Bob Jones University Admits Racist Past; Repents

Does it sooth your conscience to not call it racism, to just call it a difference of opinion? Couples were not allowed to marry from mixed races - that is racism. Expect and unless you thought one was inferior or the superior, there is not a biblical reason to stop such marriages. The only concern the bible speaks of in relationship to marriage is that of believer and unbeliever.

The coy little games of "what about the Chinese student" ring incredibly hollow. This school was/ is in South Carolina were the race issue was/ is black and white, not Chinese and white. They tried to apply their policy across the board as to not look racist, but it is still racism even it is applied to everyone.

Our forefathers were wrong, flat out 100% wrong, no amount of word parsing will change that.

 

Consider Jesus' clear teachings

Shame on you! You have offered no support, either rational or documentary, to your argument but you have questioned my character. This, of course, is the strategy of those who are short on argument—question the person’s motives, not his arguments. My conscience is at peace with God but it appears that the politically correct crowd is in agony over perceived racial sins.

Read your own post and observe that you stoop to questioning the person and his conscience rather than addressing the issues. What gives you the right to pontificate your opinions over others? Without marshalling specific Biblical support, you are simply another opinion which accounts for about one six-billionth of the total opinions in the world. I would call that insignificant.

Furthermore, I submit that your expressed opinion on the motives and actions of BJU are presumptive and without merit. You attribute motives without evidence or support. How do you know? Who are you to judge them other than by their own expressed motives and intentions? Can you psychoanalyze other Christians to refute their stated beliefs, opinions, and motives? This, not racism, is plainly condemned by Scripture.

I leave you with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 7:3—“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

 

Calling your hand

In my first response to your question, I gave a fair and reasonable answer. Also, I asked you not to make unwarranted inferences from limited data but stick to the questions under discussion. You have failed to do this in that you did not answer my questions from the original post. Hence, I see no profit in further dialogue if you are going to cast personal dispersions toward me. My challenge is for you to stick to the subject and answer the questions I raised. Fair enough? Now, how about some answers?

If Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. sincerely believed that miscegenation was forbidden by Scripture, would have him to violate his conscience and Biblical belief to allow interracial dating?

 

My conscience has nothing to do with it. I never started, followed or believed in the ruling. What bugs me is the misuse of the term racism to condemn an opinion that differs from yours. I agree with you and your view of the Bible speaking more of faith then race when it condemns those who married outside of Israel and outside of the Christian faith. But I am also aware and tolerant of other interpretations.

Your questioning the oriental students shows you have no knowledge of the policy or its practice. It was put in place BEFORE the university admitted Black students. The only mixed race students at that time were oriental.

My wife (who is a BJ alum, I am not) had a roommate, a MK who was half white and half Japanese. Her boyfriend at the time was a white student from Australia. They kept their relationship very quiet because of the ban. Her plight shows the error of the policy, she was not allowed to date anyone. The policy was wrong, but it was not racist.

You can call it racism if you want but you will need to write your own dictionary because in your name calling you are showing your ignorance of the English language. Just a few posts ago you said you wanted to define racism as the dictionary does and you even posted that definition. Then you ignored your own posting. Why is it that those crying racism are the least tolerant?

 

Wrong question.

The proper question would be, "Shouldn't I expect men of God to display better judgement on said issues?"

I don't doubt his sincerety. I do doubt his judgement on this particular issue...as it takes a terrible hermeneutical approach to justify the ban.

 

Just for the record, I know we have a lot of BB members from other countries and certainly many unfamiliar with life in the southern United States. There was and still is a portion of our population that believes miscegenation or marriage between people of different races was sinful. This was actually the law in many states for many years and many couples were prosecuted for it. This belief is fading as members of that generation pass away. I don’t agree with it and never have, but I do recognize it exists.

People who followed that belief took their authority from among other passages; Gen 6:2, Judges 3:5-7, I Kings 11:4, Ezra 10:3-11, and Neh 13:23. They believed that God separated the races and intended for us to keep those races separate and pure. Now I believe that is a misinterpretation of scripture. I believe that is wrong, but I also can see how someone might believe it anyway. And if someone wants to believe that I don’t really care, not now that the laws have changed and they cannot force their belief on others. I think they are wrong but I don't think they are evil, lost, racist, or of the devil, I just think they are wrong.

 

A sensible and wise post

Thank you for a rational post. You have shown tolerance, Christian understanding, and compassion for those with whom you may differ. This, IMHO, is the true Christian spirit of graciousness which ought to characterize all believers.

 

Right question; wrong answer

No, your question is wrongheaded. You do not have a fair perspective in making your judgment. It is easy to castigate with twenty-twenty hindsight. Obviously, you show little understanding of the times and culture in which these men of God lived and preached. Your grandchildren might pass the same judgment on you in a few decades. If you know and understand Schofield dispensationalism, then you might understand that this hermeneutic was entirely consistent with the dispensational thought at the time. It was inference drawn from Scripture. Yet, our social conscious believers made invalid inferences from Scripture today to fit the political correctness of our culture.

