I have published three articles addressing the pending, but uncertain contract renewal of BJU president Steve Pettit. They are in chronological order:
While we await the decision of the board of trustees let's talk about open letters, petitioners and the board.
Open Letters & Petitioning
I have read all of the open letters and articles I'm aware of. These are passionate appeals for the renewal of Pettit’s contract. They cite accreditation, tax exempt status and financial stability as compelling reasons to renew his contract. The business community would naturally applaud such accomplishments.
What I don't recall is any serious discussion let alone mention of the
blasphemous fashion show Pettit's faculty and department heads allowed for. Entangling BJU students with
Franklin Graham's ecumenical movement is brushed aside.
A Midsummer Summer Night's Dream is passed over as if nothing to see here. The announcement of then sudden cancelation of NFL
QB Trevor Lawrence keynote speaking for the Bruins Athletic Club 10th anniversary essentially flies under the radar. The open letter and petition crowd do not acknowledge any of these things as vital components for consideration in the contract renewal discussion.
They suggest the controversy is merely over, "preferences of Christian practice," such as dress codes, "questionable performances and musical selections." As one man observed,
"Why is it that the least of all concerns (dress standards) is the one so many are harping on? Dress standards have changed for various reasons from one generation to the next (I dare say that through the nine decades of the university's history, changes have taken place concerning dress standards). Biblical truth does not change."
In the open letters and petition comments I sense an underlying theme: subtle revulsion of fidelity to the best of personal holiness we can hope to instill into our young people. A friend who doesn't want to speak publicly at present and asked me not to name him said,
"Some are labeling carnality as spirituality just because they enjoy it and want to cast it in positive language. Such lying would be the devil’s way, indeed. And he would also lie about serious-minded holiness and call it legalism. A world in which both God and Satan are strongly at work is a complicated world indeed!"
At stake is whether or not Pettit will be allowed another three years to steer young people away from the best practices of sanctified living through a balanced biblical separatism. Since his arrival Pettit has incrementally transformed the school into a mill for molding students into non-separatist, compromised evangelicals.
As one friend sees it,
"The efforts of Dr. Pettit to move toward evangelicalism and away from the university's separatist, fundamentalist foundation, mooring are now almost legion. And no one who commends Dr. Pettit's actions cares to actually address the serious compromise. I believe they know that they are indefensible, so they instead, create straw men about rather inconsequential issues like dress standards and then defend Dr. Pettit on these issues."
Pettit and his administration prioritize a business model with greater concern for cultural relativism than fidelity to the whole counsel of God, giving God and His Word the benefit of the doubt and preeminence. Another BJU alumni observes, "The changes are a function of...primary forces. One of these is pressure to adapt to cultural viewpoints in order to maintain student population and to provide needed funds...."
Open letter and petition signers fail to recognize church/college history is replete with examples of accommodating the worlds culture in moderation eventually leads to extremes. Liberty University and Cedarville didn't become what they are now overnight. Slowly and incrementally the founding principles were chipped away at until what was meant to be moderation opened the door to the extremes. The pattern was true for other schools that instead of becoming new evangelical like Liberty and Cedarville, ultimately closed their doors. See,
Why These Schools Collapsed & What Does it Mean for BJU?
"Why did Clearwater close, Northland close, Pillsbury close, Calvary Baptist Seminary close, Tennessee Temple close…. why did they fall, what happened and what can we learn?"
"Every failed school veered from its conservative and historic base to accommodate a new base…and each time it was the death knell of the school."
Steve Pettit and his administration are following the same pattern that led to new evangelicalism or closure. Only naive thinking would conclude "veer[ing] from its conservative and historic base" won't yield one of the two disastrous results.
In one of the open letters the writer posits the potential for legal action if Pettit's contract is not renewed. He raises raises the specter of "legal action...or incoming suits" if Pettit is not retained? How does that square with 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, love for BJU and the brethren?
Now let's talk about...
The Board of Trustees
A board of directors or trustees serve in similar capacities. A board of trustees is similar to a board of directors but is more commonly found in private organizations. Such is the case with BJU. I think the BJU board has some crossover responsibilities as directors and trustees. A board is charged with hiring the president, directing, overseeing and assessing the organizations strategy, maintaining certain standards, principles and practices. The president or CEO is responsible to and serves at the pleasure of the board. The board can hire, dictate to and/or fire the organization's president at will.
Why might a board appear to be a dictatorship? It's because directors dictate to, set and maintain the overall direction of the organization. If a board believes the president is taking the organization in a contrary direction the board can admonish, make demands of or if all else fails terminate the president.
The board of Apple fired Steve Jobs (1985) Later rehired Jobs (1997).The board of Papa John's fired "Papa" John Schnatter (2018). The BJU board is and will act within its capacity and according to its mandate.
If we read the Scriptural principles of how we are to respond to authority, outside forces wouldn't be trying to undermine or intimidate these men whom God has given the position of trustee. (Romans 13:1-4; Ephesians 6:5-8; Hebrews 13:17.)
Another quote from my friend above added,
"If necessary, I would rather see the school close gracefully than to see an extremely ugly conflict blot the name of Christ. The spiritual failure I've been concerned about in recent years is that of the faculty and administration who might take the school seriously leftward. Now I am contemplating the possibility of spiritual failure by the whole constituency, or some significant faction(s) of it, whose conduct could perhaps prove highly unbecoming of the gospel."
Instead of veiled threats of legal action, ginning up public outrage and political pressure wouldn't the best choice be praying for all involved among the administration and board to seek the mind of God and follow their conscience as the Holy Spirit guides?
Pray that each of the principals involved be like little Samuel. That they might die to self and in a humble spirit say "Speak [Lord], for thy servant heareth." (1 Samuel 3:9-10)
Yours faithfully,
LM
Related Reading
"The anecdotal argument, then, is that when a school abandons its core positions—separation, music, standards, associations, conservative theology the base notices and they withdraw support because they were trained to do so by the institutions that have now betrayed them."
