Bob Jones University Admits Racist Past; Repents

Does God tolerate evil?

Broad, sweeping generalizations are usually wrong. The OT seemingly sanctions, at least it accomodated, indentured servitude, a mild form of slavery, if you please. Would God have done so if it's so wicked? How do you know it's wrong according to God? Is there a command or statement in Scripture? Also, the NT seems to tolerate it. So, how do you know? Can you back it with a specific Scriptural teaching?

Paul wrote:

"Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. (I Corinthians 7:2-22)"
​

It would appear that Paul is not crusading against slavery but rather he is accomodating the culture. What do you think?

 

Difference in slavery

The Scriptures give neither a blanket endorsement nor a comdemnation of slavery and servitude. I state this based on the fact that it was mentioned as practiced in numerous places throughout the OT and NT without a specific condemnation. Other evils are exposed as wickedness but slavery seems to be tolerated because of the culture. Now, please explain why slavery on a racial basis is wrong in light of Scripture but it does not condemn the general practice in various cultural settings.

Again, I reiterate that you have not shown the 2nd commandment to be applicable here. There seemed to be a Christian unity enjoined between slave and master in the NT (e.g. Philemon), which effectively refutes your invoking the 2nd commandment.

All the 2nd commandment would say to the question is that racism is wrong if malice is involved. It would not preclude a benign servitude or segregation.

 

What really matters to the Lord, the one and only race.
Isn't on your skin color, creeds, race, sex.
It is called the....HUMAN RACE!

 

At the heart of the American antislavery debate of the 19th century was the question of slavery's definition. The two sides could never come to terms, so all the wrangling that followed was doomed to uselessness.

Probably no one on the BB thinks that prisoners should not be required to work and "earn their keep" (even though the courts have called it "involuntary servitude").

Most educated defenders of biblical slavery readily admit that American slavery violated God's slave laws.

Trying to come to terms and hash it all out has been tried once before, and the results were far from satisfactory.

 

I did not read him saying that at all. All he said was that it was not prohibited by scripture. And its not.

Well, other than commands like I Pet 2:13 that command us to follow all the laws of the land (even those Jim Crowe laws when they were the law)

 

Following that logic then it was all right for German citizens to kill Jews, Gypsies and others to their deaths in the concentrations camps. It was the law of the Germany .. the Final Solution ... is that right?

 

Well yes, with some limits. You might want to make another thread out of this topic. To get the full context of the I Peter passage I think you need to look at verses 11-24:

The idea here is that as Christians must be blameless before our governments. We must do this so that we cannot be condemned as criminals but that our good works will glorify God.

This rule applies even when the governments are oppressive (v18) and we suffer unjustly (19-20). And of course the greatest example of this we have been given is Christ himself. He was an innocent man, yet he was executed, and he never reviled or threatened (v23).

Certainly there are cases like Christ, Peter, Paul, Daniel, Joseph, and many others who were held accountable under the laws of men. And they submitted themselves to those laws, even when it meant their deaths.

The way I see it there are two parts to this command in I Pet. The first part is to obey the law, and we should do this whenever we can. The second part is to accept the penalties when we don't.

Verse 20 makes it clear that if we break the law we have the responsibility to accept the consequences patiently. It even says that when we are at fault there is no glory in this, it is simply our duty. If a Christian gets a speeding ticket or something like that and is guilty, then they need to shut up and pay the fine. To argue or try and get out of it is clearly prohibited.

But the cool part of verse 20 is the second part, if you don't break the law, if you have done nothing wrong, and you still suffer for it. To accept that suffering with patiently, that is what really follows the model of Christ and brings glory to God.

Crabtown, to your specific illustration of Nazi Germany. Christians in Germany had an obligation to follow the law of the land, to submit to conscription and military service, and to follow orders. When those orders violated clear commands of scripture then yes, they also had a responsibility to break those orders. But the second part of that responsibility was the responsibility to then accept the consequences of those actions as Christ without defense or argument. Sometimes our responsibility is not to save the condemned but to die beside them. That is not easy I know, but I believe it is biblical.

Living in Czech you may be familiar with Reinhold Kerstan. He was a Christian youth during the war, a baptist preacher's son. He was also, like all the youth in Germany a member of the Hitler Youth movement. He has a fantastic autobiographical book called, Blood and Honor that details the conflicts he had reconciling his Christian faith and his duty to his country.

DC Talk, in their book of martyrs, Jesus Freaks, tell the story of a group of Christians being executed by the Romans. I am paraphrasing but the story goes like this. The Christians were stripped of their outer garments and huddled together on a frozen lake to freeze to death. Any of the Christians willing to renounce Christ were free to leave the lake. As well clothed the Roman soldiers surrounded the Christians and waited for them to die one of the Christians broke, got up and renounced Christ. He was immediately given a warm garment and escorted off the ice. One of the Soldiers then took off his uniform and walked toward the Christians. His commander asked him what he was doing and he replied, "I am a Christian, and I will take his place."

So to your comment of Christians participating in Hitler's final solution, of course we must stand for what is right, but we must also be prepared to pay the consequences.

Like someone else said, this is a hard thing, to him who has ears.

(sorry for the long post, perhaps we need a new thread)

 

I don't see any of them being SPECIFICALLY prohibited by scripture, but just because they are lawful or not prohibited by scripture does not mean they are good. Scripture says nothing whatsoever about tabacco use, yet I don't think it would be good for me. Same goes for gambling like you said. Gambling is not prohibited by scripture but I am not going to go to the casino tonight.

