You are comparing apples and oranges once again. There were no separate rooms, toilets, water fountains, classes, educational standards, etc. Everyone lived by the same rules in the same place and under the same environment. Whatever it might have been, it certainly wasn't racism, and to invoke Jim Crow is completely out of place.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
BJU begins accreditation process
- Thread starter aefting
- Start date
There was no need for these facilities as Blacks were not allowed to enroll as students in the first place for many years.
Yes, once Blacks were allowed to attend BJU.
For the sake of this discussion, I will grant it may not have been racism on the University's part, that caused the non-admission policy to be put in place. However, any observer of the times (mid-1920s through late 60s-early 70s) can hardly overlook the Jim Crow laws and attitudes that prevailed in the South with at times dealy force.
Not that the South was the only place racism reared its ugly head. When the NY Giants moved to San Francisco in the 50s, Willie Mays was not allowed to buy the house of his choice because of restrictive deed covenants. And we already have a thread on the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII, so I won't go into that mess.
Not so. Racism involves treatment based on the view that one race is superior over another. If races are separated (as in dating) because of a belief that one race is superior to another, it's racism, regardless of the individual outcome to each race.
However, since it's been pointed out that "racial superiority" was not a factor here, the act of forbidding interracial dating was still discrimination and bigotry.
YOu can't make two contradictory statements and be right both times. Your first paragraph is right and renders your second paragraph wrong. There was no racial superiority involved in teh reasoning. Therefore, it is not discrimination and bigotry.
Keith, the reasoning involved the law. Jones Sr took steps to obey the law while still helping black students get an education.
Then he had the option of moving the school to a state that allowed the admission of all U.S. citizens. As for his steps in helping blacks get an education, regretfully looking at what happened from the 20s through the 50s, they failed to build a core of black fundementalists. However, I do not lay responsibility for this failure solely at Dr. Bob, Sr.'s feet. In the change over from the relience on the older denominational schools for educating church leadership (ordained and otherwise), the fact that the denominations supported "separte but equal" schools for African Americans got lost in the shuffle. As a consequence, we built replacements for Eastern, the University of Chicago, Harvard, Yale, Brown, and Princeton, but we didn't build replacements for their African-American equivalents. Nor (as was the case in the school under discussion) because of</font>
- local (sub-federal) laws</font>
- the fear of a boycott of the school by parents not willing to have their children share classroom space with blacks</font>
- and perhaps most importantly the well founded fear of Klan action</font>
There were a number of different options looked at, including starting a school for blacks in SC. AS it turned out, SC was the best place for the school, all things considered.
This is the saddest part of all of it, to me.
Probably not much ... most of these men never showed fruits of true regeneration in their lives. They would not have "gotten along" at BJU, even if blacks had been admitted.
I would assume Siegfried, and I can't commente for sure, but I would assume that they are not viewing this a a theological alliance. New evangelicalism deals with theological alliances, not educational ones. They have, from time to time, brought in people for education reasons that they would not have brought in for theological reasons (i.e, Pat Robertson, Allan Keyes, Cal Thomas, etc.). I assume that they see those things as different than a theological alliance.
Again, I am not saying they are right. I am suggesting that there may be a distinction. I know that distinction is made in other fundamentalists institutions such as those who have faculty members who are members of the ETS. There is a usual distinction made between theological/ecclesiastical associations and educational associations.
Again, I am not saying they are right. I am suggesting that there may be a distinction. I know that distinction is made in other fundamentalists institutions such as those who have faculty members who are members of the ETS. There is a usual distinction made between theological/ecclesiastical associations and educational associations.
Probably not much ... most of these men never showed fruits of true regeneration in their lives. They would not have "gotten along" at BJU, even if blacks had been admitted.</font>[/QUOTE]That is precisely what I meant by everything else being equal.
Pastor Larry,
I would agree that the rationale you describe may well be the rationale in the minds of the administration. I do not understand how it could be argued that this distinction is valid. There is a difference between the ETS scenario and this accreditation function.
