Bob Jones University: Epicenter of Fundamentalism’s Future

For ninety five years, Bob Jones University has been the fortress of fundamentalism. Unlike many institutions that started strong and abandoned orthodoxy, BJU has stayed the course. During its storied history, it has weathered its share of storms and controversy (many self-inflicted). It has long been considered the chief fundamentalist institution, combining a broad liberal arts study with an all encompassing Christian worldview. Fundamentalist churches all across the world are pastored by Bob Jones graduates. As Bob Jones University goes, so goes fundamentalism. 
Right now, a controversy over the future of both Bob Jones University and fundamentalism is raging. That fight centers on the presidency of Steve Pettit.  Will he stay or will he go? 

Part of the fight centers on this basic question: what, exactly, is fundamentalism?

When can you accurately call diverse groups like Mormons, Muslims, and Christians, fundamentalist, you have a problem of terminology. To further complicate things Christian fundamentalism is fractured, having different streams that are best represented by their institutions: Hyles-Anderson Fundamentalism, West Coast Fundamentalism, Pensacola Christian CollegeMaranatha Baptist University Fundamentalism, and Bob Jones University Fundamentalism. Those institutions--the churches, clergy, and laity they represent--while all claiming to be fundamentalist are different in convictions and practice.  Clearly, Christian Fundamentalism is difficult to define. At its root, fundamentalism is taking the faith seriously—actually believing what you believe is true

Bob Jones University history professor, Mark Sidwell writes this simple, helpful definition of Christian fundamentalism:

Fundamentalism is the belief that (1) there are certain truths so essential to Christianity that they cannot be denied without destroying Christianity and (2) these essentials are the basis of Christian fellowship.1

To be a fundamentalist, then, is holding fast to the essentials of the Christian faith, and fellowshipping with those who do. To not be a fundamentalist is to not hold to the essentials of the Christian faith or to fellowship with those who deny those essentials.

Examination of historic fundamentalism’s writing demonstrates this definition. The early 1900s essays The Fundamentals contain ninety essays defending Christian orthodoxy. Among those volumes of essays are articles on Christ’s deity, the incarnation, Biblical inerrancy, the truth of creation, criticisms of higher criticism, the truth of justification by faith, and the nature of regeneration.  The Bob Jones University Creed (1927), which is still recited in chapel, is a glimpse into the ethos of historic fundamentalism:

I believe in the inspiration of the Bible (both the Old and the New Testaments); the creation of man by the direct act of God; the incarnation and virgin birth of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ; His identification as the Son of God; His vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind by the shedding of His blood on the cross; the resurrection of His body from the tomb; His power to save men from sin; the new birth through the regeneration by the Holy Spirit; and the gift of eternal life by the grace of God. 

What is clear is that historic fundamentalism was concerned with preserving true Christianity against the onslaught of liberalism. Fundamentalism was about fighting for orthodox Christianity against the soul damning religion of liberalism. Written in the heat of the Fundamentalist Modernist Controversy, J. Gresham Machen in his classic work Christianity and Liberalism makes this helpful clarification:

Liberalism is totally different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism on the other hand is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men.2

Machen’s entire point in the book is that liberalism is not a different expression of Christianity, but a different religion all together. Historic Fundamentalism was about fighting that fight against this alternative religion of liberalism.  Historic fundamentalism was about contending for the faith. Historic fundamentalism was about preserving orthodoxy and separating from heretics. Historic fundamentalism was about protecting the sheep and fighting off the wolves. 

Somewhere along the way that changed. When fundamentalists lost churches, denominations, and institutions, the fundamentalist’s fight went from battling liberalism to battling each other. It was here that personal conviction was promoted to universal dogma. Second tier issues and individual matters of conscience became fundamental issues.

And this brings us to Bob Jones University, Steve Pettit and the controversy brewing at 1700 Wade Hampton Boulevard. As documented here a minority (5/17) of the Board of Trustees are intent on removing Steve Pettit from serving as the president of the university. Because of some shady maneuvering, they have the power to do so.

In recent years, the Fundamental Foundations Baptist Fellowship International has been increasingly critical of BJU (see here, here and here). And it would seem that the FBFI is at the center of the board’s desire to remove Pettit. 

This year, a letter from BJU Chancellor and FBFI Board Emeritus, Bob Jones III, described this last year with Pettit at the helm this way: "some embarrassing, antithetical things, historically uncharacteristic things, which would have never happened in the past have occurred." Near the end of the letter, Jones describes himself as deeply involved in protecting the university from "the seepage of religious or cultural compromises."

