Bob Jones III lied to Larry King

Yeah, it’s a favorite of the guys who like to make a big splash.

The trouble is that too many practice eisegesis when they think they are doing exegesis. Eisegesis is easy but exegesis is hard.

 

Have you been following the press regarding the change of presidents at BJU? Bob Jones III has made some encouraging statements to the press about mistakes he made in handling some of the controversies discussed here.

In fairness, during "Dr. Bob's" administration the school has made great strides in showing the love of Christ in its community. BJIII did a lot to involve himself and the school in the community. I know black pastors who feel a great debt to the school because of the way Bob Jones students sacrifice their time to help and show love to the underprivileged kids in their congregations.

 

How do you think they got to where they are today?

 

BJU students have always reached out to the community—white and black. They just have better press coverage now. I cannot see that it’s any greater than the 1970’s—perhaps less so. Do you know that more students are actually doing more in the community or is it just better publicized? Do you have the facts and figures or is it just perception? BJU made a deliberate and intentional decision to change their image almost 20 years ago. They finally made the grade.

Furthermore, there has been cozying up with the movers and shakers (David Shi, Minor Shaw, Hayne Hipp, George Fletcher, Bob Hughes, Tommy Wyche, et. al.) in G’ville. This ruling elite is rotten to the core. The BJU M&G (of course, you know who the director is) has been a big conduit to the G’ville community including the flow of cash in the pipeline.

Since you are in SC, you may know what Vision 2025 is. If my memory is correct, Dr. Bob, III was on the original committee out of which Vision 2025 was born. Vision 2025 proposes making Greenville an international trade and arts center. They have a proposal for a world trade center and a global economy. They are recruiting a so-called creative class (even had Carol Coletta of Memphis Manifesto in G’ville to speak) of 25-35 year olds to change the community and promote diversity. The whole concept is based on socialism and globalism (i.e. one world gov’t and economy), which is the reason Bob, III gave on LKL for the interracial dating ban. Why isn’t he yelling and screaming about Vision 2025, which is one-world in philosophy and is in G’ville?

Vision 2025 had a big interfaith Thanksgiving Day service with all faiths and participants citing thanksgiving prayers from the Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and Christian traditions. Whereas BJU did NOT participate, they did not speak out against it to my knowledge. At one time, BJU would have been burning up the barn in protest. Now, they just keep quiet in the interest of harmony and good community relations.

Dr. Bob, III spoke at Furman University last April in their Religion and Life Series sponsored by the Chaplain’s Office. David Shi is President of Furman. BJU claimed it was only an academic thing but he spoke on Christianity so I would call it a religious subject. This is how BJU is reaching out to the community. Today, Jonathan Pait calls it “reaching out” but Dr. Bob, Jr. would have called it “compromise” thirty years ago.

Although no longer SBC, Furman purports to be a Christian school. Furman sponsored a Theo-Eco Forum (theology-ecology-economics) last year. It was straight pantheism out of the pages of Thoreau and Emerson. The so-called scriptures of other traditions (e.g. Hindu, Buddhist, etc.) were accorded the same authority as the Word of God, which they related to a position of scripture according to the Christian tradition. Their President, David Shi, is a major promoter of Vision 2025.

A new day has dawned in G’ville, SC and BJU is going with the flow. How do I know? I’m in the thick of it. I attend their meetings and I speak in their forums. My information is first-hand. As a conservative Christian fighting the radical environmentalists, pro-abortion proponents, the homosexual lobby, socialist political views, the one-world cohorts, etc., I am not very happy with the kind of reaching out that BJU is doing. These are the people whom they seem to be trying to impress rather than standing strong with the local conservative Christian community. I can’t agree with and praise Dr. Bob, III’s efforts.

 

Are you a BJU student? Recent graduate?

 

I don't think NBBC has any community to engage. Just tundra.

I think what is happening is that BJU is trying to withdraw itself somewhat from the political milieu, a decision I would applaud. You might be interested to read "Blinded by Might" by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson. It has changed my view of politics. I think BJU is starting to catch the vision laid out in that book.

