Bob Jones III lied to Larry King

Discussion in 'Baptist Colleges / Seminaries' started by Paul33, Dec 22, 2004.

  1. Paul33

    Paul33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    BJIII told Larry King that the ban on interacial dating and marriage at BJU was not "their" idea, but was put in place at the request of parents (minority) who were sending their children to the school. BJIII claimed that it was never a religious issue for the school.

    I attended BJU in the early 80's. They preached their position from the Bible. To them, it was a Biblical mandate not to intermarry or date. Below is a letter from 1998 to a "prospective" student requesting information on the interacial marriage and dating ban.

    Why do you think Bob Jones III lied to Larry King?

    Should BJIII be confronted with his lie and hypocrisy?


    08/31/98 Letter from Bob Jones University

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Effective March 3, 2000, Bob Jones III has rescinded the ban on interracial dating. This letter no longer reflects current policy and is provided for information purposes only.


    BOB JONES UNIVERSITY
    Greenville, SC 29614-0001
    864-242-5100
    Admissions Office 1-800-BJ-AND-ME


    August 31, 1998


    Mr. James Landrith
    P.O. Box 8208
    Alexandria, VA 22306

    Dear Mr. Landrith:

    Thank you for your phone call requesting information concerning interracial relations here at Bob Jones University. The University has an open admissions policy, and we accept students of any race. The student body is fully integrated with all students participating in all activities and organizations regardless of race.

    Bob Jones University does, however, have a rule prohibiting interracial dating among its students. God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain. Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage of the races because it breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes that which God separated and intends to keep separate. Every effort in world history to bring the world together has demonstrated man's self-reliance and his unwillingness to remain as God ordains. The attempts at one-worldism have been to devise a system without God and have fostered the promotion of a unity designed to give the world strength so that God is not needed and can be overthrown.

    Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man. We do believe we see principles, not specific verses, to give us direction for the avoidance of it.

    The people who built the Tower of Babel were seeking a man-glorifying unity which God has not ordained (Gen. 11:4-6). Much of the agitation for intermarriage among the races today is for the same reason. It is promoted by one-worlders, and we oppose it for the same reason that we oppose religious ecumenism, globalism, one-world economy, one-world police force, unisex, etc. When Jesus Christ returns to the earth, He will establish world unity, but until then, a divided earth seems to be His plan.

    Of course, we realize that this is controversial position and that there are many fine Christians who disagree with us on it. We recognize the right of other Christians to hold differing views; we only hope that they will recognize the sincerity and love with which we hold ours.

    Christian students of all races find a happy and harmonious atmosphere here at the University, and the number of minority students grows every year. We believe prejudice to be Biblically wrong, and it is not tolerated in the student body.

    I trust this information is helpful to you. Kind regards.


    Sincerely yours,


    Jonathan Pait
    Community Relations Coordinator


    mhs
     
  2. Paul33

    Paul33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Funny, BJU never had any problems teaching us foreign languages, even though, in doing so, they were removing barriers that God had errected between the nations!
     
  3. Paul33

    Paul33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Below is the transcript of Bob Jones III telling Larry King that the rule was meaningless and never talked about at BJU.

    Obviously, BJIII was not telling the truth.

    --------------------------------------------

    KING: Why can't black kids date white kids?

    JONES: OK.

    KING: Because you didn't take black kids for a long time, right?

    JONES: Well, 50 percent of American colleges as late as the mid- 1960s still didn't take black students, so...

    KING: But you were late?

    JONES: 1970, so we weren't that late. Furman (ph) University in our town took their first black I believe it was in '65, Clemson in '63. So, you know, we were not exclusive in this by any means.

    KING: But will you admit, as Jerry Falwell has said, you were wrong, you should have taken them?

    JONES: Yes, we do. We do, of course we do.

    KING: All right, why -- explain this, why they can't date.

    JONES: Well, being a Bible believing institution, Larry, we try to base things on Bible principle. The problem we have today is that our principle is so greatly misunderstood. People think we don't let them date because we are racist, in other words to be racist you have to treat people differently. We don't. We don't let them date, because we were trying, as an example, to enforce something, a principle that is much greater than this.

