During the time of religious revival post-WWII, these two branches of fundamentalism split into what we call modern fundamentalism and new evangelicalism. The new evangelicals saw their position as keeping the baby while draining the bathwater. The fundamentalists thought the old denominations irreversibly corrupted.

Thus it is ironic that these two camps have mutated and now seem to have switched positions. I attend a church in Philadelphia that has been described by the pastor as “fundagelical.” In other words, it attempts to split the difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism, though in all honesty the accent belongs on the second half of the word. Indeed, among self-declared fundamentalists there is a growing movement called “Young Fundamentalism” that seeks to counter the more radical fringes of fundamentalism. The (as of yet) implicit point of distinction between young, conservative evangelicals and young fundamentalists is similar to that which historically separated fundamentalism from new evangelicalism, but with one key difference: they have switched sides.

Conservative evangelical emigrés leave fundamentalism because they think it unsalvageably marked by legalism and isolationism; they must leave for happier (and often, more Reformed) climes. Young fundamentalists, on the other hand, argue that fundamentalism is worth saving. To leave the movement now would be to eject the good along with the bad; better to stay fundamentalists and purge it from within.

Dr. Hendershot began the article with a piece of correspondence to Carl McIntire from an anonymous listener of his radio show, The Twentieth Century Reformation Hour.

500 years ago Moses said, “Pack your camel, pick up your shovel, mount your ass, and I shall lead you to the Promised land.” 500 years later, F.D. Roosevelt said, “Lay down your shovel, sit on your ass, light up a Camel, this is the promised land.” Today, Nixon will tax your shovel, sell your camel, kick your ass, and tell you there is no promised land.

P.S. I am glad that I am an American, I am glad that I am free, but I wish I were a little doggy and Nixon were a tree.

The guide proposed that having an “Established Church” [my words, not hers] strengthened PCC. Since all Pensacola students hear the same message on any given Sunday, they have more in common to discuss afterwards. They can share their excitement with one another in a way that would not be possible if the students attended a plurality of churches. Several of the parents of prospective students in our tour group nodded sagely in agreement. I was tempted to ask another question, but with one ankle already hobbled I couldn’t take another blow from my wife.

Pensacola’s methodological strength stems from the way they market their school’s product to concerned parents. If you want your son or daughter to be a pre-Trib, pre-Mill, independent Fundamental Baptist (by immersion of course), who is not influenced by Calvinism or Charismaticism, then send them to PCC. The school offers homogeneity among their graduates. I have no idea whether they are successful, but that is the vision proffered. This is the aspect of Pensacola that changed my understanding of how Bob Jones University should present itself.

BJU also offers a product by telling parents that their kids will one day be graduates defined by ideals like “excellence” and “balance.” Parents are assured that Bob Jones is committed to the Fundamentals of the Faith, hence the oft-repeated request for the school’s alumni to shut down the school if it compromises, but the ideal graduate is not typically defined by one particular theological position.

From its inception Bob Jones was non-denominational, an approach which encouraged theological diversity. Faculty, staff, and students during the Bob Jones College era came from a wide range of denominations. The resulting diversity mandated a big tent approach to Fundamental orthodoxy. During a time when most Fundamentalists were dispensationalists and many attended new schools being founded in the Baptist tradition, Bob Jones embraced an inclusive creed; there is no mention of eschatology or mode of baptism, just a basic list of orthodox doctrines.

Today the faculty and student body at BJ are more monolithic than they were a generation or two ago; the large majority of students come from independent Baptist churches and most probably attend Baptist churches after they graduate. Still, Bob Jones alumni are as likely to end up Presbyterian as Baptist. (One of my father’s undergraduate roommates, and a groomsman at his wedding, came to Bob Jones University from a rural eastern North Carolina home with Free Will Baptist influences but is today a BJU professor attending a Presbyterian church.)

Bob Jones is a marketplace of orthodox ideas. I know that many Bob Jones students feel stifled, but issues like mode of Baptism, polity, and church structure are open to discussion. Interaction with peers who hold to different orthodox interpretations of Scripture is valuable. Diversity may promote understanding and soften radicalism. The marketplace encourages students to evaluate their own beliefs rather than blindly following tradition. Relative diversity of opinion is the strength of Bob Jones University.

