Bob Jones Dances With The Devil
By Chuck Baldwin
The Covenant News ~ October 19, 2007
The Washington Times carried an Associated Press report entitled, "Bob Jones III endorses Mitt Romney." Here are excerpts:
"Bob Jones III, chancellor of the Christian fundamentalist school named for his family, is endorsing Republican Mitt Romney for president.
"Romney's campaign confirmed Jones' endorsement today."
According to the report Jones told a Greenville, South Carolina newspaper that "supporting Romney is critical to make sure former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani doesn't win the GOP nomination and that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton doesn't win the election.
"'If it turns out to be Giuliani and Hillary, we've got two pro-choice candidates, and that would be a disaster,' Jones told The Greenville News for a story on its Web site today."
Jones also said, "As a Christian I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism. But I'm not voting for a preacher. I'm voting for a president. It boils down to who can best represent conservative American beliefs, not religious beliefs."
Bob Jones' endorsement of the former Massachusetts governor illustrates just how low the Religious Right will go in compromising bedrock principle for the sake of political expediency. Jones says he is supporting Romney so as to help defeat Rudy Giuliani. I very much want to see what Jones will do if and when Giuliani gets the Republican nomination. I would anticipate that he will continue to follow his current modus operandi and support Giuliani, because he would then say that Giuliani is the "lesser of two evils."
Why do I say that? Because Jones is already demonstrating that he will support one liberal over another liberal. Mitt Romney is not a conservative--not by any measure of the word. And I am confident that Bob Jones knows it.
Romney's entire political career has been built by catering to the eastern liberal establishment. That he is now attempting to remake himself into a conservative (and that Christian "leaders" are willing to assist this façade) is both laughable and detestable!
In his endorsement announcement, Jones said, "If it turns out to be a Giuliani and Hillary, we've got two pro-choice candidates, and that would be a disaster."
DUH!
Where has Bob Jones III been for the last two decades? Mitt Romney has been a consistent pro-abortion politician since entering public life. His track record is there for anyone who wants to examine it. Here are a few facts Dr. Bob should have looked at before he embarrassed himself and Bob Jones University with this stupidly naïve endorsement.
According to one well-researched account, "Mitt Romney has a long history of supporting pro-abortion candidates and causes, and aggressively sought the support and endorsement of groups such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Indeed, Romney is still listed today as a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a group supported by Billionaire leftist George Soros dedicated to shifting the GOP leftward on social issues such as abortion rights and stem cell research.
"Romney also has a history of assisting the careers of other prominent pro-abortion politicians. In the 1992 presidential race, Romney endorsed and voted for pro-abortion liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary and just three years ago endorsed and made a television ad for Democrat Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson, a former Planned Parenthood attorney.
"As Governor, he issued state proclamations honoring 'Right to Privacy Day' which until 2005, specifically referenced the Roe vs. Wade case.
"Romney repeatedly took extreme stances on abortion throughout his career and consistently made statements such as this one: 'I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it . . .'"
"There simply is no doubt that Romney was one of the most pro-abortion Republican office holders in the country."
See the full report here:
As to the issue of "gay rights," Mitt Romney's record is equally clear. He has consistently facilitated the radical homosexual agenda.
According to a World Net Daily report, "A website paid for and authorized by the Massachusetts Democratic Party has posted a picture of a flier reportedly passed out at a 2002 'gay pride' event by then-gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney expressing support for homosexual rights.
"The flier, on red paper, claims to have been paid for by 'the Romney for Governor Committee and Kerry Murphy Healey Committee' and reads, 'Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride Weekend.'"
See the full report here:
For Mitt Romney to now say that he "took every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" is just so much hooey, according to my good friend, Harvard law school graduate and founding dean of Regent University's law school, Herb Titus. Read the report here:
On the subject of gun control, Mitt Romney promised that he would not lift a finger to "chip away" at the gun laws in Massachusetts--a state that has some of the most draconian gun restrictions in the country. As recently as 2002, Mitt Romney said, "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them."
For the "skinny" on Mitt Romney's leftist anti-gun record, see the Gun Owners of America's report:
For a look at Romney's record on illegal immigration, read this:
Obviously, Mitt Romney is a chameleon who will say anything to anybody in order to get elected. He has flipped and flopped more than John Kerry ever dreamed about. Only an idiot would believe anything this man says. For a very revealing look at Romney's two-faced, double-talk, click here:
Thankfully, not everyone within the Religious Right has been duped by Mitt Romney. Janet Folger recently wrote the following about the chameleon.
"And then there's Mitt Romney, making a convenient flip from his ardent pro-abortion stance just in time to run for president. It just seems to me that if you really come to the realization that dismembering children is not good public policy, you'd remember not to FUND it with taxpayer dollars in your state health-care plan . . . after such a conversion. Oh yeah, suddenly he's pro-marriage, too. So why did Romney publicly beat up on pro-marriage activist Brian Camenker last month? It that's how he treats people on our side of the issue, that doesn't bode well for future White House relations. And finally, mandating that homosexual 'marriage licenses' be issued without any change in the law requiring it (in direct violation of the Massachusetts State Constitution) isn't very convincing, either."
Romney has not fooled World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah, either. Here is what Farah said about Mitt Romney:
"Don't be fooled by this political chameleon, this charlatan, this pretender to the throne. He's as phoney as a three-dollar campaign promise."
See Farah's complete column here.
Folks, here is the problem: Christian leaders such as Bob Jones III have succumbed to the temptation to become glorified politicians. They surrendered their convictions thirty years ago when the old Moral Majority married the Republican Party. Ever since then, Republican politicians have made a living by making dupes out of the so-called Religious Right.
There is another problem: our so-called Christian "leaders" crave attention. They desire notoriety. They are obsessed with having access to power. They want a seat at the king's table. As a result, they are willing to believe the lies being told them by shrewd and cunning frauds--as long as they are Republicans, of course. As Doc Holliday said in the movie Tombstone, "My hypocrisy only goes so far."
Accordingly, our Christian "leaders" will never promote a man's candidacy on principle alone. They want to pick a "winner." They want to be on the good side of the last guy standing--even if that guy is a no-good, compromising louse.
In addition, there is yet another problem: for the most part, our illustrious Christian "leaders" are willfully ignorant of the importance of constitutional government. They either don't understand it, or don't want to understand it. Whatever the reason, issues such as national independence and sovereignty and globalism do not even show up on their radar. I'm not sure they have even read the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If they have, they sure don't act like it.
Dr. Bob apparently does not realize that when our President takes his oath of office, he does not promise to "represent conservative American beliefs." Instead, he promises to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I wonder, too, if Dr. Bob has ever heard of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). Has he ever heard of the NAFTA superhighway? Does he have a clue about the globalist agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations? Does he even realize that there is a burgeoning North American Union developing? I doubt it. I further doubt that he has read Dr. Jerry Corsi's book "The Late Great USA."
Find it here:
In his endorsement of Mitt Romney, Dr. Bob Jones III also said, "This is all about beating Hillary." Oh, really?
Since when does a preacher of the Gospel and Christian educator put electing charlatans (of any political party) ahead of standing for truth and doing right? And this leads to another problem.
Our Christian "leaders" have forgotten what it means to stand on principle. They have gotten so bogged down in politics that they have forsaken the divine call to be watchmen on the wall. If Bob Jones III would be as concerned about standing for truth and principle as he is about "beating Hillary," many others might be encouraged to do the same--and we preachers might actually be able to have a positive impact upon the direction of our country. As it is, our Christian "leaders" are not only not helping to lead our nation out of its current mess, they are actually contributing to the problem, as Dr. Jones' endorsement of Mitt Romney illustrates.
Furthermore, what is Dr. Bob going to say to the students and graduates of Bob Jones University? How can he justify all the years of "separation" preaching that BJU is known for? Where is his consistency? How can he now turn around and convince his students that all those Christian "standards" regarding the fellowship of light with darkness, reproving evil, contending for the faith, etc., apply only to areas outside politics? Obviously, BJU students now know that when it comes to politics, we can cast all those principles aside. It makes one wonder what other areas of the Christian life are exempt from Biblical principles. Maybe our business life? But that's a subject for another day.
I believe Dr. Bob's grandfather must be turning over in his grave. I don't know how many times I have heard the "big" fundamentalist preachers quote Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. as saying, "Do right if the stars fall!"
Instead of doing right, however, Bob Jones III would rather dance with the devil.
Chuck Baldwin
chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Chuck Baldwin Live
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
Friday, October 19, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Loyalty: The Coin of the Fundamentalist Realm
What do You Mean, Am I 100% for Jack Hyles?
By Dr. Jerry Kaifetz
When King Agrippa acceded to the throne in A.D. 37 he quite freely represented the head of the emperor on coins he had struck locally. This was always an offense to the Jews, for their law forbade the likeness of any man or animal. In common fashion, knowing where his base of power lay, King Agrippa also had this inscription made on the coins he issued: “King Agrippa the Great, Lover of Caesar.” Today, our currency carries a notably different inscription: “In God We Trust.”
King Agrippa sought to do in A.D. 37 what many Fundamental, Independent Baptists are trying to do today. They are using personal loyalty to a man as the cornerstone of social, political, and religious justification. No doubt the basis of the political process in the first century Mediteranean [sic] world was founded on the exacting of 100% support for Caesar. We can well imagine such a question as “Are you 100% for Caesar?” as the required bass for political justification in that world.