Whatis BJU apologizing for? That was very clear in the link at the start of this thread. They are apologizing for thier racist admissions policy.

Perhaps I have derailed this thread with to many details. While slavery is not prohibited by scripture but wherever people have followed scripture slavery has dissapeared. Likewise where people follow the book and love their neighbors racism dissapears. My only disagrement with you from the start has been on those certain activities I do not see as racist that you do.

 

Comparing interracial marriage to tobacco use or gambling is a terrible comparison.

And each of these entities IMO were wise to do so (apologize, that is).

 

Fairness in debate..............

Did I say this? If so, please quote me from my posting. You have helped me make my point. There is decided prejudice that reads into and infers things that were never intented in one's statements. This, IMHO, supports my main thesis in the whole of my posting, namely that there is a lack of balance, fairness and unprejudiced perception in racial matters. People today are trying to impose their own viewpoint upon the actions and beliefs of Christians from earlier generations. Things and times were different so that viewpoints were quite different from today's political correctness. I think future generations will have some very stinging words for political correctness. Let us be charitable toward those in our spiritual heritage.

If we set out comparing sinners, we may find our own generation to be the greater sinners.

 

Fine, how about we compare banning interracial marriage and human sacrifice. The relavent facts are still the same. Human sacrifice is not specifically prohibited by scripture. In fact some people use Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac and the story of Jephthah (Jud 11) to claim that God himself endorses human sacrifice. Now I think that people who hold to this interpretation are wrong, and I think or at least hope that you and I agree that human sacrifice is a bad thing, but you can't prove it is unscriptural.

Is that better for you?

I guess now someone will think I am pro human sacrifice.

Well come to think of it, sacrificing our unborn children on the alter of materialism, convience and sexual immorality is pretty close to the same thing, but I am against that.

 

No you did not say that and anyone who read your posts would know that. You have hit the point squarely that there is a lack of balance in racial matters.

There are several reasons for this. Some people of course have been hit by racism first hand. Most of us have at some point, but some people have been hurt more than others. But then you have others who know they have racist leanings and so they try to cover up for that by condemning what they perceive to be racism in others. Then you have the whole guilt thing.

But as long as we can condemn others it makes us feel all holy you know. As long as we can condemn others then no one will condemn us right?

Of course that is wrong, (Luke 6:37)

 

I can agree to a degree with the sentiment of not wanting to judge too harshly the actions of those that have gone before us and that many are quick to label things that are not accurate, but how does that apply in this situation?

What BJU did, the policy (policies) they had were racist. They have apologized and changed the policy (policies), as far as I am concerned end of discussion. I will take them at their word until their actions "say" otherwise.

It is possible to look back with some appreciation and respect toward a group of people without having to gloss over the mistakes they made. We can still be thankful that as a result of BJU many people came to know the Lord while at the same time recognizing that they were not perfect and accurately report what they did. We can call a spade a spade without having to burn the place down.

 

Wrong inference

No, your inference is invalid. Ordinary German citizens were not killing Jews, et. al. The German state was doing it as well as the Soviet Union, our ally. Now, here is the question. Was it more wicked to kill Jews and defectives in German death camps than the killing of captured Germans and political Russian prisoners in the Soviet Gulags? Can we really talk about German atrocities without addressing the Russian atrocities?

What were the German Christians' obligation when the Reich was murdering its Jewish citizens? If you want a modern parallel, then perhaps you could consider the abortion issue. If you believe that abortion is murder, then are American Christians under the same obligations that German Christians were?

Having said that, let me make my position clear. I've already seen how a poster's words are miscontrued to mean something that he never said or intended. Both Germany and Russia were guilty of horrendous crimes. The problem is that we villify Germany and ignore the wickedness of the ungodly Soviet Union. In fact, the USSR was glorified by the leftists. It appears to be more about political beliefs than right and wrong. Both needed to be roundly condemned.

 

While there is no excuse for their racism, I can't help but wonder that if they did this simply because of societal pressure, what else will they change because of that? It's good that they finally got away from that racist attitude though, but they should have done it because such an attitude is sinful. I had a pastor who graduated from there, and he told me they wouldn't allow any inter-racial dating. Even at that time (the 70's) I think that attitude was a bit outdated.

 

Whereas one may speculate about the motivation of others, we must confess that God only knows the heart. More important for us, than guessing motives of others, we must judge our own attitudes toward them. How do you interpret and apply I Corinthians 7:5,7 when it states that love (i.e. charity) "thinketh no evil" and "believeth all things?"

Moreover, Christ specifically said that if we fail to forgive others, then God will not forgive our sins. Now, I wonder what the fuss is about BJU's past, whatever it was, in light of the present position that they've taken.

After all, what is forgiveness? It is the release from a debt. Once the debt is forgiven, we no longer have the right to bring it again. Right? Then, what are we discussing?

 

Forgiven past?

Are you saying, and I don't necessarily think you are, that BJU must prove their sincerity before acceptance and forgiveness? Not according to the context of Luke 17:3.

Assuming there is a guilty past, has BJU been forgiven? If so, what right is there for anyone to bring it up again?

Now, I would also ask is repentance and forgiveness applicable to organizations as with individuals? Why?