FAQs
Who are you? Are you really doing this because you care about the University?No doubt many will want to believe that we are simply disgruntled alumni with axes to grind. All we can do is ask that you read the information, including the personal accounts of people who have signed the petition, and draw your own conclusions. We love the people at BJU enough to stay involved and work for reconciliation.The design and direction of Please-Reconcile.org has truly been an effort by the signers themselves, but several people have played an active role in coordinating the details. Most of these coordinators were complete strangers one year ago. They come from different parts of the country, different backgrounds, and different professions. They have differing views about all kinds of things, even about the specifics of how to approach their alma mater. All agree on one thing: that error has been taught and practiced as though it were truth, and that there needs to be an unmistakable, decisive correction of this teaching. They are thankful for the suggestions, encouragement, and criticisms that have been offered over the past few months.The principal coordinators are as follows:
- Jonathan Henry is a 1998 graduate of BJU. He earned his M.Div. from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, and leads several ministries at First Baptist Church of Perkasie. He is an active developer of resources and volunteers for crucial charitable work and distribution, both domestically and oversees. Jon has been the primary author for most of the articles on please-reconcile.org. He resides in Bucks County, PA.
- Beth Murschell attended BJU from 1987-1994, receiving a B.S. and an M.S. in music education. She has been a teacher and is a writer and mother to 4 children. She and her family are assisting as lay people in the planting of Providence Bible Church in Denver, CO.
- Tim Tsuei received a B.S. in Engineering Science/Physics from BJU in 1989 and then earned a M.S and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Duke University. He works in a software company in the Portland, Oregon area and is Elder for Administration and Small Groups at Grace & Truth Bible Church in Hillsboro, OR.
We are thankful for God’s hand in bringing us together at this point in time. We look forward to what He will do through this effort and appreciate your prayers as we send this letter.
Was anyone actually hurt by the University’s past racial policies? Yes, and more people were hurt than many of us probably realize. For an example, see this discussion.
What will an apology actually prove? An apology or statement of regret will demonstrate a number of things. On the personal level, the statement will demonstrate that the University is sorry for the inconvenience and grief that it caused to those affected by its policies in the past several decades. On an institutional level, the statement will indicate to all directors, employees, students, and affiliates that the old way of thinking was wrong, and that the University is breaking with those principles. On a religious level, the statement will function as an example of moving from wrong to right. If the University wishes to retain its credibility when it criticizes other institutions for non-fundamental errors, it would do well to demonstrate that it can see and correct similar errors in itself.
Why should anyone apologize for the actions of those who are dead and gone? Stephen Jones is responsible only for himself. So what is there to apologize for? We are not asking Stephen to apologize as an individual to an individual; we are asking him to make a statement on the University’s behalf that deals honestly with the University’s past and clarifies the University’s current position on race and the Bible.
Does the Bible support the idea of institutional guilt and confession? Biblical precedent for institutional apology can be seen in Leviticus 26:40-42: “If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me; and that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.” “There are two actions specified in these verses. The first is confession. They would be required to confess the sins of their forefathers. Concerning themselves they had to humble their rebellious hearts and make amends for the [sic] their own iniquities. These two actions are the hallmarks of repentance. Whilst we can do nothing more than acknowledge that our forebears were rebellious towards THE LORD, that is not the case when we consider our own disobedience - we must both confess our sin and turn from it. This call for action as the fruit of repentance is common throughout the Scriptures, (e.g. Num. 5:7; Deu. 30:1-3; 1 Kings 8:33-36, 47; Mat. 3:7.) We find Daniel confessing at length the sins of Israel (Ch. 9), but though he himself was humble before THE LORD he never attempts to “repent” on behalf of his people. Instead he appeals to God’s great compassion (v.18-19). Today, confession and repentance are rarely understood as different acts and consequently an imprecise theology has developed.” See here.
Is a petition a Biblical way of going about seeking reconciliation?Acts 6:1-7 provides us with a biblical example of a petition:
Verse 1–The Hellenistic Jews raised a complaint about something that was wrong.
Verse 2–The Spiritual Leadership recognized the complaint. They did not ignore or blow off the concern.