Anyone who has made a study of the Word of God and undertaken this task with any degree of seriousness will easily be able to see that God has established a certain basis upon which we are to establish or disestablish fellowship with others. Certainly foremost as a qualification would be salvation. God does not want His people to have close fellowship with unsaved peple. There are also certain types of Christians whom God does not want His people to select for close socializing. (II Thes. 3:6) Indeed it is quite possible to live what could be termed a good Christian life and yet to offend God by our associations. Jehoshaphat was king over Judah, reigning twenty-five years in Jerusalem. God tells us that he walked in the say of Asa his father, “doing that which was right in the eyes of the Lord.” (Winning souls, teaching the Bible, standards, ? etc.. [sic]) In the very next verse however, God adds that despite the religious conformity, “… the high places were not taken away.” This ultimately led to an unholy alliance: “And after this did Jehoshaphat king of Judah join himself with Ahaziah king of Israel, who did very wickedly.” (II Chronicles 20:32, 33, 35)
There is one alliance that is preeminent in establishing the individual person in the eyes of God, and thus in the eyes of Christians. This is one’s alliance or relationship with Christ. Idolatry takes place when a man decides that another criterion will top the list of qualifications for religious justification or personal fellowship amongst believers. The emperor worship of Roman times is an easy example of this to identify. It is, quite simply, man giving another man the place that rightly belongs to God. This consists not merely in attributing characteristics of deity to a man such as a Roman emperor, but it also encompasses the ensuing implications upon which that society will find itself structured. People will have to justify themselves and ensure their political lives by being perceived as unwavering in their loyalty to a man. The clear implication of this kind of behavior is that one man alone is responsible for the well being and advancement of members of that culture. This is a usurpation of a role that belongs only to God; in other words, IDOLATRY!
When someone asks me the infamous question: “Are you 100% for Jack Hyles?” there are a few questions that I must ask of that person in order to do justice to the question.
#1. What do you mean by that? Do you mean, Am I willing to give him unconditional support? In other words, am I willing to endorse him and support him regardless of any fact that may come to light regarding his life? It would seem to me that if I answer that I am indeed willing to do this, that I have precluded the use of any standard that may by its very definition include a qualification for support and fellowship. Is there any book that we have ever read that has such qualifications as these? If so, then are you asking me if I would give Jack Hyles unconditional support regardless of injunctions from any source on the basis of any facts on his life that have or may come to light? If that is the case, you may as well rephrase the question in the interest of honesty and candor to read something like this: “Are you 100% for Jack Hyles regardless of what he has done, and regardless of how God has told Christians they must deal with sin?”
#2. Do you mean by your question that I should be unwilling to entertain the possibility that Dr. Hyles has or could commit some transgression worthy of my withdrawing fellowship from him? If this is the case, then a concept has drifted from the distant horizon of your religious perspective. It was blown by an ill wind directly from the landscape of Catholicism until it obscured the light that once shone upon us all to give us a clear view of the doctrine of the total depravity of man. (Rom. 7:18, Is. 64:6, Lk. 17:10.) Only the Catholics believe that any one man is beyond the reach of error. This place they have reserved for their Pope. Are you asking me if I am willing to give such a place to Jack Hyles? There is no middle ground here. Either you answer “yes” to that question, or you must admit that it is possible that Dr. Hyles could have done those things which many have accused him of doing. If he could have done these things, then consider the implications of disfellowshiping [sic] someone because he or she has entertained that possibility. The only person you have the 100% faith in is Jesus Christ. Attributing traits that belong to Him to any man is the vilest form of idolatry imaginable.
#3. Are you asking me if I have effectively shielded myself from hearing any bad reports about Dr. Hyles? You know, “rumors, hearsay,” and other things “reported commonly among you,” such as the Apostle Paul listened to about the Corinthian people. It certainly is a shame that Dr. Hyles was not there to straighten out poor Paul. One would have to conclude that even God erred in that situation, because He saw fit to include Paul’s response to these “bad reports” in the Bible, even making an entire book about it, namely I Corinthians. (Paul’s secondary concern was the over-emphasis on following human leaders.) Imagine God using a man to write two thirds of the New Testament who had “died spiritually!”
Now please allow me to ask you some questions. Are you willing to be a part of excluding me from attending a New Testament Church founded on the principles of Christ because I am willing to believe that someone may have sinned to whom you have attributed practical immunity to error? Are you willing to call good Christians apostate who regularly win souls, attend church, preach Christ, raise Christian families and have a shining Christian testimony simply on the basis of their relationship to one man? Will you welcome into your church Jack Hyles’ son who has given now public evidence of repentance after having appeared with his nude wife in pornographic magazines and advertised for public sex while you ostracize solid Christian men like Dr. Mark Rasmussen, Dr. George Godfrey, Brother Toby Weaver and others?
When you take a trip somewhere and you hear a bad weather report, do you rush to the radio to turn it off? Sorry, not me . . . I plan an alternate route or delay my trip. At the very least, I check my tires, windshield wipers, and bring my umbrella. I know that rain is a certain thing. We have had it since the days of Noah and will always have it here on earth. Sin is the same thing, only it predates rain by about 1700 years. There is no place on earth immune from the effects of the weather, and there is no man who doesn’t sin (present tense). If you ask me if I am 100% willing to believe that a place exists that is immune from effects of weather, I must answer “no.” Unbelieving scientists have been unwilling for years to examine the evidence that conclusively proves that there was once a great deluge upon the face of the entire earth. God calls them fools. Anyone who blindly refuses to examine evidence, for whatever reason, deserves the same title.
Jerry Kaifetz
This article may be reproduced and distributed but may not be sold.
By Dr. Jerry Kaifetz
When King Agrippa acceded to the throne in A.D. 37 he quite freely represented the head of the emperor on coins he had struck locally. This was always an offense to the Jews, for their law forbade the likeness of any man or animal. In common fashion, knowing where his base of power lay, King Agrippa also had this inscription made on the coins he issued: “King Agrippa the Great, Lover of Caesar.” Today, our currency carries a notably different inscription: “In God We Trust.”
King Agrippa sought to do in A.D. 37 what many Fundamental, Independent Baptists are trying to do today. They are using personal loyalty to a man as the cornerstone of social, political, and religious justification. No doubt the basis of the political process in the first century Mediteranean [sic] world was founded on the exacting of 100% support for Caesar. We can well imagine such a question as “Are you 100% for Caesar?” as the required bass for political justification in that world.
Anyone who has made a study of the Word of God and undertaken this task with any degree of seriousness will easily be able to see that God has established a certain basis upon which we are to establish or disestablish fellowship with others. Certainly foremost as a qualification would be salvation. God does not want His people to have close fellowship with unsaved peple. There are also certain types of Christians whom God does not want His people to select for close socializing. (II Thes. 3:6) Indeed it is quite possible to live what could be termed a good Christian life and yet to offend God by our associations. Jehoshaphat was king over Judah, reigning twenty-five years in Jerusalem. God tells us that he walked in the say of Asa his father, “doing that which was right in the eyes of the Lord.” (Winning souls, teaching the Bible, standards, ? etc.. [sic]) In the very next verse however, God adds that despite the religious conformity, “… the high places were not taken away.” This ultimately led to an unholy alliance: “And after this did Jehoshaphat king of Judah join himself with Ahaziah king of Israel, who did very wickedly.” (II Chronicles 20:32, 33, 35)
There is one alliance that is preeminent in establishing the individual person in the eyes of God, and thus in the eyes of Christians. This is one’s alliance or relationship with Christ. Idolatry takes place when a man decides that another criterion will top the list of qualifications for religious justification or personal fellowship amongst believers. The emperor worship of Roman times is an easy example of this to identify. It is, quite simply, man giving another man the place that rightly belongs to God. This consists not merely in attributing characteristics of deity to a man such as a Roman emperor, but it also encompasses the ensuing implications upon which that society will find itself structured. People will have to justify themselves and ensure their political lives by being perceived as unwavering in their loyalty to a man. The clear implication of this kind of behavior is that one man alone is responsible for the well being and advancement of members of that culture. This is a usurpation of a role that belongs only to God; in other words, IDOLATRY!
When someone asks me the infamous question: “Are you 100% for Jack Hyles?” there are a few questions that I must ask of that person in order to do justice to the question.
#1. What do you mean by that? Do you mean, Am I willing to give him unconditional support? In other words, am I willing to endorse him and support him regardless of any fact that may come to light regarding his life? It would seem to me that if I answer that I am indeed willing to do this, that I have precluded the use of any standard that may by its very definition include a qualification for support and fellowship. Is there any book that we have ever read that has such qualifications as these? If so, then are you asking me if I would give Jack Hyles unconditional support regardless of injunctions from any source on the basis of any facts on his life that have or may come to light? If that is the case, you may as well rephrase the question in the interest of honesty and candor to read something like this: “Are you 100% for Jack Hyles regardless of what he has done, and regardless of how God has told Christians they must deal with sin?”
#2. Do you mean by your question that I should be unwilling to entertain the possibility that Dr. Hyles has or could commit some transgression worthy of my withdrawing fellowship from him? If this is the case, then a concept has drifted from the distant horizon of your religious perspective. It was blown by an ill wind directly from the landscape of Catholicism until it obscured the light that once shone upon us all to give us a clear view of the doctrine of the total depravity of man. (Rom. 7:18, Is. 64:6, Lk. 17:10.) Only the Catholics believe that any one man is beyond the reach of error. This place they have reserved for their Pope. Are you asking me if I am willing to give such a place to Jack Hyles? There is no middle ground here. Either you answer “yes” to that question, or you must admit that it is possible that Dr. Hyles could have done those things which many have accused him of doing. If he could have done these things, then consider the implications of disfellowshiping [sic] someone because he or she has entertained that possibility. The only person you have the 100% faith in is Jesus Christ. Attributing traits that belong to Him to any man is the vilest form of idolatry imaginable.
#3. Are you asking me if I have effectively shielded myself from hearing any bad reports about Dr. Hyles? You know, “rumors, hearsay,” and other things “reported commonly among you,” such as the Apostle Paul listened to about the Corinthian people. It certainly is a shame that Dr. Hyles was not there to straighten out poor Paul. One would have to conclude that even God erred in that situation, because He saw fit to include Paul’s response to these “bad reports” in the Bible, even making an entire book about it, namely I Corinthians. (Paul’s secondary concern was the over-emphasis on following human leaders.) Imagine God using a man to write two thirds of the New Testament who had “died spiritually!”
