BJU Pulls Drinking Book

90 replies [Last post]

Stephen Jones issued the following letter-

Dear BJU alumni and friends,
 
In 2008 BJU Press published The Christian and Drinking: A Biblical Perspective on Moderation and Abstinence by Dr. Randy Jaeggli, professor of Old Testament at Bob Jones University Seminary. The book is part of a series of short monographs published by the Seminary to help Bible-believing Christians apply biblical principles and discernment to difficult issues. Taking an inductive approach, Dr. Jaeggli presents Scriptural, medical and cultural evidence that brings the reader to the conclusion that a Christian should totally abstain from the beverage use of alcohol.
 
A Problem
The sensitivity and complexity of the topic of the book, combined with the brevity (72 pp.) and inductive arrangement of it, have caused confusion for some readers.  They have concluded from some select portions of the text that Dr. Jaeggli condones a Christian’s moderate use of alcohol, which is the opposite of what the book actually teaches.  Articles have been written questioning Dr. Jaeggli’s research and Scriptural interpretations, Bob Jones University’s position on the use of alcohol has been questioned, and some of you—our alumni and friends—have asked for clarification.
 
Our Position
Let me assure you that the University’s position on alcohol has not changed throughout our history; BJU does not believe the Scripture condones the beverage use of alcohol to any degree by Bible-believing Christians. Please read our complete statement on alcohol use on our website: http://www.bju.edu/welcome/who-we-are/position-alcohol.php. All of the administration and Bible and Seminary faculty, including Dr. Jaeggli, fully support complete abstinence from alcohol and teach and preach this position.
 
The Solution
While our position is clear and we stand by Dr. Jaeggli’s conclusion that Christians should completely abstain from alcohol, we do not want the University to be in a position of causing confusion or misunderstanding among our Christian brethren. Therefore, we are temporarily pulling the book from distribution. Our plan is to rewrite and edit those portions of the text that have been misunderstood and reissue the book. Please understand that the revised edition, while clarifying earlier in the book that the evidence leads a Scripturally-sensitive believer to an abstinence position, will continue to approach this issue in a way that differs from some approaches of  the past, which have become less tenable over time.
 
As alumni and friends you are a key part of the university family, and my purpose in writing this e-mail is to show you the University’s heart in this matter and to clarify our position.
 
Stephen Jones
President

Also see http://www.bjupress.com/product/261412 (“This item is not available for purchase.”)

Pastor Joe Roof
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 367
Does this call for a

Does this call for a non-alcoholic toast?

Seriously, I appreciate Stephen's sensitivity to things.

Greg Linscott
Greg Linscott's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Fri, May 22 2009
Posts: 672
Wrong Move

I think pulling the book, even temporarily, sends the wrong message. If the argument presented is Biblical (or considered so by the publishing house and University), it ought to stand, regardless of pressure (real or percieved). Which is more important- a well-reasoned, Biblically based conclusion, or preserving traditional taboos? In my estimation, the cause of putting Biblical exegesis and literal interpretation in print took a hit today at the expense of pacifying constituency.

BTW- I am not arguing for a moderation view. I don't drink, and I do not think it wise for a Christian to do so, moderately or otherwise. As I understand it, though, neither did Jaeggli in the book.

__________________

Just and holy is Thy Name, I am all unrighteousness;
False and full of sin I am; Thou art full of truth and grace.
-Charles Wesley

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5070
Toast or roast?

Personally, I'm for Christians imbibing freely whenever they feel like it. I just don't think BJU should ever change their position even a little bit on anything! Laughing out loud

Seriously, I hope we're not going to have another BJU roast on this one.
As far as I can tell it's a fine book (don't have the book yet, though I've read several summaries by pro's, con's and pretty much neutrals). But I also sympathize with the PR tightrope BJU has to constantly walk.
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.

Bob Hayton
Bob Hayton's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Mon, Jul 27 2009
Posts: 469
sticky situation

"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.

__________________

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7

I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

ChrisC
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Jun 4 2009
Posts: 222
past vs. present positions
Quote:

Let me assure you that the University’s position on alcohol has not changed throughout our history; BJU does not believe the Scripture condones the beverage use of alcohol to any degree by Bible-believing Christians.

i'm no expert on bju positions, but it seems to me that the past position included the idea that scripture did not condone the "beverage use of alcohol" by old testament or new testament believers. jaeggli's book (from the second- and third-hand info i have) allows believers from past eras to drink but prohibits it in the modern era. the "new" bju position seems to be that as long as you agree to prohibit drinking in the modern era, the details aren't important. maybe that was always the position and there were just some vocal proponents of additional, optional ideas.