Dr. Jones seems as fierce about cultural issues as ever, although the ad hominen attacks of yesteryear have largely disappeared. For an example look at BJU's public stance on the entertainment offered at the Bi-Lo Center. I think the best news is that BJU is focusing on engaging the community and sharing the gospel with them--the way to effect true change.

Thanks in part to MacArthur and Piper, there has been a surge of reformed thought among students. Ironic fact: BJU sends more grads to Reformed Theological Seminary than any other school does. It will be interesting to see if any of these shifts affect institutional preferences.

Some calvinists and reformed preachers make it on campus. The DBTS crowd are regulars at BJU, many of the local pastors who preach in chapel are reformed, and of course there are the Free Presbyterians.

Paidogogos, I want to give a serious reply to your earlier post, but don't have the time right now.

 

By realigning with a more liberal political faction? They’re kissing up to the likes of David Shi, Knox White, Tommy Wyche, Bob Hughes, et. al. Yes, you’re probably right that they’re following the Thomas-Dobson political hermeneutic. Personally, the light from either of these guys has never blinded me. Eddie Dobson is an interesting study of compromise. Seems that Eddie toed the BJU line when he was a student and promptly abandoned it when it was no longer convenient and useful. Furthermore, BJU’s coddling of dear Eddie has always been an enigma.

What we talking about is not a withdrawal from politics but the politics of appeasement (compromise in religious jargon). It is a change of style but it is politics nonetheless. (IMHO, politics is not the venue for advancing Christ's Kingdom.) This involves the abandonment of friends who stood by you in the heat of battle when you were under fire. Since these friends are no longer useful and not compatible with the new media conscious image, it is okay to relegate them to the trash heap. BJU has fallen for Satan’s most dangerous and deceptive trap—approval and acceptance! Christ warned, “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets (Luke 6:26).” We judge our actions by the Word of God, not the world’s approval rating.

Read your history. The power of approval and acceptance, especially in the media, are irresistible. It happened to Billy in the “Puff Graham” blitz. It happened to the Pentecostals when they became acceptable to the mainline denominations after decades of the “holy roller” stigma. It happened to Fuller Seminary when they wanted to put a softer face on Fundamentalism to gain credibility. They declared themselves Neo-evangelical and wanted to address the social issues from an intellectual, respectable position. They slithered into Neo-orthodoxy, compromise and unbelief. And it happened to BJU and Bob, III on Larry King Live! The attraction is too strong to resist.

When one desires approval of the world, he is invariably headed for trouble. Before long the approval of man is more important than pleasing God. The sad thing is that you don’t even realize that it is happening to you! It is easy to see everyone else’s foibles but you can’t see your own without looking in the mirror. Does BJU think that it can boogie the same dance as others and escape paying the piper? Without a doubt, BJU, judged by the standards professed by BJU in the 1960-70’s, is the world’s largest neo-evangelical university. No longer is it the “world’s most unusual university” because it is following the usual path of all the other institutions who chose to become softer, seek the world’s approval, and court the media and image makers.

Even this has been moderated in recent years. I don’t think he went to see Janet Jackson though.

Cultural issues? At one time, these were not called cultural issues which implies something relative to the culture. These were called right and wrong or Biblical principles.

As for sharing the gospel, well, they’ve always done that. Only, it was called preaching or proclaiming the Gospel. Just exactly how do you share the Gospel? I thought it was to be preached. Paul wrote: “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe (1 Corinthians 1:21).”

Sharing seems to be such a soft sell. The Gospel is to be preached, proclaimed, declared, etc. However, sharing seems to be the new attitude in town. It’s lifestyle evangelism that tries so hard to be inoffensive. Well, calling sin by its name is offensive. The Gospel is offensive to the rebellious sinner who doesn’t want to confess and repent of his sin. Even though we need not be rude and personally offensive, we must not dilute the message to accommodate the sinner’s feelings.