Now please allow me to ask you some questions. Are you willing to be a part of excluding me from attending a New Testament Church founded on the principles of Christ because I am willing to believe that someone may have sinned to whom you have attributed practical immunity to error? Are you willing to call good Christians apostate who regularly win souls, attend church, preach Christ, raise Christian families and have a shining Christian testimony simply on the basis of their relationship to one man? Will you welcome into your church Jack Hyles’ son who has given now public evidence of repentance after having appeared with his nude wife in pornographic magazines and advertised for public sex while you ostracize solid Christian men like Dr. Mark Rasmussen, Dr. George Godfrey, Brother Toby Weaver and others?
When you take a trip somewhere and you hear a bad weather report, do you rush to the radio to turn it off? Sorry, not me . . . I plan an alternate route or delay my trip. At the very least, I check my tires, windshield wipers, and bring my umbrella. I know that rain is a certain thing. We have had it since the days of Noah and will always have it here on earth. Sin is the same thing, only it predates rain by about 1700 years. There is no place on earth immune from the effects of the weather, and there is no man who doesn’t sin (present tense). If you ask me if I am 100% willing to believe that a place exists that is immune from effects of weather, I must answer “no.” Unbelieving scientists have been unwilling for years to examine the evidence that conclusively proves that there was once a great deluge upon the face of the entire earth. God calls them fools. Anyone who blindly refuses to examine evidence, for whatever reason, deserves the same title.
Jerry Kaifetz
This article may be reproduced and distributed but may not be sold.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Open Letter to Bob Jones III by Charles Underwood
FORMER BJU CHURCH PLANTING DIRECTOR ANSWERS BOB JONES III
Rev. Charles Underwood, the first director of Church Planting at BJU, the first director of Church Planting at BJU, received a letter dated April 18, 1983, from Bob Jones III.
BOB JONES University GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29614
EXECUTIVE OFFICES TELEPHONE (803) 242-5100
April 18, 1983
Rev. Charles Underwood
136 Corinne Drive
Greenville, SC 29607
Dear Brother Underwood:
In talking with Doug Lebo, I learned that, apparently, you have received from Roland Rasmussen some unflattering and untrue information about Bob Jones University.
Since he has widely circulated this libelous information accusing the University of approving apostasy, etc., etc., I thought you needed to see the most recent letter I have sent to him and the other enclosure which I have just received from a pastor on the West Coast.
God will not bless what Roland is doing. I trust that you can see through the maliciousness of it and the inaccuracy because, certainly, nothing constructive for the cause of Christ can be gained by smearing the name of Bob Jones University all over America in such an unjust and scurrilous attack.
Kind regards,
Bob Jones III
President
September 28, 1983
Charles Underwood responds:
An Open Letter to Dr. Bob Jones, III
President (This letter may be quoted, copied or printed.)
Bob Jones University (edited and abridged)
Greenville, SC 29614
Dear Sir:
When I read your letter and enclosures of April 18th, I could not help thinking how little these Christians love one another!
As I read the correspondence (yours and Roland’s), I recall that at one time your relationship was a bit more amiable. Roland Rasmussen was the “golden-haired” boy who had done quite a job on the West Coast sending scores of young people to BJU from Faith Baptist Church and schools. For years, Carl Packer filled a Greyhound bus with BJU-bound students. And what an outlet for BJU graduates! A continual stream of new teachers were going into Faith Baptist Schools – among the best paid elementary and high school Christian schoolteachers in the U.S.A. At the BJU banquets in the Los Angeles area, far more Faith Baptist people were present than were present in any other group.
When I was doing public relations work for the university on the West Coast, the people who gave support most gracious were those at Canoga Park. When a stand was made against the New Evangelicals out there, Faith Baptist Church was at the forefront holding BJU in high esteem and supporting it.
Since I have kept abreast of his ministry from the beginning, I will note a few things I have observed. Roland was saved under my ministry and enrolled, with several others, at BJU in 1950. He took the BJU position under your grandfather and led a church out of a liberal denomination while pastoring as a graduate student. After serving at BJU as a grad-assistant who taught N.T. survey and Bible doctrines, he went to California as an assistant to Dr. Bob Wells. Then he took a small church in Canoga Park running seventy-five in Sunday school and built it into the present church running nearly a thousand in Sunday school. He founded a Christian school that now has an enrollment of 1500 students.
The university, recognizing his work and godly stand, awarded him an honorary D.D. in 1964, and it nominated him to the Cooperating Board of Trustees. Up to this point, he had been BJU’s “fair-haired” boy and staunch supporter.
Who is to blame for the rift between the graduate and the university president? I have read very carefully your letters and his, and I know where you place the blame. From your point of view, Roland has launched an unprovoked attack on his alma mater. This is hardly correct!
It should be remembered by someone at BJU that there was a time when we were taught that we should “do right if the stars fall” and that “it is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right.” These truths remain in the minds of some graduates.
When Roland was on the Cooperating Board of Trustees, he found himself face to face with facts that contradicted the school’s position on separation. Namely, how can a Christian school have members of an anti-Christian organization on its board? How could it allow members of Masonry – whose god is Mah-hah-bone – to influence the affairs of a Christian school? Consider the following anti-Christian position of Freemasonry:
Furthermore that I will not give the Grand Masonic word, except upon the five points of fellowship, and then only in low breath. Whether you swear or take God’s name in vain don’t [sic] matter so much. Of course the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, don’t [sic] amount to anything, but Mah-hah-bone – O, horror! You must never, on any account, speak that awful name aloud. That would be a most heinous crime – unmasonic – unpardonable. You are recommended, it is true, not to take the name of God in vain, but to speak of him with reverence; but then, you know, you have solemnly sworn not to take Mah-hah-bone, the name of the great Masonic god, in vain, and you must be very sure to keep your obligation, for he who lives in strict obedience to his Masonic obligation is free from sin. (Handbook, p. 184, quoted from Mah-Hah-Bone by Edmond Ronayne, p. 107)
Men who belong to a secret order that considers the name of the Lord Jesus Christ as nothing and worships a heathen god were preferred on the Board of Trustees at BJU over a graduate and a longtime supporter who pointed out to Dr. Jones, Jr., and yourself, a contradiction in the university’s position on separation!
Roland Rasmussen, having gone through a traumatic battle against Masonry in his own church (his life was threatened, a hatchet was driven into the front door of his home, three fires were started on the church grounds during the short span of two or three weeks, and a Mason who was a longtime member of his church became an adversary and a continual informer to a Mason friend on the BJU faculty) had good reason for his reaction to the Masons on the Board of Trustees of the University.
When this Masonic adversary of Roland’s, Mr. James Taylor, was dying, he confessed his unequal yoke with Masonry and asked Dr. Rasmussen’s forgiveness. Furthermore, Mr. Taylor confessed that he had stood for the wrong and that Roland had stood for the right. While he was making things right, he also told Roland that he respected him more than he did any other preacher. And so “…every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:11)
When Roland briefed you on the entire situation, and you had all the evidence in hand, you were thoroughly convinced of the true nature of Masonry and made the following statement in your June 30, 1974 letter to Mr. Thomas Resinger:
It [Masonry] is a Luciferian religion. We are fully aware of its diabolic origin and purpose….I believe that any born-again Christina, when the facts from the lips of the Masonic writers themselves are presented, showing that Masonry is a religion and is the worship of Satan, will immediately withdraw.
Then Roland wrote the booklet, Is Freemasonry a False Religion? This booklet seems to have gotten everyone’s attention, not for the better, but for worse. At the time this booklet was published in Dayton Hobbs’ Projector, (Dayton has since been completely silent on the issue) I was directing the Church Planting program at BJU. I read the article with your quotation and was overjoyed to learn that you had taken such a clear position against Freemasonry.
I wrote you a note asking what you thought of the article, and, expecting to get an affirmation of your previous statement and a commendation of the article, I was stunned to find that you were vacillating on the issue. I have your answer before me in your note of February 27, 1976, which reads as follows:
Roland has given me a number of things to read, written by those in the higher echelon of Freemasonry, and the writers most certainly indicate that they believe Masonry to be the worship of Satan. However, that concept is certainly not communicated to the rank and file Mason; and I know Christian Masons who would be horrified at the idea and would withdraw in a minute if that is what they felt it was….
Dr. Bob, did you ever tell Strom Thurmond [the powerful U.S. Senator from South Carolina who remained on the board for many years after this letter was written], who is still a thirty-third degree Mason, and who is still on the BJU Board of Trustees, what Freemasonry was?
Any Mason who has been initiated as an Entered Apprentice knows from the very beginning that if he ever reveals the secrets of Masonry, he does so under the following oath revealed by William Morgan on pages 21 and 22 of his book entitled Freemasonry Exposed:
…I will always hail, ever conceal and never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or points of the secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasonry which I have received, am about to receive, or may hereafter be instructed in … binding myself under no les penalty than to hve my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea at the low water-mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours; so help me God, and keep me steadfast….
The taking of the oath to secrecy is the first vital step in the life of a Mason. Any man who would take such an oath and then say that he could not understand what he had done would mark himself an imbecile. Any man who, after taking such an oath, declares himself a Christian would mark himself either a clear imposter or an imbecile. Dr. Bob, you know the truth! Who influenced you to change your mind? You, too, will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ and give an account for this unequal yoke. (2 Cor. 6:14)
Whatever the case, Roland has sufficiently incurred your wrath, and that of your father who apparently changed your mind about Masonry, and he was removed from the University Cooperating Board of Trustees. His removal came about in a most unusual way. It was made clear to Roland that to pursue his campaign against Masonry would eliminate him from the Board of Trustees. He was given five days to send his answer to your father.