Todd Mitchell
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Jun 18 2009
Posts: 26
Is BJU Abstentionist or Prohibitionist?

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.

__________________

And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

jdsteinbach
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 17 2009
Posts: 2
The details do matter
ChrisC wrote:

i'm no expert on bju positions, but it seems to me that the past position included the idea that scripture did not condone the "beverage use of alcohol" by old testament or new testament believers. jaeggli's book (from the second- and third-hand info i have) allows believers from past eras to drink but prohibits it in the modern era. the "new" bju position seems to be that as long as you agree to prohibit drinking in the modern era, the details aren't important. maybe that was always the position and there were just some vocal proponents of additional, optional ideas.

Chris,

The fact that BJU Press would publish a book on drinking alcoholic beverages (and not just be content w/ a brief rule in the handbook/page on the website) shows that the details do matter. The fact that they feel a need to revise and clarify that book is, I think, further evidence of their desire to work through details.

I appreciate your willingness to admit that you've not read Jaeggli's book and that you're not a BJU expert. (In previous threads on this topic, too many folks have just spouted without reading the book or researching BJU.) I'd recommend reading the book if you can get a hold of a copy.

  • Page 5 says (before Dr. Jaeggli gets into any details or exegesis), "As we shall see, a cavalier attitude toward even moderate consumption of alcohol is not warranted by Scripture." The BJU web page says, "Bob Jones University does not believe the Scripture condones the beverage use of alcohol by Bible-believing Christians."
  • Page 72 says, "The beverage use of alcohol is incompatible with growth in personal holiness; it hinders progress in being conformed to the image of Christ." The BJU web page says, "Bob Jones University believes that the Christian is called to a life of growing conformity to the image of Christ and that the beverage use of alcohol hinders this conformity and growth in personal holiness."

Regardless of what folks think about the book or the university, they can't support the accusation that "the book is a departure from the school's position."

I've been attending or working at BJU since 2001 and one thing I give them credit for is their willingness to work through details. In multiple meetings and chapels, I've heard the administrators acknowledge the difference between institutional standards and God's expectations for believers. The folks at BJU are consistently diligent to work through the details of biblical positions and to clarify the difference between Bible and handbook. I know, some folks have graduated (or not) with a very different impression of the college; I realize anecdotal evidence is simply anecdotal; I realize the school isn't perfect.

The position in the book is a position of detail-examination - accounting for all the verses on the subject. If anything, it's the vocal "all alcohol is sinful ever always" crowd that misses details - the details of multiple Scripture texts that mention wine favorable.

I'm curious where you heard that the official University position used to include "alcohol was 100% off-limits in the OT/NT." Is there anything in print or online that makes that case? (Besides the occasional 60-yr-ago chapel message).

Joel Tetreau
Joel Tetreau's picture
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 311
Not a big deal

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

Greg Linscott
Greg Linscott's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Fri, May 22 2009
Posts: 672
Pressure and Principle
Quote:

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.

I'd be interested to see the "other publishers" observation substantiated. Books are revised, second editions put out... but I am not immediately remembering any situations where books were pulled after public backlashes like this one has had. As far as the thesis comparison, I imagine that a book on such a topic would have been subject to a thorough internal review before it was published- BJU Press is not exactly a vanity press or fly-by-night operation.

As far as the closing statements go- I am not sure how you substantiate those, either, especially in light of recent moves over the last several years. The dating policy was dropped at a time where there was a great deal of public scrutiny (Bush speaking on campus). The latest clarification of BJU on race occurred at the same time an extensive signature campaign was taking place (Please reconcile). This latest action occurs only after two national publications (SOTL and Biblical Evangelist) print front page scathing reviews and assessments of the book. This doesn't mean that the University lacks principle, but I think its difficult to make a case that public pressure or perception has no influence in the timing of the actions taken.

I'm not saying this is a matter of epic proportions. However, it is disappointing to see.

__________________

Just and holy is Thy Name, I am all unrighteousness;
False and full of sin I am; Thou art full of truth and grace.
-Charles Wesley

Jay C.
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditor
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 2096
Congratulations

{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.