Former BJU professor David Beale in recently published, Christian Fundamentalism in America: The Story of the Rest from 1857-2020 writes:

After being the premier Fundamentalist academic institution for eighty-seven years, BJU elected Dr. Steve Pettit in 2014, as the president who steered the University out of separatist Fundamentalism into the inclusive, broad Evangelical movement.3

The broad Evangelical movement? Are we talking Harold Okenga and Billy Graham? Joyce Meyer and Joel Osteen? Bill Johnson and Steven Furtick? Is BJU now having Bethel Music come for Artist Series? 

Earlier, Beale defines broad evangelicalism as “an Evangelicalism committed to regaining respectability in the eyes of the religious world, even if that meant joining liberals in ecumenical campaigns.”4  

Steve Pettit drove Bob Jones University to partner with theological liberals? No, those closer associations that Steve Pettit and Sam Horn steered BJU towards are participating with groups like the PCAIFCA and the conservative evangelicalism typified by the likes of Albert Mohler and John MacArthur. 

It would be disingenuous to label Mohler and MacArthur as broad evangelicals when for years they have exemplified doctrinal militancy and convictional separation far better than many fundamentalists. While fundamentalists argued about using translations other than the King James Version, Mohler battled and banned liberals from his seminary who denied biblical inerrancy. While fundamentalists bickered over alcohol, syncopated music, facial hair on men and pants on women, MacArthur fought against real threats against the Gospel: easy believism’s free grace theology, charismatic chaos, and social justice. Before Christianity Today made it cool, MacArthur was publicly criticizing Mark Driscoll and separating from John Piper who at that time refused to separate from Driscoll. In recent years, distance has grown between Mohler and MacArthur over associations with woke social justice advocates. Far from being representative of New Evangelicalism or Broad Evangelicalism, or being liberals, men like John MacArthur are true heirs of historic fundamentalism.

Not only is Beale's description inaccurate, it is deeply problematic,  revealing one of the dangerous dichotomies in fundamentalist thinking:  there are fundamentalists and there are new evangelicals. The fundamentalists are faithful Christians and the new evangelicals are compromising liberals. You are one or you are the other. Almost no one outside (and many inside) the fundamentalist fold categorizes Christianity this way. The Christian landscape is far more complicated than that.

Unfortunately, this kind of thinking has long characterized Bob Jones University. From an asinine battle over interracial dating that led to national embarrassment, to attacking John MacArthur over the blood of Jesus, to a draconian rule book that led to the expulsion of many students who should have been discipled, not shipped; BJU has fought the wrong fights. 

Over time, all this needless fighting caught up to them. I was there when enrollment, as well as morale, was on a steep decline. During my time at BJU (2007-2015), FMA went from being completely full, to the balcony being closed off and the entire student body and faculty sitting on the main floor. Things were not looking good for BJU.

Which is why, when Steve Pettit was announced as president in 2014, there was renewed hope and optimism for the future of our alma mater. The progress begun under Stephen Jones (I ♡ SJU) was furthered under Pettit. Regional Accreditation was achieved, rules were relaxed, inner-collegiate sports returned, political platforming ceased, community relationships commenced,  financial and enrollment hemorrhaging stopped. 

All seemed well until October of this year, when the FBFI’s coup through the BJU Board went public. Why does Pettit need to be removed? He has taken the university into a liberal drift. What is that liberal drift? Music and associations. That music is stuff like the Gettys, Sovereign Grace, and City Alight. Those associations are with conservative evangelicals. 

Music and associations are not liberalism. Theologically sound music and associating with conservative Christians will not undermine the faith—which is what fundamentalism was all about.  Historic fundamentalism was far more broad than the fundamentalism’s current landscape: loads of IFB’s sprinkled with occasional FPCNA’s. Historic fundamentalists understood that liberalism was not a matter of personal convictions and preferences, but a matter of being a different religion altogether. 

Liberalism is not drinking alcohol as a Christian. Liberalism is not using the NASB or ESV. Liberalism is not having drums and guitars in worship music. Liberalism is not partnering with other conservative evangelicals. All of those issues are personal preferences and convictions elevated to doctrinal dogma. Elevating secondary issues to primary and calling those who do not conform a liberal or a compromiser has characterized deformed fundamentalism for decades. It is this kind of thinking that very well may take down Bob Jones University. 

