Bob Jones University president Steve Pettit resigns

Under Steve Pettit's presidency many graduates came out of hiding. Until now, when asked where they had attended college they would often respond, "a small liberal arts college in the south". That was because, while most people had never heard of BJU, those outside of conservative fundamentalism didn't have a positive impression of their alma mater because of the "unusual" aspects of the school that had received national attention. (Racial discrimination, stoning of homosexuals, etc.). Under Pettit's presidency and the recent conflict at BJU, 1000's of these grads have rallied to the new direction that BJU is taking. There's a small group who have been disturbed by things they've seen as changes in the BJU culture while the school remains loyal to its creed.

I have no connection to BJU but I’m curious. What does this mean? What did they do to homosexuals?

"I have no connection to BJU but I’m curious. What does this mean? What did they do to homosexuals?"

In 1980 Bob Jones III publicly stated that he thought gays should be stoned. He apologized 35 years later.

Pastor Mark Minnick took the entire message tonight to give our church much wise, biblical counsel about the entire situation concerning BJU:



Unity Around the Lord's Table :: Mount Calvary Baptist Church

Barry L. wrote: Never thought our worst enemy would be from within.

"Always has been."

RajeshG wrote:

Pastor Mark Minnick took the entire message tonight to give our church much wise, biblical counsel about the entire situation concerning BJU:

Unity Around the Lord's Table :: Mount Calvary Baptist Church

This was so helpful to me. Thank you for sharing it with us.

RajeshG wrote:

Pastor Mark Minnick took the entire message tonight to give our church much wise, biblical counsel about the entire situation concerning BJU:

Unity Around the Lord’s Table :: Mount Calvary Baptist Church

I’ll second what Andy said. This was a very good take on the situation and how we should approach it. Thanks for posting it Rajesh.

AndyE wrote: This was so helpful to me. Thank you for sharing it with us.

You are welcome.

So many people are making the situation much worse by the things that they are saying and doing on social media and elsewhere online.

dcbii wrote: I’ll second what Andy said. This was a very good take on the situation and how we should approach it. Thanks for posting it Rajesh.

You are welcome. We need to pray much for God's mercy in this situation.

I loved how Mark Minnick quoted Philip Henry when he said,

"It isn't so much our differences that do us mischief, as the mismanagement of our differences."

That is so true and such great advice to all of us as we sharpen our iron in disagreement here on these forums.

I listened to the entire message, and I appreciate that it was given with a good and gracious spirit, and had many good exhortations.

However, the “we haven’t heard the other side, so let’s trust these good men and wait to see” mantra has expired in my view. Pastor Minnick either isn’t privy to the information that’s been released by BOTH sides, or he is ignoring it because of the side he admittedly aligns with.

I listened to the entire message also. As Billy mentioned and as is common for Dr. Minnick, the spirit was pastoral and measured and the content "had many good exhortations."

Several points are predicated on some assumptions that, in my view, are questionable.

1) The "other side" has had ample time, multiple entreaties, and multiple opportunities, to provide information that could in fact quiet the people of God. BJU is not a church, but taking the principles of Matthew 18 into account, the amount of time someone is privately entreated is not unlimited. At some point the matter is made public, and that for the ultimate good not to shame them.

2) Much of the critique of the BOT has not been hasty. Neither have been many of the entreaties for them to serve by providing clarity. It is wise and biblical to not be hasty in judgement. Have some folks been hasty? Sure. Have all been hasty? No. Does the hastiness of some invalidate the non-hasty judgment of others who came to the same conclusion? No.

3) The idea that folks would not be in positions of leadership if they were not fundamentally good people is hopeful but not iron-clad. I am NOT calling out anyone in particular, but it is clear from scripture that people in leadership, even in spiritual leadership, can sadly become poorer in character than they were or appeared to be when put into leadership. Should we give them the benefit of the doubt? Absolutely, and personally I did early on. But as their methods became more clear, the benefit of the doubt could no longer be extended. Patterns of behavior, particularly in the absence of communication, matter. "Your talk talks and your walk talks but your walk talks louder than your talk talks." (And yes, I'm taking Dr. Pettit's grievances to be accurate. Pattern of integrity over decades of public ministry and private discipleship of many young people.)



At some point wisdom calls for courage to take action. Believers have surely disagreed over the centuries about when and where that line is crossed. Puritans or Separatists come to mind.

