But now because of Bible Study Fellowship's belief in a non-offensive evangelism, I am not allowed to witness at BSF leaders' meetings, on class day, at lunch in a restaurant, nor in a summer Bible study, because my testimony might be offensive to a Roman Catholic. Recently, I was telling a friend about my experience being a BSF Group Leader (Bible Study Fellowship). I was trying to express how much I enjoyed it and especially how I was blessed by the ladies in my leaders group and the ladies in the group I facilitated. The more I talked the more she seemed confused and displeased. BSF explores God’s Word with the next generation because we believe life’s answers are found in the Bible and they provide children a biblical foundation upon which to build a love for God and spiritual matters. Loving, well-trained leaders teach little ones in a safe environment about God and the Bible in age-appropriate ways. BSF explores God’s Word with the next generation because we believe life’s answers are found in the Bible and they provide children a biblical foundation upon which to build a love for God and spiritual matters. Loving, well-trained leaders teach little ones in a safe environment about God and the Bible in age-appropriate ways. One student group needs to maintain a BSF as the control. The other student groups need to decide on how they will modify the contents of the BSF column, the charge rate, cleaning frequency, or other variable, and then operate the BSF in a manner that is consistent with their research design. Building the model BSFs.
BIBLESTUDY FELLOWSHIP
A CLOSERLOOK
by VirginiaDonovan
BSF International, formerlyknown as Bible Study Fellowship is 'an interdenominational, not-for-profit,international, lay Christian organization [which] aims to acquaint peoplewith the truth of the Bible through classes using personal study, discussiongroup participation, lecture, printed notes.'1 It sounds so good, but afterparticipating in BSF for 4 years from Sept., 1991 - April, 1995, I recognizeddeviation from Scripture resulting in serious errors in BSF’s 1) organizationalstructure, 2) method of presenting the Bible study material, and 3) contentof the Bible study material itself. Although BSF presents itself as a Biblicallysound organization in both teaching and practice, the negative elementsexposed in this article contaminate BSF and demonstrate that it simplyis not faithful to the Word of God.
The curriculum consistsof 7 studies: Genesis, Matthew,Life of Moses, Romans, John, History of Israel and the Minor Prophets,and The Acts of the Apostles. Eachstudy is taught over an entire year. This article will focus only on theLifeof Moses study and on a portion ofthe study on Matthew.
HISTORYOF BSF
BSF was founded by A.Wetherell Johnson, a former missionary with China Inland Mission. Whenforced to leave China, she came to the United States and lectured for Inter-VarsityChristian Fellowship. After settling in San Bernardino, California, sheagreed to teach the Bible to five women in 1952, yet refused to 'spoon-feed'the students but wrote questions designed to make them study the Biblefor themselves. As the program grew, it moved to a church that could accommodatea separate program for the participants’ children which was held at thesame time as the adult study. In 1958 Miss Johnson accepted an invitationto go to the San Francisco Bay area to conduct Bible classes for convertsfollowing a Billy Graham Evangelistic Crusade. She then formed a Boardof Directors and incorporated BSF. Prior to her retirement in 1979, MissJohnson’s successor, Rosemary Jensen, was chosen to be the new ExecutiveDirector, a position which she currently retains.2
BSF has grown dramaticallyover the years and is now comprised of 913 separate Bible Study groupsworldwide although the majority (about 850) are in the United States. Eachgroup ranges in size from around 100 to 600 participants, and may be designatedfor women, or for men, or for mixed male/female young adults (ages 18-35),their pre-school children, and their grade school children depending onthe location and time of day that the group meets. Thirty (30) paid staffwork at the San Antonio, TX, campus and complex of buildings which comprisethe international headquarters. Additionally, approximately 1,000 volunteerstravel to the complex each year to donate their time working for BSF.3
STRUCTURE
The internal structureof BSF is as follows: The participants at any one location are dividedinto small groups which are led by Small Group Discussion Leaders. TheseLeaders are accountable to the Teaching Leader of that location. TeachingLeaders report to the Area Coordinators of that region. Area Coordinatorsultimately report to the Board of Directors in San Antonio.