Well, he did not relent, thank the Lord, and he was not re-nominated to the board. It is refreshing to see – and it only happens occasionally – a man with enough moral courage to take a stand against evil without regard to persons or consequences.
According to Dr. Monroe Parker, when the question of Masonry came up at a board meeting of the university trustees, the chancellor declared that he did not know that Masonry was an issue, and that, when the present term of the Masons on the board was ended, there would be no more Masons elected. This kind of rhetoric designedly dodges the issue since the board is re-nominated and elected each year. The same Masons remained on the board.
At the time the issue arose –- and everyone became aware that Masonry was an issue – at least one board member was concerned about whether or not a recently elected member was a Mason. He made inquiry by letter to attorney John McLario.
Roland wrote to Dr. John McLario on September 19, 1975, and asked him, “Are you, or have you ever been, a Freemason?” Dr. McLario replied to this inquiry on September 24, 1975, as follows: “You certainly don’t know me very well or you wouldn’t ask if I am a Mason. Of course not, how ridiculous.” A short time later the following information about John McLario was found in Who’s Who in Wisconsin, 1960 edition:
Bn.—Mar. 2, 1925, Pontiac, Mich.
Son—John and Arlene (Tellefson) McLario
M. –Lois J. Kleist, Aug., 19, 1950, Milwaukee, Wis.
Cild.—Dawn D., 6; Lori L., 3.
Educ.—Syracuse Univ.; B.A., Bob Jones Univ., 1950; LL.B., Marquettte Univ., 1953.
Baptist (Trustee); mem., Mason; Lions; Christian Bus. Mens Comm…
It is strange that of all the men on the Board of Trustees who are supposedly concerned about the separatist position of the university, only one was concerned enough about the issue of Freemasonry to make an inquiry about John McLario.
Dr. Bob, as knowledgeable as you are on the subject of Freemasonry, someone apparently has put tremendous pressure on you to protect this evil order. Referring to page 74 of Handbook, Ronayne (Mah-Hah-Bone, pp. 107-108) wrote,
…whenever a minister prays in the name of Christ in any of our assemblies, you [brother Mason] must always hold yourself in readiness, if called upon, to cut his throat from ear to ear, pull out his tongue by the roots, and bury his body at the bottom of some lake or pond. Of course, all this must be done in secret, as it was in the case of that notorious man Morgan, for both law and civilization are opposed to such barbarous crimes, but then, you know you must live up to your obligations, and so long as you have sworn to do it, by being very strict and obedient in the matter, you’ll be free from sin.
After Roland proved to you that McLario was a Mason—as listed in Who’s Who in Wisconsin — he was called by McLario. In a letter to me, Roland described what transpired in the following words:
…McLario called me and admitted that he had been to a couple of Masonic meetings about 18 years before. He then asked me if that would make him a Mason (keep in mind that it was a highly educated attorney who asked me that question). I then asked Dr. McLario if he had taken any oaths, and he said that he had taken a couple. I then told him that he was at least a second degree Mason.
When he asked me what to do about it, I said that we had asked our people who were Masons who wished to come out to renounce the god of Masonry and their oaths and obligations to the order before two or three adult witnesses on the basis of Matthew 18:16.
A couple of weeks later I received a letter form Dr. McLario. In the letter he said, without being at all specific, that he had done what I had suggested.
A short time after that, I wrote to him and told him that I had been asked to write an article on Masonry, and I asked him if I could use his testimony about coming out of Masonry in that article. He wrote back immediately and said that I COULD NOT USE HIS TESTIMONY.
Dr. McLario has since been elevated to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of Bob Jones University. He could not be trusted to tell the truth regarding his affiliation with Masonry, but he can be trusted with the affairs of a Christian university? I think this distinctly reveals the trend of BJU in approving idolatry and deceit.
Referring to page 84 of Handbook, Ronayne (Mah-Hah-Bone, pp. 106-107) revealed that Freemasonry is immoral in the following words:
Furthermore, that I will not violate the chastity of a Master’s wife, mother, sister or daughter, knowing them to be such. This gives you full permission, my dear sir, to do as you please outside of the Masonic order, but you must always respect the female relatives of Masons. Adultery is a great crime under any circumstances, it is true; but so long as you live in strict obedience to your Masonic obligation, you’ll be free from sin.
Referring to p. 183 of Handbook, Roayne (Mah-Hah-Bone, p. 105) revealed that Free masonry advocates anarchy in the following words:
Furthermore that I will obey all due signs and summons. Whenever you see any of our sign s made by a brother Mason, and especially the grand hailing sign of distress, you must always be sure to obey them, even at the risk of life. If you’re on a jury, and the defendant is a Mason, and makes the Grand Hailing sign, you must obey it; you must disagree with your brother jurors, if necessary, but you must be very sure not to bring the Mason guilty, for that would bring disgrace upon our order. It may be perjury, to be sure, to do this, but then your’re fulfilling your obligation, and you know if you ‘live up to your obligations you’ll be free from sin.’
The fact that Freemasonry is a tyrannical religion is clearly demonstrated by the following quotations from Masonic authors of high rank:
A Christian Mason is not permitted to introduce his own peculiar opinion with regard to Christ’s mediatorial office into the lodge. (Lexicon of Freemasonry, p. 404)
Right or wrong, your very existence as a Mason hangs upon obedience to the powers immediately above you. (Webb’s Monitor, p. 196)
If we would be Masons, we must yield private judgment. (Traditions of Freemasonry, p. 30.)
After swearing to keep the secrets of Masonry when he is initiated into the first degree, the Mason then takes the oath of obedience to the powers above him, just as a Jesuit does, when he is initiated into the Second degree of Masonry.
Some of these nice fellows are on the Board of Trustees of BJU. Do these men determine policy, or are they just “rubber stamps”? Was Dr. Bob Jr., ignorant of the fact that Dr. McLario was or is a Mason? He was the Bob Jones University “Alumnus of the Year” in 1973, and he was by no means an obscure figure. I have before me your appraisal of him in your note of April 1, 1976:
Dear Mr. Underwood:
Dr. and Mrs. John McLario of Menomomee Falls, Wisconsin (he is on our board and one of the best friends the university has, a graduate), are most interested in getting a church started in Menomonee Falls, a suburb of Milwaukee. They are going to a MISERABLE G.A.R.B. church in Milwaukee just because it is all there is; and I believe with John and a few other interested people behind this thin, there could be an outstanding nucleus to start with. I told them you would be in correspondence with them about the possibilities.
I wonder if you are aware of why the G.AR.B. church was such a “MISERABLE” church to Dr. McLario, or whether the remark was simply another of our degrading designations.
This Mason, or former Mason—who has declined to allow his testimony of withdrawal to be made public—is on the Executive Committee of the university, and is the advocate for the Association of Christian Schools, and you say, “…he is…one of the best friends the university has…”
I cannot speak for others, but I would denounce anyone I know or have ever known, whether it be father, brother, friend, or an angel from heaven, that I knew to be a Mason. There is no reason for ignorance as to what Masonry is. From the degree of Entered Apprentice to the degree of Master Mason, the initiations are self-divulging to the initiate, and that is one of the reasons for the oaths of secrecy.
It came to my attention some time ago that one of the differences between Dr. Bob Jones, Jr., and Dr. John R. Rice was this issue of Freemasonry. As a young man, Dr. Rice became a Mason, but shortly after his initiation into the first degree of Masonry, he came out of the order and exposed it for what it is. While Dr. Jones, Jr., and yourself endorsed and protected this satanic cult by retaining Masons on your board, Dr. Rice’s expose left no guess-work as to its nature.
Dr. Rasmussen has taken the words of your own letter and your father’s definition of “How to Identify a False Religion,” and he has exposed your approval of a false religion--and that’s the rub!
Since the days of the publication of Is Freemasonry a False Religion?, Dr. Rasmussen has been under continual harassment by you and others at BJU through families in his church. This interference was at its height when I taught a class in Bible at Faith Baptist Schools in 1976. It seemed that his every act was monitored and fed back to the university. Your willingness to interfere in the operations of a local church through people whom you tried to influence against him was demonstrated recently in one of your letters to him. You began by saying, “Someone sent me a tape of your Sunday morning sermon….” This demonstrates that you have people who are trying to work against him and who keep you informed. I would have had a confrontation with these people long ago, but Roland has treated them with Christian dignity even though he knows exactly who they are. They pretend to stand with their pastor and yet endeavor, with you, to silence him.
I am emphasizing your compromising toleration of Freemasons on your board because, after having considered this matter prayerfully for the past eight years, I have concluded that it is the base ingratitude of Dr. Bob, Jr., and yourself that leads to attacks on the school. You sold out a man--a graduate, a member of your board, one of your best supporters--and violated the very principles of separation that you so loudly professed and propagated.
There are some good men on your faculty who are aware of and despise your compromise with Masonry. One of them demonstrated to me, in my BJU office the five points of fellowship of a Master Mason, and he clearly denounced the fraternity as an idolatrous cult.
Another of your faculty members has exposed Masonry as a cult in his church for years. As a matter of fact, he used Dr. Rasmussen’s materials as a concise expose.
Now, why do these men keep silent? Perhaps it is because most of their lives have been given to BJU, or possibly it may be that they are baffled by the position of the university. It may be that they keep hoping, as many others and I do, that God will bring about a change in this ungodly relationship. It is my prayer that God will save the university as a Christian testimony at whatever cost.
I know that Dr. Rasmussen would not prefer me to write in this vein since Masonry is not the issue at hand. I must say, however, that after 40 years of supporting a school that I thought would stand for the truth until Jesus comes, I now find it compromising with a religion that I have been combating during my entire ministry. When you vascillated [sic] on this issue in 1976, I knew that my years of support for BJU were “down the drain!” When you approve idolatry, the approval of apostates is no difficult matter.