__________________

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
-Eph. 4:29-32, ESV

Pastor Marc Monte
Pastor Marc Monte's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 59
BJU Decision a Positive Step

Let's keep several facts in mind as we consider BJU's decision to pull Jaeggli's book:

1. BJU published Jaeggli's book with the intention of promoting abstinence from alcohol use. I know this is their motive because of a personal phone conversation I had with Dr. Hankins shortly after the book came out. In addition, Jaeggli's conclusion (NOT his argumentation) suggested abstinence as the only acceptable course of action for dedicated Christians.

2. BJU came to see that Jaeggli's book was failing in its purpose. Rather than promoting abstinence, it promoted confusion among sincere Christians. Everyone who has followed this argument can see that Jaeggli's book resulted in confusion. Even if Jaeggli's arguments were sound (which, in my opinion, they are not), the controversy over what his book actually teaches proves that his presentation was in itself a source of confusion. If I were writing a book on abstinence from alcohol, I would choose to write so clearly that no one would doubt my position. While at BJU, Dr. Hankins taught the young preachers that we have 2 responsibilities: 1) To be clear enough in our presentation as to be easily understood AND 2) to be so clear as to make it impossible for anyone to misunderstand. The second responsibility is the most difficult, and herein is Dr. Jaeggli's failure.

3. Since the book was failing in its purpose and causing confusion, the book was accurately judged as a liability to the university and was pulled from publication. For this bold decision, I heartily applaud the BJU administration. Doubtless public pressure played a major role in their decision, and rightly it should. It was through the backlash of public pressure that the university came to see the book as failing in its purpose, causing confusion among the brethren and tarnishing the testimony of the school.

4. BJU should be thanked for their humility and willingness to clarify a situation that has caused grief nationwide. Who among us--when we fail in our stated purposes--continues to press ahead in the vehicle of our failure? Obviously, we assess our failure and seek a different path to success.

I, for one, am glad for the university's courageous and humble decision to pull this controversial book from publication. The fact that the decision came as a result of public pressure (Dr. Stephen Jones said as much in his letter) does not reflect negatively on the university. It simply indicates that they recognize failure when they see it, and they don't want to spend decades defending a flop.

__________________

Just clinging to my guns and religion...

www.faithbaptistavon.com

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5070
Confused? No, just disagreement
Pastor Marc Monte wrote:

Everyone who has followed this argument can see that Jaeggli's book resulted in confusion. Even if Jaeggli's arguments were sound (which, in my opinion, they are not), the controversy over what his book actually teaches proves that his presentation was in itself a source of confusion.

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.

Pastor Joe Roof
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 367
Hey Marc,I heard they are

Hey Marc,
I heard they are coming out with a new book targeting preaching boys who sit in the snack shop and imbibe coffee and eat a lot of donuts while discussing theology. Laughing out loud

Everytime I see your name here on SI, I can't help but remember those times. We had a lot of fun.

Jason Boling
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 12
What is being revised?

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.

ScottB
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Jun 4 2009
Posts: 11
Replying to Greg Linscott
Greg Linscott wrote:

As far as the closing statements go- I am not sure how you substantiate those, either, especially in light of recent moves over the last several years. The dating policy was dropped at a time where there was a great deal of public scrutiny (Bush speaking on campus). The latest clarification of BJU on race occurred at the same time an extensive signature campaign was taking place (Please reconcile). This latest action occurs only after two national publications (SOTL and Biblical Evangelist) print front page scathing reviews and assessments of the book. This doesn't mean that the University lacks principle, but I think its difficult to make a case that public pressure or perception has no influence in the timing of the actions taken.

I've not yet read the book, and my own position is abstinence-by-wisdom (somewhat different than the book, I hear), but I respect the University's decision in this case. I don't think this is a parallel case to the two racial issues. Both of those were moral issues that ideally should have been done without public impetus; however, this is not a moral issue, but rather a clarification issue. If the public had a problem with their position, and they changed their position, that would be problematic. In this case, it seems that the public is misunderstanding their position, in which case making it clear is a good move. I'm no fan of the particular publications that critiqued the book, but in any case, the fact remains that the book has been misunderstood/misconstrued.

Whether other publishers issue revisions or not is frankly irrelevant. I think BJU is to be applauded for valuing clarity over the monetary cost of now wasted book stock.

Ron Bean
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 289
An Attempt at Humor

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."

__________________

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Pastor Joe Roof
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 367
Ron Bean wrote: Perhaps a new
Ron Bean wrote:

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."

