) They are now listening to their critics and looking at things from others’ perspectives a little better! I would think that for most critics of BJU, that would be a huge PLUS.
I’m not sure how else to say it, but BJU has an established pattern of “sticking to their guns” even when they “appear wrong” to critics.
Yikes. They can’t win for losing!
Now, FWIW, my comments don’t necessarily mean that BJU “can’t win for losing,” whatever that means. I’m no one special, and I’m not even an alumnus.
However, I have said here since the announcement of the book pulling was first made that it was a bad idea. BJU’s most recent statement responding to the SOTL review does nothing in my mind to clarify why they pulled the book if the conclusion and argumentation was sound and derived from Scripture. Again, what takes a hit here is Biblical exegesis at the expense of public pressure and perception. That is not a good trade-off in any situation that I can see. If they are truly intending to be “kinder and gentler,” this is one of those times where in my assessment “kindness and gentleness” is more accurately described as pacification and patronizing. True kindness would take the time to address the matter with those concerned, but would not back down from what they knew to be true and anchored in the Word of God.
However, I have said here since the announcement of the book pulling was first made that it was a bad idea. BJU’s most recent statement responding to the SOTL review does nothing in my mind to clarify why they pulled the book if the conclusion and argumentation was sound and derived from Scripture. Again, what takes a hit here is Biblical exegesis at the expense of public pressure and perception. That is not a good trade-off in any situation that I can see. If they are truly intending to be “kinder and gentler,” this is one of those times where in my assessment “kindness and gentleness” is more accurately described as pacification and patronizing. True kindness would take the time to address the matter with those concerned, but would not back down from what they knew to be true and anchored in the Word of God.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott] Now, FWIW, my comments don’t necessarily mean that BJU “can’t win for losing,” whatever that means.I interpret that as similar to the notion that whatever you choose, you still lose.
[Greg Linscott] BJU’s most recent statement responding to the SOTL review does nothing in my mind to clarify why they pulled the book if the conclusion and argumentation was sound and derived from Scripture.It seems to me that they want to improve the presentation.
[Greg Linscott] Again, what takes a hit here is Biblical exegesis at the expense of public pressure and perception. That is not a good trade-off in any situation that I can see.Ah, but do we not need to wait and see the revised edition to know whether this is so?
I’ll let this go for now. Maybe I can convince you later over a cup of coffee. :)
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
[Greg Linscott] Now, FWIW, my comments don’t necessarily mean that BJU “can’t win for losing,” whatever that means. I’m no one special, and I’m not even an alumnus.Beyond what you’ve said, what about simply standing behind your faculty? The book obviously made its way through the lengthy process to publication. Especially at a school like BJU, one can imagine how much scrutiny that entails. Pulling the book while at the same time defending its premise is a slap in the face of Jaeggli and the other faculty involved in production. Who would want to publish for BJU after they do something like this? What other school would treat a tenured professor that way?
However, I have said here since the announcement of the book pulling was first made that it was a bad idea. BJU’s most recent statement responding to the SOTL review does nothing in my mind to clarify why they pulled the book if the conclusion and argumentation was sound and derived from Scripture. Again, what takes a hit here is Biblical exegesis at the expense of public pressure and perception. That is not a good trade-off in any situation that I can see. If they are truly intending to be “kinder and gentler,” this is one of those times where in my assessment “kindness and gentleness” is more accurately described as pacification and patronizing. True kindness would take the time to address the matter with those concerned, but would not back down from what they knew to be true and anchored in the Word of God.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie]Charlie…. did it ever occur to you that, perhaps Dr. Jaeggli was very much involved in the decision to pull and revise the book? From my interaction with men on the seminary faculty, I find them to be very humble and eager servants of others. I’m looking at this whole situation and seeing a far different scenario than do those who are “unaffiliated” with BJU. I see that a book was published using a particular approach (inductive), but the approach to the topic created confusion in the minds of some who couldn’t follow inductive reasoning. So rather than just take an “if you don’t get it, you’re a dope!” position, the seminary graciously decided to withdraw the book from the market—remember, at considerable expense to the publisher—so that it might be revised (apparently using a more deductive approach) and republished. I imagine that Dr. Jeaggli was involved in discussions with Dr. Hankins, probably Dr. Bell, Stephen Jones, and maybe the head of BJUP, and that together they determined to do what they consider to be the best thing for the sake of those whom they serve and for the integrity of the message they desire to communicate in the book. I have a hard time understanding why something so simple has to be fodder for criticism, debate, argumentation, ad nauseum.[Greg Linscott] Now, FWIW, my comments don’t necessarily mean that BJU “can’t win for losing,” whatever that means. I’m no one special, and I’m not even an alumnus.Beyond what you’ve said, what about simply standing behind your faculty? The book obviously made its way through the lengthy process to publication. Especially at a school like BJU, one can imagine how much scrutiny that entails. Pulling the book while at the same time defending its premise is a slap in the face of Jaeggli and the other faculty involved in production. Who would want to publish for BJU after they do something like this? What other school would treat a tenured professor that way?
However, I have said here since the announcement of the book pulling was first made that it was a bad idea. BJU’s most recent statement responding to the SOTL review does nothing in my mind to clarify why they pulled the book if the conclusion and argumentation was sound and derived from Scripture. Again, what takes a hit here is Biblical exegesis at the expense of public pressure and perception. That is not a good trade-off in any situation that I can see. If they are truly intending to be “kinder and gentler,” this is one of those times where in my assessment “kindness and gentleness” is more accurately described as pacification and patronizing. True kindness would take the time to address the matter with those concerned, but would not back down from what they knew to be true and anchored in the Word of God.
Discussion