Bob Jones University president Steve Pettit resigns

Don Johnson wrote:

And my complaint isn’t that alumni are expressing their concerns. I’ve expressed my concerns. Privately.

The pledge had to do with closing the school if it was drifting into liberalism/compromise, btw. Not to attack fellow concerned alumni who are making their concerns known privately.

Don, I’ll admit that since signing that pledge 38 years ago, my memory of it is somewhat hazy, but I seem to recall things like apostasy and staying true to the Bible. I wish I had written it down, but like other green graduates, I had no concept of the idea that things would get to the point I would have to follow through on it. However, let’s say for the sake of argument that the terms liberalism and compromise were used. After all BJU taught its students about putting the word into practice and making application of its principles to all of life, not just the examples given in scripture, does it really make sense to think that mature Christian graduates wouldn’t make scriptural application to wanting to keep the university true to the scriptures even if the specific application wasn’t “liberalism/compromise?”

Further, those who wrote that pledge had to know what graduates who actually tried to put it into practice would face — both the university itself as well as other well-meaning people using everything in their power to oppose those efforts. If that pledge ever needed to be exercised, the results were not going to be pretty. From what I have seen, both sides in this fight want the university to continue to exist and to train the next generation to live for Christ. And from what information has been made public, the issues are not over the fundamentals in the BJ Creed, but other application and outworking of scriptural principles. That is practically going to guarantee people seeing things differently. When those issues are still important to the testimony and survival of the ministry, people are going to act.

I get your admonition about expressing your concerns privately. The scriptures do talk about some sin being handled that way, but it’s clear from the NT that some things were handled publicly, both by Jesus and Paul among others. And I think I do remember enough of that pledge to recall that we were to use every effort to keep the university true or close it down. Writing a letter or using other means to communicate privately and then doing nothing else when that is seemingly ignored doesn’t seem to fit the bill, even if that is the proper first step (which I know some graduates that are members of that group have done).

I don’t know if those in the Positive BJU group have the moral high ground or not. I don’t have FB, and I’m not part of that group, and I don’t know if the allegations of possibly illegal actions are true or not. I’ve seen a bit of it from my wife who has FB. But even if I wouldn’t agree with every single thing they have done, they do appear to be putting a large amount of effort into following through on their pledge, and the issues, while maybe not theological, do appear important enough to take steps that others are almost certainly going to see as excessive or unwarranted. As I said, I don’t think the university should be surprised when graduates take their teachings seriously, even when the actions that arise from them are different from what was expected.

Leaders who value the mission more than their position/legacy/control display humility and wisdom by proactively providing a mechanism for being held accountable by external (to the leadership) stakeholders. Godly leaders embrace accountability. They realize that any day they're awake they could lead others astray. That accountability necessarily includes folks external to the board, at least when the board decides itself who is on/off the board.

Graduates were charged with keeping the institution true including "come close it down" if it strays. If that was covenantal (not merely inspirational), it needs process definition. Stewarding the mission means leading by laying out a process for alumni to hold leadership accountable to leaders’ stewardship of the mission.

Humble leaders realize that they may personally go astray. Wise leaders acknowledge their inability to guarantee the fidelity of future leaders. The process should be neither easy nor fast, but it should exist. An existing process reduces confusing and accusing when situations arise (dig the well before you're thirsty). What we protect demonstrates what we value.

And after exercising the above, leaders and constituents humbly seek our Sovereign God’s help.

(Related: Founding Fathers of the U.S. of A. baked checks/balances into the U.S. Constitution. And they provided at least the skeleton of processes for amending, impeaching, elections etc.. And after exercising such wisdom, many of them prayed for God's help. BJU is not civil government. Not all those mechanisms apply. Yet it illustrates wisdom and humility to provide the means of protection. They valued what they started.)

It's been over 30 years for me, too, but I think what we signed was for the school to stay true to the doctrines in the Creed. In fact, the Creed was on the sheet of paper that was signed if I remember correctly.

A reading of BJU's founding will make it obvious that graduates promised to rise up and close the school if the school ever parted from the creed. It had nothing to do with preserving the practices and rules (culture, if you will) of the school. If that were the case we should have walked away from the school with those who did when the school desegregated, or whenever they changed the rulebook.

Right here, if you're an outsider like me and you're curious.

Ron Bean wrote: It had nothing to do with preserving the practices and rules (culture, if you will) of the school.

I agree, but this is a red herring. I don't know of anyone who is trying to close down the school at present.

My wife and I are both alumni, as was my father, brother, sister, and three of our daughters. We have many BJU alumni in our church. I deeply appreciate the training I received at BJU, educationally, spiritually, and practically. I appreciate the commitment to excellence in every area of life, hard work, self discipline, and unswerving faithfulness to the Bible as God's infallible Word. As I have grown in my understanding of Scripture, I realize that not everything taught and practiced at BJU was solidly Biblical. Some was cultural, traditional, and even pragmatic.

In my opinion, BJU under the leadership of Steve Petit has maintained the strengths while dialing back some of the weaknesses. The school is more Bible centered than before, and the spirit of joy and enthusiasm among students and faculty is the best I have ever seen. It would be a shame to lose this because of the disagreements of a small number of constituents. May God preserve BJU to serve as a bastion of true Biblical fundamentalism for many years to come.