I also think the title of the book ought to be "The Christian and Snake Poison." That'll make it clear. Smile

Ron Bean
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 289
Pastor Joe Roof wrote: Ron
Pastor Joe Roof wrote:
Ron Bean wrote:

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."

I also think the title of the book ought to be "The Christian and Snake Poison." That'll make it clear. Smile

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

__________________

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Jim Peet
Jim Peet's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditorAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3252
For those who judge a book by its cover!
Pastor Joe Roof wrote:
Ron Bean wrote:

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

I also think the title of the book ought to be "The Christian and Snake Poison." That'll make it clear. Smile

Larry
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1036
"Marc Monte" wrote: Rather
"Marc Monte" wrote:

Rather than promoting abstinence, it promoted confusion among sincere Christians.

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.

Greg Linscott
Greg Linscott's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Fri, May 22 2009
Posts: 672
My statement about influence

My statement about influence was in response to Joel's observation-

Quote:

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 am not saying they are unprincipled- but I am saying that public response was a definite factor. That is all.

Quote:

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").

I understand that. However, I think that pulling the book contributes to less clarity still. Revise the book- fine. But pulling it here and now gives the appearance, at least, that the critics had some substance in the criticism leveled that the argumentation in the book was not Biblical. I don't understand that to be the case, nor do I think that in reading the letter that Stephen does, either, BTW. But those who have already misconstrued the book's arguments have shown that there is a distinct possibility that they will also misconstrue this action, too. Again, what takes a hit is attempts at exposition and exegesis in print, especially if the conclusions of one's exegesis lead one to articulate a position that differs from one traditionally established. If you oppose Jaeggli's reasoning and conclusions, fine- but counter them with reasoning and conclusions derived from Scripture, not with demands to remove the book from the market.

__________________

Just and holy is Thy Name, I am all unrighteousness;
False and full of sin I am; Thou art full of truth and grace.
-Charles Wesley

NathanL
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jul 14 2009
Posts: 15
very disappointed
Greg Linscott wrote:

In my estimation, the cause of putting Biblical exegesis and literal interpretation in print took a hit today at the expense of pacifying constituency.

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

Stephen Jones wrote:

[The book] will continue to approach this issue in a way that differs from some approaches of the past, which have become less tenable over time.

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?")

Larry
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1036
Quote: On the recording I
Quote:

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?

I don't want to jump in here unwisely, but no, it's not the same thing.

Jay C.
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditor
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 2096
Kudos
Greg wrote:

I understand that. However, I think that pulling the book contributes to less clarity still. Revise the book- fine. But pulling it here and now gives the appearance, at least, that the critics had some substance in the criticism leveled that the argumentation in the book was not Biblical. I don't understand that to be the case, nor do I think that in reading the letter that Stephen does, either, BTW. But those who have already misconstrued the book's arguments have shown that there is a distinct possibility that they will also misconstrue this action, too. Again, what takes a hit is attempts at exposition and exegesis in print, especially if the conclusions of one's exegesis lead one to articulate a position that differs from one traditionally established. If you oppose Jaeggli's reasoning and conclusions, fine- but counter them with reasoning and conclusions derived from Scripture, not with demands to remove the book from the market.

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.

__________________

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
-Eph. 4:29-32, ESV

Pastor Marc Monte
Pastor Marc Monte's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 59
Not Another Book?

Pastor Joe Roof:

I have a lot of great memories of those snack shop days--and the donuts have stayed with me over the years as well! I think what has happened is that we miss the snack shop at BJU so much, we gather at SI to re-enact those days of theological discussion and debate. I only wish we had cyber coffee and cyber donuts. Raspberry filled would be nice.

__________________

Just clinging to my guns and religion...

www.faithbaptistavon.com

Larry
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1036
In fairness Jay, while I am

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.

Greg Linscott
Greg Linscott's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Fri, May 22 2009
Posts: 672
Quote: There is also a valid
Quote:

There is also a valid biblical principle of taking care not to cause needless offense and stumbling to others.

Yes, but what do we mean by "offense" and "stumbling"? Is offense making people irate, or does it mean causing them to get caught up in the sinful behavior in discussion? While we have plenty of evidence that people became irate, I don't think we have any evidence that people were led to sin (committing offense or stumbling from an obedient Christian walk) by assuming license to indulge in drinking because of the influence of Jaeggli's book.

