FBFI warns of BJU "change of policy regarding the separation"

Oh man I predict this thread to be huge. The PCA one surprises me since BJU is non-denominational. What exactly are they objecting to here? Perhaps a lack of separation in the PCA? Don?

I keep telling people that BJU’s core demographic is shifting/has shifted. One only needs to read the threads here on SI to get a small sample of that. Twenty years ago, would self-proclaimed fundamentalists (many of them pastors) have publicly said the things that they say in the music and alcohol threads here? Cultural fundamentalism as most of us know it has shrunk and many of the churches and Christian schools that made up BJU’s base have either disappeared, shrunk, or are running slightly ahead of BJU with changes. BJU has to make a decision: continue to keep the “old guard” happy or remain viable. It appears (has for a while) that the school has already made their decision.

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe that “remain viable” is purely pragmatic. I happen to be pleased with the direction the school is headed and am curious to see how God continues to use BJU in the future for His glory.

Can’t everyone just leave BJU alone? I feel sorry for the leadership team; everything they do is met with suspicion, imputation of sinister motives, and allegations of compromise.

With Josh, I’m guessing that the issue FBFI has with both is secondary separation. People in the SBC and PCA are not into secondary/tertiary/etc. separation, so despite doing a lot of things that are fully orthodox theologically, the FBFI sees the need to separate. Or perhaps one of them has waffled on those cultural fundamental issues John mentions. Whatever. I’m just at a point right now where I don’t see the need to separate over these, and quite frankly I see it as not just stupid, but approaching wicked.

If this distances BJU from the FBF that would be a good thing. IMO BJ has become more biblically balanced. And it’s a university. You expose students to the experts. Maybe BJ would invite FBF members if there were any experts in the field.

Geiger is with Harvest USA, a ministry to people struggling with sexual sin, which was started by James Boice to minister to gay prostitutes in the neighborhood of Tenth Presbyterian, Philadelphia.

I’ve gone to their one day meeting offered to families with loved ones practicing homosexuality.

I don’t know of another ministry with as much experience and knowledge as they have.

The issue is that vague type of secondary separation that entails separation from other Christians that is an essential to a certain segment of fundamentalism. Neither of these men is a liberal or apostate and, as far as I know, have no partnerships with apostates.

The FBFI continues its willful journey into insignificance and isolation while appearing to claim that they are the true remnant. (BTW, if they look at their membership/subscribers they’re going to have to start separating from themselves to be consistent.)

BTW, I still have good friends in the FBFI whom I cherish as brothers who don’t separate from me because I attended T4G and Weekenders at Capitol Hill Baptist Church. One of them even recommended CHBC to me when I needed what they have.

Interesting to note the SI headline. Jay characterized this as an “attack” on our Facebook post.

Where is the warning? Where is the attack? I would characterize this as an observation, neither a warning or an attack. The fact that the subject matter calls for some expertise is acknowledged, but clearly the use of speakers who are outside of BJU’s historic “orbit” with no disclaimer of any kind seems to be a change in past policy. No change to that policy has been announced, so that makes the item news worthy.

It does put a question out in the open. Is there a change in policy? I, for one, would like to know. I suppose some others would also. Is this a question that should only be raised behind closed doors? Are we happy with the “old boys club” method of dealing with issues of the past?

Since it is a public event, I think it is worth noting in the way we have. I also anticipated the caterwauling from the usual suspects here. You have not disappointed. You all are predictable in a Pavlovian sort of way.

I suppose you could read Kevin’s comment as a mere observation. I didn’t take it that way, initially. I don’t think many other folks will, either …