Now, let’s consider your defense of the supposed orthodoxy of Westcott and Hort. This defense is apparently not difficult for you since you have tolerated other error. It isn’t necessary to go through all the teachings of Westcott and Hort to detect their heresies any more than it is necessary to eat an entire pound of butter to know that it is butter. If the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is is not heresy, then my Bible needs revision—perhaps a Jones edition. With such a revision, perhaps I could learn to embrace Luciferians and Campbellites. And, why not bring the Church of Christ into the fundamentalist fold? Isn’t that exactly what the anti-Christ would do? That would give rise to another group that could be designated as the Fundamental Idolaters and Baptismal Regenerationists.
Regarding Doug Lebo with whom you talked, I will say to you just what I said to him. I thought of talking to the Church Planting department about starting the church at Piedmont. However, the more I thought about the reversal of your position on Masonry, the less I was inclined to put another serious-minded man in that position of compromise. Lebo made some mistakes; but he is knowledgeable in the Word of God, and I believe that he is sincere. Tough his struggle may be longer and harder depending upon the Lord alone, he will be far better off than if he were unequally yoked with Masonic idolatry however tempting temporary help might seem to be. Furthermore, if by some unfortunate turn of events he failed under the Church Planting program, he would be branded a “quitter” as you branded Norman Fiddler.
Your father’s excoriation of the fellows in the Institute who were under the Church Planting –by requirement at that time –is something I shall never forget. When your father wrote the note below, he had never talked to me about the Church Planting program, and he apparently had never talked to you and did not even know how the program was operating.
Taking a cue from Billy Martin, who did not like Jim Scott’s stand for the truth, your father wrote the following note to me:
Dear Charles:
I have not had a chance to talk this over with the president; but I am going to be leaving shortly, and I thought I ought to get this letter off to you. We have had some good results with some of the men in the Church Planting program, but I am rather disappointed that at the end of the first year, we have two men who are out of the program entirely and one never really made good at all. (I speak of the chap who went to Knoxville.) I am afraid, therefore, that out of six to have this kind of record is not a good average. I can realize that the first year would be a difficult year, but the thing that troubles me is that we are sending out some men who just have not got what it takes. I want, therefore, as the chairman of the board, to urge you to pick men who are an exception. I would rather not send any out than to send out “lame ducks!” I am troubled that we are taking so many of these men from the Institute. Generally, Institute people (and this is confidential) are apt to be somewhat lacking in tact and intelligence and judgment. If they had been capable of real education, they would not have been in the Institute, most of them. Now, I am saying this, as I mentioned, in confidence, because I do not want to reflect on the Institute. It is doing a good job. But when we pick these boys to go out and build churches, we want to pick boys who not only have the character but also the judgment and knowledge of the Word of God. Also, we have got to pick boys who will use good English. Jon [Jon Jones] love his pastor over in Cookeville, and I have heard him say nothing critical except for the fact that he uses sorry music and he makes some real grammatical ‘boo-boos’. For instance, he always used ‘borned-again’. This reflects on us and our program, too.
Now if we cannot find good boys, let’s not send out any. We do not have to send them out just to be sending them out, and it is wrong to waste money if we have any reasonable doubt about, first, their ability to speak effectively and use the King’s English correctly; and third, their judgment and tact as well as their zeal for souls.
If you would like to talk to Bob and me about this sometime, we will be glad to do so; but I do not think any Institute student should be accepted who has not taken that course that Bud Bierman was talking to you about today. We are not just looking for people to send out. What we are trying to do is to send out good people who need some help to go.
Please do not commit yourself to anybody this year without first having a conference with Bob and me so we can know what kind of risk we are taking.
When I answered your father, I showed him nine clear statements wherein he was wrong. No one was ever sent out that did not have the recommendation of the teachers, the director of the Institute, the dean and myself. The final approval was, without exception, by the president. Now, I am citing this as an example of how little regard you and your father have for facts and how judgments are rendered on the basis of some bad reports from someone looking for “brownie points.”
It is also worth noting that the man who used the term “borned-again” was not an Institute man, but he graduated from the university. By the way, it wasn’t the pastor who used the term “borned-again” that was the problem in the church. Instead, it was his critic who left his wife and children and took up with his secretary. You will remember the saying of Dr. Bob, Sr., who said, “I would rather hear a man say, ‘I seen,’ who has seen something, than hear a man say, ‘I have see’ who has never seen anything.”
It is difficult for me to imagine a Christian university that cannot approve of its graduates, but, instead, calls them “lame ducks” and has a program that produces men without tact, judgment, and basic education. Perhaps the people in the Institute ought to know just what the chancellor thinks about them. The note from your father did not surprise me. It just showed me that he talks first and doesn’t think until his foot is in his mouth.
Note some of his more famous, inordinate statements in the following quotations from your father:
President Ford’s wife is a slut!
Lord, smite Alexander Haig, hip and thigh, bone and marrow, heart and lungs and all there is to him!
Consider these expressions in the light of Luke 9:51-56.
Along this line, you may want to do a little reflecting upon the following statements by yourself:
President Reagan is a traitor.
Heathen Court…
Scurrilous attacks…[regarding the letters written by Dr. Rasmussen]
I am not sure you know the meaning of the words you used. If Webster is right, you are wrong in the use of the word “scurrilous” here. Webster wrote: Scurrilous, 1. Using , or given to using, the language of low buffoonery, 2. Containing low indecency or abuse; coarsely opprobrious; obscenely jocular.
Whatever Roland may have said, he never used scurrilous language. It seems to me that you and your father are masters of this art.
Dr. Rassmussen asked to talk with you about the heresies of Westcott and Hort before the debate on this issue ever began. You could have allayed any controversy by scriptural means. Dr. Rasmussen took the scriptural steps, and he was rejected in his attempt to talk with you. (Matthew 18:15)
The attitude of the president toward graduates who take a “Calvinistic stance” is most unbecoming. I just talked to a man a few days ago who received all of his theological education at BJU, and yet he came under your ridicule for embracing Reformed Theology or five-point Calvinism. If you had not retained the five-pointers on the BJU faculty, there would have been no need to debase your graduates. The usually believe what they are taught.
If you had not kept the five-pointers, your faculty would have been decimated, as you well know. I have a note from you in which you stated regarding Calvinism, “We are not so much against the doctrine as we are the emphasis.” Now, that statement may seem logical to you, but to me it is illogical. A man, of necessity, must emphasize what he believes, or else there could be no honest conviction.
The talk and teaching coming from BJU are so contradictory that even your most loyal supporters are questioning the possibility of your survival as the “Fortress of Faith.” A longtime supporter of BJU recently said, “We don’t need BJU anymore.” I wanted to weep when I heard that statement.
Something strange is happening at BJU, and it is turning off people so fast that you must either change your attitude or hire a Madison Avenue advertising agency. It is my studied observation that you are losing favor with God and good men.
Let me give another example of the point that I am attempting to get across. When I wrote to you regarding the controversy with Phyllis McKinney, I indicated who could give you all the necessary information. The people I mentioned were Mr. Rumminger, Dr. Fremont, and Melva Heintz. You put a man in charge of gathering the information that you obviously wanted, and you wrote to me, “Mrs. McKinney was a consultant and nothing more.”
I was called to try to improve the difference, and I was frankly told that they could not recognize her as the core author. Only after Mr. Rumminger stated that Mrs. McKinney was the core author as well as the consultant who was offered a directorship at the university, were you willing to face the issue. Please tell me who would want to keep asking friends to support your institution after treatment like that.
I cannot help wondering if you and your father ever consider that the two of you are not Bob Jones University. There are six thousand supporting alumni, thousands of former students, and friends, multitudes who, if ever asked, to tell you to clean up your act!
We have attempted to explain to offended friends why you tolerate men on your board who are unequally yoked with Masonry; why you speak out against authorities with inordinate language such as only the ungodly employ; why you have no respect for graduates who practice what they have been taught at the university; and why you advocate building independent fundamental churches and yet excoriate those that exercise independence.
I fully believe that most of the graduates, former students, and supporters would be deeply relieved ft BJU—in the persons of you and your father—would really stand for the scriptural separation you so loudly proclaim by openly denouncing Freemasonry for what you, in private correspondence, have written that it is
For over a year, beginning in 1970, I contacted men and women in California on behalf of BJU. I made approximately three thousand contacts by telephone and about a thousand face-to-face. When people faced me with the duplicity of the leadership of the university, I simply disbelieved it, and I went on trying to help build a school that I felt would stand for the truth of God until Jesus comes.
After I left the university in 1976, I made it a matter of personal investigation. Then, I became convinced of your double dealing with the truth with good men and of your compromise with Masonry. You removed from your board Dr. Rasmussen who truly wanted t o help the university keep its testimony. Your alienated Dr. Bob Wells, Phyllis Mckinney, Tom Mahairas, Jim Scott, Norman Fiddler, and only God knows how many others, I once heard a great man say, “Be careful how you treat men as you climb the ladder of success; you may have to meet them on the way down!” Recently, a man who has loved and supported BJU for years said, “Bob Jones, Jr., will destroy the University and Bob, III, will get the blame.”
As I write in this vein about my alma mater, and let it be clearly understood that I am not talking about the university as an institution, nor am I talking about the thousand or more faculty and staff members who, out of love and loyalty for Chris, have given their lives, as I have, to what they thought was service for Christ. I am speaking about the chancellor, and the president who have betrayed so many alumni, former students, and supporters, that it makes me heartsick.
I started sending students to Bob Jones College in 1943, and until 1976, I was satisfied that there would be no compromise. However, I have not only found compromise, but I have found pure deceit with regard to that compromise. One compromise leads to another, and that, in my opinion, is the reason why you will not face the facts that Dr. Rasmussen has presented with reference to Westcott and Hort.