So what could Bob Jones learn by comparison to Pensacola? Rather than promoting itself as the enforcer of homogeneity, BJU could portray itself as a marketplace of orthodoxy, aiming for unity, but not uniformity. There is a concrete change that would signal such a shift. Currently, Bob Jones University requires most students, faculty, and staff to attend the morning service on Sundays in the FMA on campus. There are interesting, and tangential, historical reasons for the current system, but suffice it to say that times have changed from when Bob Jones first moved to Greenville. Today there is a robust network of several dozen Fundamentalist churches that faculty, staff, and students are encouraged to join. On any given Sunday evening thousands of students are listening to preaching in dozens of different local churches. Also, these churches often sponsor outreach ministries that give students opportunities for evangelism.

Unfortunately the current mandatory Sunday service works at cross purposes to the stated goal of vital involvement in local churches. The administration realized this at some point in the past and relaxed the requirements for faculty and staff attendance. BJU’s own promotional material says Bob Jones is “local church” minded. They could make that statement even more accurate by dropping the required attendance at the on campus Sunday morning service. A hybrid system could be adopted that continues to mandate church attendance, but does not stipulate attendance at the BJ morning service. Each Sunday morning the dorms would be cleared, students with access to transportation could go to their chosen local church, and students without transportation could attend a smaller morning service in Rodeheaver Auditorium or Stratton Hall.

Abolishing mandatory Sunday morning services at BJU would send a positive message to Greenville area churches: “We want our students to treat your church just like they treated their church back home.” Students might even find more accountability in a local church context when attending 33 to 50 percent more often. At a minimum, abolishing the half established, half local system would make the distinction between Bob Jones and Pensacola even clearer. One school is aiming for uniformity of belief, the other embraces unity in diversity.

When we drove off the campus of Pensacola after our tour, I thanked God for the ways in which He has used Pensacola Christian College, to my chagrin the first time I had ever thought to do so. The Hortons’ business acumen has allowed Pensacola to offer very affordable tuition rates, thus enabling kids to go to college who might otherwise have been unable to afford it. The school has very good relations with the community and uses its extensive recreational facilities for outreach during the summers. There are many aspects of PCC that I disagree with, and even cringe at, but God has used Pensacola to serve a segment of the body of Christ for His glory.

Growing up as a faculty/staff child at BJU, Pensacola was equal parts bogeyman and comic relief, the bastion of all things King James Only (capitalization not optional). I was a teenager when PCC distributed a video attacking Bob Jones as “the leaven of Fundamentalism” because the BJ Bible faculty promoted versions of the Bible not based exclusively on the same manuscripts as the King James Version. Indeed, my childhood pastor, Dr. Stewart Custer, was the epicenter of that woe-begotten lump. PCC did prove useful for a typical conversational gambit: “Sure, Bob Jones is strict/hard/etc…, but compared to PCC…[meaningful pause accompanied by weighty glance].”

As we drove on to the campus, Jes sternly forbade me from asking any provocative questions. I obeyed, kinda. I’ll provide several general impressions of the school and finish at a later date with my conclusion about what Bob Jones could learn from PCC.

The tour took several hours and highlighted all the major facilities, including the library, gym, classroom buildings, dormitories, fine arts center, and church. Of course the tour guide, a former PCC ministry team leader, took pains to show us the nicest dorm rooms and finest classrooms on campus. Frankly, the facilities were awesome; all the money that poured in from selling home-schooling curriculum was well spent. In thirty years the school’s facilities went from almost nothing to a campus infrastructure that often surpasses the “World’s Most Unusual University.”

From historical plaques around campus I gather that Pensacola initially received cues from Bob Jones, not surprising considering the ties between the Hortons, who founded PCC, and BJU. PCC had an annual Turkey Bowl, a Mission Prayer Band, and Greek letter societies. But today it seems that the situation is reversed with Bob Jones playing catch up. Pensacola builds a new gym in the mid 90s and Bob Jones does the same a decade later. Pensacola cashes in on paperback textbooks, so Bob Jones bets on HomeSat. I don’t find this unhealthy; competition encourages innovation.

Pensacola and Bob Jones do have cultural differences. Compare and contrast the Pensacola and Bob Jones promotional videos. Bob Jones spends far more time highlighting the fine arts, such as opera productions and Shakespearian plays, than does Pensacola. The music produced at PCC has much in common with good ol’ Southern Gospel, while Bob Jones prefers high-church compositions. Bob Jones just built a downtown satellite for their art gallery, the largest collection of Baroque religious art in the Western Hemisphere. Pensacola is spending millions constructing Fundamentalism’s largest wave pool.