Scripture clearly teachesthat women are not to usurp authority over the man (I Tim. 2:12), yet BSF’sorganizational structure demonstrates this very usurpation of authority.Each Bible Study group, whether a men’s group or a women’s group is accountableto Area Coordinators for that region which are often women. Some men’sgroups do report to female Area Coordinators. Even if a particular men’sgroup has a male Area Coordinator, all men’s groups ultimately report tothe female Executive Director, Rosemary Jensen. Moreover, the Board ofDirectors is comprised of 8 men and 2 women.4 If Mrs. Jensen has authorityover the Board, it would be a breach of Scripture.
Another indication ofwomen having authority over men is in the writing of the Bible Studiesthemselves. Miss Johnson wrote all of the original Bible studies herself.She writes in her autobiography, Createdfor Commitment,
...I have alwaysacknowledged God’s pattern of leadership in theology as given to men. Atthe same time, I have felt comfortable with writing lesson notes for studybecause always I have at least fourteen commentaries to corroborate theexegesis I felt God gave me, as well as the advice of Dr. Everett Harrisonof Fuller Seminary who reads all my lesson notes.5Now thesestudies are written by the Board of Directors along with various BSF staffers,some of which presumably are women. Writing a Bible study is the most basicform of teaching, and BSF women write Bible studies. I Tim. 2:12 states,ButI suffer not a woman to teach....It does not say that a woman cannot teach unless she has a covering bymen in some way. It also does not say that a woman cannot teach unlessshe is writing women's Bible studies. Women are clearly not to engage inthe public exposition of Biblical doctrine under any circumstances.
To be certain of thecorrect interpretation of I Tim. 2:12, I checked with one Greek scholar,Dr. William BeVier, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary. He statedthat the Greek indicates that the woman is not to teach men. He saidthat the two infinitives 'to teach' and 'to usurp' both have 'man' as theirobject. Its meaning is like a neither-nor clause. However, verses11 and 12 both say that the woman is to be silent (as does I Cor. 14:34-35),and these verses speak of women being under obedience, adorning themselveswith shamefacedness (I Tim. 2:9) and learning with all subjection. I think that all of these instructions must be kept in mind as generalcodes of conduct and relate to the role of women as teachers of Biblicaldoctrine.
Many of BSF’s TeachingLeaders are women. Although they only teach other women and not men, thatis irrelevant; they are still engaged in teaching doctrine. Titus 2:3-5says,
Theaged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, notfalse accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good thing; That theymay teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to lovetheir children,
Tobe discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands,that the word of God be not blasphemed.There is no mention inthe above verses that women are permitted to be engaged in the public expositionof Biblical doctrine, which is what BSF Teaching Leaders do. The teachingdescribed in the above passage from Titus is of an entirely different sort.When women step out of bounds and become disobedient to Scripture, thedoor swings wide open for deception to enter in.
PRACTICES
BSF’s structure promotesShepherding/Discipleship practices. BSF encourages its leadership to sharepersonal intimacies with the next higher level in the hierarchy. SmallGroup Discussion Leaders are supposed to call each member of their grouponce a week, encouraging them to share what is going on in their personallives. These Discussion Leaders may then reveal their own matters of theheart to the Teaching Leaders as well as any confidences they choose fromthose in their groups. The Teaching Leaders may then tell those confidencesto the Area Coordinators, etc. In this way, the allegiance of BSF participantsshifts from the God-ordained marriage-family structure to BSF itself. Thishierarchical structure of accountability to the next tier of authorityis common to cults and cultish organizations. It bypasses the local churchin a manner not unlike Promise Keepers which is simply not scriptural.
Another questionableShepherding/Discipleship practice of BSF is its adherence to a vast quantityof complex rules which are designed to promote orderliness within the organization,but which actually promote legalism. I sensed that any resistance to rulesby participants results in their being labeled as rebellious or not insubmission to their higher authority in the hierarchy, even when the rulecontradicts Scripture. For example, at one location where I was a participant,I gently admonished a woman because of something that she had shared insmall group, not to allow a certain object to remain in her house basedupon Deut. 7:26. Although the Bible says that she should have come directlyto me if she were offended, she complained to our Discussion Leader, whoin turn informed the Teaching Leader. Certainly the sharing of participants’confidences behind their backs without permission among the leadershipis not biblical. The result of this episode was that I was censured: Iwas no longer allowed to speak with anyone about what they shared in smallgroup.