    We stand against the one-world government, against the coming world of anti-Christ, which is a one world system of blending, of all differences, of blending of national differences, economic differences, church differences, into a big one ecumenical world. The Bible is very clear about this.

    We said, you know, way back years ago, when we first had a problem, which was -- by the way, we started this principle, back in the mid-'50s, I was a college student at BJU at the time and it was with an Asian and Caucasian is -- we didn't even have black students for another 15 years. So it was not put there as a black thing, I think people need to understand that.

    KING: So the fear of one world relates back to two people dating?

    JONES: Now, we realize that a inter-racial marriage is not going to bring in the world the anti-Christ by any means, but if we as Christians stand for Christ and not anti-Christ, and we see -- we are against the one world church. We are against one economy, one political system.

    We see what the Bible says about this, so we say, OK, if they're going to blend this world -- and inter-racial marriage is a genetic blending, which is a very definite sort of blending -- we said as -- let's put this policy in here, because we are against the one world church and, way back, 17 years ago when I was on your program, I was saying on programs all across America, we are not going to the Supreme Court fighting for our rule and our -- we are fighting for our right to it. There is a religious freedom issue, that's all we ever fought for.

    KING: You are a private institution, you don't get the tax benefit because -- but you are entitled to the thing -- I'm trying to find out why you have the rule.

    JONES: Yes. We have the rule, because it was a part of a bigger -- it was a -- it wasn't the rule itself. We can't point to a verse in the Bible that says you shouldn't date or marry inter-racial.

    KING: You can't back it up?

    JONES: No, we can't back it up with a verse from the Bible. We never have tried to, we have never tried to do that. But we have said there is a principle here, an overriding principle of the one world government. But let me tell you how insignificant this is. Students never hear it preached. There have been four, five, six generations of students that graduated from there have never heard this preached in our chapel or taught in our school. To us...

    KING: But it's a rule, though, they know they can't.

    JONES: It is a rule, it is, but it's the most insignificant thing, but now, we are being defined as a racist school. I mean, that is all the media talks about. KING: Partly, during the era -- you know -- the era of segregation, segregationists said, well, we are not racist, we just think the races should be apart, they should be treated equally, but not together, and that was regarded as a kind of a cop-out.

    JONES: Yes.

    KING: Do you think maybe -- I mean, you could change that, you think it is a stretch maybe? In other words, have you given thought to maybe that's taking it too far, down to two people into a whole one world concept?

    JONES: I don't think it's taking it too far, but I can tell you this, we don't have to have that rule. In fact, as of today, we have dropped the rule. We have dropped the rule for this reason.

    KING: Today?

    JONES: Today. I met with the administrators this afternoon before coming here. But let me tell you why we dropped it. We don't want this to be a -- here is a great institution, one of the premier academic institutions in America, one of the premier Christian colleges of America. We have a broader testimony. And if all anybody can see is this rule, which we never talk about or preach, which most of our students couldn't even tell you what it is. It is that unimportant to us.

    I said to our administration, you know, guys, this thing is of such insignificance to us, it is so significant to the world at large, the media particularly, why should we have this here as an obstacle? It hurts our graduates, we love our graduates greatly, it hurts maybe the church, as well. I don't want to hurt the church of Jesus Christ.

    KING: Now it's involved in the presidential race.

    JONES: It is involved in the presidential race.

    KING: You caused a presidential candidate to write a letter to a cardinal.

    JONES: Yes, well...

    KING: I'll get to that in a minute.

    JONES: He did that. OK, but I want to tell you...

    KING: It's ended?

    JONES: It is ended, and I want it to be very clear why it has ended. Our concern for the cause of Christ, our concern for our graduates, our concern for our testimony, our concern for the school's broader usefulness is greater to us than a rule that we never talk about and that is meaningless to us. The principle upon which it's based is very, very important.

    KING: I understand. JONES: But the rule itself is not, so we did away with it.

    KING: Gone today?

