Bob Jones III lied to Larry King

Amen, brother! Well said. Despite our differences you and I agree here. You said it much better than I could have said it myself.{/b] Whereas I would have pinned his ears back and spit in his eye, you gave a kind, reasonable and irrefutable response. I'll keep my mouth shut and let you speak the truth for the South. Kudos.

 

I am not touchy in the least. I laughed about it. But I think your statements were a direct contradiction. YOu have expressed dismay at the alleged racism of BJU, and made a big point out of a supposedly moral stand on the confederate flag. Then you turn around a make a joke about southerners that was based on a stereotype. I think it was inconsistent. You wouldn't have said that about a black person. Why say it about a southerner?

I don't care whether people fly the confederate flag or not. It is not a racial symbol and I don't fly it. I simply don't think it matters. There are real issues and people are upset about this stupid thing.

 

Here I thought we rallied around Jesus--not regions.

 

No problem Paul. I honestly wasn't upset about it. I just found it strange in the context of your comments about race ... that's all. No problem for me ... All is good ...

 

My greatest concern for BJU, a school which I love, is that they would be more willing to humbly confess wrong. The racial attitudes and actions of their former years (yes, they did have "Whites Only" signs above several drinking fountains/restrooms) have never been completely acknowledged as they ought to have been, let alone confessed. These kinds of things have been dismissed with the fact that this was consistent with the southern culture of that day, which is true, but not an excuse. The same thing with the biblical teaching that existed against interracial dating. Just confess that horrible exegesis led to unbiblical teaching. The same about the accreditation issue. The position was taken that accreditation goes against biblical principles, presenting terrible compromise in its demand to bring in an outside organization to approve one's mission statement when an institution should never answer to anyone but God. The suggestions by faculty to seek TRACS accreditation were continaully shelved on the basis that it was an evangelical organization and would be a clear demonstration of compromise. Same with scholarships. The acceptance of scholarship money was decreed as the demon that robs students of the invaluable lessons they need to learn about trust in God alone; and not only teaches them to trust in man and money, but also puts them in positions to "dip their hands in the coffers of the heathen." With TRACS, students will have government scholarships available to them as well as the Life Scholarships that they have been receiving, which are completely funded by the lottery. I am not against any of these changes, but I am deeply concerned over the deviation from positions that were once underpinned with such strong "biblical" rhetoric, and then spun in such a way as to avoid confession. It ultimately undermines the credibility of the Word with students and the credibility of every important thing that is said. The "I wonder what else is going to change in the Bible this year" kind of jokes are prolific among the students. I feel very sad for the well-meaning, but blindly loyal graduates who have taken up the "biblical" banner of these issues, even taking hits for their stance, only to find the positions aren't so biblical afterall. I feel sad for godly organizations that were met with condemnation for doing the very things that BJU is now choosing to do, taking hits from the University constituency for things such as their acceptance of scholarships, music standards, rules, accreditation, etc. All institutions face change with time, so nobody would be questioning the changes if BJU had not presented their positions as such "uncompromising declarations of biblical truth." They have lost a loyalty among their constituents that they once had, and graduates are being awakened to the fact that all truth and biblical positioning does not flow from this one "bastion of fundamentalism." There has been an ungodly kind of worship of the institution that has made God small and man big, so this consequence is good for the Cause of Christ and for the overall health of fundamentalism. All of this, however, along with the dwindling of the "support only BJU" churches, has elevated the marketing concerns at BJ to an all-time high. It is driving much of what they do. The most recent change we are now seeing and hearing is the presentation of a broader and more pragmatic approach to separation issues, and not surprisingly, it's being presented without any confession of position adjustment. No matter how one chooses to look at it, this is all political spinning, and it's done well. There has also been some envelope pushing with the music, and a recent choir tour brought a stream of pastoral complaints. This is the fallout of being extra biblical and presenting issues as "black and white," and they are dealing with the monstors they've created.

 

UZThD,
Read the articles here:

http://itib.org/articles/articles.html

They should help you understand the BJU perspective.

 

What kind of envelope pushing are you talking about?

Andy

 

===

Thanks. I looked at the articles. Since I am not of the world or a false teacher or guilty of incest or a member of an apostate denomination, I still don't get it. But thanks for your effort.