Furthermore, the emphasis on community work and relations appears to be more of a social thing that smacks of the social gospel spirit while retaining a professed belief in orthodoxy. I would say there is less preaching the Gospel than in past times. The emphasis is on community work (cleaning up the environment, helping repair homes, etc.). which are worthy human endeavors, to the lessening or decline of emphasis on preaching and Bible teaching. Whereas in the past a great many BJU students were involved weekly in Bible teaching and preaching, there are fewer students today in these activities and more in the well-publicized big community work events several times during the school year. Can you produce facts and figures to the contrary? The old-fashioned preaching and Bible teaching, although still given good lip service, are not sophisticated and chic enough for the new attitude and the modern urbane BJU student. Such is passé and behind the times.

From your posts, you seem of the same cut of cloth. When were you at BJU? You articulate the new outlook well enough. No one ever said that they didn't train their students well.

Some Baptist parents and pastors have expressed concern over sending their Baptist kids to BJU and receiving back Presbyterians. Both MacArthur and Piper have some real soft spots. They try too hard to be cool. They too will pass.

Yeah, the Reformed types are complaining of a purge of the Calvinists at BJU. (Of course, this is nothing compared to the purge that the Calvinists did to Anabaptists in Geneva.) There were periodic purges in the past—Ten Pas, Lattimore, etc.. They put Peoples Bible Church, now Grace Reformed Baptist, off limits.

Now, Mike Barrett is gone. Terry Rude is gone. etc. Terry Rude, however, I don’t understand. The word is that Rude was not continued at BJU because of his Calvinism. On the other hand, Rude told me thirty years ago that the reason he came to BJU for grad school was that DBTS was too Calvinistic for him. Perhaps BJU has already fostered a drift toward Calvinist. Barrett, as far as I know, was entirely a BJU product. After all, the BJU Greats (Brokenshire, Neal, et. al.) were Calvinistic.

Yeah, okay. Just don’t make it too serious—use a little humus……I mean tumor…..uh………….humour.

 

Here it is Paidagogos. Without humus, tumor, and with little humor--as promised. Hopefully the hubris is minimal as well.

Yes, more students are going into the community. BJU has expanded their outreach efforts. They have added the Community Relations Council to help organize large-scale projects. Now in addition to the witnessing and church work that has always gone on, BJ students help clean up rough areas of town, build parks, tutor students, etc. They've also added larger evangelistic outreaches like the Farm Fest.

Since BJU is still actively evangelizing, how are social efforts wrong? Response to the gospel will lead us to "preach" it to our neighbors and to seek their good in every other way. We've let the Religious Left scare us away from doing good to our fellowman. For a good biblical example of ministering to our community, look at Job 29:7-18. Job talks about all of the "social good" that he did in his community.

You're going to have to give some concrete evidence to convince me of Bob Jones kissing up to David Shi, Minor Shaw, Hayne Hipp, George Fletcher, and company. That's a real stretch. At best those people tolerate having BJ in Greenville. As LINK said last year, BJU is a soggy blanket that is keeping young people and the party scene from coming to Greenville.

David Shi has never wanted anything to do with Bob Jones, and if you were around for the county council races last year you know that BJU and Hayne Hipp aren't exactly friends.

Vision 2025? I don't know how involved Dr. Bob has been, but it hardly promotes a socialism and a one-world government. Free trade is the opposite of socialism.

I don't think BJU is cozy with Eddie Dobson. Some years after he left BJU he apologized for some things he said about Dr. Bob, but I don't think he has ever been back to BJU. They regard him as too neo-evangelical.

Furman is anything but a Christian school. They made that point in a pretty strong way when they seceded from the SBC, essentially stealing their property from the convention. They are following the same path as Harvard and dozens of other schools that we would not label as Christian.

I see no problem going into that sort of pluralistic setting and preaching the gospel. (There was a lot of that in the book of Acts.) People who attended the event said that Dr. Bob gave a carefully prepared apologetic explanation of the gospel and was self-deprecatory in his communication. The Furman students responded well.

Paidagogos, we must distinguish between seeking approval and being loving in our communication with those we disagree with. Was it wrong for BJU to have a Democratic Governor on campus for Living Gallery, where he heard the gospel? Must we separate from Democrats and unsaved politicians, rather than seek to minister to them? By your definition, Bob Jones III is cozy with John McCain, because they spoke some polite words at a funeral on campus...even though they have major disagreements.

