Bob Jones University president Steve Pettit resigns

The agitators keep agitating and trouble ensues. A sad development no matter which side you are on.

The relationship between John Lewis and Steve Petit declined to the point that there was no trust anymore. There are two different paths here. No one will win here. The dysfunction at the board has gotten so great. Very sad because unfortunately this may mark the beginning of the end for this institution.

The school has been scraping every year to stay alive as it was. This will end it, but sad to say, that is ok with some on the board. As an alumn, a past and current parent of students, a recruiter of its business students, and a donor, I am disheartened how a small number of folks in Michigan and Wisconsin can effectively end the ministry.

Certainly no one on the board wants that to happen.

No, I haven't spoken to every board member, but I do know some of them. They are working hard to keep the school going. There is a disagreement about philosophy. That is not the same thing as being "ok" with ending the school.

We can disagree, but let's not impugn the motives and desires of others.

Let me rephrase. There are some that would rather have the school close than it keep going the direction Steve Pettit was taking it. Would you disagree with that?

Regardless of what anyone says the board is in dysfunction. Some board members have quietly left, some are trying to fight it out and you have a lot of secrecy taking place all around. I know of two board members who would rather see it close down than continue to see it move forward. The letter from the FBFI was a key driver of trying to seek a fairly substantial change in direction. Anyone with much sense would know that a substantial change of direction this late in the game would most likely collapse the school. Trying to enforce a dress code with dresses and hoses is not the answer. But with 80+ year old board members spearheading what they hear as a need for substantial change probably is not the most successful course of action to handle the future direction of the University.

That would be quite a sight!

Now here is the thing, I personally would rather see BJU close than become Northland part 2, that's for sure. I have quit recommending students attend. I am not happy with everything Steve has done (and have told him so).

I suspect that some on the board might agree with what I just said. That doesn't mean they or I want BJU to close. I doubt BJU will ever return to what it once was, and no doubt some of those things from my era needed to change. But if it can regain its footing and return towards its former position of leadership I'd be mighty pleased.

It may be too late. It is unfortunate that things were allowed to get to where they are today. However, if the Lord wills, the school will survive and still be the kind of institution it ought to be.

The letter of concerns about BJU was from the majority of the board of the FBFI and not from the fellowship itself.

It is sad to me how all this has played out. I thought the vote to retain Pettit signaled an effort on both sides to work through differences and sharpen a direction that may have moved off-course a bit. It appears Pettit didn't take it that way himself.

When the Board reelected me to another three year term on November 17, 2022, the Trustees overwhelmingly affirmed and endorsed my leadership and the direction of the University. I believed that the vote showed that we were united in purpose and direction...

Apparently not, and it seems like there was not clear communication as to expectations, probably on both sides. Add outside pressure to change the board and remove the chairman, and it all added up to both sides not able to work with each other.

It will be interesting to see if Pettit is allowed to stay on through May after his public showdown with Dr. Lewis.

Live by the Freshmen .... die by the Freshman.

Children and parents are deciding this Spring where they will be going in the Fall.

This Fall will be absolutely critical for BJU ... the Board better right this ship quickly!

Craig Toliver wrote: the Board better right this ship quickly!

All depends on what "right" means.

Two articles I wrote for P & D which may be relevant/helpful:

https://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2019/01/18/cultural-accommodation-the-growing-danger-for-christian-education/

https://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2017/02/23/why-is-compromise-always-one-direction/

Wally, I don't see your articles as highly relevant to the situation at BJU. BJU has not to my knowledge accommodated sin to be culturally relevant. Like gender equality. These are differences in practice (i.e. type of church you go to, dress standards, speakers...) The fact that BJU allows kids to go to an SBC school as a sign of "sliding" is ridiculous in my opinion. My family are members at a conservative SBC church, to tell them that going to an SBC church is a cultural slide for the 8 months when they are in school, but then come back and be involved during the summer at their home church is ridiculous. We treat BJU as a babysitter for our kids. These are adult children. They should be attending a church that aligns to their values. Just classifying an SBC church as a theological or cultural slide is no different than saying an fundamentalist church is a KJVO church. Accreditation is not a cultural slide. To be honest, under Stephen and Steve they got rid of a lot of "junk" that was at the school. The school, in my opinion, is a lot more healthy now than it was in the past when I was going there. The FBFI outlined:

• Ecclesiastical associations (speakers who are not representative of biblical fundamentalism)
• Church Attendance (SBC Churchs and attractional in worship style)
• Lack of defined Christian philosophy of the fine arts programs
• Lack of enforcement of campus dress and appearance standards
• Little confidence that the students they send to BJU will come back and be supportive members of their local congregations

I don't see these as a decision between sin and godliness. To be honest these were the same issues we faced when I went to school there 30 years ago.

• Ecclesiastical associations - Many were concerned about people like Ian Paisley and non-YEC people who spoke in science forums
• Church Attendance - Southside was on the acceptable church list when I went to school and the pastor drove Harleys on the stage during church and they played Sandi Patty music
• Lack of defined philosophy around fine arts - Everyone was up in arms when a hollywood movie was shown as a dating event in the FMA
• Dress standards - they got rid of hats on Sunday morning
• Little confidence that the student they send to BJU - there were concerns about Five-Point Calvinism when I was going there. Quite a few student leaders were calvinist

I do wish the administration and the Board would have developed a working relationship to overcome these concerns, but I think at the end of the day the concerns from the FBFI that John Lewis and BJ III took up were magnified as greater than they really were, and they weren't able to bridge the gap. Remember in many of the cases above, the board approved these elements and after an uproar the board was unable to define their position and instead forced Petit to back pedal. Petit did not invite Trevor Lawrence in a vacuum. He was not off in a corner finding a way to take the school off of a cliff. Some of this was a lot around difference in philosophy. What I am really concerned is about some of the practices portions of the board are taking to do things in secret. At first I took it as a bit of hearsay, but now that a consistent story has been provided by the President as well as former and current board members, it is probably less hearsay and normal practice. The issues that the FBFI has outlined says less about Steve Petit, and says a lot about a dysfunctional, fragmented and what increasingly appears to be a non-functioning board.

Who's Dr. Lewis? Which camp?

My overall take here--obviously one that disagrees with Don & Wally and a few others on a fair number of things--is that Pettit was leading a number of changes that BJU needed to make to be viable going forward, changes that acknowledged the difference between Biblical and cultural fundamentalism. I'm sad to see him go.

Regarding the board, I'd phrase things differently than David does, more along the lines of "for the board to exist, it has to have voices from different constituencies, and for better or worse, each constituency--conservative evangelical, FBFI fundamentalist, whatever--is dug in and loaded for bear."

And if that's correct, that conflict ends only when one side is persuaded of its errors (I am not going to hold my breath on that), or when one side becomes numerically irrelevant. In my view, the question is whether BJU survives long enough for one side to stand down.

Not a BJU grad, but I agree with Bert on this one that the issue appears to be over cultural fundamentalism vs biblical fundamentalism.

The cultural fundamentalists are willing to kill BJU to keep BJU true to its cultural fundamentalist roots. The question remains: Can these cultural fundamentalists summon enough like-minded parents / students to BJU to keep the school afloat when the non-cultural fundamentalist parents / students go elsewhere?

Remember, now that BJU is regionally accredited, BJU students should have little problem transferring elsewhere. They aren't stuck in Greenville anymore.