Steve Pettit to replace Stephen Jones as president of BJU

Where would he stand in regard to Calvinism? Just curious.

[sbradley]

Where would he stand in regard to Calvinism? Just curious.

Inter-City has had Pettit in the recent past, and you don’t get much more Calvinistic in Fundamentalism than Dave Doran and co.

You won’t see them taking a more decidedly reformed bent, but like Ron Bean said in the other thread, they’ll remain largely the same- certainly in this arena. Fundamentalism has a pretty big tent when it comes to Calvinism/Arminianism/Revivalism, and if that constituency is going to be maintained and potentially expanded in any way, they don’t necessarily need to rigidly stake their position on this issue more than they have in the past. Even in other settings, like the SBC, they have a big enough tent for Al Mohler and Paige Patterson. I wouldn’t get too worked up over where Pettit is on this issue. You still have enough influences elsewhere, like the board and faculty, where Calvinist positions certainly aren’t going to be squelched.

I think Steve Pettit as the new BJU president is a good move.

I’ve heard him speak many times and always enjoyed his preaching. I could listen to it all day long. It was not your old fashioned Fundy hell, fire, & brimstone evangelistic preaching. He spoke about our hearts, challenging us to be more like Christ. I always felt he handled the Bible correctly, didn’t go off on unnecessary rabbit trails, or insert his personal opinion as equal with the KJV. Not really sure what Chip is talking about. I never experienced what he is referring to.

I enjoyed his team’s music as well. It was fresh while being conservative and without defaulting to a CCM style.

One of the main reasons why I this is a good move is because Pettit isn’t a BJU-inbred man, he isn’t a BJU lifer, and he’s been outside the Bubble for years including spending a lot of time with Les Ollila & Marty Von who emphasized discipleship and heart over (BJU-type) rules and discipline. He understands the college student having worked with college age camp counselors for years and having them on his evangelistic team.

From everything I’ve heard and seen I like Stephen Jones. I think he has been very good for BJU. But I think this is a good think for BJU to move towards a fresh perspective.

Woke up at 4 a.m. with Steve on my heart. I have not met the man (although his team was to minister at our church in November of this year); but I was burdened to pray for him and BJU. May we all ask God for grace for all involved.

I haven’t heard Pettit preach in years. Is he an expository preacher? Most of the evangelistic speakers I have heard tend not to be. Thanks for the responses. I really would prefer BJU to not start churning out Arminian, pick a text / pick a fit, preachers. Fundamentalism has enough of those already. Also, doesn’t he hold to some of the older standards (like women wearing pants) that BJU was starting to move away from? Sorry for my ignorance, but like I said, haven’t been around him in a while.

[sbradley]

Also, doesn’t he hold to some of the older standards (like women wearing pants) that BJU was starting to move away from? Sorry for my ignorance, but like I said, haven’t been around him in a while.

To answer that… From the Pettit Team Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152226053560211&set=pb.154267….):

I know little about Steve Pettit so I cannot comment much on him. However, from what is presented he does not seem to have any great academic credentials to lead a university. Dr Bob Sr did not have any either but that was in a different generation. He comes across as a friendly homely person who has a pleasant family, but is that enough to lead? I listened to the search committee reasoning and it appears to have no clear understanding of what is needed. They wanted the candidate to write a paper on KJVO!

BJU is clearly in a crisis. It tried the Jones succession model, which has patently failed. They even presented a cuddlier Jones in the form of Stephen Jones but that did not work. If I were them I would want a preacher/theologian of repute to inspire young people to come and study. There must be candidates out there with the preaching ability of a Clarence Sexton and the theological/exegetical acumen of a Mark Minnick or a John MacArthur, RC Sproul,Steve Lawson etc. Seems odd to say this but they need their fundamentalist Al Mohler!

I was also greatly disturbed by the athletics man (22mins) talking about BJU using “athletics as a platform for ministry.” Sounds like they are swinging in the wrong direction to the Hyles model of carnal methods to do God’s work. Could you imagine John MacArthur making such a statement? If he had, he would be pilloried as a new Evangelical in BJU Seminary of yesteryear!

BJU has had decades and thousands of graduates so there is no excuse for their failure to produce a list of highly credible leaders. My view is that they have not identified the real problem with their school and certainly have not come up with the right solution.

Seems odd to say this but they need their fundamentalist Al Mohler!

Mohler the reformer? Mohler the publicist? Mohler the statesman? Mohler the Calvinist? Hardly with Mohler’s credentials academic has the rest of the package. As broad and wide as the SBC is, they don’t have more than one Mohler. He’s pretty unique in the whole scheme of things. It’s like saying every pastor in Spurgeon’s day was cut from the same cloth- it just wasn’t so. And the issues on BJU’s plate are not remotely similar to those he encountered at Southern.

I’d be interested in what exactly you mean by your statement.

It’s evident that the board/univ. does not see the role as primarily an academic one. I’m not sure it ever really has been. So from a public interface standpoint, there were advantages to having a pres. with a terminal degree. But for a Christian college with relationships with many churches and ministries to think about, there are also advantages to having someone in the role who is not seen as primarily an academic.

It would be interesting to see some short statements from the Board on how it sees the role. In my experience, it has always been largely administrative but also having major student-relations, church/ministry-relations, and public relations components. Presidents have always spoken regularly in chapel as well as at various awareness/fund-raising events regionally in addition to talking to the press, etc.

In any case, how a school sees this role is certain to change over time.

