BJU Made the News Again ... in an unlikely place

PL,
How can a rule AGAINST dating someone of another race not be a race issue? I have avoided this thread because the dating rule at BJU was turned out to pasture a while ago. But am I missing something about your arguement, is the key in your use of the word "racist" rather then "race"?

 

I look at what BJU is today. BJU will always be criticized for their conservative beliefs. If my children desired to go to BJU, then I would consider their choice a good decision.

A Christian college that integrates Biblical values and beliefs into their academia is a far better alternative than attending a state-supported, "politically-correct", drinking-party school that offers no hope and foundation for entering freshman.

 

Concerning the broader issues of not allowing different races to date, which I again say is no longer a rule at BJU but to continue the discussion. I understand the finer point that you are making about what is and isn't racism. But can it really be argued that the founders of BJU and the following leaders did not have racist attitudes? The seperating of people because skin color or birthplace, for whatever reason is rooted firmly in racist attitudes, even if everyone is "treated fairly" under a certian specific policy.

 

How did BJU do this? They never had a "whites-only" dorm or any other such thing?

If you mean simply defining by ethnic categories, there are many besides BJU who have done this, such as the Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP, the US Government...

Whether or not they did in the past is really irrelevant, anyway. The fact is that those attitudes do not exist on campus today (again, if they ever did at all).

It is interesting how a BJU mention almost always degrades into this topic.

Hey Pastor Larry- gonna see the flick?

 

Regardless of where the school started or what the policies where when it started, the very fact that they held onto the "dating" rule way past the time of institutional segregation was ended in Brown vs. Board of Education, well into the 1990's stands as a mark against the school.

I would also say that regardless of what the laws where in the South, seperate but equal was unjust and as believers, white or otherwise, it should not have been left unchallenged by those claiming the name of Jesus Christ.

 

Those of us who have some appreciation for the ministry of BJU do need to be honest about past attitudes and statements from the Jones family that did demand repudiation and probably public repentance. Common cultural attitudes at the time are no excuse. I have no idea whether such a public repudiation has ever taken place, as it has with the SBC, for example.

Here's what I mean. Has anyone else ever read an article in The Nation magazine from the late 1960s that includes an interview with Bob Jones III? I have read the printed text personally. In it, a couple quotes are attributed to Jones that are pretty startling. I can't offer the precise issue date from memory, but anyone who knows how to use the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature in a library should be able to find it with no problem.

I am hesitant to reproduce the quotes since The Nation is known to be a liberal publication, and I want to believe that the quotes were not accurate. Perhaps someone has fuller knowledge of the circumstances behind the article.

 

This is very true and we would all do well to remember this. Did BJU do anything to legally change the law or did they continue in the status quo?
I think everyone seems to be in agreement here about the policy; not a good idea. It feels as though we may be on the same side from slightly different prespective.

 

My reference to common cultural attitudes is addressing Jones III's statements in the article, not the policies.

I just PM'ed you some more specific information.

 

I have seen BJIII's response to this article. Basically, he says that when he was interviewed (nearly 40 years ago), he specifically said things to irritate them because of their radical liberal leanings. He went on to say that the published statements (which may or may not be totally accurate) did not reflect his core feelings.

My guess is that he gave the interview in his mid to late 20's and foolishly made some rash, short-sighted statements.


Andy

 

I have no way of evaluating his motives. We need to take him at his word, I suppose. Still, I fail to see how a motive to intentionally irritate a reporter removes him from responsibility to repent of the foolishness that led him to make the statements. It seems to me that these statements are incompatible with Christlikeness regardless of the motives. Explaining the motives doesn't take away the guilt.

As I've stated before, I have a great deal of appreciation for Jones' ministry. I simply wish that he would deal more honestly with past failures. His denial that BJU had ever tried to defend a theological foundation for the interracial dating policy in the LKL interview was another example of this pattern.

 

Who says he hasn't repented of it?

BJU has certainly tried to repair its image in this regard. They have instituted a minority fund scholarship, they came out for removing the Confederate flag from the top of the SC statehouse, and they take pains to feature minorities in their promotional material. I don't recall BJIII coming out in favor of the MLK holiday. I think he supported some sort of compromise, though.

Andy

 

This is an interesting but old arguement. I was actually there, in chapel, in the fall of 1979 when BJIII preached the message on the separation of the races. It came about when Southside Baptist Church in Greenville accepted as members a mixed race couple. Saved, by the way, after being married (not that that matters). On that day BJU broke fellowship with Southside Baptist and would not allow its students to attend or to work at various ministries of the church. BJU went further to require that their faculty resign from any positions in the church.

This whole issue represents some of the main problems I have with the "separation issue." Folks can make doctrine out of anything and BJIII did at the time. If you don't follow our interpretation of this doctrine the we'll break fellowship.

His arguement was that the Bible specifically meant "race" when talking about the nations. A change in "doctrine" cannot come about with a change in "policy."

In all fairness I think he "had" to preach the message since they were in the midst of the Supreme Court case. To have done anthing else would have meant faster failure of their legal claims.

 

Sorry, I was there. My roommate had to change extension ministries. Fall 1979. Dr. Henson of the science department had to resign as a deacon of the church. He was my wifes academic advisor.