Bob Jones University president Steve Pettit resigns

Yes, there are always two sides to every conflict and yes, the Bible instructs us to listen to both sides before we take a position. But no, the Bible does not expect us to wait indefinitely for one side to explain their perspective. The very act of failing to be forthcoming and to explain one's actions becomes a self-inflicted indictment. The Bible teaches us to be humble and willing to talk to those who have accusations against us, who believe we have wronged them. Acting as though one is not required to do so because he believes himself to be above questioning is a problem. Until John Lewis and those who support him answer the questions that have been raised, I have no choice but to believe they are in error, and are attempting to hide their actions and motives.

Any idea who leaked the Pettit letter?

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2023/03/31/bob-jones-univer…

My speculation:

• Not Pettit himself
• Possibly someone in Steve's inner circle
• Possible a BJU board member

G. N. Barkman wrote: But no, the Bible does not expect us to wait indefinitely for one side to explain their perspective. The very act of failing to be forthcoming and to explain one's actions becomes a self-inflicted indictment.

No one knew anything about any of this until last Thursday, just 5 days ago, when Pettit announced his resignation and his letter to the board got leaked. Charles V gave Martin Luther more time to respond than you seem to be giving the board. There are 5 new members on the board that need to get up-to-speed regarding everything. Is it too much to ask to let what should have been private allegations play out and get resolved through due process? It's been less than a week....

I think it is probably not the 5 days but the almost 3 months since an alumni group has asked to meet with the chairman.

I can't speculate who leaked the document, and I won't speculate. But the students at BJU had access to it before the announcement and it was well circulated before it got onto Facebook or any other outlet.

I know that student commitments for Fall of 2023 have been dropping or withdrawn as a result of concern around Board actions. This was shared with the Board. The school has been inundated with calls and potential drops for Fall of 2023 around accreditation. There is concern from faculty that the board is seeking to drop accreditation. It required Gary Weier to address the students yesterday and send an email to parents. It gave some assurance, but also left some uncertainty to the future. When "official" communication is missing, the noise becomes the official communication. I am not sure if that is what they are going, only heard the concerns.

Do you think Gary Weier, the board, or anyone else involved is unaware of enrollment concerns?

I am sure that as they work on this, they will make announcements. Since they didn't make it yesterday, it is already too slow for some people.

As for the "three months" -- the board renewed Pettit's contract. They decided to go forward with it. The activists weren't satisfied and kept threatening board members. Finally Steve issued his ultimatum, then when the board didn't comply, he resigned.

So now we are in a new situation. I don't see why patience and waiting isn't a virtue.

And I would guess that the administration and board will prepare something for us about what happens next, as soon as they are ready. They aren't idiots. They know they need to say something.

It was a long time before Luther actually showed up at Worms, but a lot of that was negotiating safe passage and the actual travel. When he demanded Luther recent recant, however, Luther had arrived in Worms on April 16, 1517, and his famous statement was on the 18th. He was more or less told to recant all of his academic works, which even a speed reader could not have read in that time.

Just a point of reference. (Sorry, Andy) This may or may not be fair at BJU, but it's an entirely different thing than Pope Leo and Charles V.

Regarding the question of whether this is fair to the board, my take is that the claims made by Pettit are mostly simple yes or no questions, and hence the longer the board waits to answer them, the worse it is for BJU, and the more students will decide to go to college elsewhere.

Note as well that this is separate from the question of whether BJU will go back to their prior track, or whether they're going to follow the Pettit moves. The board has had that authority for a while, so the question is simply how the board was going about their business.

I appreciated Dr. Minnick's words. I know some on here may feel he gave too much deference to the board, but you could sense a challenge he was making to them, and ,that is, to find a way of reconciliation. He stressed how important this is to the survival of the school, how important the school is to him and his family even though he doesn't 100% agree with Steve Pettit's direction, and how important the school is to his congregation.

For the past 6 years, I've lived in Greenville. The previous 26 years of life after graduation was living away from it. To be honest, in those 26 years I never felt strongly about the university, didn't encourage my kids to go there, our firm stopped recruiting there, etc. I was mentally far from it. When I moved to Greenville to set up an office for the firm, I realized how vibrant it had become. The kids that attended our local church talked more about God and their faith than my classmates did back in the 80s.

I said all that to say that a small percentage of the board is from the Greenville area. Board members from out of town can visit quarterly, drive on campus, and only view the outward appearances of the campuses, and it's different than when they attended, and it worries them. They don't get to see the week to week Godly influence the school and their students have on the community and the local churches. I know I didn't when I lived elsewhere and it muted my enthusiasm for the school. I feel there should be more Greenville based board members than there are because of the perspective they would have of the school's spiritual influence.

My apologies to those who found my recent post too abrupt. I can see why those who are just becoming aware of this situation might feel that way. To those who have been aware of the brewing conflict for months, the lack of explanation from the Board looks more like stonewalling. I pray that I am wrong, and that reasonable explanations will soon be forthcoming.

This is not a last couple of weeks issue. Constituents who the BOT should sense a duty to shepherd, have been asking for reasonable information from the BOT for months.

Are the sheep always right? Do they always ask good questions? Are they always reasonable? No!

Do good shepherds ignore the questions of the sheep? No! This is crucial to understand. The BOT, and the chairman specifically, have not responded. Not to be confused with "gave us an answer we didn't like." Rather, no response.