JohnS wrote: And yes, I'm taking Dr. Pettit's grievances to be accurate. Pattern of integrity over decades of public ministry and private discipleship of many young people.)

I would say the exact same thing about the members of the board that I know. These are all good men, but strong Christian men who are acting in line with what they view God would have them to do, and principles that they view God wants them to uphold. Unfortunately, there is a sharp disagreement, like Paul and Barnabas, and it is not clear how this is going to play out. It is very easy for even godly men to react in the flesh during times of conflict, and no doubt some of that has happened, probably on both sides.

The fact remains that we on the outside looking in, only see a sliver of what is actually happening. Even those directly in the conflict themselves don’t always know everything. Sometimes the conflict can cloud your judgement and you yourself won’t see your side of the conflict correctly. I’ve been in conflicts where I knew people withheld information that would make them look better to those looking on, but did not, because of other important reasons. Like Minnick said, it is part of leadership.

I have a daughter at school there now. She is concerned about what is happening. I’m concerned with what is happening. It is a very critical time. Yet, I’m also encouraged. These men, on both sides, are in a battle and a very sharp letter has been released. Maybe I’ve missed it, but I haven’t heard one word from the board lambasting Pettit. In fact, the board has let him stay on through graduation. From Pettit’s side, his public remarks at the announcement and in chapel have been so gracious and unbelievably restrained. He has modeled a Christ-like response to this conflict for the students. The students themselves are praying and my daughter’s D-group leader went over Minnick’s outline to help them have a proper response to this whole conflict. I really wish the school was not going through this, but I believe God has a purpose in all this, and I’m praying that right will prevail, God will be glorified, and that all the men involved would act in Christlike meekness as they navigate this conflict.

First of all, "you don't know all the facts" is all too often something of a dodge, and that's certainly what it is in this case. We have clear allegations of financial mismanagement, suppression of Title IX investigations, and subverting the chartered structure of BJU's administration--which could lead to loss of accreditation.

Either these allegations are true, or Steve Pettit is a liar, and either way, BJU has serious, serious problems. They're not insuperable, but those in authority need to take a careful look at the evidence Dr. Pettit can provide for his position and ask themselves "is this a situation which ought to continue, or be remedied?".

My nickel bet here is that Dr. Pettit has actual documentation of most of this. He's on the board of trustees, and if you want to keep parts of a document that the chairman won't allow to be printed, "control-alt-print screen" and paste to Word or Powerpoint.

I listed to the sermon and it was good. Let me preface, that my overwhelming desire is that all parties sit down and resolve this situation. I know that a lot of people have stated why would John sit down with a group like Positive BJU after everything that has been hurled at him from that group. And my answer is, "Because it is the right thing to do". Sitting down and resolving differences is always under the cloud of some level of pain between one or both parties. Second, because it can't continue like this. This is not a good path. And Third, because at the end of the day, the board has the high ground and should sit down with its stakeholders. Being silent is not a path forward.

John, makes the same points that I had in concerns with Minnick's message. Too many people with first hand knowledge of the situation have spoken out against Dr. John Lewis. And there is no doubt that most not everything is true and that there are two sides of the story, it has been my experience when such a varied group of people, people who many would consider to be good men of God speak out that there is always some level of truth to what is being spoken. It may not all be true, but I would be utterly shocked if all of it was untrue. The coordination effort and the willingness of good people to commit such outright and grievance sin would be shocking.

Also, I agree that just because people may have been put in positions of leadership at one time, does not mean they do not sin. We don't even need to explain this. I am flabberghasted that good Christian people who have a relationship with these parties has not sought reconcilliation. The students have been willing to sit down, the faculty, the administration, Positive BJU and Steve Pettit. It appears from all of these sources that it has been pretty unanimous that John Lewis has either refused to respond or has not sat down. I cannot tell if this is the world against John and he is the sole person who is right. If this is pride and an unwillingness to sit down with those you feel are not right or are accusing you wrongly? I don't know. But when I see multiple parties willing to sit down and one party that is not, it raises concerns.

The current trajectory is not good for the school. I am struggling why more senior people have 1) not sought to facilitate reconcilliation, which is required of Scripture, and 2) if reconcilliation is rebuffed that we do not call it out. There is a Biblical way to handle this. I am struggling to see where it is taking place and I am struggling to see why lawsuits are the only option.