Bob Jones III lied to Larry King

Disobedience in the church is worse. It is making right what is wrong.

There are many excellent things that can be done. Our voice ought to be so loud that we are heard all over. Our love ought to be so felt that people want the peace of God we have. I have been involved in tow churches that are involved in a crisis pregnancy center. What a blessing that is. They help the ladies with whatever they need.

Abortion clinics are one of the biggest scams and money making machines in this country. The doctors are getting rich.

Some years ago when I was living in Houston billboards began to show up showing a dead fetus and many of the people were outraged because of how graphic it was. Supposedly 55 percent of the people in Houston go to church. Eventually the billboard company refused to post the billboard anymore.

If every Christian stood against the evils of society we would have a much larger voice than we do now. In 1997 I was pastoring a church in an area where a high school teacher was requiring her students to read a book with loads of vulgar language in it. We talked with the etacher and she refused to pull the book. We talked with the principal and he supported the teacher. We went ot a school board meeting and received a hearing. Later we went to the local TV station that is in a town of about one million. They interviewed one of the people in the church during prime time news at about 6:00 in the evening. The book was pulled. But how many pastors in our local association of 70 SBC churches do you think agreed to help us? Not one! Most of them had excuses.

All of the pastors in Modesto, CA have agreed to not marry someone if they will not receive counsel. They are trying to make a diference in their community. That church send missionaries all around the world tro new areas. Once a local church is started they support the local pastor rather than keeping a foreigner there. Every church ought to be making a difference not just warming pews on Sunday.

 

Segregation and slavery is wrong and unrighteous. It is the devaluing of human life and stealing people. So you call the devaluing of God’s creation (segregation) serving God. Not at all! It is serving Satan. Phil. 2 says that we are to count others as more important than ourselves. How did segregation serve that purpose. How did that law serve that purpose.

[snip] </font>[/QUOTE]Since we are supposedly being Biblical (i.e. the Bible is our authoritative standard for faith and practice), please show me in Scripture where segregation is un-Scriptural. Since we apply this standard to other areas, please apply it here. If you are going to condemn someone for acting un-Scripturally, then show by Scripture where they have violated Scripture. We don't assume on your say-so, feelings, or the modern public policy--show it in Scripture. Otherwise, you are applying an extra-Biblical standard. Thank you.

 

This does not present the correct view of segregation as seen by Southern Christians during the early to mid twentieth century, especially BJU, Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. and Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. Also, it does not properly exegete Scriptural teaching.

First, the underlying presuppositions of the above post are predicated on the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that “separate are not equal.” I assert that rulings of the Supreme Court are no more the highest authority for rational argument, especially in a Christian context, than the Nazi Courts of WWII or the Soviet Peoples Courts of the Cold War. I cite a few well known cases such as Row v. Wade, McCollum v. Board of Education, Engel v. Vitale, Abington School District v. Schempp, and Santa Fe v. Doe. where Christians are opposed to the Court’s rulings on Biblical grounds. We are faced with the apostolic impasse of whether it is right to obey God or obey God by obeying man. Obviously, it is better to explicitly obey God. Thus, we conclude that a Supreme Court doctrine is not on par with Scripture.

Second, the implied premises of the above post are out of a Marxist-socialism paradigm of class-race exploitation and struggle. The basis is essentially humanistic although easily confused with some Biblical and theistic concepts. However, I assure you that the thinkers who formulated what is expressed in these arguments did not begin with man created in the image of God but they began with man as the highest order himself. The differences are subtle but crucial in arriving at a correct understanding and a Biblical view.

Third, the allusion to Scripture in James is inaccurate and misapplied. This is not what the Scripture is teaching in the alluded passage. It is reading into
Scripture one’s own presuppositions and modern dogma, thus depriving the Scriptures of their own true teaching and application. It has a name—eisegesis. Whereas there was no exegesis, the eisegesis was apparent. To claim that Scripture condemns segregation is the same folly as claiming that Scripture mandates it. To condemn segregation, its critics pull a slight of hand trick and equate it with racism. Segregation, of itself, is not necessarily racism. Let me explain.