I am prepared to pay the price for sending this letter to you. I know that I too shall become a Personna Non Grata. I have settled this matter with the Lord because, at 72 years of age, I know that I must soon face Him. My conscience is clear, and the Lord knows that I would like to see my alma mater a true “Fortress of Faith.” I will bear record at the Judgment Seat of Christ that I sounded the warning, “…have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in SECRET.” (Ephesians 5:11-12)
Your toleration of Masons on the board, and your defense of Westcott and Hort and their heresies cannot be honoring to the Lord. To say that it is, is to belie the very nature of true Christianity. It has been my hope that the Lord will not have to say of BJU: “Ephraim [BJU] is joined to idols: LET HIM ALONE.” (Hosea 4:17) However, I am very fearful that He will.
Sincerely,
Charles Underwood
Former Director
Church Planting Program, Bob Jones University
Rev. Charles Underwood, the first director of Church Planting at BJU, the first director of Church Planting at BJU, received a letter dated April 18, 1983, from Bob Jones III.
BOB JONES University GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29614
EXECUTIVE OFFICES TELEPHONE (803) 242-5100
April 18, 1983
Rev. Charles Underwood
136 Corinne Drive
Greenville, SC 29607
Dear Brother Underwood:
In talking with Doug Lebo, I learned that, apparently, you have received from Roland Rasmussen some unflattering and untrue information about Bob Jones University.
Since he has widely circulated this libelous information accusing the University of approving apostasy, etc., etc., I thought you needed to see the most recent letter I have sent to him and the other enclosure which I have just received from a pastor on the West Coast.
God will not bless what Roland is doing. I trust that you can see through the maliciousness of it and the inaccuracy because, certainly, nothing constructive for the cause of Christ can be gained by smearing the name of Bob Jones University all over America in such an unjust and scurrilous attack.
Kind regards,
Bob Jones III
President
September 28, 1983
Charles Underwood responds:
An Open Letter to Dr. Bob Jones, III
President (This letter may be quoted, copied or printed.)
Bob Jones University (edited and abridged)
Greenville, SC 29614
Dear Sir:
When I read your letter and enclosures of April 18th, I could not help thinking how little these Christians love one another!
As I read the correspondence (yours and Roland’s), I recall that at one time your relationship was a bit more amiable. Roland Rasmussen was the “golden-haired” boy who had done quite a job on the West Coast sending scores of young people to BJU from Faith Baptist Church and schools. For years, Carl Packer filled a Greyhound bus with BJU-bound students. And what an outlet for BJU graduates! A continual stream of new teachers were going into Faith Baptist Schools – among the best paid elementary and high school Christian schoolteachers in the U.S.A. At the BJU banquets in the Los Angeles area, far more Faith Baptist people were present than were present in any other group.
When I was doing public relations work for the university on the West Coast, the people who gave support most gracious were those at Canoga Park. When a stand was made against the New Evangelicals out there, Faith Baptist Church was at the forefront holding BJU in high esteem and supporting it.
Since I have kept abreast of his ministry from the beginning, I will note a few things I have observed. Roland was saved under my ministry and enrolled, with several others, at BJU in 1950. He took the BJU position under your grandfather and led a church out of a liberal denomination while pastoring as a graduate student. After serving at BJU as a grad-assistant who taught N.T. survey and Bible doctrines, he went to California as an assistant to Dr. Bob Wells. Then he took a small church in Canoga Park running seventy-five in Sunday school and built it into the present church running nearly a thousand in Sunday school. He founded a Christian school that now has an enrollment of 1500 students.
The university, recognizing his work and godly stand, awarded him an honorary D.D. in 1964, and it nominated him to the Cooperating Board of Trustees. Up to this point, he had been BJU’s “fair-haired” boy and staunch supporter.
Who is to blame for the rift between the graduate and the university president? I have read very carefully your letters and his, and I know where you place the blame. From your point of view, Roland has launched an unprovoked attack on his alma mater. This is hardly correct!
It should be remembered by someone at BJU that there was a time when we were taught that we should “do right if the stars fall” and that “it is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right.” These truths remain in the minds of some graduates.
When Roland was on the Cooperating Board of Trustees, he found himself face to face with facts that contradicted the school’s position on separation. Namely, how can a Christian school have members of an anti-Christian organization on its board? How could it allow members of Masonry – whose god is Mah-hah-bone – to influence the affairs of a Christian school? Consider the following anti-Christian position of Freemasonry:
Furthermore that I will not give the Grand Masonic word, except upon the five points of fellowship, and then only in low breath. Whether you swear or take God’s name in vain don’t [sic] matter so much. Of course the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, don’t [sic] amount to anything, but Mah-hah-bone – O, horror! You must never, on any account, speak that awful name aloud. That would be a most heinous crime – unmasonic – unpardonable. You are recommended, it is true, not to take the name of God in vain, but to speak of him with reverence; but then, you know, you have solemnly sworn not to take Mah-hah-bone, the name of the great Masonic god, in vain, and you must be very sure to keep your obligation, for he who lives in strict obedience to his Masonic obligation is free from sin. (Handbook, p. 184, quoted from Mah-Hah-Bone by Edmond Ronayne, p. 107)
Men who belong to a secret order that considers the name of the Lord Jesus Christ as nothing and worships a heathen god were preferred on the Board of Trustees at BJU over a graduate and a longtime supporter who pointed out to Dr. Jones, Jr., and yourself, a contradiction in the university’s position on separation!
Roland Rasmussen, having gone through a traumatic battle against Masonry in his own church (his life was threatened, a hatchet was driven into the front door of his home, three fires were started on the church grounds during the short span of two or three weeks, and a Mason who was a longtime member of his church became an adversary and a continual informer to a Mason friend on the BJU faculty) had good reason for his reaction to the Masons on the Board of Trustees of the University.
When this Masonic adversary of Roland’s, Mr. James Taylor, was dying, he confessed his unequal yoke with Masonry and asked Dr. Rasmussen’s forgiveness. Furthermore, Mr. Taylor confessed that he had stood for the wrong and that Roland had stood for the right. While he was making things right, he also told Roland that he respected him more than he did any other preacher. And so “…every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:11)
When Roland briefed you on the entire situation, and you had all the evidence in hand, you were thoroughly convinced of the true nature of Masonry and made the following statement in your June 30, 1974 letter to Mr. Thomas Resinger:
It [Masonry] is a Luciferian religion. We are fully aware of its diabolic origin and purpose….I believe that any born-again Christina, when the facts from the lips of the Masonic writers themselves are presented, showing that Masonry is a religion and is the worship of Satan, will immediately withdraw.
Then Roland wrote the booklet, Is Freemasonry a False Religion? This booklet seems to have gotten everyone’s attention, not for the better, but for worse. At the time this booklet was published in Dayton Hobbs’ Projector, (Dayton has since been completely silent on the issue) I was directing the Church Planting program at BJU. I read the article with your quotation and was overjoyed to learn that you had taken such a clear position against Freemasonry.
I wrote you a note asking what you thought of the article, and, expecting to get an affirmation of your previous statement and a commendation of the article, I was stunned to find that you were vacillating on the issue. I have your answer before me in your note of February 27, 1976, which reads as follows:
Roland has given me a number of things to read, written by those in the higher echelon of Freemasonry, and the writers most certainly indicate that they believe Masonry to be the worship of Satan. However, that concept is certainly not communicated to the rank and file Mason; and I know Christian Masons who would be horrified at the idea and would withdraw in a minute if that is what they felt it was….
Dr. Bob, did you ever tell Strom Thurmond [the powerful U.S. Senator from South Carolina who remained on the board for many years after this letter was written], who is still a thirty-third degree Mason, and who is still on the BJU Board of Trustees, what Freemasonry was?
Any Mason who has been initiated as an Entered Apprentice knows from the very beginning that if he ever reveals the secrets of Masonry, he does so under the following oath revealed by William Morgan on pages 21 and 22 of his book entitled Freemasonry Exposed:
…I will always hail, ever conceal and never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or points of the secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasonry which I have received, am about to receive, or may hereafter be instructed in … binding myself under no les penalty than to hve my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea at the low water-mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours; so help me God, and keep me steadfast….
The taking of the oath to secrecy is the first vital step in the life of a Mason. Any man who would take such an oath and then say that he could not understand what he had done would mark himself an imbecile. Any man who, after taking such an oath, declares himself a Christian would mark himself either a clear imposter or an imbecile. Dr. Bob, you know the truth! Who influenced you to change your mind? You, too, will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ and give an account for this unequal yoke. (2 Cor. 6:14)
Whatever the case, Roland has sufficiently incurred your wrath, and that of your father who apparently changed your mind about Masonry, and he was removed from the University Cooperating Board of Trustees. His removal came about in a most unusual way. It was made clear to Roland that to pursue his campaign against Masonry would eliminate him from the Board of Trustees. He was given five days to send his answer to your father.
Well, he did not relent, thank the Lord, and he was not re-nominated to the board. It is refreshing to see – and it only happens occasionally – a man with enough moral courage to take a stand against evil without regard to persons or consequences.
According to Dr. Monroe Parker, when the question of Masonry came up at a board meeting of the university trustees, the chancellor declared that he did not know that Masonry was an issue, and that, when the present term of the Masons on the board was ended, there would be no more Masons elected. This kind of rhetoric designedly dodges the issue since the board is re-nominated and elected each year. The same Masons remained on the board.
At the time the issue arose –- and everyone became aware that Masonry was an issue – at least one board member was concerned about whether or not a recently elected member was a Mason. He made inquiry by letter to attorney John McLario.