During one conversationwith my Discussion Leader, I said, 'But the Bible says...' to which sheresponded, 'Oh, that doesn’t matter....' The net result of this unbiblicalsituation was that there were two women in my group who were involved inNew Age activities whom I was not permitted to correct. One was promotinga new age form of alternative medicine in the group, and the other wasusing visualization and inner healing to 'improve' her Christian walk.I pray that the Lord will bring correction to these two women in anotherway since BSF did not allow me to speak.
Furthermore, as a resultof questioning BSF teaching, I have met with opposition from the BSF establishment.In my case, I brought my Teaching Leader some information about TheMessage, a modern Bible version whichadds to, deletes from and distorts the Word of God. She was offended, probablybecause she had read from The Message to the group, and even wentso far as to say that I was under the influence of Satan and operatingin that Bible Study as his agent!
At another group location,a different Teaching Leader proclaimed during her lecture that Moses didn’thave a speech impediment. When I wrote her a note to correct the error,she telephoned me at home and said that she didn’t think that I belongedin BSF.
Two of BSF’s statedaims are:
- To equip and to motivateindividuals to contribute more effectively to the life and work of theirchurches, supporting them faithfully in prayer, stewardship, and service.6
- To function in supportof the churches in the community.7
Is BSF for believersor for unbelievers? Their brochure states, 'The composition of the membershipis Protestant, Catholic andunchurched.' 9 A BSF staffer at headquarters told me that BSF allows participationby Buddhists, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses or anyone who wants to studythe Bible.10 Created for Commitmentstates,'Seeing that all denominations are welcome, Bible Study Fellowship hasa truly ecumenical fellowship.'11 And I know that there are many true believersattending BSF, too. Obviously, it is for both. BSF attempts to blend evangelismwith Christian fellowship and thereby contradicts Scripture. This is thesame error of which PromiseKeepers is guilty. The BSF program even includes regular luncheonsin participants’ homes for fellowship.
Beye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hathrighteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light withdarkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath hethat believeth with an infidel? (IICor. 6:14-15)Because of the above error,BSF exhibits the cultish characteristic of maintaining strict control overthe flow of information within its organization. Nobody is allowed to speakabout or discuss specific denominations. Nobody is allowed to ask otherquestions than those which are presented by BSF for discussion in the smallgroups. In fact, nobody is even allowed to bring up Scripture to clarifya point other than those Scriptures provided in the questions. (The exceptionto the above is 'Challenge' questions where participants are allowed tobring in other Scriptures, but there are very few of these challenge questions,usually no more than one per week.) But most importantly, BSF will notallow their lesson materials to be given to anyone for scrutiny or examinationunless they are a class participant. 'BSF notes are provided for the personaluse of class members during their active participation and must not beloaned or given to nonmembers.' 12 Such secrecy is a common element ofshepherding/discipleship groups and secret societies. However, II Tim.2:9 states, '... butthe word of God is not bound.'
BSF maintains allegianceto itself through layers and layers of training sessions, seminars andretreats for all levels of its leaders. At these events, leaders from allgroups are taught to uphold and comply with BSF’s myriad of rules. It isa time for fellowship, but from descriptions in Miss Johnson’s autobiography,this fellowshipping sounds more like touchy-feely small group methods includinga format for self-disclosure. For example, she describes a communion serviceduring a Teaching Leader seminar led by Rev. Michael Baughen. Baughen isthe 'rector or All Souls Anglican Church in London (formerly Dr. John Stott’schurch)....'13 After the distribution, '...Michael prayed. He suggested,‘Let us show our love to one another and tell each other why we love himor her. It is scriptural to embrace one another, if you feel so led’....Afterlunch there was a rigidly enforced silence when everyone went out witha ‘self-evaluation’ sheet with a suggested passage of Scripture and someprivate ‘self-evaluation questions’....After this we all assembled in groupsof five to share whatever we wished with each other.'14
Teaching leaders arenot trained by regional offices, but 'keep close personal contact withthe general director by phone and by letter.'15 This decision was madeby the suggestion of BSF Board Member Dr. Harold Englund 'who was highlyesteemed by the InterVarsity Fellowship'16 and has the effect of maintainingstrict control over the function of the entire organization from one centrallocation.