A teacher who goes to an ETS meeting to discuss theological issues is not engaged in a joint ministry with those who compromise the gospel. Compromisers may be present--check that, they are present--but there is not a common agenda of furthering the cause of Christ through cooperative efforts.
This accreditation issue is a cooperative effort in the sense that the educational institutions look at one another's objectives and help them evaluate themselves to determine if they are accomplishing their objectives. (This is the system with the regional agencies, at least. I suppose it is possible that TRACS is different. If TRACS accreditation really accomplishes anything at all, however, I doubt it.) When BJU becomes a part of this process and lends its support to the system, it is affirming that the other accredited institutions are accomplishing their objectives. Within the cooperative structure, BJU is endorsing the educational mission of these institutions. Although I have not researched their missions, it seems self-evident that as religious institutions, some sort of theological purpose is going to be prominent.
I realize that you are not explicitly endorsing this perspective. Perhaps your opinion is similar to mine. My simple point is that BJU has painted themselves into a difficult corner by taking such public stands over the years. When they backtrack without acknowledging past error, they may rightly be accused of inconsistency and/or hypocrisy.
Ironically enough, I know of at least one SBC seminary professor who is contemplating resigning from ETS in light of their failure to defend the faith against the open theism heresy at the last meeting.
I would agree that the rationale you describe may well be the rationale in the minds of the administration. I do not understand how it could be argued that this distinction is valid. There is a difference between the ETS scenario and this accreditation function.
A teacher who goes to an ETS meeting to discuss theological issues is not engaged in a joint ministry with those who compromise the gospel. Compromisers may be present--check that, they are present--but there is not a common agenda of furthering the cause of Christ through cooperative efforts.
This accreditation issue is a cooperative effort in the sense that the educational institutions look at one another's objectives and help them evaluate themselves to determine if they are accomplishing their objectives. (This is the system with the regional agencies, at least. I suppose it is possible that TRACS is different. If TRACS accreditation really accomplishes anything at all, however, I doubt it.) When BJU becomes a part of this process and lends its support to the system, it is affirming that the other accredited institutions are accomplishing their objectives. Within the cooperative structure, BJU is endorsing the educational mission of these institutions. Although I have not researched their missions, it seems self-evident that as religious institutions, some sort of theological purpose is going to be prominent.
I realize that you are not explicitly endorsing this perspective. Perhaps your opinion is similar to mine. My simple point is that BJU has painted themselves into a difficult corner by taking such public stands over the years. When they backtrack without acknowledging past error, they may rightly be accused of inconsistency and/or hypocrisy.
Ironically enough, I know of at least one SBC seminary professor who is contemplating resigning from ETS in light of their failure to defend the faith against the open theism heresy at the last meeting.
You are holding the school to an impossible standard. Does BJU have to do everything exaclty the same since it was opened in 1927 for it to be consistent? Isn't the school allowed to reevaluate situations and rules to see if their present policies still make sense? It doesn't mean they were wrong in the past. It just means that circumstances have changed to allow them to change. I have rules for my children now that they will not have to follow when they get older. That doesn't mean I'm inconsistent or hypocritical.
On the issue of ETS, I don't qualify academically, but even if I did, I would have a very hard time justifying membership in ETS at this point.
Andy
No, they don't have to do everything the same at all times and you are certainly wise to modify the rules with your children as they mature. However, BJU, over the years, has made separation and non-accreditation distinctives that are central to the philosophy of the school. When a school starts to change or re-define basic distinctives, it is fair and reasonable to question why.
But BJU hasn't repudiated separation or their historical reasons for avoiding accreditation. Obviously, they don't view TRACS accreditation as a compromise, nor did they say that separating from erring brethern was a reason for avoiding accreditation in the past.
I think one could argue, as Siegfried has, that TRACS accreditation involves a tacit approval of compromising ministries and therefore should be avoided. It's a judgment call, though, and BJ has the right to make that call for themselves. Other institutions may choose to avoid TRACS accreditation for the very reasons that Siegfried has posted.
