What is the necessity of this rule?

There is no biblical basis for such a rule, and the only school I know of that has forbidden it in recent times was Bob Jones, but I think they ended that rule 5 or so years ago. I went to a Baptist university in the 80's and 90's and there was no such rule.

 

I suspect they only mean dating between blacks and whites.

I don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with people defining interracial as black and white, These same people don't have a problem with a white person dating an Asian person. It's a terrible double standard.

 

Before you get to critical of Christian Universites, establish that there are more than the odd few that do it. Is it really an issue, or Just something FP picked up as hearsay on another board? I'm actually not aware of any except Bob Jones, and they recinded the rule several years ago.

 

It is called disobedience when you do not deal with the truths of scripture.

 

Bob Jones got so much heat when Bush visited there and Mcain made it an issue because of this rule, that they recinded it. Can you name some schools. I attended a Baptist University and there was no such rule. Wake Forrest is a Baptist school and I know they don't have such a rule. But although private schools are allowed to do as they please, there are no Biblical reason for them, at least not any a resonable person would buy. If some schools do have this rule, I bet they are small backwater schools. You wont find any major Christian schools that have this rule. In other words, I doubt if it is very prevelent. And I don't think it should be viewed as prevelent unless someone can show that it is prevelant.

If it is just a few unimportant small unknown schools, I would not be to concerened about it.

 

They (BJU) dropped it back in 2000 after the flap between Bush and McCain in the rebuplican primaries.

Check this out.

"The southern school adopted its ban on interracial dating in the 1950s. Ironically, the policy was not instituted in response to concerns of white parents, but came after an Asian family threatened to sue the school when their son, who was a student at the school, nearly married a white girl. BJU did not admit black students until the 1970s. The school lost its tax-exempt status in 1983 after a 13-year battle with the Internal Revenue Service, which said the school's policies violated federal law."---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Asian's are very strict about this stuff. One of my colleagues was disowened because he married an Asian without a college education and his sister was disowened because she married a Non-Asian. I mean he has not spoken with them for years.

This was their reason, but it just served as an excuse I am sure. I am glad they dropped it, but I am sad to see the Fed putting pressure on them. Why does the "separation of church and state" only work one way? The church has to be invisable in the public square, but the state can but into church business whenever they want.

 

Well, you could always refuse to pay for your child unless your child gave you his/her grades . . .

 

FP,

as an IFB I can tell you that Ive seen this attitude still around, unfortunately. It is one thing that disturbs me greatly, although Im seeing us growing out of it.

I know several who "frown on" interracial dating because of the social stigmas they feel the couple will face....and I truly believe that they are sincere in their viewpoint. The people I know who are like this are not racist truly, though they hold a viewpoint which certainly comes across that way, especially today as I don't think the social stigma exists anything like it used to.

That being said, I don't know how many IFB colleges still have this rule, and I think for the most part its one of those old rules still on the books that most people have forgotten about. While I think they ought to be taken OFF the books, it might be wise to find out first whether or not the rule is actually enforced, and what their motivation is behind keeping it there.

 

"as an IFB I can tell you that Ive seen this attitude still around, unfortunately. It is one thing that disturbs me greatly, although Im seeing us growing out of it."--------------------------------------------------------------------

The attitude exist amont all races. I am sure FP can attest to getting a few icy stairs from black women on occasion. Alot of them do not like "their" men dating and marrying white women. But the question is are IFB Schools at large institutionalizing this rule and claiming biblical authority for it, or is it just a few oddball schools, and therefore, not a major issue.

 

BJU used to have this rule, but it was finally lifted a few years ago (a few years too late for some).

There is none.

IMO, it was the last vestage of the segregationist mentality. Few peope, if any, are sorry to see the rule go.

It was a mistake to let it go so long. The mistake was finally corrected. We learn from our mistakes. No need to read anything more into it than that.

 

As a part asian, part european myself, I can tell you with sufficient authority that this is a bit of an overgeneralization. Yes, it does unfortunately happen, but to say it's still strict among Asians in general simply ain't so.

However, there is often drive to keep to the culture, so to speak, in the Asian community. As you said earlier, the probably attitude exists among all races. But it's typically about the upbringing and not about the skin.

And for what it's worth, I married a first generation Indian woman, whose family is Pubjabi. My FIL wanted her to marry an Indian man, but changed his tune after he met me and found out what a nice guy I was

 

First of all, you have an unspoken presupposition. You are assuming that every rule must have a Biblical basis. This is not true. Many rules have an administrative or functionary basis. For example, it is perfectly legitimate to prohibit gum chewing in school but there is no Biblical basis necessarily. Christian day schools often have this rule. It is a pragmatic rule to keep gum off the carpet, from underneath the desks and off the sidewalks. Also, there may be parking restrictions, etc. So, all rules are not based on a Scriptural principle or Bible verse. After all, God did give us a mind to think and hopefully some common sense, which I am inclined to doubt at times.

Some people, who are Fundamentalists, believe that God intended for the races to remain separate and not intermarry. It is a fairly long and convoluted view that will not stand elucidation here. Regardless of whether you agree with this interpretation from several OT passages and Acts 17:26, one must grant them their right to believe and practice their beliefs. The worst sin is the coercion of belief and practice and the forcing of political correctness. You must grant folks the freedom of their conscience and faith. Not everyone will agree on Scriptural teachings. My recommendation is that you endow the same freedom of conscience to others that you would desire yourself. Just because one doesn’t agree with others’ interpretations or way of life does not make the other party wrong.

 

Or as the Squire has posted in the FB Forum, rules like this were firmly in category 2 back in The Day. In 2005, they are in category 3.

 

"The worst sin is the coercion of belief and practice and the forcing of political correctness"-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is true, we should allow private institutions the right to have such a rule if they wish, even if we don't agree. I was very disappointed to read the the government was pressureing BJU. Why does separation of church and state mean churches can't be involved in government, yet government can get involved in the functions of churches and church schools?

But I still disagree with FP's statement the "many" institutions do it. I think it is just the odd few.