The dominionist rootsof BSF are not hard to trace. Miss Johnson states in her autobiographythat she attended the first InternationalCongress on World Evangelization at Lausanne in 1975. Additionally,she participated in the 1978 Summit Conference of the International Councilon Biblical Inerrancy in Chicago.17 After serving as Executive Directorof this organization, Dr. Jay Grimstead then founded Coalition on Revival(COR) in 1984.18 This accounts for BSF’s heavy emphasis on works through'personal application' questions such as, 'What are you doing for the Lord?'19and 'What are you doing for Christ in changing family and your own regionin society?'20 Although BSF appears to back away from reconstructionism,dominionist thinking is evident in the following as they state that, 'failureto believe God’s Word...is the first and chief of all spiritual failures.It is what keeps so many of us from achieving all that we could achieveas spiritual warriors sent to conquer the kingdoms of this world for JesusChrist.'21
PRESENTATIONMETHOD
The method that BSFuses to present its material is also problematic. Participants arrive atthe group location, usually a host church, and gather in the sanctuaryfor a 10 minute opening devotion. Then they assemble into pre-assignedsmall groups of about 10-15 people which are facilitated by the DiscussionLeader. For about 38 minutes, participants go over questions that theyanswered during the previous week on specific Scripture passages. Finally,after the small group session, students gather again in the sanctuary fora 45 minute lecture by the Teaching Leader who teaches about the Biblepassages which were studied for that week. Upon leaving for the day, participantspick up a copy of the notes/questions. Written notes further expound thejust-completed lesson and questions are for participants to answer duringthe coming week about new Bible passages.
The Small Group DiscussionLeaders do not teach Scripture and do not acknowledge correct or incorrectanswers. They simply encourage participation from all members and attemptto arrive at a consensus within the group about what the Bible is saying.Miss Johnson wrote,
I taught theseleaders never to respond with 'That’s not right,' but simply to thank theindividual and ask if someone else might have a different opinion. Discussionleaders were not intended to teach their class, but rather to encouragefellowship and discussion of answers and to have occasional simple discussionclass luncheons.22The dialecticprocess (thesis + antithesis = synthesis) is at work here. The formulafor the dialectic is 'a diverse group of people dialoging to consensusover social issues in a facilitated meeting.' This method will brainwashparticipants to abdicate strict adherence to Scripture for the sake oftheir relationship to the group. In other words, Thesis (What the Biblesays) + Antithesis (What BSF says) = Synthesis (Allegiance to BSF's interpretationof the Bible).
But Scripture says,Preachthe word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhortwith all longsuffering and doctrine.(II Tim. 4:2) Facilitating is not preaching. One may argue that the Wordis preached during the lectures. Yes, that’s true, but the participantshave already been facilitated in the small group into allegiance to BSF,thus preparing their minds to accept whatever is taught in lecture, whetherBiblical or not.
For example, BSF stronglytaught that class members should never question their leadership citingthe Korah rebellion (Numbers 16) and Miriam and Aaron who spoke againstMoses (Numbers 12). My Discussion Leader put forth, 'Be positive or bequiet' as a model for godly behavior within our BSF group. That unbiblicalstatement set the stage for future lectures where heavy emphasis was placedon strict allegiance to Christian leadership.
Another example of unbiblicalteaching occurred in a lecture during the Lifeof Moses study, when BSF promoteda most astounding principle: 'Only lie when the alternative does not glorifyGod.' 23 This is pure situational ethics. BSF derived this 'principle'from the account in Exodus 1:15-21 of the two midwives who told Pharaohthat they did not kill the boy babies, Becausethe Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women: for they are lively, andare delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.(vs. 19) There is no statementin Scripture that they lied. (If I were a pregnant Hebrew wife and I knewthat Pharaoh wanted to kill my child if it were a boy, I wouldn’t callthe midwife until the last minute, if at all!) It is likely that the midwivestold the truth, but BSF assumed the opposite and presented the above 'principle'as truth from Scripture. But even if the midwives did lie, it is wrongto use a portion or portions of Scripture to countermand God’s clear teachingthat we should not lie. (Exodus 20:16)
Teaching leaders receiveliterature from headquarters each week including the 'principles' whichhelps them prepare their weekly lecture. BSF intended this 'principle'to be presented at every location around the world. In my own group itcaused no small amount of dissension and confusion. ( See Matt. 5:19) However,when I wrote directly to Rosemary Jensen expressing my concern, she replied,'It certainly is not our desire to encourage people to lie which is alwayswrong.'24 Well, what’s the truth here: the 'principle' in the literaturefrom BSF headquarters or Rosemary Jensen’s letter?