Verses 2b-7–The Spiritual Leadership proposed a God-honoring solution to the problem. The people of God recognized that this was of the Lord and it was cause for great rejoicing.
The solution was implemented and the church was better off for it.
There is room in the kingdom for God’s people to do this. We see this petition as one in which God’s people are registering a genuine concern.
Hasn’t the University already dealt with this issue? In fact, the University has not. If it has, it was not on a broad scale, or in clear wording that conveyed the message well. The last statement from the University was that the rule was being dropped, that the undergirding principle was still vitally important, and that the real issue was one of religious persecution. Since this is the final statement on the matter, the issue has not been addressed. Moreover, letters from University officials to concerned individuals indicate that the University has refused to admit that any of their post-1975 policies were wrong.
Isn’t the school’s current direction the thing that really matters? The University’s failure to deal with its past in a straightforward manner causes us to be concerned for the school’s present-day direction. The University has yet to issue a statement repudiating the theories that lead to poor policy choices, and has chosen to defend those theories. Worse, even though the school has created a fund to assist minority students, accounts of racial discrimination by some faculty and representatives continue. These are current problems that will directly affect the University’s future.
Doesn’t talking about the mistakes of the past just foster bitterness and hard feelings? We understand that people can be reluctant to visit the unpleasant parts of our past. But our effort is not intended to dredge up divisive feelings of hatred or guilt. Rather, we are calling for real reconciliation, grounded in truth.
BJU is a private institution. Why can’t its administration set whatever rules they please? Because Christians and Christian institutions answer to a higher Authority. The law may have allowed the University to enforce unbiblical and harmful racial policies, but that doesn’t mean the University was right.
Wasn’t the University’s interracial dating ban more of a mistake than a racist policy? Racism is itself a mistake, and few people intentionally set out to be racists. Even well-known racist organizations appear to be well-intentioned, as evidenced by their own words.
The interracial dating rule applied to everyone, so how could it be racist? This argument was used in the days of state-enforced penalties on miscegenation in the antebellum and Segregation eras. The rationale employed was that if the penalty applied equally to all races, then the principles upon which the rule was based must be equal as well. This logic is wanting, since the prohibition of interracial relations was clearly developed on prejudicial lines of thinking. The same must be said for the policy that Bob Jones University had until March, 2000.
If the University has changed its mind, why should it apologize for doing so? I’ve heard my pastor say, “I used to believe this, but now I believe this.” Should he “apologize” and say he sinned for teaching what he thought was right? Why shouldn’t we apologize to those we harmed, even if we did so in ignorance?
Doesn’t it seem that no matter what Stephen Jones does, there will always be someone who will attack him or the University? Stephen Jones certainly has a big job, and will be the target of many critics. However, we believe that if he takes a public stance in favor of reconciliation and removes this blight from the University’s public record, many BJU-affiliated churches also will re-examine their philosophies and remove artificial barriers from their relationships with their brothers and sisters in Christ. We believe this is a cause worth working towards.
You say BJU should apologize to correct its reputation. But how will BJU’s reputation be helped unless the media picks up on the apology and reports it? Won’t this coverage be negative? The University plays a very important role in the shaping of its message and image. A begrudging response, such as was evidenced in March, 2000, will receive continued criticism. An honest and warm statement, done with no political motivation, will receive the benefit of the doubt. Institutions who have formulated statements of regret and commitment to future reconciliation have also published these statements in major media outlets and educational journals. Bob Jones University is capable of generating its own publicity, and does so frequently via press releases, University publications, and by sending out its teams and representatives.
If those running the school aren’t persuaded that an apology is needed, or if they don’t have a heart for the Lord, how can you hope for a genuine apology? A board and administration majority do not necessarily lead to the best possible action. The board and administration unanimously voted in the 1960’s to keep Black students out, and said that this was the will of the Lord. The repercussions of this bad decision are still being felt today. There is a time when alumni who are scattered around the country, who see the situation from a broader perspective, are right to express their concern and positions.
If BJU addresses its past racial policies only under pressure from alumni, is the University really being helped? The pressure is not just from alumni. We take it on good authority that the administration and other leadership bodies have a significant number of individuals who would like to address this aspect of the University’s past. Furthermore, even if this were not the case, the alumni of an institution are an indicator of its success.