[Allow me to take a moment to say that I do not believe that God distinguishes between high and low culture when deciding what pleases Him.]

The historical displays in both schools’ libraries symbolize the contrast between high and low culture. On one of the upper floors at Pensacola is a sentimental mockup of a one-room schoolhouse, complete with bell and 19th century books. On the first floor of Mack Library at Bob Jones is a replica of the room inside Westminster Abbey where translators worked on an updated English version of the Bible in 1611.

The multi-image presentation was interesting because a large portion (if memory serves me it was about a third) of the film was dedicated to the recitation of the central beliefs of Pensacola Christian College. In contrast to the creed of Bob Jones University, the Pensacola affirmation is more specific and includes a number of denominational distinctives. Significantly, any talk of the King James Version was omitted in the presentation. Actually at no point in the tour was the KJV mentioned. The website does say “it is our practice to use only the Authorized Version (KJV) in the pulpit and in classroom instruction. We believe the Textus Receptus is a superior text, and it is used for Greek instruction.” But this is a far cry from denouncing fellow Fundamentalists for heresy.

This post is long enough already, so I’ll hold my conclusions for part two.

Those within the Anglican church who are sympathetic to Gene Robinson’s cause tend to be theological liberals who disbelieve in the inerrancy of Scripture. These Anglican liberals tend also to be from wealthier portions of the developed world, sometimes referred to as the Global North. They are typically Caucasian.

Those within Anglicanism who are uncomfortable with homosexual clergy tend to be theological conservatives who ascribe to the inerrancy of Scripture. These Anglican conservatives are mostly from the developing world, often called the Global South. They are mostly African, Indian, and Asian. There are exceptions among both groups, but the generalization is viable.

A group of around 250 conservative bishops held an alternative conference in June called GAFCON.
Both sides have been lobbing grenades at one another. The conservatives accuse the liberals of heresy and the liberals attack the conservatives as being out of touch.

But contemporary liberals have had to soft-peddle their criticism, unlike in the grand old days of the 1910s and 1920s when the kid gloves came off. Guys like H.L. Mencken had a field day with Billy Sunday and the like; Fundamentalists were simply uneducated hicks in the South and Midwestern United States.

Anglican liberals today have to toe a careful line. They dislike Fundamentalism and would normally blast the Fundamentalists in question, native African conservatives. But like most liberals they have a strong sense of “White Guilt.” They believe that Western imperialism is largely responsible for Third World woes like poverty, corruption, and war. It is politically incorrect and frankly uncouth to accuse Africans of being the source of any problem (i.e. the support Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe received from Western liberals until very recently), so they have to find someone else to blame.

Aha! The Economist [July 26th 2008] discovered that blame can be assigned to “missionary work in Africa [that] was carried out by evangelicals who reflect a rather fundamentalist strain of British Christianity.” It wasn’t the poor Africans’ fault at all, but those evil British Fundamentalists!

Some African conservatives have cried foul. It is insulting for liberals to insinuate that Africans just believe what they were taught. No one likes to be accused of being passive, gullible, and simple. Men like Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda prefer to trace their heritage to native African revivals. Others decry attempts by the “western press” to villify African prelates. Indeed it can be argued that liberals are practicing a modern version of cultural imperialization. If Africans want to be taken seriously in liberal circles than they must make sure that their theology conforms to Western liberal ideals. Not particularly multicultural, eh?

Asimov was a great author not because of the excellence of his prose but because of the breadth of his vision. His Foundation series and invention of “psycho-history” is the ultimate historian’s fantasy. Asimov was a man of many gifts, a renaissance modernist; he was a biochemist, a signer of the Humanist Manifesto, as well as the author of over 400 books (including science texts, popular histories, and a guide to the Bible).

The collection of Asimov’s stories that I first came across was his I, Robot series (the plots of which are not to be confused with the Will Smith extravaganza that bears only occasional resemblance to the original stories). I enjoyed the “Three Laws of Robotics” and robo-psychologist Susan Calvin as a kid, but most of Asimov’s social commentary was way over my head. I just reread one of the stories titled Evidence when I stopped dead in my metaphorical tracks. Asimov provides a definition of Fundamentalism in this story that dates to 1946!

This inadvertent discovery amazed me. Let me give you some background. My advisor at Temple University, David Harrington Watt, has taken a leave from teaching this year to write a new academic work examining how Fundamentalism became defined as a “dangerous other.” His central thesis argues that the term Fundamentalism was defined not by self-described fundamentalists, nor even by their modernist foes.