Where has BJU 'abandoned friends who stood by them in the heat of battle'? Do you think the interracial dating rule should still be in place, then?

I've lived in Greenvile for a long time and have seen the positive influence the school has had. That is part of why I chose to attend there. Certainly BJ has its pluses and minuses, like any school or church. BJ has been instrumental in opening my eyes to the power of the gospel in everday life (the believer's union with Christ), for which I am immensely grateful. This understanding has given me a greater desire to share the gospel with others.

I've been a student on and off in the last several years. I don't articulate BJU's view, but I hope that they see the light and adopt some of my views! If they won't listen to me, maybe Paul33. He's a little harsh, but has some good thoughts.

 

A couple of points of fact (while ignoring a lot of the speculative nonsense).

Paidogogus says: Furthermore, BJU’s coddling of dear Eddie has always been an enigma. BJU never coddled Ed Dobson. In fact, when Dobson went to work for Falwell there was a very public split that was apparently repaired somewhat only in the last 8 months or so.

He also said On the other hand, Rude told me thirty years ago that the reason he came to BJU for grad school was that DBTS was too Calvinistic for him. This is another point of clear and obvious error that demonstrates a lack of knowledge. There is no way that Rude would have said this 30 years ago. DBTS is only 28 years old (1976) and for Rude to have turned down the opportunity to go there thirty years ago would have truly been prophetic. Of course, DBTS never has had a PhD program.

These two examples are sufficient evidence to show that Paidogagos is talking past his knowledge. He certainly is not fairly representing the community involvement of BJU. Nor does he recognized hte difference between social involvement in the community and the compromise of the gospel. He tries to make a point out of "sharing the gospel" vs. "preaching the gospel." That, by any imegination is a stretch too far to be credible. My suspicion is that there are more students involved in weekly teaching and preaching ministries. He says less, but offers no facts to support it. There are certainly more involved in community functions, which has greatly improved the public perception of the university. A recent article in the Greenville Journal that I heard about talked of how BJU's influence in the community was changing hearts and minds about the school. My understanding that BJIII reached out strongly to help repair racial divisions. His appearance at Furman was an opportunity to present the position of the university on theological matters and BJIII rightly took it. That was not cooperation in any sense. He was not there to join with Furman but to present an opposing viewpoint to an educational forum. It would have been foolish not to take it. It is too bad that it was only recently that this happened. BUt is is not as unfortuante as the misguided statements of Paidogogos on these matters.

 

Larry, I have two suggestions for you:
1. Get your facts straight before challenging someone else.
2. Don’t read your ideas into someone else’s statements.

I was referring to something as an aside that probably had no place in this thread. I can see it as some esoteric BJU information that would not be easily understood outside BJU circles. I was wrong to bring it up. It would have been better left unsaid but since it was said, I will explain it. When Eddie was a student at BJU, he seemed to be highly favored by the Administration. He was BMOC. Students doubted that he was genuine and sincere even though he mouthed the standard BJU line. Many felt that he kissed up to the Administration. He was pampered and courted by the Administration.

When he joined Falwell, he still exploited his BJU connections. There may have been some bad feelings over some commitment or expected commitment—I really can’t remember so I won’t speculate. Some of this is from Eddie’s mouth as he bragged how Dr. Bob, III spoke at Lynchburg Baptist College and said that he couldn’t tell the difference between them and BJU. I think BJU may have been more than a little disappointed that he went with Falwell because they considered him their boy. IMHO, Dobson was an opportunist and BJU didn’t see through it until later. They had promoted and indulged him over more worthy and loyal guys.

I have not had contact or heard about him and BJU in several years. According to my last knowledge of Eddie, there is more reason today to separate from him than ever before. Is he still pasturing in MI? He has compromised most of the things that BJU has stood for. Yet, if they have been reconciled ………….? Has Eddie changed his views or has BJU changed their views?

