Posted on 03/02/2009 11:00:55 AM PST by Coleus
Last week, Bob Jones University issued a public apology for its racist past. When I attended the Protestant fundamentalist college in the mid-1970s, the institution was still struggling to overcome the blatant racism for which it had become famous. While I was a student, the first black man was admitted. He was an older married man who lived off-campus, and the unspoken suspicion was that as such, he was therefore not a danger to the white girls on campus.
Although the ban on black students had just been lifted, there was still a rule against interracial dating. Not only were African-American students not allowed to date whites, but Asian and dark-skinned students from Micronesia were also only allowed to date girls of their own race.
It was explained to us that this was not a racist policy, because the same rule applied to all the students regardless of race: Nobody was allowed to date someone from another race. How, you might ask, could a college that claimed to be Christian support blatant racism? It should be remembered that slavery in the South, and the continued racism that followed, was supported by many otherwise godly Christian people — just as apartheid in South Africa was supported by good, upstanding Dutch Reformed Christian folks.
The justification I heard while I was at Bob Jones University was based on a fundamentalist reading of Genesis 9:18-27, in which Noah curses Ham and his descendents. The fundamentalist argument claimed that the descendents of Ham became the African nations, and so it was God’s will that black people should be the slaves of the other racial groups. The theory is far-fetched, but people sincerely believed it and used the Bible in this way to support slavery, segregation, and finally, implicit racism.
Through the 1980s, Bob Jones University continued their ban on interracial dating. As a result, they lost their tax-exempt status. They tried to fight the Internal Revenue Service and lost. Now it seems that the school, under the leadership of Stephen Jones, university president (the fourth generation of the Jones dynasty), is turning away from racism altogether, admitting it was wrong and asking for forgiveness.
Now that Americans have elected a man who is the product of interracial dating, the pundits speak of a “post-racist America.” I hope they are right. I hope America can one day be free of every kind of prejudice and bigotry, and that no one will ever be judged based on their race or ethnic background. However, prejudice and discrimination extends to more than just race and ethnic background. Bob Jones is also famous for being anti-Catholic. I was a student there when Pope Paul VI died, and I remember Bob Jones Jr. saying publicly, “Pope Paul VI, archpriest of Satan, a deceiver and an Antichrist, has, like Judas, gone to his own place.”
So the religion of Bob Jones University was even more stridently anti-Catholic than it was racist. The very reason the prejudiced fundamentalist finds it difficult to overcome his prejudice is that he believes that God’s inspired word instructs him to be both racist and anti-Catholic. It is a long, hard journey for him to change his mind. To overcome racial or religious prejudice with careful reasoning is one thing, but for the believing bigot it is even harder, because he has to come to the difficult realization that he has misunderstood God’s word.
Not only does he have to accept that his interpretation of the Bible was wrong, but also that his authority to interpret the Bible correctly was also faulty. To have the humility, grace and intelligence to do this, and to do it publicly, is a praiseworthy accomplishment. That Christians at Bob Jones University have come to the conclusion that their interpretation of the Scriptures was wrong, and that they made a mistake is not just a political nicety. It is an about-face of stupendous proportions, for they must now accept that if they were wrong on this interpretation of Scripture, they might well be wrong on others.
This is why careful, understanding and open-minded Catholic apologetics is vital at this time. My own progress from Bob Jones graduate to Catholic priest was a journey that took nearly 30 years. As I gradually grew into Catholicism, I understood that I was not rejecting anything good from my devout Bible-based background. Instead, I was accepting more and more of God’s fullness, until at last, I was received into the Catholic Church. In my book More Christianity, I explain how Catholicism is not something essentially different from evangelical Christianity, but something more.
This is the sort of dialogue we need with our separated brethren who follow Bob Jones type fundamentalist Christianity. Step by step we need to overcome the prejudice of anti-Catholicism with a genuinely listening ear, with nonthreatening information, discussion, and most of all, with the radiant and joyful example of holy, Spirit-filled Catholic lives.
Then, in time, we may read that Bob Jones University has also issued a statement acknowledging and apologizing for their anti-Catholic prejudice. If so, we will have succeeded in winning not just arguments, but everlasting souls.
>> Not only does he have to accept that his interpretation of the Bible was wrong, but also that his authority to interpret the Bible correctly was also faulty.
I’m not sure I’m following the logical leap here. Because a small number of Protestants at Bob Jones University distorted the Bible to justify racial biases, Protestantism as a whole must be a Biblical distortion (despite the fact that the vast majority of Protestants never bought into the racist garbage in the first place)?
>> That Christians at Bob Jones University have come to the conclusion that their interpretation of the Scriptures was wrong, and that they made a mistake is not just a political nicety. It is an about-face of stupendous proportions, for they must now accept that if they were wrong on this interpretation of Scripture, they might well be wrong on others.