Dr. Bob, Sr. and Dr. Bob, Jr. viewed segregation from a conservative, freedom philosophy. One of the basic liberties is the freedom of association. It is the freedom to associate or not to associate with whomever. Even the classical liberals accepted this view. The Drs. Bob were not racists but they believed in freedom of association. Dr. Bob, Sr. said that a person could start a school for bowlegged men if he desired. This was an expression of the freedom of association rights. They did, however, believe that miscegenation was wrong because God had formed separate races after the Tower of Babel. Therefore, they exercised their freedom of association rights to keep the races separate. They had no ill feelings or animosity towards other races. They were very benign and loving. This is not racism.

Opposed to the freedom philosophy was the Marxist-socialism paradigm of racial and class struggle. If one accepts the Marxist-socialist paradigm, he presupposes segregation as racist and evil. It is the struggle of class against class and race against race. There can be no amiable segregation in his thinking. It is invariably the exploitation of one race by another. The goal is a classless, raceless society of universal beneficence, brotherhood, peace and prosperity in a global economy. This new humanism deifies humanity and exalts itself against God and individual freedom. This is not a Scriptural viewpoint but it is the new humanism, sometimes called secular humanism.

Furthermore, it doesn’t pan out in human experience and application in life. Traditionally and culturally aware Indians, Native Americans if you please, are opposed to marriage outside of their genotype. They see it as racial and cultural suicide and it is from a practical standpoint. I have no doubt in my mind that races arose after Babel due to the geographic segregation and pooling of genes within a breeding pool. If the races intermarry, then the differences are obliterated and racial characteristics cease. IMHO, it is desirable to maintain racial identity by choice, not coercion. I see no inherent racism in Indians maintaining their culture and identity by choosing to marry and reproduce within their own racial grouping. Now, apply it to the white race and you get the same thing unless you hold the Marxist-socialist presuppositions on race. The Marxist reads race exploitation into white segregation simply because of his race theory.

The Jews are another example of segregation. They segregated themselves from Gentiles and have maintained an ethnic identity. It has not been all religion either because there are many religious divisions within Judaism. I say more power to them. They have the right to practice segregation by attending their own Jewish schools, worshipping in their own synagogues (whatever flavor of Judaism they choose), and marrying only Jews. And they do think themselves superior as God’s chosen. Read their literature. However, I have no problem with any of this. Then, what is wrong with a school in the South having a white only policy when it was an acceptable thing to do in the culture at that time?

Segregation is not necessarily a devaluing of human life as was alleged in this post. The two aforementioned examples refute this idea. The only way one can say this is by stereotyping and applying the extreme forms to the whole spectrum. Such is specious and deceptive reasoning.

There are many misplaced values being emphasized under the guise of Biblical Christianity. Paul sent a slave home to his master. He further admonished slaves to remain in servitude even though they did not desire it. We see no crusader seeking to change society in either Paul or Jesus. The problems that Paul and Jesus addressed were the sin problems of the individual.

By directing Biblical rhetoric against the so-called social ills, one misses the target of the sinful human heart. It is society, an abstract concept that becomes the object of reformation rather than the regeneration of the human heart. Although society will benefit from the collective good of the individually regenerate hearts, this is not the focus of Scripture.

Pious Christians blubber, “I love everybody in the whole world just like the Bible says.” Lie! Where does the Bible say this? One cannot love everyone in the whole world because they don’t know everyone, haven’t seen everyone, and will never meet everyone. The Bible commands us to love our neighbors whom we have seen. We work and play along side them but we don’t love them in how we treat them. We, as humans, would rather salve our souls with the sentimental slop of loving everyone rather than facing our petty selfishness, our malice toward our neighbors and our sin by repentance and loving our neighbors practically.

Likewise, we see the same pattern in the flap over supposed racism. Racism has become the premier sin of our generation. Never mind the personal evil and wickedness we do toward members of all races but we are nice people if we love all the races. I would like for someone to explain exactly how we love a race rather than individuals? It’s the individuals who make up the race. I will argue there are no racial sins, only individual. Yet, this idea is ever present in the presupposition that whites owe blacks something to compensate for someone’s great-great-grandpa owning someone else’s great-great-grandpa.