This anecdote is true and I stand by it. I may not be accurate on the some unimportant details due to faulty memory. It may have 28 years ago instead of 30. Two years? Come on, give me a break! This is not bad for an old guy who has Alzheimer’s. Twenty-eight or thirty years have no bearing upon the veracity or the point of the story. Anyway, I was speaking in round figures as you will see below. I think you didn’t like my position and you’re grasping for straws to discredit me.

Here are the facts as I recall them:
1. My recollection is that it was 1972. It may have been during the summer, I don’t know. This was more than thirty (30) years ago. I was using rounded figures. Here are a couple of possible explanations:
a. I could be wrong about the date.
b. The seminary could have been in the planning stages. I do not know that it had actually opened. I do recall that it was very new.
c. They may have offered limited classes for a year or so before actually formally founding the school.
Somewhere in my files, I think that I have the original catalog (I kept it because I liked their doctrinal statement) that may solve this apparent discrepancy.
2. It was about the time or shortly after the closing of Weniger’s school in San Francisco. It seems that Rude had wanted to go to San Francisco Baptist Theological Seminary but it had closed. Some folks from San Francisco, perhaps the dean, had gone to Detroit. Terry seemed very interested in the new school but he chose BJU instead.
3. They were just beginning classes at Inter-City Baptist Church in Detroit. William Rice was pastor and president. The dean was an older guy named Brown and they had several young profs, perhaps with Dallas doctorates. Some of the people were from San Francisco Baptist Theological Seminary though, I think.
4. Rude was taking some undergrad Bible classes at BJU and preparing to work toward a M.Div. or M.A. I don’t believe I said that he was doing his Ph.D., which you wrongly assumed. So, I question how much you are assuming and reading into my posts. Physician heal thyself. Terry had graduated from a state school in Chico, CA, I believe, and he was getting up to speed on his Bible.
5. My discussion with Rude had piqued my interest so I sent for a catalog later.

On the contrary, it is you who has majored on a minor point (my apparent error in the time frame) and assumed things that I did not say. You did talk beyond your knowledge and demonstrated it perfectly. The intelligent reader can see that you have manufactured discrepancies to discredit me. It didn’t work because your supposed discrepancies, except for the fact that I will readily admit that my time frame may be off two years, are the result of what you assumed and read into my posts. Indeed, your “sufficient evidence” is insufficient and discredited.

Yes, I am. How do you know all the way from MI?

Yes, I do. I went to great lengths to explain it. I have no gripe with social involvement until it becomes our focus instead of evangelization. I said that, but you ignored it. I plainly said that it was a matter of emphasis. Read my words—emphasis.

Well, I pretty much repeated what Jay Adams said in his D.Min. class lectures on preaching. He took his ideas from Andrew Blackwood. So, I am not alone in this view. If they bought it at Westminster, then it must not be an extreme view in evangelical circles.

There is a difference in attitude and effect. Perhaps you don’t understand it or choose to ignore it. One connotates a soft-sell lifestyle type evangelism and the other a hard-hitting and authoritative proclamation of the Gospel. I am speaking of the evangelistic type of preaching done by Ron Comfort, Tom Farrell, Mike Pelletier, Jim Van Geldern, and others.

Call up Bruce McAllister and ask him for the figures. He keeps the records. Ask for a comparison with Dr. Stenholm’s records from say 1970.

Yep, that’s exactly my point. At least, there is a heightened awareness due to the PR efforts. It’s all about image and appearance. This is the new standard—a favorable community image. When image becomes the primary value, it leads to eventual compromise of a small standard here and there until you’ve given away the store. No evangelical school has been able to resist it. Can BJU? BJU lasted as long it has without compromise, when others were compromising, because they had a mindset to be different and resist seeking the world’s approval. Now, that is only a memory to which we pay lip service.

You heard wrong! Dr. Bob, III stuck his nose in where he was not wanted or need and polarized the flag issue and MLK day. People were coming together for a compromise when David Beasley and Dr. Bob, III got their faces on TV and their names in the newspapers with pious remarks that polarized everyone.

