Steve Pettit's Tenure at BJU in Question
 |
Word has been circulating that Dr. Steve Pettit may not be retained as president of BJU. What we know is that his contract is up for a three year renewal and its renewal is not automatic. There is an effort by supporters of Pettit to pressure the Executive Committee (EC) and Board of Trustees (BoT) to retain him as president. An online petition was posted yesterday seeking signatures to support retaining Pettit. It states,
Our president is under evaluation for a renewal of his contract in the coming months. It is vital for the student body, faculty, and any others to show their support for Dr. Steve Pettit.
The college president works at the pleasure of the board. The people pushing for him to stay are pushing against the school's ultimate authority. Worse yet, they are doing it in a public forum, which is against the principles of 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 and fails to consider the lessons taught when the people of Israel murmured against Moses.
Many believe Steve Pettit's relentless effort to erase the school's fundamentalist, separatist legacy demands his removal. Many egregious examples can be accessed below.
Pray for the EC and BoT. They will be targeted to capitulate to mob like pressure.
LM
Proceed to: IFCA Meddling in the Affairs of BJU
Related Reading:
FACTS: An Enlarged Discussion By Dr. David Beale
Steve Pettit Issues a Statement: Is There Nothing More to See Here?
BJU Embraces Franklin Graham's Ecumenical Movement
"Cooperating with Franklin Graham was an act of sinful disobedience to the Word of God. It is an example of ecumenical encroachment at BJU that was heartily endorsed by Steve Pettit."
BJU Lurches Further Into Evangelicalism
BJU Subtle Rejection of Ecclesiastical Separation: Is This Northland All Over Again?
"This is Not Your Father's Oldsmobile," and Neither is BJU
With all due respect, Dr. Pettit inherited a failing college. Enrollment was tanking and the school had a poor image among high school students. Rules are important in any institution, but people (especially this generation of young people) will not blindly follow rules for the sake of the rules. They want to know why and rightfully so. Women wearing pants are generally more modest than most skirts/dresses today. I have two daughters who are strong Christians and dress modestly, it is difficult to find modest skirts and dresses at the store. Why must they wear dresses or skirts if the rule is in place to keep young women modest? I understand that there is concern of liberal drift, and I think that must be kept in check, but Dr. Pettit is doing a good job of balancing reasonable rules with spiritual growth. People wanting to revert BJU back to the 1960's is not going to happen. That society doesn't exist anymore. We have way too many BIG issues to fight (abortion, transgenderism, homosexuality, abuse, etc.) than to worry about a few rule changes. We become Pharisaical if we think otherwise. My prayer is that if there are concerns, let's address them as a Christian community with a love for BJU and its ministry. We cannot have a secretive, hidden agenda takeover of our beloved school. If not I am afraid we will be simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that the least of all concerns (dress standards) is the one everyone is harping on? Dress standards have changed for various reasons from one generation to the next (I dare say that through the 9 decades of the university's history, changes have taken place concerning dress standards). Biblical truth does not change. 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, they create straw men about rather inconsequential issues like dress standards and then defend Dr. Pettit on these issues.
DeleteThanks for that penetrating comment. Most of the voices in support of Pettit reflect a shallow and/or uniformed understanding of the real crux of his presidency.
DeletePart 1
DeleteAbove you wrote, "Enrollment was tanking and the school had a poor image among high school students."
1) I believe the Scriptures teach us that God has always been in the remnant business. Gideon's 300, David's band in the cave of Adullam, the Apostles huddled in the upper room. God does not need a large(r) student population at BJU to accomplish His plan for the Great Commission and His church. A BJU of 100 students, led by a faculty and administration totally sold out to God, would advance the cause of Christ across the world far better than 5,000 indifferent believers.
2) "Poor image." Have you considered that increasing numbers of high school students have been influenced by and are moving closer to the world's anti-God culture? Considered high school students who come from a church and/or home environment that knows or teaches little of the biblical principles of separation? We see Pettit and his administration pandering to that kind of student. It doesn't have to be solely a BJU, but any college trying to hold the line for personal holiness would conjure a "poor image" among those high school students.
This is not about returning the school to a 60's like rules environment. This is not necessarily a pants on women issue, which I believe is among the very least of the genuine concerns with Pettit's remaking the university. Among, but not limited to the most recent and grave concerns lie with the: Fashion Show, Franklin Graham ecumenical movement, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Herb McCarthy, QB Trevor Lawrence.