BJU has a constituency problem. Fundamentalist churches all across the country are withering and the pool of prospective students is shrinking. There are simply not enough students to sustain the university. BJU’s survival is dependent upon broadening itself to orthodox, conservative, evangelical churches. If five people on the board remove Pettit and return to the school to 80s and 90s fundamentalism it will be the death knell. 

Bob Jones University is the epicenter of fundamentalism’s future. Who will ultimately triumph will determine not only the future of a university but will be indicative of the broader, hundred year fundamentalist movement as well. 

For years, Bob Jones University made the bed that fundamentalism’s fight is the battleground of personal conviction. Time will tell if the World’s Most Unusual University will have to sleep in that bed.


1 Mark Sidwell, Set Apart: The Nature & Importance of Biblical Separation (Greenville, SC: Journeyforth Academic, 2016), 86. 

 2 J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, New Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 67.

3David Beale, Christian Fundamentalism in America: The Story of the Rest from 1857-2020 (Maitland, FL: Xulon Press, 2021), 530. 

4Ibid, 6.


  1. I've seen no actual proof that there was a rule change to a 2/3 majority by the board on Oct. 4. Other sources are contradicting the claim made in that open letter. How can we know for sure that that even really happened?

    1. The bylaws specified 2/3 majority to hire a president and 2/3 majority to fire a president. They were unclear on renewing a contract. The October vote confirmed a 2/3 majority to renew a contract, thus giving control of the presidency to a 1/3 minority of the board.

  2. Excellent article. It should be noted that if BJU goes(which seems likely), TMU and/or Boyce will be the fundamentalist epicenters as they are broader evangelical hubs that hold historic fundamentalist positions. My guess would be Boyce due to the cost of going to TMU.

    1. "Boyce"? Which Boyce? Could you please give his whole name? Also, "TMU." Thanks!

  3. Regardless of one's view about Dr. Pettit, it would be extremely unwise for ANY institution (college, church, or company) to install or renew the contract of a leader who could not obtain two-thirds vote of the governing body. Also, remember the majority of the board (that includes a number of board members who support Dr. Pettit's contract renewal) voted for the two-thirds rule. A wise decision, I believe, on their part.

    1. Actually unwise to allow 1/3 minority to remove a sitting president, wreaking potential chaos. Which is what requiring 2/3 to renew effectively does. Best practices (as best I know) is 2/3 to install, simple le majority to renew.

  4. 1/3 of 17 members is almost 6. Five us not a third of 17. Am I correct?

    1. Dr. Pettit is one of those 17 and excluded from voting on the matter of his own contract renewal. That makes a required 11 of 6, which they do not seem to have if 5 are staunchly opposed.

    2. Correction: 11 of 16

  5. Interesting article. Well worth reading. Rather ironic though that some of the people who denounce BJU for being judgemental are VERY judgemental in doing so. Such is the case here - a [very] judgemental article about BJU's judgemental actions. Again, well worth reading; but, the element of hypocrisy cannot be overlooked.

    1. Friend you have a problem with accepting basic facts here. You don't like the facts and the reality that BJU and the minority band of militant fundies have brought shame and reproach on themselves and the school they serve. Face the music and resolve to not be like them.

    2. Christ didn't prohibit judgment per se, for He cautioned His listeners to "judge righteous judgment," that is, to judge righteously and fairly. What He did prohibit was criticism for criticism's sake and hypocrisy in judgment.

  6. Replies
    1. Um. In spite of what is stated in this very judgemental article, I am grateful for the outstanding education I received at BJU. Delighted that I learned the importance of self-discipline there and was taught that excellence should be our goal in both our lives and work. We should do all to the glory of God! Sorry that the author chose to spend most of his time being critical and little of it being appreciative of the impact this institution has had on the work of Christ.

    2. To the one calling the article “judgmental”, it sounds like you think the author is ungrateful for his education. But what of the actual content of the article do you disagree with? Do you think he is wrong about the history of fundamentalism?

  7. Some serious inaccuracies in this article. For example, the author says the issue is whether or not to remove Dr. Pettit. No, it is whether or not the governing body chooses to extend his contract. Corporate boards and college boards of trustees do this every day. Furthermore, it appears the writer in intent on villifying anyone who disagrees with him.

    1. I don’t follow- what is the board doing exactly, if they vote NOT to renew his contract? Will he then have the opportunity to stay? You’re playing a semantics game, but they are the exact same thing.