Watt believes that our modern conception of Fundamentalism was shaped by secular intellectuals who describe Fundamentalism as a reaction against modernity. These intellectuals, including sociologist Talcott Parsons and historian Richard Hofstadter, defined modernity as progression towards a improved society as measured by the ideals of the European Enlightenment. Thus anyone opposed to scientific or social progress must be a Fundamentalist. Over time this definition turned Fundamentalism from a specific description of militantly orthodox American Protestantism into an ambiguous phrase used to describe global reactionary groups whether they be Islamic, Jewish, or even essentially areligious.

The interesting thing about Asimov’s story is that it was written before many of the works by intellectuals Watt was researching, a fact which could support his argument. So what does Asimov say?

Evidence uses robots as a metaphor for the improvement of mankind. The story describes a candidate for mayor who is accused of being an android, or life-like robot. When rumors are spread among the populace to that effect, the people begin to worry. Asimov describes it with these words

It was what the Fundamentalists were waiting for. They were not a political party; they made pretense to no formal religion. Essentially they were those who had not adapted themselves to what had once been called the Atomic Age, in the days when atoms were a novelty. Actually, they were the Simple-Lifers, hungering after a life, which to those who lived it had probably appeared not so Simple, and who had been, therefore, Simple-Lifers themselves.

Later the accused robot is advised that he is in danger: “Is there a threat of violence? The Fundamentalists threaten it, so I suppose there is, in a theoretical sense. But I really don’t expect it. The Fundies have no real power. They’re just the continuous irritant factor that might stir up a riot after a while.”

When the protagonist proposes giving a speech, he is told not to by his campaign staff: “Look, that mob has been organized by the Fundies. You won’t get a hearing. You’ll be stoned more likely.” Sure enough, a couple paragraphs later: “From the start the speech was not successful. It competed against the inchoate mob howl and the rhythmic cries of the Fundie claques that formed mob-islands within the mob.” At the end the mayor is revealed to the reader, though not the the people, as a robot by a robo-psychologist who makes the point that it is impossible to tell a robot from a really decent person.

As should be expected from a secular intellectual, Asimov’s Fundamentalists are reacting against Modernity, which is symbolized by opposition to progress, both scientific and social. His Fundamentalists are not American Protestants, indeed they aren’t particularly religious at all. Yet the Fundies form mobs that threaten to stone the opposition, a deft use of Biblical imagery by Asimov.

PS – I find it intensely ironic that Asimov may have coined the use of the slang “Fundies.” It is a logical shortening of the mouthful “Fundamentalism” and serves the double purpose of auditory trivialization. “Fundamentalist” sounds a whole lot more intimidating than “Fundie.” It amuses me that when I grew up at Bob Jones University, a bastion of Fundamentalism, the malcontents liked to use “Fundies” as a term of derision. Little did they know that they were imitating a famous atheist!

Peter Enns was educated at Messiah College (BA 1982), Westminster Theological Seminary (M.Div. 1989), and Harvard University (Ph.D. 1994). He has been teaching at Westminster since 1994 and was the editor of the Westminster Theological Journal for five years. Just after earning tenure at Westminster in 2005, he published Inspiration and Incarnation, which is at the heart of the current controversy. Dr. G. K. Beale’s review does better justice to the book than I can. Simply put, many orthodox scholars are critical of Enns’ integration of post-modernist perspectives into the doctrine of Scriptural inspiration. The fear is that a lowered view of inspiration leads to a disbelief in Biblical inerrancy.

The decision to suspend Peter Enns is conflicted:

1) While the President (Peter Lillback), the Chairman of the Board (Jack White), and a majority of the Board supported the decision, a third of the Board, including the Vice Chair (Peter Jansson), backed Peter Enns.

2) In Fall of 2007 the faculty of Westminster were asked if they supported Peter Enns’ position on inspiration. The majority of the faculty sided with Enns, voting 12-8 in his support.

Here is the central irony of Peter Enns being suspended from Westminster: a more “liberal” faculty, 20 of whom voted, has been overruled by a more “conservative” administration.

In the 1920s the 17 member faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary found itself in an awkward position. The faculty, led by J. Gresham Machen, was more conservative theologically than the Modernist-influenced Board of Trustees. As a result, in 1929 Machen and three other faculty members left Princeton to found Westminster Theological Seminary.