CONTENT
While reading throughBSF materials in preparation for writing this article, I experienced theincongruous sensation of simultaneous blessing and alarm. Many parts ofthe content are very good, but others are a source of serious concern.For example, the Life of Mosesnotes promote a blatant liberal approach to the study of Scripture claimingthat it 'will guard us against a false spiritualizing of the text.'25
...the Biblebears the marks of the human authors so that, for example, Moses does notwrite like Paul or Paul like David. And it means that the way into themind of God, who is the ultimate author, is through the mind of the humanwriter. That is, we must seek to understand the books of the Bible as wewould seek to understand any other books.
This meansthat we need to pay attention to the context out of which the human authoris writing, including what may be known from secular sources. So, for example,what we can know about Egypt and its religious practices will throw lighton the Exodus. Other law codes of the ancient world will throw light onthe Ten Commandments.'26This method demotes Scriptureand defines it through the eyes of human reasoning. A perfect example ofBSF doing just that is found in their comparing the account of baby Mosesin the ark among the flags (Ex. 2:1-10) to the legend of the birth of Sargonof Akkad. The notes contend that the myth 'proves' and 'tends to anchor'the Biblical account of Moses 'in what was apparently a common ancientpractice.'27 It is never appropriate to attempt to substantiate the Biblewith pagan/occult stories. In doing so, the Bible is discredited and thestatus of legends is elevated. Syncretism distorts and thereby destroysGod’s truth (II Kings 17:33-41, I Tim. 1:4, 4:7, and II Tim 4:4). Yet inmany passages too numerous to mention, BSF declares the Bible to be God’sWord and professes that it is absolute truth. So why in the world wouldthey attempt to validate it with extrabiblical sources and pagan mythsas above? God’s Word says: Dotha fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? (James3:11)
PSYCHOLOGICALCONTAMINATION
One of the most grievousindications of error in BSF is the integration of psychology and psychologicaltechniques into its course of study. Approximately 25% of all the questionsin The Life of Mosesstudy that participants are expected to answer are of a personal nature.According to Rosemary Jensen, 'The questions have been written to encouragepeople to apply to their lives that which they are learning rather thanto become full of knowledge only.' 28 That is a good and commendable objective.However, answering personal questions in a group setting about how onethinks or feels shifts the mind away from the absolutes of Scripture andcreates a desire to be accepted by the group: it has become an encountergroup which is processing Scripture rather than a fellowship of believers.
In addition to personalquestions, students in the Lifeof Moses study are asked to answerquestions which promote speculation about how Bible characters felt suchas:
'What do youthink Moses was feeling in these verses?'29
'How do youthink Moses felt about such explicit instructions?'30
'Describe howyou think Moses must have felt when he saw the calf and dancing.'31
'What emotionsdo you think Moses was experiencing?'32Moreover, students areencouraged to imagine role-playing as evidenced by the following:'Try to putyourself in Moses’ place as the inspector of the tabernacle work. Whatqualities must Moses have possessed?'33
'Imagine how Aaron musthave felt when he looked upon Miriam’s leprosy....'34
Just like the personalquestions, this type of question causes the students’ attention to be shiftedaway from what the Bible says and onto their own thoughts and feelings.Scripture says, Afool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discoveritself.(Prov. 18:2)Psychological inroadsare also evident in Lesson 21 where BSF attempts to meet their students’felt needs. The notes compare the book of Numbers to a book on 'logarithmsor basic arithmetic' 35 and go on to state that 'most people regard anysuch works as boring or irrelevant.'36 Furthermore, the notes assume thatwe will have 'initial prejudices,'37 and even ask the question, 'Is thisany way to start a book, at least a book anyone would want to read?' 38Another appalling statement is made: 'In fact, the repetitive languageof this chapter strikes most of us as boring.'39 They state that 'We haveto work hard to appreciate'40 a certain section of Numbers, and the carefulrepetition in places is 'to our minds unnecessary.'41 Although BSF goeson in each instance to uphold Scripture as being valuable and interesting,it is evident that their purpose is to meet the students’ feelings whichis totally unnecessary. Negative attitudes toward the Bible are sin. Makingsuch statements is akin to sowing resentment--participants may not haveeven thought such a thing. To plant such seeds in students’ minds or toempathize with them is sin as well. God’s Word says, Buthis delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditateday and night. (Ps. 1:2) and Ohow love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.(Ps. 119:97)
