I think that if we look at BJU's stand historically, we may find them not nearly as strict as many of the modern IFB churches. For example, my parents went in the 50's and my mom wore pants (!) for PE, just as nowadays. Probably even in the dorms. They had Vespers every Sunday and didn't go to Sun. night church at all.
They also had no a/c in the dorms, and when my brother went, they only had one phone (or maybe a few) on the end of each hall. Surely each of these things are not "stand issues" that you are not talking about (surely not!). No doubt when I was there in the 80's we had it "easy" compared to them in the 50's. Are we "soft" now because of that? (probably!--just kidding!)
As far as IFCA and GARBC. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who would disagree that the GARBC hasn't decided on a direction, just as you are sure that the IFCA is "gone". I'm familiar with a man named Colas who is sure that they have long ago "gone left". We used to get his paper. Since I really don't care to keep up on all of it, I don't get it anymore. Keeping up with the Christian politics if a full time job and one I'd really rather not have.
It seems like a person is a fundamentalist anymore if they proclaim to be...
I think if we look long enough, and hard enough, there is hardly anyone we could fellowship with without something that they do that we wouldn't approve of. We would soon be fellowshipping only with ourselves. Isn't there something to be said for listening to someone who has something of value to say, even if they don't believe quite like we do?
I heard that Mary Pride spoke at the Home Schooler's convention one summer within the last 10 years. I'm not sure what she believes, but as far as I know, most of the home schooling crowd isn't "fundamental" as I know it, but it would certainly be conservative, and evangelical, as I'm familiar with the term.
I think it's expecting too much of Dr. Bob III to know everything about everyone that speaks from the platform. There are people who may even badmouth the University but they don't know it, so they invite they to speak. The people "in the pew" know it, though. That's why it is important to keep our eyes on God, and not on "christian politics", which tend me make me sick.
As far as the interracial dating ban, Dr. Bob III told us personally that the reason he dropped it suddenly during Larry King was because he knew that we grads have enough grief to face just being conservative Christians and BJU grads, and that we didn't really need that also (the stigma of the interracial thing the media couldn't seem to let go of), in our daily lives--we're already considered strange just for being Christians.
Revfox..
You said that it was talked about discussed and taught in our classes. I was at BJU from 79-86 during the time we lost the court case. Dr. Bob preached on it from the pulpit, but I honestly can't remember it being talked about in our classes (as being biblical)--but that was quite a while ago...maybe it was...just can't remember. It wasn't necessarily a convincing argument from the beginning and an impossible one to be consistent with. For example, if a person was 1/2 and 1/2 (half Jap and half white, for example), they credited the person with the race that they looked like, so two sisters I knew, both had Am. dad and Jap. mom were treated, one as an Am. (she looked white)and one as a Jap (she looked Japanese)--and could date accordingly--a situation that I thought was not consistent, as their kids would easily -(Surprise! I'm studying genetics with my kids right now in Biology) show up Jap. or white. So, I was very glad when they dropped it as I felt sorry for the students who were half and half. Also, I had friends from Guam who were Chamorro and what are they but a mix of Phillipino, Jap, some black, white, etc....who do they date--Asian? Indians could date whites--they were pretty dark themselves, almost black in fact.????
Most of us couldn't really care less if they dropped the rule. Some see it as sign of some declining morality from BJU. I don't think so. Do any other (fundamental) Christian schools even have this rule? Do people "out there" even care? Really?
Just curious.
When I was a student, they let Jack Hyles speak from the pulpit...before the rumors began to fly, however. Speaking from a pulpit like BJU, apparently, has more "power" attributed to it than it should, I think. The speakers are all humans, sinners, and in a state of flux in their own ministries, as I see them. Some of them are worth emulating, some are not (probably). Probably if we knew them all better, we'd find things to find fault with in their personal stands, ecclesiastically and personally or in their children's lives, wife's life, or relationships in ministry/handling of problems.
In my opinion, there are probably many speakers that BJU has had through the years that they would have been better off not having. I remember a particular speaker from my stomping grounds in FL speaking, when I knew that this person (strong BBF) wasn't particularly fond of BJU. I was shocked that he was speaking for the Soul Winner's Conference they had before going home for Christmas vacation. Interesting. The more you know about any given preacher, the more you can find fault with him over. I mean, didn't Martin Lloyd Jones smoke a pipe? Spurgeon was part of the Baptist Union (for years), etc....?
Thankfully the Lord uses people in spite of all of our faults.
I guess we'll have to see whether BJU is going the way of worldliness. I asked someone about it, if it was a reflection of BJU and the rules, etc. or rather a reflection of the churches and modern Christianity in the states (and abroad). Most have said that they really just consider the students a reflection of the state of the churches and homes that are sending students there. To know more about other Christian schools would probably give some of the same conclusions concerning morality.
But, is it really a "separation issue" if a girl wears pantyhose or not on campus, or off, or a denim skirt off campus, front campus, back campus, etc. Maybe to a very small, select group of people, it is, but to "the world" at large, it isn't even something to think about. Wearing a pair of pants to a skating party, while maybe an uncomfortable situation for someone not brought up around pants doesn't reflect a large "worldly" movement by BJU...my mom wore pants there in the 50's, though probably not to a skating party.
I think that we all tend to look at things as they were and think that they were better when we were part of it? Maybe it was. I guess time will tell. I know that of the group that has come over to our place to help in summer ministry, some of the team members aren't as conservative as I would wish (I can tell), but they are EXCELLENT at dealing with people where they are. So, I've tried to look past "my own comfort" zone and get to the real issue of what is truly biblical and not my own "conservative fundamental subculture" and get along with even those with whom I probably wouldn't choose to pal around with, if they were my own age.
Becky P.
www.family.solidrockpl.org
