BJU Pulls Drinking Book

"I don't disagree with you, Greg, I just don't want to be too quick to fault them for walking the tightrope badly when it's one I don't really have to walk at all."

And, all eyes are on the one who falls off the tightrope, and not on someone like me. I agree, its a sticky situation for them to be in. However, I can still see Greg's point.

Unless BJU wants Jaeggli to present the prohibitionist position instead of the abstentionist, no amount of re-writing will avoid some concluding that the moderationist position is defensible.

However, for anybody to conclude that Jaeggli is endorsing the moderationist position would simply be silly. I'm a moderationist, myself -- and Jaeggli clearly disagrees with my position. If you want to see the moderationist position, you wouldn't go to Jaeggli, you'd go to Gentry.

If somebody takes "select portions" of a book out of context, the problem is with the reader, not the author. Re-writing the book is not going to solve that problem.

Gang,

Let me remind us that other publishers do the same thing from time to time. This really isn't that big of a deal. Publishers/Authors want to be as clear as they can be. This is why I had to re-do my Thesis over and over again before it was finished. If you've done any writing at all, I think you have to assume the best here. It says much about the humility of the University and the writer to publically admit that they need to clarify a few points for sake of internal consistency. Let me put out there one other point.....I'm not a former student or even an alumnus of BJ. As a friend from the "outside" I don't think I see the University or Stephen doing anything because of public pressure. This ministry has earned the reputation that they do what they do because of principle.....not pressure. I'm sure this is no different.

A thought.

Straight Ahead!

jt

{sarcasm}
Congratulations are in order for both the Sword and Biblical Evangelist, along with all the people who angrily decried Bob Jones for 'changing their position' when that was never the case. You have won a critical battle for the future of fundamentalism.
{/sarcasm}

I'm too disgusted with "Fundamentalism" and too disappointed in BJU to say anything more than that.

I have yet to encounter anyone who read the book who was confused by it. The truth is that a vocal few simply do not appreciate his route to abstinence because it is not the same approach they have held to for years. Hence, all the alarmed "dangerous new" rhetoric.

Edit: I'll add this, though, any book is going to have a few who misunderstand. Any book on a controversial topic is going to have many who do not want to understand. But can the book be improved? Almost definitely. Any book can. But if doesn't say what certain folks want it to say, "confusion" will continue.

Greg, I don't think you'll find the arguments or conclusions being changed. Look at the initial letter from Stephen. They are going to try and clarify while sticking with the general tenor of the book ("will continue to approach this issue in a way that differs from some approaches of the past").

This book is attempting to take a different approach to the subject than has been taken in the past. I can appreciate that - I am currently doing trying that with a youth group study on music. For a guy who was taught that these type of issues are always black and white, it takes some adjustment time to present them in a more reasoned way. I absolutely believe that this is the best way to address these issues, but it has taken me time (often several times) to adequately explain myself. I understand your point that BJU should have ironed everything out before publishing, but hey, they admitted they thought it was presented clearly only to find out that many struggle with the new approach. They are sticking to the new approach and trying to work on how best to bring others along in considering these issues honestly. For that, I am very appreciative.

Perhaps a new edition with small words and pictures so that the SOTL and BE folks can understand is in the works.

BTW, I appreciate BJU and its leadership and pray for them daily. I also appreciate their "changes" in their effort to train young people.

When the host of BJU critics start their sniping, I'm reminded of the old saint who said, "I could take being swallowed by a whale. What I can't stand is being nibbled to death by minnows."

Thanks, Joe. You have provided me with a "merry heart" this morning and prompted me to pray for you and the work in Albany.

Marc,

I am not sure the confusion was caused by the book. I think the confusion was caused by things people said about the book that seem not entirely true and accurate. Those things should not have been said. A few people, upset by the argumentation, misrepresented the book's position and that is what caused the confusion. I don't think anyone would read the book and think Dr. Jaeggli was promoting or encouraging or condoning the use of alcohol.

Yeah. What is even more disappointing, though, is what Stephen Jones said between the lines in his email.

For several decades, leaders at BJU and others have taught that because of X, Y and Z, the Bible teaches abstinence for all believers. As "X, Y and Z" have proven to be "less tenable over time," the result has been a re-evaluation of the teachings that "X, Y and Z" have purportedly led us to.

Oh, wait! Sorry - that's not what happened at all! Instead, the result could accurately be stated like this: "Hmm. The things we've always used to lead us to this conclusion are crumbling. People are pointing out the obvious problems with them, and they've become indefensible. So we must find a new way to reach this conclusion, because we certainly couldn't have been wrong about it!"