It is noteworthy that the Vatican has yet to achieve the humility shown by the University. I simply cannot buy into the infallacy of the Vatican ... these are men like any other, and they are as prone to Biblical misinterpretation as Bob Jones.
>> As I gradually grew into Catholicism, I understood that I was not rejecting anything good from my devout Bible-based background. Instead, I was accepting more and more of God’s fullness, until at last, I was received into the Catholic Church. In my book More Christianity, I explain how Catholicism is not something essentially different from evangelical Christianity, but something more.
Protestantism is not simply Catholic-lite. There are essential differences to the extent that devotion is to the church itself, and its heirarchy, as opposed to the word of God and His Son. Protestantism is a bottom-up church, Catholicism is top-down. We choose our pastors based on their educated ability to interpret scripture correctly ... but, these men are simply teachers of God’s Word. Their interpretation is no less fallible than our own — and their words are not law.
I cannot follow church leaders that cannot acknowledge their own fallibility. Genesis is pretty clear that we’re all fallible, the Pope included.
SnakeDoc
What is Mr. Dwight Longenecker’s REAL point?
Bob Jones University is a private institution.
Nobody reading these pages is forced to pay for BJU through taxation.
There are dozens, or even hundreds of colleges/universities in the USA that are not in doctrinal agreement with the Catholic Church, and they have courses that sepll out what they believe to be the errors of the Catholic Church.
So what is it? A Grudge? Did someone at Bob Jones one day stick their tongue out at Mr. Longenecker when he was a student there?
Would Mr. Longenecker like a list of Protestant, Baptist, and other colleges that he can point out as being anti-Catholic because they are not . . . well, . . . Catholic?
There is no Catholic claim for "infallacy" (sic) of the Vatican. Never has been, nor there ever will be a claim for infallibility of the Vatican as a whole.
This informal statement of position posted on Yahoo Answers is not half bad and may serve to educate you.
The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due. Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). What the Church is saying with the doctrine of infallibly is that Christ is protecting his flock by giving the Pope the ability to say the right things when making official statements about faith and morals. The Church claims that these proclamations are "infallible," not that Church leaders are "indefectible." Most certainly everybody in the Catholic Church has defects (including its leaders), just like Evangelicals and all humans. The doctrine of infallibility has nothing to do with the brainpower, intuition, moral fibre, or even the faith of the Pope. The Doctrine of infallibility has everything to do with God protecting his Church. It's amazing that even during medieval times when there were some questionable and even bad popes, God kept them silent on issues of faith and morals during their office. A Pope only exercises infallibility on rare occasions - a handful of times in history. Here are the conditions: The pope must speak ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) in his official capacity. The decision must be binding on the whole Church. It must be on a matter of faith or morals. He must be intending to teach.
If you don’t like Bob Jones University, go elsewhere. Three cheers for Bob Jones for recognizing and correcting a mistake. Much of my Christian walk for the past decade has been a matter of questioning my own beliefs and trying to correct mistakes.
>> There is no Catholic claim for “infallability” of the Vatican. Never has been, nor there ever will be a claim for infallibility of the Vatican as a whole. This informal statement of position posted on Yahoo Answers is not half bad and may serve to educate you.
I read your “informal statement of position”, and find that my understanding of Vatican “infallability” (thanks for the grammatical correction there — oops) was exactly as I thought. I apparently needed no education in this matter.
>> Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope.
This was absolutely my initial understanding. This is why I spoke of Vatican infallibility, not Papal infallibility. The Pope was used only as an example. I also never spoke of general sin — I spoke specifically of fallibility in Biblical interpretation.
>> Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true.
And therein lies the problem. These men are not Christ incarnate — they are capable of misinterpretation, and being wrong outright. When they cannot acknowledge the possibility of their imperfection in scriptural interpretation, I cannot take them seriously.
>> We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).
For instance — with regard to possible scriptural misinterpretation — Luke 10:16 speaks of Christ sending out 72 individuals ahead of Him to various towns that he was going to visit. Christ said (NIV), “He who listens to you listens to me. He who rejects you rejects me.” I see no indication whatsoever of the scriptural infallibility of anyone but the 72 individuals to whom he was speaking — and I see no indication that this infallibility was perpetual (as opposed to only on this trip).
Why would the Vatican assume that this passage means that their interpretation is infallible?
>> What the Church is saying with the doctrine of infallibly is that Christ is protecting his flock by giving the Pope the ability to say the right things when making official statements about faith and morals. The Church claims that these proclamations are “infallible,” not that Church leaders are “indefectible.”
I understand this fully. Church proclamations are simply not infallible. I cannot take seriously anyone that claims that attributes their words, particularly extra-scriptural elaboration, to Christ Himself. My initial post stands.
SnakeDoc
I appreciate that you replied without slandering Catholics or the Pope, or engaged in hysterics as many others have done. BTW, where does your current FReeper handle come from?
>> I appreciate that you replied without slandering Catholics or the Pope, or engaged in hysterics as many others have done.