Finally, I will argue that separation (i.e. segregation) without animosity along any lines—racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, etc.—is not evil and is not necessarily un-Scriptural. In the religious milieu, I contend that it is good to have Baptists, Methodists, etc. segregated so that they can practice their doctrine and worship God consistent with their beliefs. Inclusivism and ecumenicism are not my cups of tea. The melting pot theory of America is a lie. The theme of America is liberty where one may freely follow his own way of life as long as it does not violate the rights or liberties of others.

To pre-empt the pat little spiel about loving one’s neighbor, please note that I emphasized this already and pointed out that it is individual and concrete, not collective and abstract.

I will disregard with distain any post nit-picking at statements out-of-context and reading ideas into my thoughts. I have no desire for childish repartee. On the other hand, I welcome debate on the broad issues that I have outlined. Let’s hear another viewpoint as long as we stick with the broad issues. Thank you.

 

Compromise? Not in a biblical sense. He knew the law of the land, he respectd it, and worked within it to get black students a good education. That is biblical Christianity. YOu have to live within the law. Refusing to stand against unrighteousness is disobedience. Fortunately, that doesn't apply here.

 

On what do you exactly base this bold assertion? Scripture? If so, please give me chapter, verse, and a proper exegesis.

Another bold assertion! Substantiate it. Jews segregate from Gentiles. How does this devalue human life? How is slavery stealing people (unless you are referring to Yankee slave ships stealing people from Africa)? Stealing is taking another’s property. How do you define stealing?

One may as well ask, “How does going to church serve that purpose?” The Southern culture, which you would seem to belittle, is founded on this principle and is practiced in good manners (opening doors for others to enter first, etc.), respectfulness (e.g. polite speech and address), hospitality and personal warmth. Contrary to Marxist-socialist thought, segregation does not of itself imply or intimate anything hateful or negative toward the separated party.

I am glad you mentioned the Law because although it condemns our sin, it was the means of bringing us to Christ. In like vein, although a hard and odious thing, slavery resulted in the spread of the Gospel among the African races. Many Southern slave owners saw obligations to their slaves in spiritual matters and saw the salvation of their souls and civilization as a distinct benefit. One must admit there was a great spiritual and evangelical heritage that came out of slavery. I dare say that without the economic factor that most would have remained and died lost and uncivilized in African. The missionary effort was not sufficient. Like Joseph, man intended it for selfish gain but God brought good out of it.

This is not talking about standing up for the downtrodden masses. Such an idea is of a Marxist-socialist origin, not Biblical. This is referring to taking care of the needy people around you, not some social activism. There is no transference to such an idea here. This means taking groceries to the needy family across the street, not picketing for social welfare reform. It means taking your leisure time for visiting the sick and shut-in. It means giving up your Saturday golf to cut firewood for a widow lady. James is speaking of a personal obligation rather than a corporate or collective responsibility.

No, I didn’t read him saying that. I didn’t write the original post but it seems to me that you are attributing and reading into what he said. Furthermore, it has not been established that the said behavior violated Scripture. This is begging the question.

Again, this is unfairly berating the poor guy for something he did not say. Please do not question his character and spirituality because he is of an opposing viewpoint.

Yes, it means curbing our own thoughts and prejudices to bring them into captivity under Christ. It is easy to lash out at others for perceived inequities but it is much harder to peer through our own nearsightedness and bring our preconceived notions into subjection.

In all fairness, I really don’t think he said or implied anything of the sort.

 

This does not present the correct view of segregation as seen by Southern Christians during the early to mid twentieth century, especially BJU, Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. and Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. Also, it does not properly exegete Scriptural teaching.

By directing Biblical rhetoric against the so-called social ills, one misses the target of the sinful human heart. It is society, an abstract concept that becomes the object of reformation rather than the regeneration of the human heart. Although society will benefit from the collective good of the individually regenerate hearts, this is not the focus of Scripture.
</font>[/QUOTE]I have lived and pastored in the south and know what you believe can be changed first hand.