It is apparent thatBSF was compromised with psychology from its very beginning. Miss Johnsontells us that when BSF was in the process of developing its Children’sProgram, a woman named 'Martie Johnson [who] had taught psychology at Ft.Wayne Bible College...joined our staff, spending a year with us to initiatethis new work and writing an additional two-year series of lessons....'42It is likely that her training in psychology affected the content of thecurriculum she wrote. Moreover, when Martin and Deidre Bobgan wrote theirfirst book, The PsychologicalWay/The Spiritual Way, they maileda copy to Miss Johnson. Although she gave the Bobgans a very favorableresponse to the book itself, in a personal letter mailed to them she hadthe following to say about the book in regard to BSF:
I would liketo recommend it to all B.S.F. leaders. But, we have so many Christian psychologistsand secular ones in our membership -- that even if I were not retired Iwould be fearful of abnormal reactions.43The Word of God says: Thefear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shallbe safe. (Prov. 29:25)
ADDINGTO SCRIPTURE
God tells us, Yeshall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminishought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God whichI command you.(Deut. 4:2) and Addthou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.(Prov. 30:6) However, BSF has gone beyond what is written in their descriptionof the crucifixion of Christ in their study of Matthew:
During thelast three hours...great darkness covered the land....and a veil was drawnover our Lord during His most intense agony of Spirit as He descended tothe abyss to be locked in combat against the spiritual powers of darkness.44BSF gives an extrabiblicaldefinition in saying:
The great darkness...wasnot...God judging Jerusalem and sending darkness. This darkness was a partof hell. God calls hell 'darkness' (Matthew 25:30) 45But Scripture does notsay that this darkness was hell. Hell is darkness, but not all darknessis hell. To call this darkness hell, either hell or darkness have to beredefined. Later, the notes say that, '...He came up again from that terribleabyss.' 46 Nowhere does the Bible indicate that Jesus went to the abyssto battle demons while He was on the cross. Can BSF actually be sayingthat Jesus had an out-of-body experience while on the cross? This fancifulinterpretation is reminiscent of the Word/Faith heresy that Jesus’ deathon the cross was not sufficient propitiation for our sin, but that He hadto descend to hell after death, adopt Satan’s sin nature, be beaten upby demons, and be spiritually born-again. How careful we must be to notgo beyond what is clearly written in the Word!
Another passage in BSFnoteswhich raises some serious questions is found in the Lifeof Moses study. This section talksabout what we can learn about God from His revelation of Himself to Mosesin the burning bush. The notes state:
'A bush wouldsymbolize all that is commonplace or near at hand. So the presence of thefire in the bush could be symbolic of God’s presence at all times and inall things....we learn from the very beginning of the Exodus story thatGod is immanent. He is with us and feels for us. He is the ever-presentGod.'47Although it is an historical,orthodox term used about God, 'immanent' should be clearly defined froma biblical position. Theologians know and understand the meaning of immanent,but the average lay person does not. God is simply not present 'in allthings'; that is the pantheistic definition of God.48 Although God waspresent in the burning bush, it was merely a covering for God--by no meansdid He become one consciousness with the bush. God is separate and distinctfrom His creation A case could be made in defense of pantheism from BSFnotes: since God’s presence is in all things, therefore, He is everything.New Agers use the term immanent for just such a purpose. Although on thesame page of the notes, BSF defines God as holy, stating, 'The real meaningof holy is ‘that which is separate,’' 49 they do not relate that separatenessto their definition of immanent and their wording is painfully vague. Suchambiguity creates confusion. It is critical that teaching about the natureof God be absolutely clear.