So BJU wil change the book. From various reports, the book appeared to be a collection of uncomfortable (for some) facts, and then a dogmatic conclusion that didn't necessarily follow. According to Stephen Jones, the changes will amount to stating that dogmatic conclusion earlier and more loudly. This will fix nothing, so maybe they're just hoping to appease the prohibitionists who keep their enrollment numbers up by simply doing something.

It astounds me to see the lengths to which otherwise smart men will go to defend a position they desperately want to be correct. I'm reminded of a message from another BJU guy - Dr. Mazak - I once heard. He spoke for about an hour, and his thought process was similar. In the first half, he made some bold statements something like this: "The Bible does not explicitly condemn drinking wine." Then the second half turned embarrassingly illogical, ending with a challenge that went something like this: "So you say you want to drink? Ok, then take a glass, pour beer into the first 1/5 or 1/4 of it, and fill the rest with water. If you want to drink that, then more power to you." (On the recording I heard, no one asked, "So how about if I just have a beer and then a few glasses of water afterward? Wouldn't that be the same thing?")

Greg, you could not be more right. BJU has shown that it will fold when pressured by key members [I'm thinking primarily of The Sword of the Lord] of the IFB movement. That is not a good thing, and there's no positive way to spin this. This is a dark day for a movement and school that supposedly prides itself on accurate exegesis and Biblical authority.

As an aside, how did this letter from Stephen come out? I never got a copy in my Gmail account.

In fairness Jay, while I am not convinced they should have pulled it, let's be cautious in our comments and attributions of weakness and folding. We do need to make sure we are clear (I think the book was, but some disagreed). There is also a valid biblical principle of taking care not to cause needless offense and stumbling to others. It is possible for good, principled people to disagree on how this should have been handled without making the kind of attributions that you are making here.

BJU said that the book was accurate and they do not intend to change that. I would think you would agree with that position. All they said is that they are going to try to make it more clear.

So let's give them a chance, and show some grace that fundamentalists are not always known for.

"BJU has shown that it will fold when pressured by key members [I'm thinking primarily of The Sword of the Lord] of the IFB movement."

Those of us outside the walls of the admin bldg & beyond the front gates on Wade Hampton Blvd. can be pretty dogmatic about our assertions concerning the discussions that have taken place on the inside and the motivations that lie beneath a simple, straightforward letter. For those unfamiliar with the "distance" between BJU and the SOTL, the likelihood that BJ was pressured by the SOTL diatribe is about as great as if they had heard canons blasting from north Florida (PCC). Does anyone remember all the heat BJ took from PCC, SOTL, et. al. for its position on the translation issue? It never led BJU to any change of position to pacify the KJV-only crowd.

For my part, I'll assume that a good number of BJ's constituency (the letter was addressed to alumni & friends, after all) had a difficult time digesting Jaeggli's presentation of the facts of history, and then understanding his argument for abstinence, the facts notwithstanding . I would simply expect the revision to flesh out the facts more fully and develop the abstinence argument more thoroughly. And if that's what they're intending, it only makes good sense to withdraw the book from distribution--no sense having more of the "insufficient" copies out there. Knowing the character of BJ as I do, I find the willingness to accept a financial loss (by withdrawing the book) for the sake of greater clarity to be refreshing. They could've capitalized on the upheaval, printed a few thousand more copies to sell while the interest level is high, revise the book, then advertise the need for spending another $10-12 for the "newly updated" version.

Kudos, Stephen & Co. for humility and integrity.

Dr. Jones certainly didn't call it a "flop" or "failure." For my part, I'm not inclined to think that their pulling it solves the problem. It probably delays it, as the new one will be scrutinized far, far more than this one was. The fact that those who spoke against it see this as a great victory and admission of "failure" (see Marc's post) proves that point. BJU is in a tough position--tougher today than yesterday, IMO. But for you to call the book a "failure" and "flop"--much less to suggest that that's their estimation of it--is ridiculous. The book treats the issue with integrity, scholarship, and a pastoral spirit. To be sure, it doesn't say that OT and NT saints abstained from alcoholic beverages (which is the only thing many critics would be satisfied with, but which would be ridiculous). Instead, it addresses the issue with sound exegesis, then makes careful applications.