You do live in a pluralistic society which is a melting pot. So which pure unadulterated race are you? are 100 percent sure? Do you have proof? What would you do with a mulatto or mestizo. It is amazing what happens after a few years after those folks leave the south and experience other areas of the US where that kind of bigotry does not prevail.

I don't have any problem if a black person wants to marry another black person like themselves but sure don't treat them as second class citizens in society and especially in he church. Glad to see President Bush doesn't think like some. Sometimes take a look at where the KKK is the strongest.

Why should I care how Southern Baptists see slavery? Quit justifying their sin and castigating it upon disagreement. I lived and pastored in the south for ten years in the SBC. So I know what was said and thought. But Graham was different. He was a southerner who stood against what many pastors today will not.

In the south I had pastors tell me not to preach about such things. I did and I think people changed because of my preaching. The church grew and had a fantastic attitude. They began to welcome people. God changed them. It got to the point where we felt if people were not welcome there they were not welcome anywhere else. I refused to let that persist.

The issue of slavery is dealt with in the church in James and how people are to be treated.

So you think that it was okay for blacks to have different tables to eat at and different restrooms to use? Compare that to many of the slaves during the NT and OT. Many were allowed to own land and have wives and families. They also carried out the wishes of their owner such as manage their affairs and property. You cannot even come close to equating it with American slavery. Slaves were the result of conquering a nation. They were not stolen people but a conquered people. Slaves included doctors, bankers, lawyers, etc.

Certainly the south and north disagreed over slavery. Why do you think the SBC exists today? It was a lot over the issue of economics not theology. They have not stopped fighting today. Their religion makes it to the papers too.

In the state where you live in 1995 a man I know led a black youth to Christ and invited the youth to church. The youth came and the deacons stood at the door and told the youth he was not allowed to come in. What a Christ like example IN THE CHURCH!!!

Recently I was a witness to the conversation of two foreigners. One had studied in the south and told the other one how people in the south go to church evry Sunday and are very judgmental. I lived and pastored in the south for ten years and was shocked and some of the talk I heard among people in the church involved in the SBC. As a youngster I grew up around many people from other countries and other ethnic groups and still to this day cannot understand such nonsense. The church I attend now are people from all over the world.

In 1983 I worked for a black man. One day I asked him about his last name. He told me the story of how his family when he was a young kid fled the south to New York and took on a new last name.

I have lived in places where if you said what you wrote you would not be welcome by anyone. They do not want people who think like what you wrote. They do not want those troubles.

So you think the black people are supposed to worship the same God as you but in a different building? But you are not to accept them and they accept you?

Sometime try reading about the Jews in Phil. 3 and see what Paul writes about them. Does that describe your religion? I hope not.

 

Then what did you mean when you wrote, "Segregation was the law of the land in teh south. Jones tried to start a school for black students so they could get a legal education. He arranged for black students to go to northern schools so they could get a good education."

Isn't that compromise? Refusing to stand up against unrighteousness is disobedience to God. </font>[/QUOTE]It seems to me there is confusion over civil disobedience and obeying God. In my mind and understanding, it is pretty clear-cut. We obey God at any price, even our lives. Civil disobedience is a different animal altogether. It may be based on one’s application of a Biblical interpretation but it is not a God-given directive. Much of civil disobedience, as articulated by MLK, is founded on teachings of Gandhi and Hinduism. It’s origin is not Biblical. We must clearly separate the two.

Let’s try a test case. The Holocaust was a horrific event that boggles our minds over fifty years later. We haul over the coals those Germans who knew and did nothing. I’ve seen pictures of German civilians being forced to march by the ditches of rotting Jewish corpses and look at the appalling spectacle. We ask why they did not rise up in arms and liberate the death camps. At this time and distance, this is easy to do from our comfortable recliner.

