Bob Jones University Admits Racist Past; Repents

Amen this is good news.

 

That statement from BJU is indeed very welcome news.Late,but still welcome.It lifts up Christ too.

 

Yes, very interesting.
The sad thing is, as they admit that they were going along with society.
It makes me wonder if they would have ever changed on purely biblical grounds otherwise.

This sentiment is by no means dead though. I had a friend who was a missionary to a black country and married a native and was not well received.
I think perhaps he lost some supports over it but I am not sure.

I was just in a church this year where the pastor sort of preached against this.
It was just a passing thing he mentioned but he did mention it.

Sadly, I see many conservatives wanting to conserve this as well.

 

All these things aside, Bob Jones University has turned out some fine preachers and missionaries, and many of them did not stick to the Bob Jones philosophy.

Bless them!

Cheers,

Jim

 

It kinda sorta makes you wonder if any interpretation of scripture can stand when the world says it must not. After all, the university swore under oath in a court of law more times than one that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage. They were willing to undergo financial ruin via the withdrawal of 501(c)(3) status by the IRS -- but they stood firm because their consciences demanded it. Until, that is, BJIII tossed it all under the bus on Larry King Live one evening.

I now watch with interest as the culture presently trains its guns on various other ancient beliefs.

 

No, the issue there was about whether or not the government could tell a religious institution what to believe. Now, some there did believe that, and they were incorrect in that belief. But the court case was about the right to hold beliefs.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University

 

Crabtownboy's wikipedia citation is accurate. The legal briefs of the court cases quote the university as saying that interracial dating and marriage are forbidden by Scripture.

No, I don't mean that he stood for the old position until the show that night. I mean that he stood for the old position, as did the school historically, through all the years and court battles. He eventually changed his mind, went on LKL, and surprised the heck out of 'most everybody.

Near the front of the campus is a large pool of water and the founder, Bob Jones, Sr. and his son are both buried in an "island" (actually a peninsula) at the south end of that pool. When the Larry King announcement came out, I was writing to a friend who is a BJ grad and said that, despite the school's claims that they would still require parental permission for an underaged student to date interracially, logic would dictate that eventually the president of the school would have to perform an interracial marriage in the War Memorial Chapel. My friend quipped back "It would be more appropriate on the island."

 

This is not the case.

Again, remember that while some at BJU believed that interracial dating and marriage were wrong (and they were wrong to believe the Bible taught that), the court case was over whether or not the courts could tell a religious institution what they could believe or not. The courts were trying to enforce public policy over the beliefs of a religious institution, and BJU was arguing that they did not have the right to do that.

 

If I remember correctly, Billy Graham was expelled from BJU for holding hands with his future wife whilst on campus. They were both white! Or, was that just an old wives tale?

I do know they were rather strict about a lot of things.

Cheers,

Jim

By the way, BJU is not a Baptist school. Why is it even discussed here?

 

Oh, but it is! :saint: However, I'm not sure that you're addressing my actual remarks. You may be reading past me.

After the LKL announcement, the school definitely said that they would still require parental consent. This idea was quickly abandoned, however. I don't know why, but it seems obvious that it would be a bad idea.

Pastor Larry, you seem to be speaking from the BJ-Sanitized version of the story. I'm speaking from the actual briefs and court decisions, which I have in my possession. No matter what one might say about "what the case was really about," the fact remains that Bob Jones University said in court, and had it confirmed by lower court rulings, that they held as a primary religious belief that the Bible forbids interracial marriage. William Ball argued before the SCUSA that the IRS's attack was forcing the school into one of only two options, either revocation of tax-exempt status or "compelled abandonment of an article of faith."

This allegation of BJU's was stated repeatedly in the lower courts, and finally before the SCUSA. I'm well aware of the larger issue of whether the IRS can dictate religion, but that doesn't have much, if anything, to do with the fact that BJU swore in court on several occasions that they held as a primary religious belief that interracial dating and marriage are contrary to Scripture.

Now either they said that, and said it repeatedly, or they did not. I happen to know that they did. It's easily documented and is a matter of legal and historical record.

Unless I recall incorrectly, the matter was well explained in the book An Island in the Lake of Fire. I, however, don't need that book, as I have the actual briefs from the lawyers and printouts of the court decisions. You might find it at a local library. For that matter, I saw nothing incorrect in the Wikipedia article's coverage of the case.

 

Hopefully this is the beginning of change at the university!

 

I think you are reading past me.

Correct. Therefore though it "was" the case (for less than a day I think), it "is" not the case. The verb "is" refers to the present status. Presently, that "is" not the case.

They are all on the internet.

Correct. Your own statement confirms what I said. The issue was about the courts compelling the abandonment of an article of faith. Their argument was that the court has no authority to determine what a religious organization may believe, even in the interest of public policy.

But the issue at hand was not specifically interacial dating, but the authority of the government to determine what beliefs were in line with public policy. If you know the case, you know how often "public policy" was invoked.

I didn't dispute that they said it or that they believed it. The issue I was pointing out was that the essence of the court case was actually something else.

It has been explained in a number of places. I read it before it was a book. As you recall, it was originally a doctoral dissertation (for UGA I believe). I read the dissertation form of it.

I haven't read that article so I don't know.

But the core issue at stake was the ability of a religious institution to determine its own belief.

 

It's not. Changes have been taking place for a great many years. This was simply another change among many.

 

Bob Jones continues to improve as an institution and hold to the scripture as their standard. For that they have my respect.

Most of this thread has been caught up with the interracial dating ban. While mentioned in the original link it is more of an afterthought.

The racist policy that they apologize for and admit was wrong was the failure to admit African-American students prior to 1971. During some of those years they can say they were following the segregationist law of South Carolina (and Tennessee and Florida in earlier years), but not the last few. It was racist and it was wrong and I am glad they apologize for it. Every school in the south that followed those same laws should do the same.

While the anti interracial dating ban was wrong and I am glad they changed it, is that a racist policy? Is it racist if you enforce the policy equally to all races?

Growing up and living in the south I have known quite a few people who believed inter racial marriage was a sin. I think they are wrong, but I have never thought of them as racist. Their policy seems equally discriminatory to both blacks and whites.

I know many on this board disagree with me. Why do you think this is racist? I really do want to know.