BJU's Steve Pettit on his meeting with John MacArthur

I feel sorry for Schall that he has to put out this statement. Very difficult to walk this tightrope.

“The church has a common goal and a common enemy. All the bickering and backbiting stops when the real enemy shows up. Fighting is what happens when there is no real enemy around. There is a lot of fighting among Christians because they have failed to recognize where the real enemy is.
When Christians wake up and realize that they are in a battle for the truth against ideologies stacked against the knowledge of God, when they begin to take serious the onslaught against virtue, against men and women, against marriage and the Bible—then this bickering and divisiveness will subside. Those who fight in the church don’t know who the enemy is. The church at large today is not fighting for the gospel, we are sadly just fighting each other. Meanwhile there is a raging enemy attacking life, the Bible, holiness, the church, and the family. And the church seems indifferent. It contentedly squabbles. Paul wants the church to be built up with joy, which means you have to strive together for the truth. We have to know where our enemy is.” - JMac

Although John MacArthur’s statement is accurate as far as it goes, there’s more to the overall issue than what he says. The current SBC situation illustrates that point. Sometimes people use the “We need to fight the real enemy” mantra in order to silence those who raise legitimate concerns about music, standards, associations, and elements of theology.

Pardon me while I yawn as I watch this kerfluffle unfold.

Pardon me as I yawn while we see the same typical responses.

BJU has changed and it ain’t going back. Nothing you can do about that. I think it’s a very good thing. Reading people lament this is like watching someone passionately argue about Iran-Contra - it’s been over and done with for a while!

Wonder what they talked about. I can imagine any number of things which any number of people (and yes, advocacy groups) might have been very interested in. I think it would be safe to say, however, that JMac and TMC/TMS seem to have found some common ground with BJU, which (in partial agreement with Wally) I’d dare say represents a move on BJU’s part to “convergence” and a more “conservative evangelical” point of view.

And as I read Scripture, I’m with Tyler; I think that’s profoundly healthy for BJU. It represents a shift away from substituting the cultural traditions of their historic constituency for the teaching of Scripture.

(although, to be fair to Wally, I’m still kinda amused that most people at BJU aren’t horrified by their President singing a song about moonshiners killing revenue agents….)

I don’t envy pastor Schaal (I was baptized in his ministry, was a member there for a few years, and did an internship there - so I’m not going to throw him aside).

Some facts:

The FBFI mentioned MacArthur directly in its resolutions in 1985 (“new evangelical”) and in 1995 (for preaching at Moody).

Both Kevin Schaal, his son (and I believe most of the other children) are graduates of BJU. Plus, a number of other students from that church went to BJU.

Sam Horn, in his Northland days, was on the board of the FBFI.

Steve Pettit was a regular for doing meetings at Kevin Schaal’s church (every other year).

So…on the one hand - you have the history of the FBFI contra MacArthur.

On the other hand, you have BJU, former FBFI leadership (Horn), and a well-loved guest preacher (and friend of the church) now publicly endorsing MacArthur’s ministry.

Rock? Meet hard place. This is a complicated knot of history that is not easily unweaved without an organization simply saying “we were wrong.” And if they say that, their raison d’etre of their very existence for the last 60 years disappears.

I was just reading this yesterday, “For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.”

It shouldn’t have to. Why does saying “we were mistaken” force the termination of an organization? I’m sure they applauded John Mac Arthur when he said he was wrong about the eternal son ship of Christ, and that admission certainly didn’t end his ministry. If their reason d’etre is to defend the fundamentals of the faith, there will never be a time when their efforts are no longer needed. But, if their purpose is to defend mistakes from the past, then that’s a different story.

[CAWatson]

On the other hand, you have BJU, former FBFI leadership (Horn), and a well-loved guest preacher (and friend of the church) now publicly endorsing MacArthur’s ministry.

Rock? Meet hard place. This is a complicated knot of history that is not easily unweaved without an organization simply saying “we were wrong.” And if they say that, their raison d’etre of their very existence for the last 60 years disappears.

You now also have the leadership of BJU (Horn), leaving BJU to lead Master’s. I am surprised everyone is up in arms about a Tweet from Petit, but no one really cared that much about Dr. Horn leading Master’s.

Perhaps someone would remind us and be willing to explain in simple term why it’s wrong to have fellowship with JM?

Unfortunately, that explanation likely won’t be forthcoming!

[TylerR]

Unfortunately, that explanation likely won’t be forthcoming!

Ah, yes! Another one of those dangerous monsters that keep us in “The Village”.

Per GN’s note, being wrong on one issue doesn’t remove a reason for that organization’s existence, but if the question goes from a central question of “were we right to suggest that fellowship with John MacArthur violates principles of separation?” to a more general question of “Have we been making reckless allegations against any number of men?”, then I’d argue the FBFI will be in serious, serious trouble. The reason is simple; you’re introducing the possibility that the “fundamentalism” the FBFI has been “defending” for decades really doesn’t qualify as fundamentalism at all, but rather is just a knee-jerk defense of “that which is.”

Even knowing that the FBFI members are nothing if not a bit stubborn (and that’s not necessarily bad), that could be a death knell for the organization.