Dr. Bob, however, sold it to his folks as a great show of reasonableness, reconciliation and Christian testimony. Hogwash! It was media hype. The SCV and League of the South were getting ready to talk turkey until everyone tried to put their two cents worth in the fray.
Even the other side, the proponents of the MLK day, publicly admitted in the local papers that the heritage people were ready to reach an agreement until Jesse Jackson came to town. They, the black community, didn’t want Jesse back to mess it up again. David Beasley and Bob, III on the conservative side and Jesse Jackson on the other side did little to ease racial tensions. We can effectively argue that their actions increased the tensions. The only benefit was media attention for them.

Well, the SCV and LOS paid their political debt to David Beasley last year when they presided over his political demise. Jim DeMint is Senator DeMint today because the heritage groups decided to pull the plug on Beasley’s political future. BJU got its pay back from newly elected Greenville County Council member Tony Trout’s barbed comment about being finished with the BJU mentality in G’ville. I hope BJU feels comfortable with their new respectable friends.

Presented BJU’s position, huh? Not quite. I would hardly call it “an opposing viewpoint to an educational forum.” It was a religious topic in the Religion in Life Series sponsored by the Chaplain’s Office. At one time, BJU had a real problem with any Fundamentalist speaking under the auspices of an apostate group. Twenty years ago, they would have crucified Jerry Falwell, Jr. if he had spoken at Duke, Baylor, or Emory. Now, it’s okay that Dr. Bob, III is reaching out and speaking at Furman. They have either changed or violated their own professed principles. They claim not to have changed. Remember that these are the people who castigated and condemned others for what they are now doing. Can you commend and praise this?

It was foolish to take it. This either changed a principle that they claim not to have changed or they have hypocritically violated one of their principles. BJU once had a rigorous reputation for consistency. Now, they need to exercise consistency and clarify where they really are. From your view, I take it that you agree with the modern BJU rather than the traditional BJU.

BJU once talked a lot about the trumpet giving forth a clear and distinct sound. They argued that any form of cooperation or association that could be construed as endorsement must be avoided. What signal goes forth from Dr. Bob speaking at Furman? Does it not appear that BJU and Furman are now cooperating? Yes, the people in the community see it as such and the graduates are seeing Furman as okay. There are more things in the pipeline, I think. You’ll see cooperation in the arts, children’s programs, community projects, and so forth.

Furman is apostate, liberal, rotten, and steeped in unbelief. It was so when I was there over thirty years ago. Bob Schible, one of their star graduates and professors, told me that Furman changed his belief in a hereafter. He predicted that it would change mine too but he was wrong about me. However, I fear that he was accurate about others.

How have I been misguided? I apparently don’t share your value system. That doesn’t mean that I am misguided. It simply means that you haven’t come to grips with the fact that everyone will not see things your way. I am concerned about BJU and the trend I see. It is about a professed position versus the one they now practice. I, for one, believe in Biblical principles of separation from apostasy. I say BJU is changing. They say nay. Who is right? What do you say?

 

Larry,

After reading my rather lengthy response to your post, the gentlemanly thing is to admit you were wrong. I trust that you were not questioning my veracity, just my conclusions.

 

Your claims about Dr. Bob's efforts at racial reconciliation are far-fetched. Those who aren't from Greenville probably don't know what we are talking about. Here's some background.

Dr. Bob pushed for the confederate flag to be taken down from the SC statehouse because he felt it was an unnecessary offense to blacks in the state.

More recently when Greenville County Council was in a deadlock over whether to add a holiday honoring MLK, Dr. Bob promoted a compromise (GASP) where the county would adopt a holiday celebrating civil rights but not MLK specifically. In both cases, Dr. Bob did not polarize issues, he tried to diffuse them. I'm no politico, so I will leave it to others to judge whether his suggestions were good ones.

 

Well, it sure made the heritage groups fighting mad and determined not to give up. It wiped out any thought of compromise. The effect was polarization. They resented his sticking his nose into the business.

BTW, I thought you had suggested earlier that BJU was withdrawing from politics. There items are very political.