 

[/QUOTE]What kind of envelope pushing are you talking about?[/QUOTE]

The addition of a talented, younger choir director who returned after completing his graduate work has provided the impetus to take some musical ground that many at BJU are welcoming and would say is legitimate. The innovative styling, chording, and arranging is new; and it is lending a fresh, creative sound. The second area of change has to do with a move toward taking musical pieces on the merit of their own worth. It's the same kind of path that Steve Pettit has been forging, rearranging contemporary Christian musical selections and incorporating them into his repertoire. This path is far from cleared, and Pettit's latest CD is not sold in the Campus Store because of the customer complaint. It's not just the fact that this new musical ground is being taken. It's the fact that this is ground that was once deeded unlawful in the past, and it serves to support my original concern. Discord so heavily surrounds every change that is made at BJ, because they have produced a constituency that has faithfully drawn their lines in the black and white fashion in which they were taught. It is going to be extremely difficult to juggle the past and the present, for the satisfaction of one will certainly be the vexation of the other.

 

I can see your point here, FHG. What it seems is happening is that the principles aren't changing, but the application might be being adjusted. We face things like that in our ministries, too. Dress issues, for example. I emphasize modesty, as did my predcessor, but I don't emphasize cullottes as he did. The principle hasn't changed. This is something that some in my congregation may struggle with. I am trying to be careful in the way I handle this issue, because I don't want to criticze the man or undermine his ministry, but I also want to teach my new converts especially the wisdom of making right choices, not defaulting back to a standard without really understanding the Scripture behind it.

I think it is somewhat indicative of the Fundamentalism of my formative years. There has been an emphasis on what I believe to be generally right principles, but the effort to teach them has been focused on the specific application (such as cullottes), and not on doctrinal truth (modesty). Hence the confusion when the specific application looks slightly different (such as with the music issue you reference).

We have faced some similar issues because we use the We're Singing book from the Wilds, the new 7th edition that just came out. We have recently sung "As The Deer" and "Lamb of Glory," both which are included in this edition (which is well worth the investment, in my opinion- it's a wonderful and appropriately innovative book). Some who have focused on emphasizing application are struggling as to why it's acceptable to sing these songs (which I must confess I have questioned myself). I have drawn the conclusion that their doctrine is acceptable, the music is appropriate and worshipful, and their dominant associations do not distract from the purpose of shaping and directing the corporate worship of God.

BJU is facing similar challenges. Fundamentalism must be able to articulate and justify its practices based on Scripture, not simple tradition. As an outsider, it seems to me that the traditions are being evaluated, and gradual adjustments are being made to make things more Biblical. This is to be commended, IMHO. However, they are not doing it impulsively, but they are doing it gradually, with the due reverence and respect afforded to faithful (but fallible) forbears.

I'm finally finished. Phew!

 

Well said, Greg. I am encouraged, too, with the renewed emphasis on pure Biblical application. It is going to take grace for all involved, and a willingness for corrections to be made whether it is done in a way we think best or not. I would wish for a route to be taken that offers apologies, but even if it isn't taken, I want to remain a grace-filled believer who is thankful we are moving forward in a more Christ-honoring way. I can see temptations toward bitterness springing up in those who were recipients of the "tsk-tsk" finger-pointing for actions that are now being deemed acceptable. I can see the frustration with the fact that BJU has been the "stamp" of what is good and acceptable. When I talk with the leadership at the smaller fundamental Christian colleges, I don't sense from any of them a desire to look to "big brother" for approval, but they admit that he has been powerful enough to cause damage to them if he desires. I find that they hate the politics, but have found little way to escape. These fundamental schools are fishing in the same pond, and if the big kahuna splashes his tail of disapproval, there are still enough pastors out there who would jump ship on supporting their school without thought. It's been something that BJU has fed through clever marketing strategies that sadly denegrate these other schools. Statements such as "We wouldn't think of putting our students in spiritual and academic danger with an inter-collegiate sports program" or "As for men wearing ties to class, other insitutions have changed their policies in this matter, but we are not succumbing to the worldly pressures to engage in casual dress that is not polished and does not lead to professionalism." There is pressure from inside BJU for them to put aside this kind of marketing madness. I also believe the blindly loyal, ship-jumping pastors out there are decreasing rapidly, and that's another good sign. More and more, I think we will witness institutions and churches acting on Biblical integrity alone, without such a warped regard to big brother.