It is not reasonable that they would answer every individual inquiry (due to volume). But to not answer those who represent a larger group and who have sought to be flexible and reasonable in how they could receive answers reveals the BOT's grave misunderstanding of what it means to shepherd.

Almost all of Dr. Pettit's reasons are not new. And none of them are about the specifics/direction. They are entirely about integrity - saying you are working for unity but behaving as if you are not. Responding is not a matter of nuance and crafting a position paper. Either what is in the letter is true (and I'm guessing he didn't lodge the complaints without having proof as he would see it) or it isn't.

And lastly, forget about outsiders. The two long-serving BOT members whose terms were not renewed without explanation. And the five new BOT nominees were introduced to the full BOT the day they were voted on. For such consequential decisions, those seeking to truly serve would want others to be well-informed.

Sure, we may dismiss all this as inaccurate, coming from jilted and upset people, etc.. But if we step back and look at how many angles it is coming from, it beggars belief to say it is all just grumbling, etc..

Something about where there is smoke . . .

Don Johnson wrote: As for the "three months" -- the board renewed Pettit's contract. They decided to go forward with it. The activists weren't satisfied and kept threatening board members. Finally Steve issued his ultimatum, then when the board didn't comply, he resigned.

People "kept threatening board members"?



I'm not questioning whether this happened or not--I am asking for non-confidential information about the nature of what has happened.

JohnS wrote: Almost all of Dr. Pettit's reasons are not new.

Yes, John, but his ultimatum letter was dated March 21. Up to this point, as far as we knew, he and the board were at least working with each other.

I agree that the new course of direction needs to come out, such as it is. It is very doubtful that a new president will be in place by the end of the summer. Someone will serve on an interim basis for a time, at least.

However, when should that announcement come? Steve is a lame-duck president until May 5 or 9 or whenever the school year ends. Just over a month away. I am not sure it would make it better to have that announcement now or wait until the end of the school year. In any case, they won't have a secret interim president, or operate clandestinely. Announcements will come.

I just think the demands for immediate statements are a little unreasonable given the circumstances.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect the board to make any announcement until close to May 5th. That would be understandable. In terms of some board members only being on campus once a quarter or such. That is accurate. But I would say it is the responsibility of a board member to understand what is taking place on the "ground". Personally if I was a board member at BJU, I would make sure that when I came down I spent an extra day or so and have lunch or dinner with a few faculty members and students, attend at least one chapel service and try to sit in one class. They may be doing that, I don't know. But if not, I would always recommend to do this. You need to get a sense of what is taking place and you need to get unsolicited and unflavored feedback on the strategy and direction.

Hearing concerns from those outside of the university is all good and well, but you need to match this with what you are seeing. Outside concerns are not "the data", it is a "data point" of many, that you need to use to make decisions.

Don,

I was not advocating for the BOT to trot out a new president in week. The point I'm trying to make is that the BOT was asked months ago for responses and they did not respond. It's not about immediate and ultimatum. It is about a pattern of behavior that is troubling (was before Dr. Pettit's letter) and a little to no apparent desire to shepherd the young people that God has brought to BJU.

Other folks have sought answers out of concern for students (present and future). The BOT has, by their silence/non-responsiveness, failed to shepherd for months.

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

Thanks, Rajesh, for posting. Since it was Dr. Minnick, I figured it was worth a listen. He is as careful and measured as I remember him.

I have two main areas of reflection: (1) the overall conflict of visions; and (2) the questions of board ethics, etc. Handling #2 first: Minnick's cautions from Proverbs all apply, and I'm 500+ miles removed and have 0 chances of collating all the facts to judge that well. So I avoid jumping to conclusions. That said, I can't simply ignore it when contemplating sending children there. Something, somewhere, is unhealthy.

Handling #1 on the conflict of visions. I was struck by how Dr. Minnick described his conversations with concerned parents who were asking along the lines of "Should we still send our young people there" (implying a problematic direction), and how it was elaborated, "Will the school reinforce what we teach at home?" I expect this reflects a different philosophy of discipling young people 18-22-ish. While I would want a Christian liberal arts school to have a clear evangelical confession and want to make disciples in an academic context...I'm not expecting it to align with me on everything, and I'm hoping that my children will be following Christ for themselves by the time they turn 18. And I would expect to guide them to a good local church in Greenville where they stay connected.

What I'm trying to teach them up till then is the need for daily Bible reading and prayer and a vital relationship with the local church, such that they appreciate the ongoing role of church leaders and church members in their Christian walk and standing against the world. Children in 21st century America are facing pretty godless philosophies all around them; in our context, our church has to preach hard on the sanctity of life, the goodness of married sexuality. We're dealing with young people confused about their own gender, drug addictions, etc. We do talk about modesty and entertainment with our children, and by and large they've internalized some of these mindsets, without dwelling on the particulars. Dressing modestly, well...sure, of course. But it's kind of small potatoes compared to other issues. If my children are still walking with Jesus 10, 20 years from now, even if they adopt different standards from me or theological positions, I will still count myself blessed.

No doubt that BJU should not be announcing a new President yet, but that's not the key question for prospective students and parents. The key announcement I'd be waiting for, as a parent of prospective college students, is whether the allegations made by Dr. Pettit are true or false. It is, again, information known to every Trustee, and should not take a lot of time or "wordsmithing" to parse out.