It is indubitably ironic that eighty years later Westminster now faces the inverse situation. The paralells aren’t exact, i.e. Machen left somewhat voluntarily whereas Enns hasn’t much say in the matter, but I find the comparison interesting.

I listened to the audio from a meeting on April 1st where the Administration answered student questions about the proceedings against Peter Enns. Several aspects of the dialogue stand out:

1) There are connections to the New Perspective on Paul controversy. President Lillback explicitly mentioned the 1982 dismissal of Norman Shepherd from the Westminster faculty. Shepherd’s work on covenental nomism was controversial enough then, but the ideas he espoused have grown into a major debate over the nature of the Pauline understanding of justification. Westminster recently encouraged the resignation of another faculty member, Steve Taylor, over the issue.

2) Enns was accused of “heterodoxy.” His lack of conformity to orthodox beliefs was not described as being Biblically unsound, rather his position was not found in accordance to the Westminster Confession. Many conservative evangelicals and moderate fundamentalists will undoubtably see the Enns case as evidence of a diminishing gap between the two movements, but this opinion is problematic since Enns’ dismissal is based on confessional separatism rather than in opposition to ecumenical cooperation. He has not been “Reformed enough,” which is different from not being “Evangelical enough.”

3) There is significant potential for continuing controversy. The studentbody was audibly perturbed and at least some of the students are markedly disatisfied with how the issue has been handled. One student remarked that he could not believe that such “bad fruit” could be produced by a “good tree.” When asked who would answer the questions of students who had been influenced by Enns, Chairman White said that the President and faculty would be responsible, a doubtful approach since a majority of the faculty supported Enns. Also, the President desired to take more time to discuss Enns’ beliefs than had been given 25 years prior to Shepherd. I wonder if it is possible that the prolonged dialogue has and/or will create more tension than just “ripping off the bandaid.”

The article that tipped me off about the whole situation provides a good summary, though the journalism is suspect in one area. At the beginning of the second page the author writes about Steve Taylor in such a way as to imply that Taylor is leaving the seminary in reaction to the decision on Enns rather than because of his adherence to the New Perspective on Paul.

I do not know enough about Enns to make a personal call on the matter, nor have I read the book. I first became aware of Enns when a dear friend mentioned his book to me in Janurary and proposed several questions about the orthodox doctrine of inspiration that I have also wondered about. So I don’t have an opinion about who is right or wrong and to what degree. I do feel kinda bad for innocently posting about the Church History program at Westminster last week while all this was being revealed…a bit like kicking a man while he’s down.

I hope you will join me in praying for our brethren at Westminster, that the Word of God will dwell richly in their hearts and school, and that both sides will appropriate God’s grace in this trial.

The participants gave a list of both positive and negative lessons they thought could be learned from Fundamentalism. A basic problem reared its ugly head and my debater background reacted; few of the participants ever offered a workable definition of Fundamentalism, with the exception of Mark Minnick.

All too often on blog forums Fundamentalism is variously defined as a system of things to do (i.e. conform to conservative standards in dress, music, etc…) or things not to do (i.e. don’t conform to worldly standards in…). Sometimes people, including excellent scholars like Mark Noll, George Marsden, and Joel Carpenter, emphasize the ideological streams that fed into Fundamentalism, like Revivalism, Dispensationalism, and Premillenarianism.

The problem with all these definitions is that they are mostly useless. There are Fundamentalists who have adopted standards typically associated with New Evangelicals and vice versa. There are Fundamentalists who ascribed to Covenant theology and were Postmillenialists. Both Evangelicals and Fundamentalists had 19th century Revivalist roots (the two Billys for example). These are what debaters call “non-unique definitions.” A discussion built on such definitions will range in clarity from confusing to chaotic…no real clash.

But Minnick proposes a core watershed question that divided Fundamentalism from New Evangelicalism: Should we cooperate with non-Evangelicals?

This definition is as coherent as it is functional.

Interestingly, in this 9Marks forum the conservative evangelicals tend to emphasis the appearance of Fundamentalism while the fundamentalists, like Minnick and Doran, prefer to cut down to the basic ideological question.

Here is a link to the forum on the 9Marks website: http://www.9marks.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526|CHID598014|CIID2396820,00.html

In Social Sources Richard argued that sectarianism within Christianity is caused by social, economic, and political pressures. For example, he pointed to Weber’s thesis about the Protestant work ethic in order to argue that the capitalist spirit aided the advance of Calvinism. Niebuhr also believed that socio-economic tensions contributed to a class division between “respectable” middle class churches, like the Lutherans and Calvinists, and lower class Anabaptists and Methodists.

