Maranatha Baptist University and Answers in Genesis Establish New Collaboration

I find it interesting that people complain that BJU has drifted. One recent outcry related to the "drift" conversation was the recent Conference at BJU led by Ken Ham. The same people who complain about BJU drifting have stated that there are better alternatives today, like MBU.

Now, you have MBU partnering with AIG, presumably a much closer alliance with Ken Ham than Ken Ham speaking at a chapel series.

I wonder where people stand now? By the way, I agree BJU has drifted.

Ken Ham has spoken at BJU before. I am somewhat cautious about him, but I do accept that this type of ministry has inroads to conservative churches outside the fundamentalist orbit. We've used some AiG speakers in the past and likely will do so again. But it isn't exactly the same as cooperative evangelism.

The complaint, as I see it, about the recent conference, though, was more about the other participant, Owen Strachan, who is a leading Southern Baptist and not aligned with the traditional BJU position.

Now... was it a terrible thing? Maybe not in the long run, but it does raise questions when traditional lines are crossed. One wonders what it means.

I don't know enough about the Maranatha decision to comment. (And no one is waiting for me to either...)

Don,

I don't know much about Owen. What is he not aligned to when it comes to the traditional BJU position.

Here is his wikipedia entry:

Owen Strachan - Wikipedia

I would say the non-alignment is mainly his Southern Baptist/evangelical connections. That doesn't mean he's automatically persona non grata, but the traditional BJU position would regard a connection with him cautiously.

In the past, such men might be cited, their works (writings) used and recommended, but personal appearances would not be on the cards.

I don't have any "dirt" on him, wouldn't think that there is any.

My only point is that the anxiety expressed at the Ham/Strachan event on campus was more because of Strachan than Ham.

I think the BJU crowd needs to stop distancing from people solely based on a Southern Baptist connection. It is a carryover from the 1970's when liberal influence invaded the Southern Baptist Convention. I have been in two Southern Baptist Churches. Currently a member at one. I would say my current church is just as conservative in its theology as anything I was taught at Bob Jones. Membership is more restrictive and intentional than anything I have ever been exposed to in fundamentalism. The concern that I have with this fear of Southern Baptist or anyone outside of a fundamentalist circle, despite the actual beliefs and practices of the individual, is that it dwindles the scope so narrow that the student body is left with exposure to subpar community of individuals.

Lets be 100% honest here. Despite where we all stand on fundamentalism, we can all agree the quality of the "bench" has been rapidly diminishing. The quality, tenure, standing, credentials of those we were exposed to in fundamentalism in the 1990's was far superior than it is today. We still have those from the 1990's, but they are rapidly aging out and the new "blood" coming in is not super great. In addition, the number of institutions in fundamentalism is rapidly dwindling. This is the challenge at BJU. The number of fundamentalist Christian Schools and Churches are not producing the volume needed to support a large university like BJU. We had the depth in the 1990's where we could be highly selective for who talked to the students. But there isn't a ton left. I am not saying we should compromise, but I think it is going to be a challenge in the future, if we cannot even consider a Southern Baptist who is speaking about the Bible and Science from speaking, solely on the basic historical concerns and not on actual concerns.

First, I’m not saying that SBC connections by themselves create some kind of line we must not cross. I’m just saying that the connections raise questions about the appropriateness of inviting the guy to speak. If it was me, I wouldn’t, but I only speak for me.

Second, I think you badly misunderestimate the men in leadership among the non-KJV fundamentalists

Third, how many Christians must come from a fundamentalist orbit to be trained at a place like BJU (or Maranatha, Faith, or International, etc)? I didn’t. When Bruce gave his acceptance speech he mentioned the many kids that are out there, pointedly mentioning public schools (like where I came from). I think there are lots of Christians who are sick of the direction of evangelicalism (most of it) and want something better. The idea that we have to cater to the whims of weaker Christianity is not a leadership idea. It’s a tail wags the dog idea. Christians need to stand for the faith in their churches and schools

The concerns were also with Ken Ham. This was the same concern that many of the FBFI board brought up to Dr. Steve Petit on March 24, 2017 in Charlotte. They were concerned with his association with Ken Ham and the extension given to him to speak at Bible Conference. Seven years later under a new administration aligned to allay the concerns of the FBFI, they also brought Ken Ham to speak. This again created the same noise from the same circles as it did in 2017.

I compared the men in leadership today to not be of the same caliber as we have had in the past. Not to say there were not any great leaders. Many of the young leaders in fundamentalism from the late 1990's and on have left this circle. Example in point is the new president of G3 Ministries, who was heavily invested in the BJU and DBTS circles in the earlier years. I also think that grouping the everything outside of fundamentalism under a broad evangelical umbrella is no different than grouping all of fundamentalists (KJV and non-KJVO) under a single umbrella. There are many who have left the FBFI circle because of the disdain for secondary separation or the disdain for the judgement, but from a theology and doctrine perspective have not left this circle.

I think BJU is getting to a point where it is becoming unsustainable. They are in a position with a lack of backbone and leadership and are thus swinging in the wind to appease the concerns of people who probably have less impact on the institution than they realize. I know that Crockett got a lot of heat for Ken Ham specifically speaking to the students. And so it swings in the wind of noise. Yet Marantha, a school that many who complain about BJU say that BJU should look more like, didn't invite Ken to just come and speak, but instead are now in ministerial cooperation with him. And so BJU continues to creep into the corner of irrelevance as a vocal minority who provide no funding and no students to the school appear to be able to pressure those who don't have a clear vision or direction for the school. BJU would not partner with someone like AiG or anyone else, because in the end, their is noise coming from partnering with anyone.

Actually quite the opposite. As long as the Lord tarries, I think fundamentalists will be fine, whatever institutions are more or less aligned with our views