BTW, are you active in G'ville politics or do you just believe what you read in the G'ville News?

 

Paid,

If your comments about Dobson were referring to his time on campus, that is fine. That wasn't the impression you gave about it. In the years after, Dobson was wrong to work for Falwell. His church in Grand Rapids is certainly to the left of where I think it should be. However, my understanding is that the personal issues between Dobson and BJIII were smoothed over, not the ecclesiastical ones. I don't know the entire extent of it.

As for Rude and DBTS, your comment, as it stood, was inaccurate. If you meant "about thirty years ago" then perhaps that is what you should have said. Or perhaps you should have just said you can't remember the exact dates. My point about DBTS not having a PhD was just an aside. It had nothing to do wiht the conversation really.

Sharing vs. preaching is a dumb distinction. Typically preaching or proclaiming is done in the pulpit. Sharing is usually used one on one. And that is a good and valid distinction.

The PR efforts have not changed hte substance of the university. You are simply misguided on that. You seem to think that in order to be faithful or uncompromising you have to be a jerk. That is simply. BJU needed to enhance its public image. They seem to have done that well, from what I can tell.

The Furman class was another great example of you just being wrong. He was asked to present a viewpoint to an educational forum. That is not compromise. He was not participating in ministry with them, or endorsing their view. He was telling them why he believes what he believes.

You say you don't share my value system. I don't know ... I don't know enough about yours to know. I do know that you seem willing to shade things a certain way to come to a conclusion. I certainly don't share that value.

That's good. So does BJU and they have taken a lot of heat for it. They do not practice it to the extent that I do, but that is a matter of application.

They are changing to be sure, but all change is not compromise. On these issues here, you are wrong. You may be right on other issues. But you are wrong on these.

 

Why do I see an apparent internal contradiction here? It would appear that you take me to task for minor mistake that had little or no bearing on the point as a whole but you offhandly brush away a faux pax that you made. No, you were questioning my credibility based on the fact that DBTS had no Ph.D. program. When I simply noted that I had not said that, you brushed it aside as unimportant. Now, sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

Yes, I was inaccurate with the thirty years ago statement but it’s easily explained and understood. Whether it was twenty-eight or thirty years is not germane to the major point. The point was that DBTS was too Calvinistic for Rude at that time. Therefore, Rude was not strongly Calvinistic when he started BJU.

If I had given it a moment’s consideration, I would have said “about thirty years ago.” On the other hand, I didn’t realize my word choice was to be scrutinized under the microscope. It doesn’t matter. I’ll take the blame. I was mistaken—I was wrong. I could argue from significant figures that thirty is a round figure and can mean anything from twenty-six to thirty-four years. But, that sounds too much like an excuse and I hate excuses. I was wrong.

In the same vein, you were wrong about the Ph.D. and you excused it. Are you man enough to say that you were wrong?

 

</font>[/QUOTE]So, you say. Perhaps you need to be more observant about people and the way they use these words. There are those who do not believe in preaching against sin. They take the approach of winning people to Christ through love alone. Others preach hard against sin to the conviction of the sinner and then offer hope through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Those who speak of sharing the good news tend toward the view of loving people into the kingdom.

No, I cannot see your distinction as convincing. Sharing is often used as synonymous with preaching.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Drivel. This is a simplistic view. What image did they hope to achieve? Is it commendable to seek a politically correct image? I rather liked their old-fashioned image of forthrightness, integrity, clean-cut figure, stand for righteousness at all costs and distain for worldly approval. Now, they desire the community’s acclaim (i.e. world’s approval). Was BJU a jerk before they new image? What’s your opinion? Your statement seems to imply that you saw them as a bunch of jerks before they improved their image.

There are enemies of BJU who lost respect for them when the media-blitz began. They plainly said it. Although many people did not agree with BJU on most things, they respected their integrity, consistency, and forthright stand. Now, they say nice things around the BJU folks but they scorn them behind their backs. It is true their image ranking on the cool scale has gone up but their status on the respect scale has plummeted.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]You made a faux pas about the Ph.D. thing, so what makes you sure of this? How do you know?