    JONES: Yes.

    ---------------------------------------------

    Even in getting rid of the rule, BJIII admitted that taking the principle down to two people dating was not going too far!

    They believe a Biblical principle exists that forbids interracial dating and marriage, and yet they did away with it because it was an embarrassment to the school and graduates.

    And then BJIII says they never taught it.
     
  4. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    This is surprising to who?
     
  5. Archeryaddict

    Archeryaddict
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    I want to see where it says in the Bible where God said interracial marriage is forbiden?
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's in the 4th Epistle of John, I think. Or perhaps the book of Hezekiah.

    BJU's policy was wrong then, and for BJ3 to sidestep it is sad. What's so terribly wrong with him simply saying "it was bad policy, not scriptural, and while we should have addressed it earlier than we did, we did correct the policy"?.
     
  7. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I wonder where a mulatto or mestizo fits in at BJU?
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm, one would be beside oneself :eek:
     
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Did BJU have a racial dating rule because minority parents objected? Yes. Only part of the reason, of course, but I don't doubt it for a minute.
     
  10. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Did BJU have a racial dating rule because minority parents objected?"
    "
    One can be certain that many of the majority parents objected even harder.
     
  11. foxrev

    foxrev
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bj3 says:
    "Yes. We have the rule, because it was a part of a bigger -- it was a -- it wasn't the rule itself. We can't point to a verse in the Bible that says you shouldn't date or marry inter-racial."


    This surely is a full blown lie on the part of Bj3. He knows he defended the rule and preached from the Bible along with his Father and Grandfather that interracial dating was wrong! BJJR brought a series of messages in chapel on this rule during the Supreme Court era in the early 1980's.

    THE BIG LIE OF Bj3 IS:
    "But let me tell you how insignificant this is. Students never hear it preached. There have been four, five, six generations of students that graduated from there have never heard this preached in our chapel or taught in our school. To us..."

    This was just dumbfounding! Bj3 obviously wanted the media off his back at any cost for lying like this. This is a flat out denial of messages that were preached/taped in chapel along with several of our Bible teachers teaching as well! He surely KNOWS that this is not true. This is most shameful and disgraceful that he would just lie like this! Amazing that out of a few thousand people who KNOW that this is not true, only a few speak the Truth! So much for people giving their allegiance to men and not God!
     
  12. foxrev

    foxrev
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    John V:

    Very good question! The situation was handled as follows: Mullatto/mixed race students were to date the race that they chose. They were allowed to change the race they dated at the beginning of each year, if they so liked to. So much for "IT" not being discussed for generations!
     
  13. Paul33

    Paul33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Foxrev,

    Right on. I was there during the early 80s. I heard the sermons. I heard BJJR and BJIII defend their position from the Bible. Never was there a more twisted hermeneutic.

    But now, BJIII flat out lies to Larry King and no one calls him on it!
     
  14. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not sure it's true that no one has called him on it, but apparently there has not been repentance that was as public as the dishonesty.

    What I never understood--even if you bought the "one world" logic--was how BJU could permit international dating but not interracial dating. In other words, an English-speaking person could date a native French-speaker without a second glance, but for some mysterious reason the mythical "races" were divided. The light came on to that concept for me after the ban was lifted, but it still reinforced my belief that there were racist undertones to the implementation and preservation of the rule that were forged with religious liberty furor in the 70's to create the famous court challenges.

    Even though I grew up in non-SBC circles, I've gained respect for the SBC through their public repentance that I am unfortunately not able to hold for BJU. Even the limited admission of guilt BJ3 expressed on LKL was accompanied by spreading the blame to Furman and Clemson and unwillingness to acknowledge the genuine history of the interracial dating rule.

    BJ3 does deserve credit for being far more reasonable and balanced than his ancestors and, more importantly, than the administrative and disciplinary regime they created. It seems that he is willing to steer the ship more towards a proper direction, but only very gradually.

    P.S. I just noticed that this is my post # 666. I wonder if I am also contributing to BJU's fears of a one-world government by not posting again right away.
     