Roland wrote to Dr. John McLario on September 19, 1975, and asked him, “Are you, or have you ever been, a Freemason?” Dr. McLario replied to this inquiry on September 24, 1975, as follows: “You certainly don’t know me very well or you wouldn’t ask if I am a Mason. Of course not, how ridiculous.” A short time later the following information about John McLario was found in Who’s Who in Wisconsin, 1960 edition:
Bn.—Mar. 2, 1925, Pontiac, Mich.
Son—John and Arlene (Tellefson) McLario
M. –Lois J. Kleist, Aug., 19, 1950, Milwaukee, Wis.
Cild.—Dawn D., 6; Lori L., 3.
Educ.—Syracuse Univ.; B.A., Bob Jones Univ., 1950; LL.B., Marquettte Univ., 1953.
Baptist (Trustee); mem., Mason; Lions; Christian Bus. Mens Comm…
It is strange that of all the men on the Board of Trustees who are supposedly concerned about the separatist position of the university, only one was concerned enough about the issue of Freemasonry to make an inquiry about John McLario.
Dr. Bob, as knowledgeable as you are on the subject of Freemasonry, someone apparently has put tremendous pressure on you to protect this evil order. Referring to page 74 of Handbook, Ronayne (Mah-Hah-Bone, pp. 107-108) wrote,
…whenever a minister prays in the name of Christ in any of our assemblies, you [brother Mason] must always hold yourself in readiness, if called upon, to cut his throat from ear to ear, pull out his tongue by the roots, and bury his body at the bottom of some lake or pond. Of course, all this must be done in secret, as it was in the case of that notorious man Morgan, for both law and civilization are opposed to such barbarous crimes, but then, you know you must live up to your obligations, and so long as you have sworn to do it, by being very strict and obedient in the matter, you’ll be free from sin.
After Roland proved to you that McLario was a Mason—as listed in Who’s Who in Wisconsin — he was called by McLario. In a letter to me, Roland described what transpired in the following words:
…McLario called me and admitted that he had been to a couple of Masonic meetings about 18 years before. He then asked me if that would make him a Mason (keep in mind that it was a highly educated attorney who asked me that question). I then asked Dr. McLario if he had taken any oaths, and he said that he had taken a couple. I then told him that he was at least a second degree Mason.
When he asked me what to do about it, I said that we had asked our people who were Masons who wished to come out to renounce the god of Masonry and their oaths and obligations to the order before two or three adult witnesses on the basis of Matthew 18:16.
A couple of weeks later I received a letter form Dr. McLario. In the letter he said, without being at all specific, that he had done what I had suggested.
A short time after that, I wrote to him and told him that I had been asked to write an article on Masonry, and I asked him if I could use his testimony about coming out of Masonry in that article. He wrote back immediately and said that I COULD NOT USE HIS TESTIMONY.
Dr. McLario has since been elevated to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of Bob Jones University. He could not be trusted to tell the truth regarding his affiliation with Masonry, but he can be trusted with the affairs of a Christian university? I think this distinctly reveals the trend of BJU in approving idolatry and deceit.
Referring to page 84 of Handbook, Ronayne (Mah-Hah-Bone, pp. 106-107) revealed that Freemasonry is immoral in the following words:
Furthermore, that I will not violate the chastity of a Master’s wife, mother, sister or daughter, knowing them to be such. This gives you full permission, my dear sir, to do as you please outside of the Masonic order, but you must always respect the female relatives of Masons. Adultery is a great crime under any circumstances, it is true; but so long as you live in strict obedience to your Masonic obligation, you’ll be free from sin.
Referring to p. 183 of Handbook, Roayne (Mah-Hah-Bone, p. 105) revealed that Free masonry advocates anarchy in the following words:
Furthermore that I will obey all due signs and summons. Whenever you see any of our sign s made by a brother Mason, and especially the grand hailing sign of distress, you must always be sure to obey them, even at the risk of life. If you’re on a jury, and the defendant is a Mason, and makes the Grand Hailing sign, you must obey it; you must disagree with your brother jurors, if necessary, but you must be very sure not to bring the Mason guilty, for that would bring disgrace upon our order. It may be perjury, to be sure, to do this, but then your’re fulfilling your obligation, and you know if you ‘live up to your obligations you’ll be free from sin.’
The fact that Freemasonry is a tyrannical religion is clearly demonstrated by the following quotations from Masonic authors of high rank:
A Christian Mason is not permitted to introduce his own peculiar opinion with regard to Christ’s mediatorial office into the lodge. (Lexicon of Freemasonry, p. 404)
Right or wrong, your very existence as a Mason hangs upon obedience to the powers immediately above you. (Webb’s Monitor, p. 196)
If we would be Masons, we must yield private judgment. (Traditions of Freemasonry, p. 30.)
After swearing to keep the secrets of Masonry when he is initiated into the first degree, the Mason then takes the oath of obedience to the powers above him, just as a Jesuit does, when he is initiated into the Second degree of Masonry.
Some of these nice fellows are on the Board of Trustees of BJU. Do these men determine policy, or are they just “rubber stamps”? Was Dr. Bob Jr., ignorant of the fact that Dr. McLario was or is a Mason? He was the Bob Jones University “Alumnus of the Year” in 1973, and he was by no means an obscure figure. I have before me your appraisal of him in your note of April 1, 1976:
Dear Mr. Underwood:
Dr. and Mrs. John McLario of Menomomee Falls, Wisconsin (he is on our board and one of the best friends the university has, a graduate), are most interested in getting a church started in Menomonee Falls, a suburb of Milwaukee. They are going to a MISERABLE G.A.R.B. church in Milwaukee just because it is all there is; and I believe with John and a few other interested people behind this thin, there could be an outstanding nucleus to start with. I told them you would be in correspondence with them about the possibilities.
I wonder if you are aware of why the G.AR.B. church was such a “MISERABLE” church to Dr. McLario, or whether the remark was simply another of our degrading designations.
This Mason, or former Mason—who has declined to allow his testimony of withdrawal to be made public—is on the Executive Committee of the university, and is the advocate for the Association of Christian Schools, and you say, “…he is…one of the best friends the university has…”
I cannot speak for others, but I would denounce anyone I know or have ever known, whether it be father, brother, friend, or an angel from heaven, that I knew to be a Mason. There is no reason for ignorance as to what Masonry is. From the degree of Entered Apprentice to the degree of Master Mason, the initiations are self-divulging to the initiate, and that is one of the reasons for the oaths of secrecy.
It came to my attention some time ago that one of the differences between Dr. Bob Jones, Jr., and Dr. John R. Rice was this issue of Freemasonry. As a young man, Dr. Rice became a Mason, but shortly after his initiation into the first degree of Masonry, he came out of the order and exposed it for what it is. While Dr. Jones, Jr., and yourself endorsed and protected this satanic cult by retaining Masons on your board, Dr. Rice’s expose left no guess-work as to its nature.
Dr. Rasmussen has taken the words of your own letter and your father’s definition of “How to Identify a False Religion,” and he has exposed your approval of a false religion--and that’s the rub!
Since the days of the publication of Is Freemasonry a False Religion?, Dr. Rasmussen has been under continual harassment by you and others at BJU through families in his church. This interference was at its height when I taught a class in Bible at Faith Baptist Schools in 1976. It seemed that his every act was monitored and fed back to the university. Your willingness to interfere in the operations of a local church through people whom you tried to influence against him was demonstrated recently in one of your letters to him. You began by saying, “Someone sent me a tape of your Sunday morning sermon….” This demonstrates that you have people who are trying to work against him and who keep you informed. I would have had a confrontation with these people long ago, but Roland has treated them with Christian dignity even though he knows exactly who they are. They pretend to stand with their pastor and yet endeavor, with you, to silence him.
I am emphasizing your compromising toleration of Freemasons on your board because, after having considered this matter prayerfully for the past eight years, I have concluded that it is the base ingratitude of Dr. Bob, Jr., and yourself that leads to attacks on the school. You sold out a man--a graduate, a member of your board, one of your best supporters--and violated the very principles of separation that you so loudly professed and propagated.
There are some good men on your faculty who are aware of and despise your compromise with Masonry. One of them demonstrated to me, in my BJU office the five points of fellowship of a Master Mason, and he clearly denounced the fraternity as an idolatrous cult.
Another of your faculty members has exposed Masonry as a cult in his church for years. As a matter of fact, he used Dr. Rasmussen’s materials as a concise expose.
Now, why do these men keep silent? Perhaps it is because most of their lives have been given to BJU, or possibly it may be that they are baffled by the position of the university. It may be that they keep hoping, as many others and I do, that God will bring about a change in this ungodly relationship. It is my prayer that God will save the university as a Christian testimony at whatever cost.
I know that Dr. Rasmussen would not prefer me to write in this vein since Masonry is not the issue at hand. I must say, however, that after 40 years of supporting a school that I thought would stand for the truth until Jesus comes, I now find it compromising with a religion that I have been combating during my entire ministry. When you vascillated [sic] on this issue in 1976, I knew that my years of support for BJU were “down the drain!” When you approve idolatry, the approval of apostates is no difficult matter.
Now, let’s consider your defense of the supposed orthodoxy of Westcott and Hort. This defense is apparently not difficult for you since you have tolerated other error. It isn’t necessary to go through all the teachings of Westcott and Hort to detect their heresies any more than it is necessary to eat an entire pound of butter to know that it is butter. If the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is is not heresy, then my Bible needs revision—perhaps a Jones edition. With such a revision, perhaps I could learn to embrace Luciferians and Campbellites. And, why not bring the Church of Christ into the fundamentalist fold? Isn’t that exactly what the anti-Christ would do? That would give rise to another group that could be designated as the Fundamental Idolaters and Baptismal Regenerationists.