Considering the BSF’sdeparture from so many Biblical principles, it is not surprising that theyalso commit the error of recommending to their students the use of modernBible versions. The following statement appears at the tops of every setof student questions:
The questions,of necessity, cannot be based on all translations; so, as far as possible,use the New International Version or King James Version as a basic textwith whatever other version you enjoy using.50This statement opens thedoor for all kinds of aberrations of Scriptures since BSF is an ecumenicalorganization. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses would most likelyuse their distorted New World Translation. Moreover, since all ofthe modern versions are based upon Gnostic texts, the potential for errorand false teaching is magnified exponentially. Although the KingJames Version does not follow the Textus Receptus precisely, it is stilla very close translation and, as such, is the best version available today.For detailed information on the corruptionof modern translations, please refer to AnotherBible, Another Gospel.
Ecumenism, shepherding/discipleshiptactics, psychological contamination, false teaching, etc., all blow aresounding trumpet warning to those who are participating in BSF. Hereis an exhortation for Jesus’ dear lambs: Consider well the result of Gedeliah’sunbelief of Johanan’s warnings about Ishmael (Jeremiah 40:13 - 41:18).
In conclusion, althoughBSF claims to be preaching the gospel and upholding the authority of Scripture,it clearly is not doing so. It seems almost unbelievable that an organizationwhich appears so good on the outside could be filled with danger and deception.But Jesus said,Judgenot according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.(John7:24) The fact is that the women who are in authority in this organizationare disobedient to Scripture, are thereby deceived, and are leading manyastray. May the LORD lead BSF to become faithful to Him.
FOOTNOTES
Bsf Group Leader Manual
1. BSF InternationalInformational Brochure available from:
BSF International Headquarters
19001 Blanco Road
San Antonio, TX 78258-4019
Phone 1-210-492-4676
FAX 1-210-493-4111
2. Ibid.
3. Information fromphone call to BSF Headquarters and BSF International Informational Brochure.
4. Information fromphone call to BSF Headquarters.
5. A. Wetherell Johnson,Created for Commitment, (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, IL, 1982),p. 248.
6. BSF InternationalInformational Brochure.
7. Ibid.
8. A. Wetherell Johnson,p, 224.
9. BSF InternationalInformational Brochure.
10. Information fromphone call to BSF Headquarters.
11. A. Wetherell Johnson,p. 224.
12. Page 1 of the notesfor each BSF lesson in any study.
13. A. Wetherell Johnson,p. 263.
14. Ibid., p. 264.
15. Ibid., p. 240.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid., p. 306-307.
18. Albert James Dager,Media Spotlight, Special Report, The Coalition on Revival, 1989.
19. A. Wetherell Johnson,p. 267.
20. Ibid.
21. BSF Lifeof Moses study, Lesson 23, p. 1.
22. A. Wetherell Johnson,p. 205..
23. Presented in lectureon September 21, 1994.
24. Business letterfrom Rosemary Jensen to Virginia R. Donovan dated October 18, 1994.
25. BSF Lifeof Moses study, Lesson 1, p. 3.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., Lesson 3,p. 4.
28. Business letterfrom Rosemary Jensen to Virginia R. Donovan dated October 18, 1994.
29. BSF Lifeof Moses study, Lesson 5, p. 8, question 11a.
30. Ibid., Lesson 12,p. 7, question 8a.
31. Ibid., Lesson 13,p. 7, question 7a.
32. Ibid., Lesson 24,p. 8, question 13a.
33. Ibid., Lesson 15,p. 7, question 5a.
34. Ibid., Lesson 21,p. 10, question 16.
35. Ibid., Lesson 21,p. 1.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid., p. 2.
40. Ibid., p. 4.
41. Ibid., p. 5.
42. A. Wetherell Johnson,pp. 243-244.
43. Personal letterfrom A. Wetherell Johnson to Martin and Deidre Bobgan postmarked June,1980.
44. BSF Matthewstudy, Lesson 31, p. 3.
45. Ibid., p. 6.
46. Ibid., p. 7.
47. BSF Lifeof Moses study, Lesson 5, p. 2.
48. For example, TheNew Webster’s collegiate Dictionary defines immanent as 'existing in consciousnessor the mind.' Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: G.& C. Merriam Co., 1973), s.v. 'immanent.'
49. BSF Lifeof Moses study, Lesson 5, p. 2.
50. Page 1 of the questionsfor each BSF lesson in any study.
Comments are closed.