Let’s consider another more timely issue—abortion. Is abortion wrong? Is it sin? Is it murder? If it is murder, the taking of human life and striking down God’s image bearer, then what is our obligation? Do we expect the same of ourselves as we did of those Germans who knew about Auschwitz, Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka? God forbids murder because it is striking at His image bearer. Are we to physically bar access to abortion clinics? How many have you stopped? Let judgment begin at home.

 

In all fairness, I really don’t think he said or implied anything of the sort. </font>[/QUOTE]I wrote this because sometimes we need people to challenge us in what we think and believe. Sometimes we have not thought about how far our theology should extend and limit it to our own personal experience or what we have been thought.

My point was that segregation was the law. But it was also only a law in the south. Other countries have laws against evangelism. How is a law against evangelism any different than a law favoring the mal treatment of people whose origin lies in stealing. Both laws are wrong. Wrong is never right. Give me just one example of where any wrong could ever be the right thing to do.

 

</font>[/QUOTE][snip]

So you think that it was okay for blacks to have different tables to eat at and different restrooms to use? Compare that to many of the slaves during the NT and OT. Many were allowed to own land and have wives and families. They also carried out the wishes of their owner such as manage their affairs and property. You cannot even come close to equating it with American slavery. Slaves were the result of conquering a nation. They were not stolen people but a conquered people. Slaves included doctors, bankers, lawyers, etc.
</font>[/QUOTE]1. This paragraph is a confusing mix of segregation and slavery. Which are you talking about?
2. Over 13,000 slave owners in the South were black.

 

You said it well.

That is exactly my point. If faithful Christianity does not show in the church then what should be said of us. We are no worse than the religious folks Jesus condemned.

Talk or any kind of action in the church degrading other people simply because of their education or skin color should never be. That is one place where it should never exist in any form.

 

1. This paragraph is a confusing mix of segregation and slavery. Which are you talking about?
2. Over 13,000 slave owners in the South were black. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]My point is that not all but many of the slaves in the OT and NT were given much more liberty and treated better than the blacks during segregation in America. Many of the slaves were a part of a household and were treated well. They owned land, etc.

If you take a look at slavery in America even in the first part of the 1900's blacks could not own land or property.

 

Look, slavery was a blight - in the south AND in the north. It was going on up there too. Praise God it ended! The Civil War brought revival to the south - it was greatly needed! Praise God for men like Abraham Lincoln and others who wanted all me to be free!

 

In an 1858 debate Lincoln said, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I, as much as any other man, am in favor of
having the superior position assigned to the white race." If we are to praise Lincoln, then we ought to be a little kinder and understanding toward benign segrepationists who were the children of their age too.

 

I would praise Lincoln's words AFTER his profession of faith in Christ, surely not before. Lincoln did not know the Lord until late in his life (after the death of his son).

God also, in his providence, saw that the North won. Praise HIM for that! Slavery involved people from ALL races and no one is a slave, legally, today in the United States.

Furthermore, the basis for my position is that GOD placed Lincoln in the White House -to rid this country of the horrid blight of slavery and to save the Union - which GOD formed in His providence.

 

"BJIII told Larry King that the ban on interacial dating and marriage at BJU was not "their" idea, but was put in place at the request of parents (minority) who were sending their children to the school. BJIII claimed that it was never a religious issue for the school." --Paul33

When was BJIII on Larry King Live and claimed BJU was never a religious issue for the school? I could not find the transcript on LKL and CNN.com
website.

P.S. How are you quoting people from posts into your own messages. Must be so simple I don't see how do it.

 

1. This paragraph is a confusing mix of segregation and slavery. Which are you talking about?
2. Over 13,000 slave owners in the South were black. </font>[/QUOTE]My point is that not all but many of the slaves in the OT and NT were given much more liberty and treated better than the blacks during segregation in America. Many of the slaves were a part of a household and were treated well. They owned land, etc.

If you take a look at slavery in America even in the first part of the 1900's blacks could not own land or property. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]That's not true. Check out your facts from primary sources--you can't believe modern revisionist history. Where I grew up in SC, one of the major landowners was black. I can document freed slaves owning property given to them with their freedom. Freed blacks owned property in the Antebellum South. Check your facts.