Of Christian Squabbles and Something Different (scriptureandplainreason.com)

JohnS wrote: Of Christian Squabbles and Something Different (scriptureandplainreason.com)

In that post, the author says, "We should notice the inconsistency, however, of those who find it appropriate to verbalize their concerns about cultural shifts and affiliations but exhort all the rest of us to be silent about eyewitness accounts of actual sin."

What are the sins that the board is guilty of?

I think Pettit has accused Lewis of lying -- but that would be a individual sin, not a board sin.

Andy,

I can't articulate if these actually happened or not, I am way too far removed. But here is what has been documented and shared with the board. Some of these would not be sins per se, but because people feel they are illegal and doing something illegal would be a sin, they may be classifying these. Again, I am not going to argue for or against these, just put out what has been documented and shared:

• Stealing of personal papers from Steve Pettit. These were shared by BJU's legal counsel that what was done was illegal in the state of SC. BJU's legal counsel was fired immediately after that meeting by the board.
• Taking photos of girls, some underaged to highlight ways that these girls are accentuating themselves wrongly through dress. These were done without the individuals consent (thus the Title IX investigation)
• Accusations of Dr. Lewis getting very heated, angry and bullying school administrators. Accused BJU faculty for being insubordinate.
• One of the board members reached out to the Universities parliamentarian to get clarification of the process, Dr. Lewis became very angry with the board member and said that they would be removed from the board. The long standing board member was removed from the board.
• Working outside of his bounds. For example, the chairman writing a note to the Title IX coordinator to suspend all activities related to the investigation. Which is against school policies and government policies.

Like I said, whether these are 100% true, partially true or all false, I don't know. The first 4 were reported by board members. The last one by Dr. Pettit.

Andy, to say that lying by the president of the board, about business conducted by the board, is an individual sin, but not a board sin, leaves me rather puzzled. If an official, sinful action by the board president cannot be considered a "board sin," I'm not sure what to call it. Is it possible you may be slicing this distinction a little too thinly? But thanks for your post. It led me to read the entire article by Brian Fuller, which I consider to be quite good. It appears to me like there have been a number of questionable actions by the board that look suspiciously like sin. I think Fuller makes an excellent point. Why is it a good thing for people to raise concerns about cultural matters, but inappropriate for others to raise concerns about highly questionable actions by members of the board?

I would say one deficiency of the board is resolving issues it seems. So from a Board 101 perspective if there are issues between the chairman of the board and the president, than the board as a whole has a responsibility to address this. Friction between both parties happens more times than not in a corporate world. I would say that if two people cannot resolve a disagreement between them, then there is probably a level of sin here somewhere. In terms of the broader board it would fall into what level of involvement they took on this. If they also couldn't resolve the issues than there is a level of sin somewhere there. It may be that their hands are tied, the BJU Board is a mess from a governance perspective, so they may have played into it. Also, I am not sure if the board as a broader context allowed some of the things I mentioned above to happen, but that may play into this as well.

If David's comment here represents true allegations, what we've got is some members of the board using the processes of the board to wage a vendetta on others, specifically Steve Pettit. Pettit's resignation letter says about the same.

Now there are some times when conflict is inevitable, and Godly men cannot avoid it, but if you're breaking policies, violating Title IX, and the like, you're crossing a clear line into sin--and board members who see it and tolerate it are doing the same, IMO.

G. N. Barkman wrote: Why is it a good thing for people to raise concerns about cultural matters, but inappropriate for others to raise concerns about highly questionable actions by members of the board?

I am responding in this post not just to this statement but also to the other allegations catalogued by Dave.

1. As to the allegations, that's all they are. No one on the outside has sufficient context to know everything that went on, or even necessarily a great knowledge of any relevant legal requirements. (I note that some who have commented elsewhere do have legal insight, but even they are limited by not knowing the full context.)

2. As I've said already in this thread, if the law was violated, at least in some areas (according to reports) officials are raising questions and are in a process of discovery. If the law was violated, I support them doing their job and calling individuals who may have violated the law to account. I'm willing to leave that part of the job to them. It will never get solved on the internet, especially by the partisan warriors who opine in places like this.

3. Since there could be more to these allegations (and since they may be improperly framed as we've seen them), the difference between raising concerns about so-called cultural matters and highly questionable board actions is venue.

Where should allegations of highly questionable board actions be raised? On the internet? Or with the appropriate legal officials. Unproven allegations raised in public could damage the university itself, without just cause. Witness the present fiasco.

Where should "cultural" or other concerns be raised? Again, on the internet? Or with the officials responsible for oversight of these matters, ie, the president/administration of the institution and the governing board?

Really? Fuller likes to sound reasonable but he is far from it.

JohnS wrote: Of Christian Squabbles and Something Different (scriptureandplainreason.com)

Using the book of Esther to address the current situation at BJU is dubious argumentation, at best. In Esther, the events directly and largely concern entities who are in governmental positions at the national level and dealing largely with issues of national and international importance.



Claiming that the "corporate" conflict aspects of the BJU situation is comparable to the situations in the book of Esther is poor reasoning and misapplication of Scripture.