  15. foxrev

    foxrev
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Siegfried:

    Where, when and who calle bj3 on his lies to Larry King? How could you possibly have ANY respect for bj3 when the man lies with no shame or hesitation? He is "more reasonable?" Just because he dropped the rule does not mean that at all. He dropped it because he was in a corner and had had enough pressure to cave in. He surely defended the rule, preached about it and then said he was never a segregationist! Right.
     
  16. paidagogos

    paidagogos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think they belong in the baritone and soprano sections respectively. :D
     
  17. paidagogos

    paidagogos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's in the same part where it is sinful to forbid it. I can't remember the reference. Can you help me?
     
  18. paidagogos

    paidagogos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Evangelist Chuck Coffey and Dr. Wm. Grady (former Hyles-Anderson faculty member)say they have Scripture. Send them some e-mail and ask their opinion. You'l get an interesting reply.

    Check out the following web pages for their articles:

    http://www.baptistbibletrumpet.com/trumpet/may00/index.html

    http://www.baptistbibletrumpet.com/trumpet/may00/index.html

    Bro. Chuck got rather riled at me when I simply asked if the people of Moab (Nehemiah 13:22-31) were black. I pointed out that Ruth, who is included in the genealogy (Matthew 1:5) of Christ, was a Moabitess (Ruth 1:4).

    Of course, I defend his right to his conscience and beliefs. Everyone has the right to be a dunder head.
     
  19. Broadus

    Broadus
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    716
    Likes Received:
    0
    Evangelist Chuck Coffey and Dr. Wm. Grady (former Hyles-Anderson faculty member)say they have Scripture. Send them some e-mail and ask their opinion. You'l get an interesting reply.

    Check out the following web pages for their articles:

    http://www.baptistbibletrumpet.com/trumpet/may00/index.html

    http://www.baptistbibletrumpet.com/trumpet/may00/index.html

    Bro. Chuck got rather riled at me when I simply asked if the people of Moab (Nehemiah 13:22-31) were black. I pointed out that Ruth, who is included in the genealogy (Matthew 1:5) of Christ, was a Moabitess (Ruth 1:4).

    Of course, I defend his right to his conscience and beliefs. Everyone has the right to be a dunder head.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Isn't eisegesis great when exegesis doesn't support one's view?

    Bill
     
  20. paidagogos

    paidagogos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are wrong in the preceding assessment. Dr. Bob, Sr. and Dr. Bob, Jr. were consistent and true to their knowledge, understandings of Scripture, and convictions. They were the children of their generation and culture. (It bemuses me to imagine that some of the most pious critics of segregation would have been burning crosses if they had grown up and lived in the locality, culture and era as those whom they criticize.) You cannot judge them in the light of today’s political correctness, beliefs and knowledge. Each must be assessed in light of his own historical context, knowledge and culture. Otherwise, you must condemn many great and good men of history to consistently hold your practice. Such Baptist giants as Broadus, Boyce, Lee and Manning would have been in substantial agreement with Dr. Bob, Sr. on these issues. Furthermore, the so-called Great Emancipator, Abe Lincoln, openly averred that he did not believe the Negro equal to the white man. Lincoln, according to his speeches, would probably have agreed with Dr. Bob, Sr.

    Therefore, the problem is not as much with the past as with the present. The rub comes when one retells history differently from the way it was. This is called revisionism. Tell the facts as they were. When we morph truth to rationalized convenience, it is falsehood and it is wrong. We don’t praise one for knuckling under pressure and morphing facts to gain approval and avoid controversy. The end does not justify the means and this was taboo at BJU in the olden days. The refreshing thing about Sr. & Jr. was that they laid the ax to the tree, let the chips fall where they may, and stood for their convictions. They accepted the heat that came their way without complaining. At least, we must respect them for the strength of their convictions and consistency. You may not agree with them but you had to admire their spunk and forthrightness. They sure didn’t whine and use weasel words. Today, we whine and wheedle. I prefer honest tree wood any day with its knots and splinters to particleboard, veneer and glued sawdust.
     

Share This Page

Loading...