Now consider this question. Why should we expect better judgment of these men of God within the cultural ethos within which they lived? Would you or I or any of our peers have done any differently? IMHO, most of the BJU critics would have gone along with the prevailing culture if they were brought up in it. After all, that is precisely what they are doing now.

Judge Learned Hand said: "Do not judge another man until you have walked a day in his shoes." It's good advice for everyone.

 

Hardnosed reality

Okay. You agree that Dr. Bob, Sr. was sincere in his belief. Now, answer the question: Would you expect him to violate his conscience and what he believes the Bible teaches?

 

That's Scofield,FTR.I was raised under that system and yet those particular "inferences from Scripture" were not in the least evident.

Hey,sin is still sin.Yes indeed,it's easy to see evil with 20-20 hindsight.But that doesn't make the one with 20-20 vision an enemy of truth.

 

I'm disappointed that you would even try to minimize such evil.

 

Swaimj, I understand and fully appreciate what you are saying. On my wall is a presidential pardon. It was awarded to all civil rights people who were falsely arrested during the early civil rights days. I spend 3 days in an Alabama jail. My crime was walking down the street with a black man. I was placed in a white cell, however.

I witnessed a child drowned in a toilet bowl because he dared to use a white washroom cos there was no black washroom available. The three "kids" who drowned him were not even arrested. The sheriff told the young brother to "go get your daddy to take the body home." That was in 1960 when we were trying to get blacks to register for the vote. We didn't dare get out of the car we were in and drove off.

I think I understand Southern mentality though. What daddy says is law, and one doesn't dare to go against daddy, so discriminating against a black must be ok.

I love Southern people personally, but I sure didn't like that aspect of the South. The North was no better then. There was as much violence in say Southside Chicago, Detroit and even NYC.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Do I really need to go through the all the teachings of Jesus to show how wrongheaded separating based on race actually is? Come now you seem much brighter then that. Earlier there were texts given concerning this topic.

Yes, I would expect a preacher to confirm to the teaching to the Bible especially if it violates their conscience for ones conscience is not the standard when the teaching is clear, which in this case it is.

For the record, I was born and raised in Texas, my father is from Kentucky and my son was born in Alabama, pretty familiar with the "conditions" of the South.

 

The fascinating thing is how confident paidagogos's detractors are that all these generations of Christians were evil and/or spiritually blind, incapable of reading the Bible, while their own generation embodies truth and love and discernment. It draws me back to my original question: can any interpretation of Scripture stand if the world says that it must not?

Also, realize that when we speak of "BJU" corporately, we're using a figure of speech. For the most part, those who were active in formulating and defending the old position have passed off the scene. It is a new generation, different individuals, who are now "BJU," so it's not easy to verify that "they became convinced that the scriptures they had used in the past to argue for their position did not actually support their position."

 

Is racism based only on color?

I do not doubt that this occurred but similar incidences occur today in drug wars, gang wars, etc. in the projects all over the US. Also, have you not heard of the genocide in Africa based on tribal identity? What about the Kurds in Iraq? My point here is that people are rehashing situations long dead when the evil is present with us today.

Furthermore, most Southerners were not/are not racists in any malicious sense. Although racism in its most virulent form existed in the South, it also existed in the North as well. It seems that all Southerners are tarred with the same brush, which is unjust, and this is just as racist as saying all Negroes are bad, or evil, or ignorant, or whatever.

I must disagree with you on your analysis of Southern character. I was taught to respect blacks and my folks would have skinned my head if I had shown any disrespect. There was a symbiotic relationship between black and white Southerners that most outsiders have never understood. I do not have the time and space here to make my case.

 

Social issues

Strangely enough, the Bible, the NT in particular, is largely silent about social justice as defined in our culture. Those who find Biblical support must do so inferentially and ignore many contradictory factors. Undoubtedly, social injustice and racism was rampant in the Roman Empire, which the Apostles and Jesus never directly addressed. Why? They certainly had the opportunity if it is the major issue that we make of it today.

Well, your perception of the South is foreign to me.

Finally, you have not answered my original question. You are playing conscience against Scripture which I did not place in juxaposition. You are spin-doctoring my points to create strawmen. Nuff said.

 

False accusation

Your perception is mistaken or your statement of it is inaccurate. I am not trying to minimize evil--just trying give a balanced view to craziness. Why don't you convincingly show me where I have erred instead of making a personal observation. Do I detect an apparent poverty of substance even though we can muster a majority of opinion? Address my points, please.

 

2nd Commandment

Did you read my posts? I have already pointed out that the 2nd Commandment is not necessarily violated by separation. Read my post and address my points, please. Just saying it means nothing.

Loving someone doesn't mean that you are duty-bounded to grant indisicriminate privileges to them. For example, I may not necessarily vote for my friend to join my country club. It's freedom of association.

Furthermore, would you castigate BJU for denying admission to a homosexual? A Muslim? In principle, you have agreed to discrimination but the only argument is the basis of discrimination. We all practice it although based on different factors.

 

You're speaking over my head.