Here's the heart of the matter, as Dr. Jaeggli put it on p. 38:

But Brian, where did all the critics get their information from? I doubt that they got it from reading the book itself...it's more likely that they got it from places like SOTL, the Biblical Evangelist or SharperIron...I don't think Jaeggli's book sold all THAT well. I would have never even heard of the book if it wasn't for SI, and never known that people had problems with it aside from those two publications being mentioned on here.

It also would seem that BJU would HAVE to present an abstinence only position as the only Scriptural one in order to quiet the storm, when I and several others do not see that as the case, which is why I keep mentioning exegesis and Biblical authority. For the record, I hold to an "abstinence is the wisest" position.

Larry, I get what you're saying, and probably should have been kinder in my earlier remark, but I think that this move was primarily one because of the backlash from the IFB community who were instigated by the above publications. Dr. Jones' letter would seem to support that belief.

--edit--

Greg, NY'ers are in a panic that the BoSox are going to swoop in and seize Roy Halladay from the Blue Jays' clutches any second now. I hope they do, but I don't necessarily want to face the BoSox in the World Series [I'm a Phillies fan].

Nathan,
I don't disagree that people often conclude first, then attempt to prove. And also people & groups often reason to a conclusion either invalidly or on incorrect information, then invest themselves so deeply in the conclusion itself that they must constantly fabricate new reasons to keep holding to it.
Absolutely.

I don't think that's what's going on here though. But--full disclosure--to some of us, the conclusion is so obvious that it takes an enormous effort of will to be patient with those who seem (to us) to be bending over backwards to evade it. Consequently, the evidence threshold for us is similar to what we'd require for someone trying to prove the sky is blue. If it turned out that they'd proved it blue from some bad data, we tend to shrug and say, "Well, it's still pretty obvious after all, isn't it?" So if they come up with another route to the conclusion, we don't find that particularly suspicious.

As it turns out, the kind of case Jaeggli seems to have made is not merely a rearranging of the furniture to keep holding on to something. It's a qualitatively different approach because it--as I understand it second hand--argues that the case does not rise or fall on what people were drinking in ancient times. (Many react so strongly against this because they are not yet able to see that a case built on unchanging principle and wise application is actually a stronger one in the long run).
So... all I can add to that is, get a copy and see if you think he has dealt honestly with the facts. (I'm still hoping the copy I ordered is going to make it to me... we'll see).

Edit: by "qualitatively different approach" I do not mean "different from BJU's approach in the past." I still do not know there there was "a BJU approach" to the question in the past. What I mean is different from the "non-alcoholic wine" argument that has been popular with some for many decades.

Pastor Harold: I, for one, would like to hear about that bear in your sharper iron photograph. There's got to be a great story behind that, and I think there are others who would like to hear it as well!

Sorry to disappoint those who want to move on, but I would like to reiterate the point made that this does not end with the revised volume. It is sad to think that even though it is agreed that the book argued against moderate consumption, the crowd who read into it what they wanted to see won the day by misreading (or not even reading) the book. I don't doubt that the revised edition will be excoriated and people again will post that BJU must explain why it has changed its position no matter how clearly the argument is presented.

This is what irks me. It isn't that people haven't read the book; it's that it is universally agreed that the book comes down against drinking alcohol. You can argue that he makes the case poorly (which is actually what the Sword of the Lord argues), but how do you get to this point:

You have to think that BJU is trying to change it's public stance by relying on a poorly reasoned booklet. Doesn't make much sense.

The only written thing I've seen about the book was a pamphlet written by a pastor who took it to condone drinking alcoholic beverages. The pamphlet reminded me of the kind of little booklets KJV-onliers have written for years; in other words there were quotes taken out of context, logical fallacies, and Scripture taken out of context-pretty much the entire hermeneutic of IFB.

I'm an "old" fundamentalist who believes that anyone who drinks alcohol as a beverage risks making a fool of himself and hinders his testimony. I also admit that God's people in times past drank alcohol. (If you want to call me inconsistent...stand in line.)

May I venture the assertion that a certain segment of fundamentalism holds beliefs that are not supported by Scripture.

Among them are:

"Wine" is alcohol when unbelievers drink it but grape juice when God's people drink it. (Thomas Welch 'corrected" the miracle at Cana )

The Nazerite vow is good (except for the long hair and beard part).

Anyone who questions the logic, arguments, or veracity of statements made by 1920's prohibitionist preachers is denying Biblical truth.

And while I'm at it...

Calvinists don't believe in missions, soul-winning, the free offer of the Gospel, free will (see the Westminster Confession) or invitations.

