Is Segregation Scriptural? A Radio Address From Bob Jones On Easter Of 1960

TGC: why dredge that up again? I can think of no good reason to do it and about a hundred reasons not to.

Everybody associated w/BJU now acknowledges that Jones was wrong, that the position of the school was wrong, etc. Well past time to move on and leave that behind.

Would be interesting to see if you were to post this comment on their site if they would censor it out.

;)

Yeah… I’ve had comments censored by them before, and I know others who have as well. Mine was relatively inoffensive to boot, though I was disagreeing with their position on the topic, as I recall; so I was somewhat surprised.

I must admit that I, like Aaron, cringed when I saw that, Yes, it’s time to move on and leave that behind, but….

….at the same time, I am going to guess that as long as there is an Internet, and as long as there are books, people are going to bring up the past of BJU. Although I’ve got no direct connections to the school, other than friends and pastors, as a fundamentalist that is part of what got me to where I am now. Same with all of us, really.

So the way I see it, it’s part of how we got here, part of who we are, and we might as well own it and make sure we know why we repent of it. Not just political pressure and the sheer social rejection that has been extended by God’s grace, but let’s go from general to special revelation. If we are to say the “races” should not mix, how far does that go? Does that mean nations? Tribes? Since nations and tribes are extended families in their roots…..does that mean we don’t marry outside our extended families? Cue the scene from Deliverance…

Jones himself was the product of a Welsh-Scottish marriage and married women whose maiden names indicate English and German descent. As the work of Sir Walter Scott (especially Ivanhoe​ ) indicates, it wasn’t historically just the color of your skin that mattered in terms of this idea. Was Jones then ashamed of his own marriages? How do we get to the point where it’s OK for a Jew to marry a Gentile, or a Welshman a German, but not for a caucasian to marry someone who is black? Or for the various tribes of Europe to worship together, but not for the tribes of Europe to worship with the tribes of Africa or Asia?

…and reduced to absurdity by general revelation, we then subject it to special revelation in the questions of the wives of the sons of Jacob, Joseph in particular….the Cushite wife of Moses…Rahab and Ruth in the geneology of Christ….the Jewish practice of proselytization…and the question of why, if mixing was wrong, was Israel itself on a major trade route, and why don’t Paul, Christ, John, Peter, James, Jude, and the author of Hebrews warn the churches that it’s wrong for members of one ethnos to intermarry with another? What do we make of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch.

…and I could go on a while, I’m sure, if I thought more of it, but really….I think that we owe the world a ready answer in this matter.

You would have to look long and hard to find any institution in the south that existed a long time before desegregation that didn’t discriminate. The Southern Baptists split from the Northern Baptists over the issue of slavery. W.A. Criswell opposed desegregation at one point. People who haven’t lived down south read a story like that repeated about BJU and think they were chief offenders when the reality is that discrimination was everywhere.

Good comments on this thread. You are right that this is and old issue that would best be laid to rest. You are right that segregation was universal in the South at the time Bob Jones delivered this sermon. (I could tell some stories.)I think all the comments make some excellent points. The only redeeming thing I see in this article is that some may actually scroll down far enough to read the statement by Bob Jones III apologizing for the school’s former position, and asking forgiveness for defending an un-Biblical practice. That took a lot of grace and guts. Well done!

I am one of many BJU alumni who were embarrassed by the former segregationist position, and am thankful for the new position and the manifestation of humility on this issue. I am encouraged by many good changes at BJU, and look forward to see what the Lord is doing there. It has been a good school, in spite of some evident weaknesses, and I believe is becoming an even better one.

…bigotry was just an issue in the South. I grew up in a town where a good portion of people—at least those of older vintage—moved away from Gary when Richard Hatcher became mayor. ‘nuff said? My grandparents grew up in a town in western Illinois which had signs warning blacks to be gone by nightfall, although not in quite such nice terms, and there are people around Rochester flying the Southern Cross.

….it is precisely because of what Jonathan notes that I think it’s important to be able to refute this kind of thing, as I’ve interacted online (my own blog—they came to visit) with those who advocate something called “kinism”. Now I didn’t persuade them, but it was good to have a refutation there.

We might quibble over what portion of the church would need to be able to do this, but like conflict over the Trinity or which Gospels are canonical, I’d suggest that anyone in an elder’s position ought to be able to say “yes, we did this, no sense debating that, but we’ve repented, and let me show you why we did.”.

Repentance for racism and segregation is only half of the requirement. BJU and Southern Christians who once held to and publicly promoted these positions also need to provide restitution to our black brothers and sisters. Sincere words alone won’t fix what was done.

[Aaron Blumer]

TGC: why dredge that up again? I can think of no good reason to do it and about a hundred reasons not to.

Everybody associated w/BJU now acknowledges that Jones was wrong, that the position of the school was wrong, etc. Well past time to move on and leave that behind.

if you consider Taylor’s source (see the now closed comments) everything becomes clear.

the allegation that the sermon was required reading until 1986 is just false. I never heard of the sermon, I was at BJU 1975-1985. Taylor claims to be using scholarly standards in citing his source, one source, well known as having an axe to grind against BJU. Scholarly,eh?

[Jim]

Don Johnson wrote:

f you consider Taylor’s source (see the now closed comments) everything becomes clear.

the allegation that the sermon was required reading until 1986 is just false. I never heard of the sermon, I was at BJU 1975-1985. Taylor claims to be using scholarly standards in citing his source, one source, well known as having an axe to grind against BJU. Scholarly,eh?

Re: the source “well known as having an axe to grind against BJU.”. Got that

But Matzko is not hostile

Does he cite Matzko as a source? (for the document in question, I mean)

I was at BJU from 1960 to 1972. (Six years in the Academy, four in University, two in Seminary). Not only was this sermon NOT required reading, but I never heard of it before now, and my time there began mere months after it was delivered.

However, the segregationist position was established policy in those days, and well known by the students. I remember wondering when I was in BJA, why I could (and did) date (one time) a Hispanic student, but would not be allowed to date a black student. (There were no black students enrolled at that time, so it was a hypothetical question.) I had trouble figuring out how, exactly, a “race” could be clearly defined. How many races are there? Who decides who belongs to which race, since so many are of mixed ancestry. Actually, we all are of mixed ancestry.

I experienced the same reasoning years later when I traveled to South Africa in the days of White minority rule. My missionary friend cautioned me not to mention that his wife was one sixteenth Cherokee Indian, as that information would change her official classification to “Colored” if it were discovered. That would make him illegally married, as people of different races were not allowed to marry in South Africa at that time. I’m glad those days are over, both in the USA and in South Africa.

[G. N. Barkman]

I was at BJU from 1960 to 1972. (Six years in the Academy, four in University, two in Seminary). Not only was this sermon NOT required reading, but I never heard of it before now, and my time there began mere months after it was delivered.

Yes, that is the part that is most infuriating about this attack. It is clearly Camille’s doings. Note that Justin calls her an “independent historian” - right. What a joke.

I sent a tweet to Justin, don’t know any other way to contact him. He should be ashamed of his post. Not that BJU was right, or Dr. Bob either, on this issue. In the comments, Justin defends his citing only Camille as “scholarly procedure”. Is it “scholarly” to use only one source and further her agenda? A little poking around could see exactly what Camille is about, which is to slander BJU at every turn.