BJU begins accreditation process

You are comparing apples and oranges once again. There were no separate rooms, toilets, water fountains, classes, educational standards, etc. Everyone lived by the same rules in the same place and under the same environment. Whatever it might have been, it certainly wasn't racism, and to invoke Jim Crow is completely out of place.

 

Not so. Racism involves treatment based on the view that one race is superior over another. If races are separated (as in dating) because of a belief that one race is superior to another, it's racism, regardless of the individual outcome to each race.

However, since it's been pointed out that "racial superiority" was not a factor here, the act of forbidding interracial dating was still discrimination and bigotry.

 

YOu can't make two contradictory statements and be right both times. Your first paragraph is right and renders your second paragraph wrong. There was no racial superiority involved in teh reasoning. Therefore, it is not discrimination and bigotry.

Keith, the reasoning involved the law. Jones Sr took steps to obey the law while still helping black students get an education.

 

There were a number of different options looked at, including starting a school for blacks in SC. AS it turned out, SC was the best place for the school, all things considered.

This is the saddest part of all of it, to me.

Probably not much ... most of these men never showed fruits of true regeneration in their lives. They would not have "gotten along" at BJU, even if blacks had been admitted.

 

Could we discuss the racism issues in another thread?

Can anyone explain to me how BJU's pursuing of accreditation in cooperation with what they would have historically called "neo-evangelical" institutions is consistent with their stated position on separation?

 

Their stated position is countered by the need to keep a student populations capable of funding a 250 million dollar facility and a staff of a hundreds.

 

I would assume Siegfried, and I can't commente for sure, but I would assume that they are not viewing this a a theological alliance. New evangelicalism deals with theological alliances, not educational ones. They have, from time to time, brought in people for education reasons that they would not have brought in for theological reasons (i.e, Pat Robertson, Allan Keyes, Cal Thomas, etc.). I assume that they see those things as different than a theological alliance.

Again, I am not saying they are right. I am suggesting that there may be a distinction. I know that distinction is made in other fundamentalists institutions such as those who have faculty members who are members of the ETS. There is a usual distinction made between theological/ecclesiastical associations and educational associations.

 

Pastor Larry,

I would agree that the rationale you describe may well be the rationale in the minds of the administration. I do not understand how it could be argued that this distinction is valid. There is a difference between the ETS scenario and this accreditation function.

A teacher who goes to an ETS meeting to discuss theological issues is not engaged in a joint ministry with those who compromise the gospel. Compromisers may be present--check that, they are present--but there is not a common agenda of furthering the cause of Christ through cooperative efforts.

This accreditation issue is a cooperative effort in the sense that the educational institutions look at one another's objectives and help them evaluate themselves to determine if they are accomplishing their objectives. (This is the system with the regional agencies, at least. I suppose it is possible that TRACS is different. If TRACS accreditation really accomplishes anything at all, however, I doubt it.) When BJU becomes a part of this process and lends its support to the system, it is affirming that the other accredited institutions are accomplishing their objectives. Within the cooperative structure, BJU is endorsing the educational mission of these institutions. Although I have not researched their missions, it seems self-evident that as religious institutions, some sort of theological purpose is going to be prominent.

I realize that you are not explicitly endorsing this perspective. Perhaps your opinion is similar to mine. My simple point is that BJU has painted themselves into a difficult corner by taking such public stands over the years. When they backtrack without acknowledging past error, they may rightly be accused of inconsistency and/or hypocrisy.

Ironically enough, I know of at least one SBC seminary professor who is contemplating resigning from ETS in light of their failure to defend the faith against the open theism heresy at the last meeting.

 

No, they don't have to do everything the same at all times and you are certainly wise to modify the rules with your children as they mature. However, BJU, over the years, has made separation and non-accreditation distinctives that are central to the philosophy of the school. When a school starts to change or re-define basic distinctives, it is fair and reasonable to question why.

 

Andy,

I think I agree with everything you said in that post. I would not personally criticize BJU for pursuing TRACS accreditation based on the associations it creates. I do agree that it is a judgment call.

The problem is that BJU has taught throughout its history that these matters of separation are NOT open to judgment calls. I know personally of one pastor who is bewildered over this flip-flop. He has taken a strong stand in his areas of leadership on these issues, probably because of BJU's historical stand. Now he seems to feel very much out on a limb by himself--because BJU just jumped out of the tree. Does he stick it out alone now or compromise his principles. Even I disagree with this view of separation, it is very easy for my to symphathize with this pastor's bewilderment. I would be very surprised if there are not many others like him.

Are you talking about Tim Jordan's message at Northland's Heart Conference in 2003? I was not there but heard the recording. Excellent message. I think this is what BJU ought to be teaching, but unfortunately they have not been. Perhaps they will be in the future, but they will create great problems for themselves and others if they try to pretend that this has always been what they believed about separation.

 

There's no contradiction. One can be a bigot and discriminate and not be a racist. That's what the school did. They were enforcing a rule that was discriminatory and bigoted, even though it was technically not racist.

 

I see the distinction you are making. I agree with your distinction. Your application of it in this case is incorrect, IMO. There was no discrimination or bigotr involved in this rule.