While I haven't read the book, the comments about it make be think that I would agree with its conclusions.

What concerns me is that the uniformed opposition to this book as well as the uninformed opposition to Calvinism is yet another reason for the younger generation to reject a fundamentalism that is recognized more for its prejudicial traditions than its Biblical doctrine and practices.

Before moving on, I think it is appropriate to give credit where credit is due. I'm sorry to say that SOTL and Biblical Evangelist had nothing to do with BJU pulling the book. Without a doubt it was these 6-8 threads on Sharper Iron that were the primary cause!

Nah, let's spread even more blame. SOTL and BE read the threads here and were tipped off to the issue, and then BJ pulled the book because of them because of us! Whee!

When I suggested we move on to a new topic, I didn't mean move to telling hunting stories. But If it will help make the transition I posted it under General Interest.

While researching Luther's counsel on depression, I came across this: "Be strong and cheerful and cast out those monstrous thoughts. Whenever the devil harasses you thus, seek the company of men, or drink more, or joke and talk nonsense, or do some other merry thing. Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, aye, and even sin a little to spite the devil so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles." ~"The Life and Letters of Martin Luther"

(No, I'm not for moderation, but I find quotes such as these intriguing).

Love the SOTL comment. Funny.

Daniel, that book, "Drinking with Calvin and Luther! - A History of Alcohol in the Church," is a great read. Unfortunately, there are no citations to support the text! I can only hope another edition comes out with them.

By the way, since I mentioned I'm a moderationist in my first comment on this thread, I must say that I do respect the abstentionist argument (that consuming alcohol as a beverage is not prohibited but is unwise). After all, Paul advocated abstentionism when it came to women, right?

How hard do we preach that?

Careful which sodas you choose. They can tell a lot about who you are. Also, make sure you use this opportunity to showcase the lesser-known regional bottling companies to support small business. If it's going to be in Greenville, I recommend Blenheim. Red-cap (naturally).

Good question - I *think* so... Tell you what, next time I choose the snack shop over the dining common (tomorrow? who knows?) I'll check, and if I see one there I'll hoist a toast to a fellow northeaster.

Yup, and I'm sure they went very nicely with the Starbucks cups and their included "conversation stater" quotes.

What can I say, it was a down year. :shrug:

It's "pop" here in Iowa. I remember being in Philadelphia and asking a street vendor what kind of "pop" he had. "Pop? We don't have pop, we have soda. Pop is your dad," he said.

I assumed they didn't carry those drinks, but I'm surprised they carried Jones Soda at all, given its marketing strategies.

I suspect several involved would agree w/you now. I can see why they thought it was worth a try, though. Maybe this will make the revision easier for poor RJ. No sense doing a radical rewrite if you know in advance "it's not going to work" anyway. Any book can use a few fixes though, so they can always tidy up a sentence here or add a paragraph there, and go to press w/ 2nd ed.

"As a Christian, it's OK to let people walk all over you, but you don't have to let them stop to wipe their feet."

The appear to be at impasse -- SOTL is apparently prohibitionist, and BJU is abstentionist.

For BJU to explain their abstentionist position better would do about as much good as explaining their position on the critical text better -- it's not going to break the deadlock with the prohibitionist, KJV-only folks.

And we wonder why the young fundamentalists are walking away. This reminds me of a sermon i heard Dr. Stewart Custer preach over 30 years ago on "Fractured Fundamentalism".

I've been labeled a compromiser by some of the SOTL types because I questioned the the gap theory, the "boiling frog" illustration, and advocated fundamentalists being involved in charitable activities. IMO, what's happening here is that the "grape juice vs. wine" defenses of one side have been questioned and, rather than Biblically defending heir tenuous position, they've decided to distort the premise of the book. I appreciate BJU's attempt to be reason with those who seem to be unreasonable but it's kind of like trying to get that Anderson guy to use a commode.

************Moderator Reaction**************

We must not tolerate the questioning of the boiled frog illustration on SI! Shame on Ron Bean!

but the penalty for debunking a myth on SI is

Eww.

I guess this means that my week of special meetings in Albany has been canceled.

I am sure you would be welcome with open arms at Beer and Hymns. They probably don't care what you say about frogs. Or ducks even.

Why, why....you FLAMING LIBERAL! That's AIN'T TRUE!

[if you don't know what I'm talking about, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoMmbUmKN0E and fast forward to 2:20-2:45]