I was also greatly disturbed by the athletics man (22mins) talking about BJU using “athletics as a platform for ministry.” Sounds like they are swinging in the wrong direction to the Hyles model of carnal methods to do God’s work. Could you imagine John MacArthur making such a statement? If he had, he would be pilloried as a new Evangelical in BJU Seminary of yesteryear!

Have to comment on this. BJU is a school, not a church. But aside from that, are you really going to dismiss all use of means as “carnal”? There is, literally, nothing more carnal (carnalis/carno - flesh) than expelling air through vocal folds to produce sound waves that carry a gospel message. So it should be a given that believers are expected to use means to reach ends. The question would be what sort of criteria to use in evaluating what means are suitable for what ends. It’s astronomically far from obvious that there is anything unsuitable about a school using athletics as a way to form relationships and communicate the gospel.

(And historically speaking, fundamentalilsm was not critical of JMac for being too pragmatic. The criticism had mainly to do with a different practice of ecclesiastical separation—along w/the whole sad misunderstandings of his doctrine on a couple of points.)

[Greg Linscott]

Seems odd to say this but they need their fundamentalist Al Mohler!

Mohler the reformer? Mohler the publicist? Mohler the statesman? Mohler the Calvinist? Hardly with Mohler’s credentials academic has the rest of the package. As broad and wide as the SBC is, they don’t have more than one Mohler. He’s pretty unique in the whole scheme of things. It’s like saying every pastor in Spurgeon’s day was cut from the same cloth- it just wasn’t so. And the issues on BJU’s plate are not remotely similar to those he encountered at Southern.

I’d be interested in what exactly you mean by your statement.

I agree that Mohlers are not exactly ubiquitous in the SBC and that BJU does not need “reforming” in the manner that the SBTS needed pre-Mohler. My point was that Mohler is renown as a theologian, academic, statesman coupled with a clear vision of what he wanted to achieve at SBTS. Mohler is not afraid to take a public stand and articulate the reasons for it. I would have thought that is why SBTS has flourished in recent decades and faculty/students are drawn to it. In the past students went to BJU because parents knew and trusted Dr Bob Sr and to a lesser extent Jr. I doubt that is the case for Stephen Jones or Pettit.

There are surely some able leaders in Fundamentalism to lead BJU. Where has the thousands of men that have passed through the seminary gone? Even FBCH managed to get a presentable pastor/president after the Schaap circus in John Wilkerson.

In the past students went to BJU because parents knew and trusted Dr Bob Sr and to a lesser extent Jr. I doubt that is the case for Stephen Jones or Pettit.

Why would you conclude that Pettit is not “known or trusted” by parents like Sr. and Jr.? He’s about as well known and well received as anyone in the stream of Fundamentalism he operates in. Those who do know him (and I have encountered several who do) speak glowingly of him, without exception. I know comparatively little about Wilkerson, but if that is your frame of reference, Pettit’s as “presentable” as anyone. As far as his vision for the institution, he’s articulated some things already, but really, you can’t judge the book before it’s been written. Mohler’s track record is seen now in hindsight. I doubt many were as excited about his appointment then as they are now.

There are going to be critics, and I understand that. At the same time, these positions are somewhat unique. I have had a conversation with someone who was considered for a college and seminary president who turned it down. Considerations included a young family and the effects of life on the road on them, and a desire to stay in the current context of ministry. Who knows if some of the people you might consider a “credible leader” perhaps were not desirous of the office? I say give the man a chance to see what he does with the office. Maybe he’ll surprise you.

Well said!

[PSFerguson]

In the past students went to BJU because parents knew and trusted Dr Bob Sr and to a lesser extent Jr. I doubt that is the case for Stephen Jones or Pettit.

I left Greenville in ‘05. Maybe I’m out of the loop. But perhaps you’re out of the loop?

Earlier in this thread you referred to Stephen as “cuddlier” than his predecessors; now less trusted in the eyes of parents. Having sat under Stephen Jones’s preaching, I find this “cuddly” description to be, um, entertaining? Thanks for the laugh. Just know that God used this cuddly individual’s blood-earnest, no-nonsense preaching to nail my rebellious hindquarters into a chapel seat on many an occasion. When Stephen preached, he made sure the Word of God spoke into your life.

I read the history of Fuller Seminary in Marsden’s Reforming Fundamentalism. As I compared and contrasted it to BJU, I realized that one of the differences between the institution was the onsite presence and oversight of someone with character. Bob Jones, Sr. realized that you can borrow brains, but not character. BJU has plenty of brains distributed throughout the faculty and staff. They aren’t lacking. What they want, I expect, is a leader with character to execute a sometimes-thankless office. Greg is right: I’d expect there are many qualified individuals who are happy right where they are.

I know next to nothing about Pettit so I can’t really comment. Love the CDs though.

I will be curious how this plays out. I wasn’t expecting the route the board took. As an alumni of the college, the two biggest issues that I see the college facing is 1) accreditation - it is just becoming too important in today’s society and is a key reason why many steer away from the college, and 2) define and drive the relevance of having a Christian college in today’s world. The attendance is dropping at most Christian colleges and with rising costs and increasing home schooling, many find it easier to have their child attend a local college, save money and have them continue to be involved in their local church. If BJ is to continue to be successful it has to define its relevance today and drive that into the public. I am really not sure that BJ needs a strong theologian or preacher. Also, I see nothing in Petit’s background that highlights how he will be successful in these areas. His entire career has been in running an evangelistic team. I won’t criticize the decision because maybe the board has a different idea.