I have read several of the open letters. I don't recall in any of them even the mention of the blasphemous fashion show Pettit's faculty and department head and administration approved. Entangling BJU with Franklin Graham's ecumenical movement is brushed aside. A Midsummer Summer Night's Dream is dismissed as if nothing to see here.
I see in the open letters and petition comments an underlying theme of revulsion of fidelity to the best we can be in personal holiness for God's glory. 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!"
Whether or not Pettit is going to be allowed to continue steering the school away from biblical separation is paramount. He is irrefutably transforming the school into a mill for churning out non-separatist evangelicals. Pettit and his administration demonstrate a deepening concern with cultural relativism than fidelity to the Scriptures, giving God and His Word the benefit of the doubt and the preeminence.
Have you considered the board may give him certain directives in a narrow focus, with a time frame to act on them, and if he commits to follow the directives he stays?
You wrote, "...let's address them as a Christian community with a love for BJU and its ministry."
Are you aware In one open letter the author raises the specter, which can be interpreted as a veiled threat of "legal action...or incoming suits" if Pettit is not retained? How does that square with 1 Cor. 6 and "love for BJU?"
See Part 2
LM
Part 2
DeleteYou wrote, "We cannot have a secretive, hidden agenda takeover of our beloved school. "
Whatever we hear about board meetings is published by outside persons citing anonymous sources. I believe board meeting details, unless expressly meant to be for public consumption, should remain within the walls of the board meeting room. Leaks violate trust and confidentiality. Pettit and his administration, on the other hand, have an open agenda to take over "our beloved school" and erase virtually every trace of its fundamentalist, separatist legacy.
I close with another quote from my friend above who 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."
And if I may add to that: I'd rather see BJU close than continue on the trajectory Pettit has put it on. The school is already half way to becoming the next Liberty, Cedarville or Wheaton.
Here's an excerpt from a related article, "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." [Pillsbury, TTU, Clearwater, Northland, Calvary Seminary] See-
ReplyDeletehttps://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2020/06/why-these-schools-collapsed-what-does.html
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAn anonymous person submitted a follow up to his earlier submission, which I answered at length. As site publisher I decide what I will appear. I have, therefore, excerpted portions and am addressing them in turn. Beginning with,
ReplyDelete"To your argument about the fundamental issues of Dr. Pettit, how dare he help box up small shoeboxes with Samaritan's Purse and send them around the world. Let's just give the children nothing instead."
Have you read my article addressing Pettit's entangling BJU with Franklin Graham's ecumenical movement?
http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2021/12/bob-jones-university-embraces-franklin.html?m=1
Graham, like his father, cooperates with disobedient brethren, unbelievers and apostate denominations. The Bible expressly forbids that. Pettit personally engineered the project to raise money and involve his student body with Graham. Sending boxes to children could have been done through other channels like GFA missionaries. Instead, Pettit through this cooperative effort with Graham gave tacit endorsement of ecumenical compromise in the minds of impressionable students.
Next excerpt,
ReplyDelete"Also, your comment that you would rather see BJU close is a BIG problem. If God did establish BJU (which I believe He did), then we need to be praying to see what His will is...not ours. You obviously have not been to Liberty or other secular colleges lately. BJU is NOTHING like those institutions, and I don't believe Dr. Pettit will allow it go to those extremes."
What you fail to recognize is church/college history is replete with examples of what is allowed for in moderation can eventually be taken to extremes. Liberty and Cedarvile didn't become what they are now overnight. The changes were at first in moderation. Slowly and incrementally, however, the founding principles were chipped away at until what was meant to be moderation only opened the door to the extremes. Pettit and his administration are following the same pattern. Only naive thinking would conclude the same disastrous results won't follow.
A favorite chapel saying of Dr. Bob Jones, Sr was: “Don’t sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate.”
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/BXub5hfLE6w
Start listening around the 2:00 minute mark. It is Bob Jones Sr’s challenge on rules and standards.
My anonymous friend and virtually every creator of and signer to the open letters and petitions demonstrate little grasp of separation and sanctification.
Pettit and his administration will bear the responsibility for any failure of BJU. He and his leadership chose to “sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate."
LM