  8. Obviously within any Christian organization there will be problems because all men are sinful and fallible....As a 1999 graduate from BJU, I am extremely thankful for my entire experience there during those years albeit some would say there was too much legalism during that time. I applaud the necessary changes made since 2014. These 5 board members are underestimating the popularity of Pettit and the significance of his leading the school away from legalism while staying completely true to Sola Scriptura and Solus Christus. These 5 board members will ultimately have egg on their faces if they choose not to renew his contract.

  9. You are giving up your birthright for a mess of pottage. Shameful.

  10. Excellent article......written to easily explain and understand truth of Fundamentalism. How it has developed over the years.
    I am certainly not seeing anything " judgemental " in this article.

  11. I love the spirit of this article. It accurately differentiates between the fundamentalism of the early 20th century with the fundamentalism of the last 50 years. The latter fundamentalists would separate from the former had they been contemporaries. I disagree with the opening statement - "as BJU goes, so goes fundamentalism." That is pure hogwash. It's quite the other way around. BJU's hope for survival is rooted in its ability to maintain its fiery commitment to its Creed and biblical worldview, but jettison its unholy addiction to cultural Christianity. And as you correctly point out, BJU is only one brand of ~many~ in the fundamentalist subculture. So, BJU is not central HQ of fundamentalism in any way. Rather, she must carve a new path -- bravely taking the oldest elements of orthodox Christianity with them but making more room for people whose convictions do not always align. Pettit was the right step in that direction, but in classic BJU fashion, the old guard is intent on burning the house down. Irrational zealots who disagree with you do not make good bedfellows. I see smoke rising in Greenville, and not seeing a rush to put the flames out.

  12. I can see from your article that you’re content with the school’s recent associations with Al Mohler and John MacArthur. Both men hold to a determinist soteriology, something the seminary now promotes. One of the distinctives of BJU for decades was that it did not hold to a deterministic soteriology. We can certainly debate whether Calvinism is biblical or not. What we cannot debate is that the soteriology has crept into BJU Press and the Seminary as “official” teaching. It’s no longer academically “taught” or discussed as “good men disagreeing.” It’s now dogma.

    The seminary is not in good shape or “just as fundamental as it has always been.” In my time there, we had 1,100+ enrolled in the school of religion alone. That number has dropped to an average of 200 to include graduate and post graduate studies. It’s time to stop turning a blind eye. God is not sending his preachers and missionaries in significant numbers to BJU. And that greatly concerns me. I love and admire Dr. Pettit. I do not love or admire his soteriology. But in fairness, that drift began long before he arrived.

    “As Bob Jones goes, so goes fundamentalism.” I would add to that “… and as the BJU Seminary goes, so goes BJU.”

  13. Coming from a family that has taught and worked for the University since before Bob III was born in Cleveland, TN, my perspective is that change at the University has been desperately necessary since the 50s or before; the pharisaism and legalism that was so heinous still exists and is rotting the University from the core. When the current Dean of Women, Deneen Lawson, can make the statement "there is always the homeless shelter downtown," there is a heart of darkness controlling where the light of Christ has never shined. The change that we saw under Pettit was not near enough and left the core problem in place.

    Each person commenting herein has their own experience and knowledge of the University and its actions, reasons, and positions. To attempt to dismiss or denigrate - as the University often does publicly from the pulpit - another individual because their experiences are decidedly different from yours is wrong. Your feelings and experiences do not make the experience of someone else disappear or any less valid. Calling someone who is making a claim "bitter" is literally a tool the clinical narcissist uses to cover his own bad and illegal behavior and actions and to direct attention to and shine a light on the person who has been wronged and to make them seem psychologically unbalanced (or unsaved as the school might put it.) The next time Bob III, Jim Berg, or this new young one calls someone “bitter” you can be 100% certain the University did wrong, they know it, it could have dire consequences, is probably illegal, and they are trying to defuse the situation by having you look somewhere else.

    Many of my family members were born on the Greenville campus. I loved living there; it was all I knew. Rainy weekends were spent going through old Vintages and Academians. I could not wait to go to the opera every year and loved watching Shakespeare come to life; I would imagine myself as Puck or Hamlet.