Regarding Doug Lebo with whom you talked, I will say to you just what I said to him. I thought of talking to the Church Planting department about starting the church at Piedmont. However, the more I thought about the reversal of your position on Masonry, the less I was inclined to put another serious-minded man in that position of compromise. Lebo made some mistakes; but he is knowledgeable in the Word of God, and I believe that he is sincere. Tough his struggle may be longer and harder depending upon the Lord alone, he will be far better off than if he were unequally yoked with Masonic idolatry however tempting temporary help might seem to be. Furthermore, if by some unfortunate turn of events he failed under the Church Planting program, he would be branded a “quitter” as you branded Norman Fiddler.
Your father’s excoriation of the fellows in the Institute who were under the Church Planting –by requirement at that time –is something I shall never forget. When your father wrote the note below, he had never talked to me about the Church Planting program, and he apparently had never talked to you and did not even know how the program was operating.
Taking a cue from Billy Martin, who did not like Jim Scott’s stand for the truth, your father wrote the following note to me:
Dear Charles:
I have not had a chance to talk this over with the president; but I am going to be leaving shortly, and I thought I ought to get this letter off to you. We have had some good results with some of the men in the Church Planting program, but I am rather disappointed that at the end of the first year, we have two men who are out of the program entirely and one never really made good at all. (I speak of the chap who went to Knoxville.) I am afraid, therefore, that out of six to have this kind of record is not a good average. I can realize that the first year would be a difficult year, but the thing that troubles me is that we are sending out some men who just have not got what it takes. I want, therefore, as the chairman of the board, to urge you to pick men who are an exception. I would rather not send any out than to send out “lame ducks!” I am troubled that we are taking so many of these men from the Institute. Generally, Institute people (and this is confidential) are apt to be somewhat lacking in tact and intelligence and judgment. If they had been capable of real education, they would not have been in the Institute, most of them. Now, I am saying this, as I mentioned, in confidence, because I do not want to reflect on the Institute. It is doing a good job. But when we pick these boys to go out and build churches, we want to pick boys who not only have the character but also the judgment and knowledge of the Word of God. Also, we have got to pick boys who will use good English. Jon [Jon Jones] love his pastor over in Cookeville, and I have heard him say nothing critical except for the fact that he uses sorry music and he makes some real grammatical ‘boo-boos’. For instance, he always used ‘borned-again’. This reflects on us and our program, too.
Now if we cannot find good boys, let’s not send out any. We do not have to send them out just to be sending them out, and it is wrong to waste money if we have any reasonable doubt about, first, their ability to speak effectively and use the King’s English correctly; and third, their judgment and tact as well as their zeal for souls.
If you would like to talk to Bob and me about this sometime, we will be glad to do so; but I do not think any Institute student should be accepted who has not taken that course that Bud Bierman was talking to you about today. We are not just looking for people to send out. What we are trying to do is to send out good people who need some help to go.
Please do not commit yourself to anybody this year without first having a conference with Bob and me so we can know what kind of risk we are taking.
When I answered your father, I showed him nine clear statements wherein he was wrong. No one was ever sent out that did not have the recommendation of the teachers, the director of the Institute, the dean and myself. The final approval was, without exception, by the president. Now, I am citing this as an example of how little regard you and your father have for facts and how judgments are rendered on the basis of some bad reports from someone looking for “brownie points.”
It is also worth noting that the man who used the term “borned-again” was not an Institute man, but he graduated from the university. By the way, it wasn’t the pastor who used the term “borned-again” that was the problem in the church. Instead, it was his critic who left his wife and children and took up with his secretary. You will remember the saying of Dr. Bob, Sr., who said, “I would rather hear a man say, ‘I seen,’ who has seen something, than hear a man say, ‘I have see’ who has never seen anything.”
It is difficult for me to imagine a Christian university that cannot approve of its graduates, but, instead, calls them “lame ducks” and has a program that produces men without tact, judgment, and basic education. Perhaps the people in the Institute ought to know just what the chancellor thinks about them. The note from your father did not surprise me. It just showed me that he talks first and doesn’t think until his foot is in his mouth.
Note some of his more famous, inordinate statements in the following quotations from your father:
President Ford’s wife is a slut!
Lord, smite Alexander Haig, hip and thigh, bone and marrow, heart and lungs and all there is to him!
Consider these expressions in the light of Luke 9:51-56.
Along this line, you may want to do a little reflecting upon the following statements by yourself:
President Reagan is a traitor.
Heathen Court…
Scurrilous attacks…[regarding the letters written by Dr. Rasmussen]
I am not sure you know the meaning of the words you used. If Webster is right, you are wrong in the use of the word “scurrilous” here. Webster wrote: Scurrilous, 1. Using , or given to using, the language of low buffoonery, 2. Containing low indecency or abuse; coarsely opprobrious; obscenely jocular.
Whatever Roland may have said, he never used scurrilous language. It seems to me that you and your father are masters of this art.
Dr. Rassmussen asked to talk with you about the heresies of Westcott and Hort before the debate on this issue ever began. You could have allayed any controversy by scriptural means. Dr. Rasmussen took the scriptural steps, and he was rejected in his attempt to talk with you. (Matthew 18:15)
The attitude of the president toward graduates who take a “Calvinistic stance” is most unbecoming. I just talked to a man a few days ago who received all of his theological education at BJU, and yet he came under your ridicule for embracing Reformed Theology or five-point Calvinism. If you had not retained the five-pointers on the BJU faculty, there would have been no need to debase your graduates. The usually believe what they are taught.
If you had not kept the five-pointers, your faculty would have been decimated, as you well know. I have a note from you in which you stated regarding Calvinism, “We are not so much against the doctrine as we are the emphasis.” Now, that statement may seem logical to you, but to me it is illogical. A man, of necessity, must emphasize what he believes, or else there could be no honest conviction.
The talk and teaching coming from BJU are so contradictory that even your most loyal supporters are questioning the possibility of your survival as the “Fortress of Faith.” A longtime supporter of BJU recently said, “We don’t need BJU anymore.” I wanted to weep when I heard that statement.
Something strange is happening at BJU, and it is turning off people so fast that you must either change your attitude or hire a Madison Avenue advertising agency. It is my studied observation that you are losing favor with God and good men.
Let me give another example of the point that I am attempting to get across. When I wrote to you regarding the controversy with Phyllis McKinney, I indicated who could give you all the necessary information. The people I mentioned were Mr. Rumminger, Dr. Fremont, and Melva Heintz. You put a man in charge of gathering the information that you obviously wanted, and you wrote to me, “Mrs. McKinney was a consultant and nothing more.”
I was called to try to improve the difference, and I was frankly told that they could not recognize her as the core author. Only after Mr. Rumminger stated that Mrs. McKinney was the core author as well as the consultant who was offered a directorship at the university, were you willing to face the issue. Please tell me who would want to keep asking friends to support your institution after treatment like that.
I cannot help wondering if you and your father ever consider that the two of you are not Bob Jones University. There are six thousand supporting alumni, thousands of former students, and friends, multitudes who, if ever asked, to tell you to clean up your act!
We have attempted to explain to offended friends why you tolerate men on your board who are unequally yoked with Masonry; why you speak out against authorities with inordinate language such as only the ungodly employ; why you have no respect for graduates who practice what they have been taught at the university; and why you advocate building independent fundamental churches and yet excoriate those that exercise independence.
I fully believe that most of the graduates, former students, and supporters would be deeply relieved ft BJU—in the persons of you and your father—would really stand for the scriptural separation you so loudly proclaim by openly denouncing Freemasonry for what you, in private correspondence, have written that it is
For over a year, beginning in 1970, I contacted men and women in California on behalf of BJU. I made approximately three thousand contacts by telephone and about a thousand face-to-face. When people faced me with the duplicity of the leadership of the university, I simply disbelieved it, and I went on trying to help build a school that I felt would stand for the truth of God until Jesus comes.
After I left the university in 1976, I made it a matter of personal investigation. Then, I became convinced of your double dealing with the truth with good men and of your compromise with Masonry. You removed from your board Dr. Rasmussen who truly wanted t o help the university keep its testimony. Your alienated Dr. Bob Wells, Phyllis Mckinney, Tom Mahairas, Jim Scott, Norman Fiddler, and only God knows how many others, I once heard a great man say, “Be careful how you treat men as you climb the ladder of success; you may have to meet them on the way down!” Recently, a man who has loved and supported BJU for years said, “Bob Jones, Jr., will destroy the University and Bob, III, will get the blame.”
As I write in this vein about my alma mater, and let it be clearly understood that I am not talking about the university as an institution, nor am I talking about the thousand or more faculty and staff members who, out of love and loyalty for Chris, have given their lives, as I have, to what they thought was service for Christ. I am speaking about the chancellor, and the president who have betrayed so many alumni, former students, and supporters, that it makes me heartsick.
I started sending students to Bob Jones College in 1943, and until 1976, I was satisfied that there would be no compromise. However, I have not only found compromise, but I have found pure deceit with regard to that compromise. One compromise leads to another, and that, in my opinion, is the reason why you will not face the facts that Dr. Rasmussen has presented with reference to Westcott and Hort.
I am prepared to pay the price for sending this letter to you. I know that I too shall become a Personna Non Grata. I have settled this matter with the Lord because, at 72 years of age, I know that I must soon face Him. My conscience is clear, and the Lord knows that I would like to see my alma mater a true “Fortress of Faith.” I will bear record at the Judgment Seat of Christ that I sounded the warning, “…have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in SECRET.” (Ephesians 5:11-12)
Your toleration of Masons on the board, and your defense of Westcott and Hort and their heresies cannot be honoring to the Lord. To say that it is, is to belie the very nature of true Christianity. It has been my hope that the Lord will not have to say of BJU: “Ephraim [BJU] is joined to idols: LET HIM ALONE.” (Hosea 4:17) However, I am very fearful that He will.
Sincerely,
Charles Underwood
Former Director
Church Planting Program, Bob Jones University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)