No problem. I have nothing against the Pope or Catholics. The Pope is a very educated theologian, and his ideas and interpretations are certainly noteworthy. Not guaranteed accurate, but certainly well educated.
Catholics are a different side of the same coin. My contention is that God gave us His word so that we may do our best to live by whatever we think is the appropriate interpretation of its tenets. For those areas in which our interpretations are erroneous — thank God for Salvation, for scriptural misinterpretation is but one of many sins I’ll have rung up by the time He calls my name.
So, Catholics have their interpretation, and Baptists have theirs ... we each think we’re right. In reality, we’re probably both mistaken about something.
For the most part, we’re on the same side anyway.
>> BTW, where does your current FReeper handle come from?The Unit.
“The Unit” — a CBS TV Show about a Delta Force Team deployed for special ops. The field code-name of the lead character (Dennis Haysbert) is “Snake Doctor”. I thought it sounded cool — and it had military significance, however tangential.
SnakeDoc
BHO, Sr. was 26 year-old married man. Mama Obama was a 17 year-old girl.
That's not interacial "dating." That's statutory rape in many states.
I am a Catholic raised in the usptate of South Carolina who went to Catholic school only a few miles from BJU. I don’t know about now but in the 70’s and 80’s BJU was brutally anti-Catholic and raised money for Irish Protestant Terrorists to fund the murder of Catholics. BJU taught that Catholics are idolators and cannibals who secretly worship a variety of gods and images.
I am a Protestant, from Texas, and have never been to Bob Jones University. In the 70’s and 80’s, I was in an infant, toddler, and in elementary school.
My point wasn’t to defent Bob Jones. I know little about it, and have no affiliation whatsoever. My point was to question the conclusions of the article ... which seemed to take the history of Bob Jones University and derive that Protestantism must be wrong.
SnakeDoc
>> Seems to me God was pretty adamant about not marrying outside of your race...
Where did God say that?
SnakeDoc
I have nothing positive to say about anything I know or have experienced in regards to BJU. However, in the spirit of a Christian heart and always trying to see the silver lining, BJU does house one of the most remarkable collections of Sacred Art in the world. Truly beautiful
The Catholics would not agree there is a symmetry like that; we would point out that our interpretation is in harmony with the Early Church, hence it is authentic.
No wonder that BJU girl wouldn't date me in the mid-80s lol. Actually, she finally broke down and did -- had a pleasant couple of dates -- no big deal. I don't think she really believed some of the more histrionic anti-Catholic stuff, although she surely had reservations. She did invite me to the Baptist's Christmas shows which I attended.
True Protestantism is just that. It protests, does not accept - primarily the Apostolic Church and the Bishops/Church authority. There’s other issues, but this is the primary one.
If a Protestant doctrine no longer did this, it would be Catholic, or become so, as a necessary logic.
So, I’m fine with Bob Jones, or any Protestant disagreeing with and opposing Catholic authority/doctrine. However, the virulent, anti-Christ stuff should go the way of Luther’s “On the Jews” rant. Part of a time of very acrimonious (to say the least) division.
We can still have heated and passionate disagreements without this, I hope.
>> The Catholics would not agree there is a symmetry like that; we would point out that our interpretation is in harmony with the Early Church, hence it is authentic.
I honestly don’t care if they would agree — they would be wrong. Catholic scriputral interpretations, like Baptist interpretations, are fundamentally the interpretations of educated, but fallible, men.
In my study, I’ve seen no reason to believe that your heirarchy speaks for God to any greater degree than does my Pastor.
SnakeDoc
OK. Still you have to admit that is a significant difference that we interpret the scripture in the same way the Early Church did.
In fact, doesn’t it bother you that the Catholic interpretation of the Scripture is in harmony with the interpretation of the same people who decided what is and what is not Christian scripture?
>> Still you have to admit that is a significant difference that we interpret the scripture in the same way the Early Church did.
Scripture is scripture. The men that interpreted it in 500 AD did not speak for God any more than your current Pope, or my current Pastor. They were not divine — they were men. I believe they were just as likely to be wrong as you and I.
To my mind, “tradition” is a fundamentally flawed argument if the particular practice isn’t Biblically justified.
>> In fact, doesn’t it bother you that the Catholic interpretation of the Scripture is in harmony with the interpretation of the same people who decided what is and what is not Christian scripture?
I acknowledge the Catholic role in the construction of the Bible — though I would note that Protestantism had yet to split, so our religious tradition also stems directly from those that constructed the Bible. I have read some of the Apocrypha as well, just to be sure.
That particular individuals determined which books went into the Bible, and given that their inspiration for choosing particular books was divine, does not necessarily mean that they had any special divine insight into the interpretation of various passages. These were not Biblical authors, and we have the same text they had — so I see no reason that our studied interpretation is less valid than theirs.
SnakeDoc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.