Bob Jones III apologizes for "if homosexuals were stoned" statement
I know they’ve got a brand going, but it strikes me that when a school is named after a person, that alone might be good enough reason to change the name. Who knows—the Jones family might decide that the best way to honor their grandfather would be to change the name to something that made clear that what is important is not Bob Jones, but rather our Lord.
Don’t ask me for ideas for a new name, though. I’m stumped.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I know this is a little off subject, but since it has been discussed here: Seems to me most conservative scholars accept the story of the woman taken in adultery as being inspired Scripture. Some of those do argue, however, the story may be misplaced in the Bible; in other words, some manuscripts have it in other places in John, or even in Luke. The story is also mentioned by Augustine, Jerome, and others. Augustine even mentions why he thinks some have left out the story. The textual note (John 8) in the NKJV says: “7:53 The words ‘and everyone’ through ‘sin no more’ (8:11) are bracketed by NU-Text as not original. They are present in over 900 manuscripts.” David R. Brumbelow
Augustine and Jerome both lived in the 4th century (300 years after the originals were penned). Also, it would be important to know if the 900 manuscripts were early or late. A papyrus from the year 350 would hold more weight than a monastery scroll from the 15th century.
Everyone,
I just started a new discussion thread for the spurious passages issue. We can move that discussion there so that we don’t derail this thread.
I’m not sure how I feel about a name change for BJU. There are pros and cons to changing the name.
Pros: a rebranding, a fresh start, and no negative connotations that some have when they hear the name Bob Jones University.
Cons: a name change might end up being counter-productive, the amount of criticism they would receive from both supporters and detractors might not be worth it.
At this point I think a name change is premature(if that is what is necessary) simply because I do think BJU needs to make the Scriptural changes in areas where they haven’t yet. Otherwise it would simply be changing the curtains on the house.
[Bert Perry]I know they’ve got a brand going, but it strikes me that when a school is named after a person, that alone might be good enough reason to change the name. Who knows—the Jones family might decide that the best way to honor their grandfather would be to change the name to something that made clear that what is important is not Bob Jones, but rather our Lord.
Don’t ask me for ideas for a new name, though. I’m stumped.
Regardless of the wisdom of naming a school after a person, it does happen for a variety of reasons(usually to honor someone or signal the stand of a school). In the case of BJU, the impression that most people seem to have is that Bob Sr. named the school for himself(as a means of self-promotion or some similar reason). But when they were planning the school, those who were working with him insisted that the school be named for him because he was well-known for his stand on orthodox Christianity. You can read about it in Standing Without Apology by Dan Turner or Builder of Bridges by R.K. Johnson.
But the history of the name and the reason for the name does not mean that a name change is out of the question. I simply question whether or not a name change is warranted or whether the benefits outweigh the negatives or vice versa. I think if BJU does change the name, it should done thoughtfully. It’s easy for us to armchair quarterback this and presume that we’re right, but the truth is: We may well be wrong.
As an Alumnus, I have sentimental reasons for not preferring a name change. But ultimately the issue comes down to glorifying God. How can BJU best glorify God and maintain a good witness for Him. By changing the name or not?
I’ve seen this over and over. A public person asks for forgiveness and instead of forgiveness they get analysis The people who disagree with them about anything bring up those other things. Then their motive for the apology is questioned.
In the mean time none of the accusers bring up any of their own faults and how dependent upon God’s and other’s grace they are…but grace is not extended from man like Mat 18:20-21 says it should be. Are you who have responded on this thread treating the apology Biblically?
I hope no one is analyzing my stupid statements from 30 years ago. I guess flying under the radar is one of the perks of being a small fish in a small pond.
Who are those individuals that bothered to create and circulate a petition about an event that is 35 years old? Are they consumed with things from 20 years ago too? 10? 5? What is their agenda? Are they really interested in BJIII’s relationship with the Lord?
For that matter is how you are reacting to this post, right now the Biblical way to react?
Appreciated Ken’s comment, and it strikes me that in light of the modern habit of saying “I’m sorry you were offended” (blaming the victim really), taking a look at whether an apology was real (blaming the perpetrator and identifying with the victim among other things) can be regrettably necessary. For that matter, let’s remember the sinner confronted for “having his father’s wife” in 1 Corinthians, and how Paul specifically told the Corinthians to welcome him back into fellowship in 2 Corinthians. To do so requires some degree of analysis, as Paul was saying that the man’s repentance was real.
Now the same passage illustrates the hazards of over-analyzing, as the very fact that Paul tells the Corinthians to welcome him back into fellowship implies that the Corinthians were looking over everything with a fine toothed comb.
And in this case, my take is that BJ III fell (like many of us) into a legalistic trap by citing the OT punishment for homosexuality without reference to the NT fact that the “Oedipus” in Corinth was simply expelled from the church (instead of being stoned), and then welcomed back into fellowship upon repentance. So BJ III’s repentance from this error and sin tells homosexuals something very wonderful; real Christians do not want to put you up against a wall and throw rocks at you. They want to help you know Christ and repent. In terms of the Gospel, that’s a huge deal.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
“The so-called “shoot the gays” proposal would mandate “any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head, or by any other convenient method”. McLaughlin, a lawyer since 1998, declared in his proposal that it is “better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God’s just wrath”.”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/23/california-lawyer-shoot-the-gays-proposal-2016-ballot
––––––
BAKERSFIELD - “A proposed ballot measure that calls for homosexuals to be shot to death will most likely make its way through state legislature.
Titled the ‘Sodomite Suppression Act,’ the bill calls for any person who participates in sodomy to be killed with “bullets to the head.”
Discussion