Niebuhr applied his thesis to the fundamentalism of his generation. He proposed that Fundamentalism was principally a rural phenomenon that was reacting against “modern science and industrial civilization” and found its root in the agrarian populism of William Jennings Bryan. Modernists, centered among the urban bourgeois, embraced progress and enlightenment.

Niebuhr’s argument has a fatal flaw. He leaves no room for doctrine. According to his model, sectarianism is always socially explicable, a view that should have been alien to a lineal descendant of Martin Luther. Unsurprisingly Niebuhr called for a reunification of all Christian churches.

Also, Niebuhr’s acceptance of Beardian determinism is dated. Economic forces are insufficient by themselves to explain sectarianism. He thought that Fundamentalism arose as a result of depressed crop prices post-World War I, a view that completely ignores Fundamentalism’s ideological origins in the 19th century.

Of course, Richard saw Fundamentalism as a backward reaction to modern civilization. By 1937 it appeared reasonable to assume that Fundamentalism was a dying movement. Ironically a recent study by Pew shows that mainline Protestantism, which largely endorses the modernism espoused by Niebuhr, now has fewer adherents than modern Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism’s child.

Niebuhr’s choice of Bryan as the archetypal Fundamentalist proved inaccurate. In many ways Bryan was the exception rather than the rule. While Bryan was an agrarian populist, Fundamentalist leaders like Clarence Macartney, Gresham Machen, and J.R. Straton were urbanites.

Yet although Niebuhr’s central thesis and his definition of Fundamentalism are inadequate, some of his arguments are valid. I agree with him that much of what we do, and even some of what we believe, is a function of the culture in which we were raised. Let me define a peron’s culture as the sum of all their experiences and influences. My current beliefs and attitudes were shaped not only by the Bible, but by the middle class family I grew up in, the Fundamentalist school I attended, and the popular media I consumed. That holds true for the Church as a whole.

We like to think that everything we do has a Biblical basis and in spirit I agree. Yet the way in which Christians apply Biblical principles has changed drastically over time and between cultures. A few examples are pertinent: Why do some churches pass offering plates while others pass a bag or have a collection box? Why do some churches have choirs while others use worship leaders or stick to congregational singing only? Why are some pastors elected while others are appointed? Why do we baptize the way we do?

I am convinced that these differences, with the partial exception of baptism, are driven more by culture than by the Bible.

Before anybody starts chucking stones at me, let me hasten to affirm that the Bible is the source of all absolute truth. Yet often the way that Scriptural truth is expressed is influenced by the culture in which it acts. The interaction between absolute Biblical principle and contemporary culture is not inherently harmful, a position sometimes expressed by extreme separatists.

To illustrate this idea I would put forward the example of women wearing skirts or pants, an often tense debate within my Fundamentalist subculture. The Biblical principal of modesty is absolute. Women must glorify God with their dress and in doing so should dress in such a way that they are beyond reproach. The principle is of course sound, but who defines how modesty looks at any given point in time? Culture does, and as culture changes its definition the expression of that Biblical absolute changes with it. Thus my grandmother would not be caught dead in pants in public while my sister frequently indulges.

This argument is equally valid on both the individual micro- level as well as on the macro- Christianity level. For example, American churches tend to have a stronger executive role for pastors than do many Australian churches. That tendency is the result of cultural, not Biblical, differences.

I do not believe that the interaction between Biblical truth and culture is a debility. Rather I would argue that the flexibility of the Bible is one of Christianity’s greatest strengths. Other religions become dated because they have very specific guidelines (think Islam and burkhas or Mormonism and racism). These religions are often forced to drastically reinterpret their scriptures in order to change with the times. Yet Christianity maintains the essential message of the Gospel in a culturally transcendent way by relying on Spirit-guided principled living.

My role in Aida, a Romeo-Juliet retake set in pharaonic Egypt and written in the 19th century for the opening of the Suez Canal, was that of a ceremonial soldier for the Egyptian court. Apparently archeologists had recently discovered that Egyptian fashion sense dictated rainbow colored headgear and the equivalent of ancient miniskirts for the army. This outfit may have been sensible in a desert climate, but required substantial amounts of makeup to cover the pasty white legs and arms of a legion of pants wearing BJU-ans.