Perhaps you remember Dr. Jordan speaking on the issue of separation and how hard it is to apply Biblical principles on separation consistently. I have a tape where he makes this very point: Sometimes you separate in one instance and you don't in another and the distinctions between the two cases are not always so clear. I think we need to give each other some room in areas that are not clear cut and allow institutions to reevaluate exactly how they apply the doctrine of separation as circumstances change.
Andy
I think one could argue, as Siegfried has, that TRACS accreditation involves a tacit approval of compromising ministries and therefore should be avoided. It's a judgment call, though, and BJ has the right to make that call for themselves. Other institutions may choose to avoid TRACS accreditation for the very reasons that Siegfried has posted.
Perhaps you remember Dr. Jordan speaking on the issue of separation and how hard it is to apply Biblical principles on separation consistently. I have a tape where he makes this very point: Sometimes you separate in one instance and you don't in another and the distinctions between the two cases are not always so clear. I think we need to give each other some room in areas that are not clear cut and allow institutions to reevaluate exactly how they apply the doctrine of separation as circumstances change.
Andy
Andy,
I think I agree with everything you said in that post. I would not personally criticize BJU for pursuing TRACS accreditation based on the associations it creates. I do agree that it is a judgment call.
The problem is that BJU has taught throughout its history that these matters of separation are NOT open to judgment calls. I know personally of one pastor who is bewildered over this flip-flop. He has taken a strong stand in his areas of leadership on these issues, probably because of BJU's historical stand. Now he seems to feel very much out on a limb by himself--because BJU just jumped out of the tree. Does he stick it out alone now or compromise his principles. Even I disagree with this view of separation, it is very easy for my to symphathize with this pastor's bewilderment. I would be very surprised if there are not many others like him.
Are you talking about Tim Jordan's message at Northland's Heart Conference in 2003? I was not there but heard the recording. Excellent message. I think this is what BJU ought to be teaching, but unfortunately they have not been. Perhaps they will be in the future, but they will create great problems for themselves and others if they try to pretend that this has always been what they believed about separation.
I think I agree with everything you said in that post. I would not personally criticize BJU for pursuing TRACS accreditation based on the associations it creates. I do agree that it is a judgment call.
The problem is that BJU has taught throughout its history that these matters of separation are NOT open to judgment calls. I know personally of one pastor who is bewildered over this flip-flop. He has taken a strong stand in his areas of leadership on these issues, probably because of BJU's historical stand. Now he seems to feel very much out on a limb by himself--because BJU just jumped out of the tree. Does he stick it out alone now or compromise his principles. Even I disagree with this view of separation, it is very easy for my to symphathize with this pastor's bewilderment. I would be very surprised if there are not many others like him.
Are you talking about Tim Jordan's message at Northland's Heart Conference in 2003? I was not there but heard the recording. Excellent message. I think this is what BJU ought to be teaching, but unfortunately they have not been. Perhaps they will be in the future, but they will create great problems for themselves and others if they try to pretend that this has always been what they believed about separation.
I see the distinction you are making. I agree with your distinction. Your application of it in this case is incorrect, IMO. There was no discrimination or bigotr involved in this rule.
I can see how this could be a problem but at some point you have to take your stand based on what you believe and not what others believe. We are Baptists after all. BTW, I could be wrong but I don't think that BJU tries to influence local churches and pastors today like they may have back in the 70's and early 80's.
I can't find the tape anymore but my guess is that it was from one of the early Lansdale NLC's. He may have preached this one on several occasions, however. Honestly, I don't know what BJU taught in the past and how it may have differed from what they are teaching now. I was never a preacher boy and didn't get to attend the preacher boy's class. My impression, though, is that BJIII would agree with Tim Jordan's remarks.
BTW, this sort of thing happens with other institutions as well. The Jordan's at one time separated from BJU over (primarily I think) the fact that the university had non-Baptists on their Bible faculty. At some point they decided that they were wrong and took steps to begin fellowship with BJIII and the university. Well, a former pastor of mine related to me the grief he had with that decision. He was taught by them that it was wrong to fellowship with BJU and why was it all of a sudden OK? Things like this happen. The only one who doesn't change is God.
Andy