The “Biblical Principle” of the Separation of the Races
Bob Jones University has based its policies on principles, which in and of itself is a reasonable way to formulate policies. However, the principles governing the handling of race resulted in unfortunate policies. In rejecting calls to admit Blacks to the university, the correlation of principles and policies was well-defined: “The Board is responsible for administering the affairs of Bob Jones University, establishing its policies, and seeing that its operation is in line with Scriptural principles” (December 1970). Despite the commendable changes in policy since this early period, the doctrinal principle is alive and well if the University’s final communication on the issue is any indication (to be discussed below).
The term “principle” was not always the exclusive descriptor of the school’s race doctrines. At an earlier stage, a mix of terms was employed. For instance, “The will of God” was used to describe such convictions. The main reason why there was no concrete term for the doctrine is the supposed existence of proof-texts, especially Acts 17:26: “[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” Since texts were used, no further classification was needed. Any talk of integrating the University, first by admitting Blacks and later by limiting free association between different races, was considered “contrary to the scriptures.” The court cases of the 1970’s and 1980’s necessitated a shift in terminology. The University had been forced to weigh the evidence supporting their position, and had apparently become less confident in the clarity of Acts 17:26. Thus, the “principle” was born from the fall of the proof-text.
The classification as a “principle” was established in a formal way in the 1980’s, and one can see that the term became progressively more important. Dr. Bob Jones III could no longer refer to a specific text, but supported the doctrine by referring to “principles” that ranged “from Genesis to Revelation” (“Jones stands up for his beliefs but he’ll stand up for yours, too,” in The Coloradoan, 10/23/1982). The “principles” were non-negotiable, and though rather difficult to defend, were still as sure as God’s Word.
An official publication of BJU Press, The Bomb and Its Fallout (1983), proclaimed the doctrine a biblical principle, saying, “Bob Jones University does not discriminate on the basis of race. It holds to the doctrine that interracial marriage is contrary to principles set forth in God’s Word” (The Bomb, 9). In this stage of development, it is also called a “Biblical tenet” (The Bomb, 12). The publication makes it clear that the principle supporting the interracial dating ban is same principle which denied admissions to African-Americans “twelve years ago and, for Bob Jones University, $800,000 ago” (The Bomb, 3). Refusing to admit Black men is not the same practice as prohibiting them from associate closely with White girls; but both practices were based on the same principle.
In 1986, Dr. Charles Smith of the Bible faculty spoke of a clear and intentional shift to the term “principle.” When asked about the use of Acts 17:26, he indicated that this had been Bob Jones Sr.’s own interpretation, with no explanation of why the overwhelming majority of faculty, administration, and board went along with this interpretation. When asked if this text was still the basis, he responded, “I think that the recent statements have been that we are basing it on Biblical principle rather than Biblical statement” (Nathan Hannah, Interview with Dr. Charles Smith, 11/18/1986). Smith used the narrative of Noah’s son Ham to inform the principle. When queried specifically on the definition of his use of the word “principle,” Dr. Smith replied, “I use the principle that races were made by God; therefore, they must be a part of God’s plan. Men should not try to undo what God has done.”
Dr. Smith also spoke of another phenomenon: how the institution can change a policy, while retaining a principle intact. He stated that “the only change in policy is when we admitted blacks. Once we had admitted blacks, we had to put into regulation the policies we had preached before. Therefore, the principles were the same before and after.” There are a number of important similarities between Smith’s statement and the statements of Bob Jones III on Larry King Live (March, 2000). Namely, Dr. Jones made it clear that a policy change was occurring, but that the “biblical principle” was still considered “very, very important.”
The University’s rejection of applicants due to an existing inter-ethnic marriage was based on this same “principle.” “We do believe we see principles, not specific verses, to give us direction for the avoidance of it” (Jonathan Pait, Letter to J. Landrith, 1998). Here the principle is based on a broad reading of the entirety of Scripture. Thus, “Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man” (Pait). In other words, a significant portion of the salvation-historical aspect of Scripture deals with race, and the principles are derived from this meta-narrative.
An official statement made available by the University in early March of 2000 clearly reflects the stance formed by the administration and faculty in the 1980’s. The statement asks, “Is there a Bible verse or passage that teaches against interracial marriage? No. Is there a Bible principle upon which the University’s interracial dating stance is founded? Yes.” This official statement goes on to state that “God made racial differences as He made sexual differences,” with the clear implication that we should not try to make the races more similar to one another.
Bob Jones III’s interview with Larry King clearly revolved around the same principle. The marked shift in emphasis in this interview is that the “principle” is a core component, not of biblical history (past), but of eschatology (future). Though the “principle” is a component of the eschatology, one should not be led to believe that it is no longer a racial component. Dr. Jones made it clear, “We see what the Bible says about this, so we say, ‘OK, if they’re going to blend this world’ – and inter-racial marriage is a genetic blending, which is a very definite sort of blending . . . ‘let’s put this policy in here, because we are against the one world church.’” This genetic blending is the aspect addressed by the principle, which in turn is used as a tool for eschatological resistance against the antichrist.
Dr. Jones made it very clear that the “principle” is explicitly racial. He stated that “the problem we have today is that our principle is so greatly misunderstood.” The principle that is misunderstood is the same principle that was intentionally formulated and applied in the previous decades. In harmony with Dr. Smith’s previous statement, Dr. Jones pointed out that “we started this principle, back in the mid-’50s.” That is, this particular principle is the principle of racial separation. The principle of March, 2000 is the same principle of the 1950’s. This is the same principle about which he projected into the indefinite future. The policy “is ended,” but “the principle upon which it’s based is very, very important.”
Given the poor track record for the “principle,” alumni are right to be concerned that the school’s last statement on the issue defended it clearly and forcefully. The principle, admittedly the same one from “back in the mid-’50’s,” has brought nothing but grief to the school and its constituents. It would be a great comfort for us to hear, “The principle is, we now believe, faulty.” Retiring the principle, and explicitly so, is the best way to reassure us that it will not again become a source of contention in the future.
We urge all alumni concerned by the retention of the “principle” to write the board and administration. We have made it logistically convenient to do so by electronically signing the Open Letter online. The letter will be sent in November, in time for a meeting of the board, the same body mentioned in the first paragraph – the same body charged with the governance of the policies and principles of Bob Jones University. May today’s board choose frown upon the principle!