Some poor chump had to spend hours before every dress rehearsal and performance spraying dozens of extras with brown makup. Understandably a volunteer was hard to find. But when the time came for our makeup, there stood Stephen Jones, ready to serve us. After hours spraying us down he would take extra time to chat with us and impress us with his awesome Uno skills.

His willingness to do something unnoticed and clearly unpleasant made a strong impression on me. One of Dr. Bob Sr’s quotes comes to mind: “The most important light in the house is not the chandelier in the parlor. It’s that little back hall light that keeps you from breaking your neck when you go to the bathroom in the middle of the night.”

A single impression of another is insufficient to judge that person’s character. But every time I observed Stephen Jones, from the first time I met him in 7th grade until the day I graduated from college, confirmed a humble spirit often lacking in leadership. We as Americans typically elect, appoint, promote, or prefer leaders who get results, tell us what to do, and whom often have Type A personalities. Stephen Jones is not a Type A leader. Thankfully the Bob Jones hereditary monarchy has served the school well by allowing relatively stable transitions from one President to the next and some level of continuity. Stephen probably wouldn’t be President but for his last name, but I for one am glad God chose him to be a Jones.

Stephen does not seem to be the most outgoing person by nature, yet he constantly attempted to be a blessing to the students and staff he came in contact with, even going out of his way to speak at society prayer meetings and studentbody functions. Once again, that attitude indicates a man willing to set aside his personal preferences for the sake of others, an admirable leadership quality in any book.

Stephen’s humble spirit showed up in his preaching emphasis and style. Without dampening the fervor of his convictions, he typically avoided an “in your face” rhetoric. I was most impressed by Stephen’s committment to ardent orthodoxy and a humble tone during the weeks leading up to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Soulforce demonstration in Greenville. The week prior to the arrival of Soulforce, Stephen preached a series of messages in chapel discussing a Biblical approach to homosexuality in general and Soulforce specifically. Rather than simply blasting homosexuals with fire and brimstone, Stephen clearly laid out the Biblical case for monogamy and heterosexuality (his debate training in high school was apparent). He didn’t conclude by condemning their sin. His message was one of hope, that they would find Christ. He assigned each prayer group in the dorms a name and bio of a Soulforce member and instructions to pray nightly that Christ would show them their sin and need of a Savior. I also appreciated when Stephen emphasized that homosexuality should not be treated as some sort of special sin less deserving of forgiveness than any other “socially acceptable” sin (another post specifically on this topic is deserved). There was even a call for personal examination. Why should we be so quick to self-righteously condemn their sins while ignoring our own designer sins?

Another series of chapel messages by Stephen also hit home. He spent time in chapel outlining a major shift in the disciplinary system at Bob Jones. The difference was more one of changed emphasis rather than any change in outright belief. Simply put, the disciplinary system at BJU started to shift from a retributive toward a restorative philosophy. Rather than punishing someone for doing something wrong, a retributive concept, the Dean of Men and Women became more restoration focused.

For example, in the past many guys, including myself, were very afraid of getting in trouble for their struggles with lust. The impression, right or wrong, was that even guys who turned themselves in and asked for help would be in trouble and expelled. Stephen emphasized in his messages that the point of the disciplinary system at BJU was to encourage Christlike growth. If a student was willing to come for help with any sin problem than the Dean of Men would counsel, not cudgel. Stephen said that students would no longer be “in trouble” for asking for help. The rubber met the road when a close personal friend confessed his struggles with lust and pornography to the Dean of Men and he was given not a demerit slip, but an invitation for one-on-one weekly counseling with the Dean himself. Stephen Jones deserves at least some credit for that change in emphasis, perhaps a result of his years as a student in the dorms and also as a Dorm Supervisor.

In short, Stephen Jones is a credit to my alma mater and more significantly a credit to the cause of Christ. Stephen is no longer a “little back hall light,” but his humble spirit may make him a glorious chandelier.

PS – This little ode to Stephen that I have written is rather hagiographic…I’ve practically beatified the man. But before you request canonization and start veneration let me assure you that Stephen will probably make plenty of odious mistakes during his tenure at BJ. No one is perfect, not even a direct descendant of the Founder!

PPS – Here is the link to the sermons Stephen preached before the Soulforce protest: http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?currPage=2&keyword=Dr%2E%5EStephen%5EJones&SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&AudioOnly=false&SortBy=added