    Those who grew up on the campus knew all the administrators and they knew us by name. Miss Holmes always had a lollypop in her pocket to give out. Listening to Mrs. Edwards, Mrs. Panosian and Mrs. Harris tell stories and watching Zeta Chi play, ahem, beat Omega for the Turkey Bowl (Go tornadoes!) are things that will forever be missed. The red barn back campus was fun to sneak into. And the mansion on the hill with the Doberman pincers in the back yard was always mysterious yet fun to trick or treat at. Visiting Miss Riley and Miss Baker was a treat because we got to try out all of those couches and see which one was the most comfortable. Dr. and Mrs. Liverman were regular guests in our home and played games with my parents after we were put to bed. It was very hard for me to imagine the mean things folks said happened in the Dean of Men's office or the Dean of Women's office.

    1. The ballfield was a playground - though my first memory of the ballfield was as a 3- or 4-year-old child transitioning from diapers to big-kid underwear. The neighborhood kids, whom I can still name, promised me a chocolate bar if I would take off my training underwear and run across the ballfield to the water oak in the middle and run back. I had to promise not to look behind me as I ran out. When I got to the tree and turned to run back, the kids were, of course, gone. Then, when I was six, there was the student with dark red hair down the road who was several years older than me that had me put my hand in their pants. To this day I can vividly remember the smell I could not wash off with Lava soap. The number of similar stories I can tell are legion. And do not think any of the parents of the kids involved in bullying were ever understanding when approached. The silence from the administration was and is deafening.

      There is not enough space here to talk about the child with a neurodevelopmental problem that was denied treatment because the BJ elementary school teacher whose class the child was put in did not "believe in" the problem. To this day the University denies the existence of the problem despite the overwhelming research and evidence that is now available. Let's forget the fact the University disregarded the medical decision parents made about their child.

      There is one in my family whom Dr. Bob Jr. condemned and refused to pray for after my family member's cancer diagnosis because my family member refused the pain medication prescribed. They wanted to stay clear-headed to commune with family, teach their children, and pass on family stories and traditions before their death. Another family member who had been on faculty for more than 40 years was unceremoniously and in violation of both state and federal law "retired" because they turned 65. Did I forget to mention the fact that a relative of an administrator wanted that position and is still in that position today well beyond their 65th birthday? The University has done the same or similar with countless other faithful faculty who will not condemn or sue because of their misplaced loyalty - the University’s actions prove they are obviously not loyal to the faculty and staff.


  14. The University's constant, consistent, open violations of medical privacy laws on both the state and federal levels both pre- and post-HIPAA is mind-blowing. (Yes, there were medical privacy laws LONG before HIPAA.) From staff physicians sending the Administration diagnoses given to students and faculty which indicate what the administration would term "sin" to the hospital on campus sending Bob III a list of students in the hospital and the reason they are there daily are all Illegal!

    Then there is the faculty member who was close to the end of their life and on life support. The University’s physician wanted to end life support, but the family was not ready and said no. Despite this decision, the University’s physician turned off life support when the family left for the night. A nurse saw what happened and was able to restore life support before it was too late. The nurse was fired for insubordination; the physician was placed on the Board of Trustees. What happened to "It's never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right" and "Do right! Even if the stars fall, do right?"

    Violating the law is violating the law. One does not get a pass because their last name is Jones, Berg, or Trump. As the University reminded us in the rule book and at every opportunity possible, not knowing the rules (or the law) is not an excuse or defense to breaking the rules (or the law!) The very thing Jim Berg said to G.R.A.C.E. to excuse his breaking the law. Jim would do well to remember and understand this principle as he is want to violate HIPAA with impunity when he obtains the medical records of graduates without their permission who have not been affiliated with the University for 10 years or more. He distributes the records to large numbers of people and places them in the graduate's permanent school record. And let’s not forget the lies both Bob III and Jim Berg told G.R.A.C.E. and are documented in the report.

    When subpoenaed, the University has removed and destroyed evidence they placed in students records that should not have been in the records to begin with. This regular practice IS illegal despite what the University's lawyer told them.

    These are just a very few of the morally questionable, ethically problematic, and patently illegal activities of the University that have been confirmed and proven. Unfortunately, they have not gone before a judge. There is a HUGE sin problem at the school. The GRACE report very wisely identified the source and core of the sin problem and recommended its elimination. Of course, the University has chosen to ignore the recommendation and has even elevated the primary part of the problem.

    Be sure your sins WILL find you out ..... to the third and fourth generation.
    YOU ARE that man.
    But your necks are hardened beyond remedy.


Post a Comment