Whatever else anyone might be saying, I think it would be very difficult to argue that Jaeggli's book leads one to imbibe, or concludes that such activity is acceptable for Christians today.

__________________

Just and holy is Thy Name, I am all unrighteousness;
False and full of sin I am; Thou art full of truth and grace.
-Charles Wesley

BryanBice
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 251
SOTL crowd?

"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.

Larry
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1036
Quote: Yes, but what do we
Quote:

Yes, but what do we mean by "offense" and "stumbling"? If offense making people irate, or does it mean causing them to get caught up in the sinful behavior in discussion? While we have plenty of evidence that people became irate, I don't think we have any evidence that people were led to sin (committing offense or stumbling from an obedient Christian walk) by assuming license to indulge in drinking because of the influence of Jaeggli's book.

Whatever else anyone might be saying, I think it would be very difficult to argue that Jaeggli's book leads one to imbibe, or concludes that such activity is acceptable for Christians today.

You know I thought about clarifying what I meant by "offense" and "stumbling" but I said to myself, "Self, there's no way anyone will miss that point."

Of course, you can never underestimate the nitpickiness of Minnesotans who apparently are enjoying their three days of summer this week and should be outside enjoying it.

So to clarify, I actually meant cause problems or divisions unnecessarily because of poor communication. I didn't mean it in a "causing them to sin" kind of way. I don't think any legitimate reading of Jaeggli's book would lead someone to think they can get drunk. They may be convinced that they can have a glass of wine with dinner. I don't know. But if they read the whole book, they won't think that Jaeggli thinks it's okay to have a glass of wine with dinner.

But people who have issues will have issue either way. Those who are looking for a reason to drink will find it, and they won't need this book to do it. Those who believe that the Bible absolutely forbids drinking any wine for any reason will have issues too.

In the end, this book was a contribution to the discussion. It's not inspired. If you disagree, then fine. Disagree. Don't be a bully. Don't attack other people's godliness and character because you disagree with them. Don't get heavy-handed about it.

Greg Linscott
Greg Linscott's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Fri, May 22 2009
Posts: 672
Heh
Quote:

Of course, you can never underestimate the nitpickiness of Minnesotans who apparently are enjoying their three days of summer this week and should be outside enjoying it.

Yeah, but this Minnesota guy is a transplant who is grumpy because his Red Sox lost another game in the standings to the Yankees last night... Oops

__________________

Just and holy is Thy Name, I am all unrighteousness;
False and full of sin I am; Thou art full of truth and grace.
-Charles Wesley

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5070
Maybe try harder
NathanL wrote:

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.

This is an overly cynical interpretation of the situation, Nathan. It might take a bit more effort than you're inclined to exert, but try to imagine a scenario in which there is more than one way to arrive at the same conclusion and one is simply better than the other. Smile ... or more fantastic still, imagine that a particular conclusion was arrived at by invalid reasoning but the same conclusion can be arrived at later by better reasoning.
I don't find this hard to imagine at all.
In short, the fact that a case for a particular conclusion is weak does not prove that another case for the same conclusion must also de facto be weak. I recommend getting a copy of the book (there may be a bootleg market!) and evaluating the arguments rather than dismissing them in advance by association w/weaker past arguments.

Chris Anderson
Chris Anderson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Jun 29 2009
Posts: 3
Failure? Flop?
Pastor Marc Monte wrote:

It simply indicates that they recognize failure when they see it, and they don't want to spend decades defending a flop.

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:

Quote:

"As an exegete I am bound by what the Scripture actually says, not by what I wish it might say."

Red Phillips
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 3 2009
Posts: 41
Quote: "Bob Jones University
Quote:

"Bob Jones University does not believe the Scripture condones the beverage use of alcohol by Bible-believing Christians."

Is there intended to be a difference between saying the Bibles does not "condone" the beverage use of alcohol, and saying the Bible prohibits or forbids it? I think there is a difference, and the first statement is significantly more defensible. I just don't know if BJU is consciously making that distinction. My hunch is they are.

__________________

www.conservativetimes.org

Jay C.
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditor
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 2096
Wait a second...
BryanBice wrote:

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.

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].

__________________

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
-Eph. 4:29-32, ESV

NathanL
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jul 14 2009
Posts: 15
not overly cynical
Aaron Blumer wrote:

This is an overly cynical interpretation of the situation, Nathan. It might take a bit more effort than you're inclined to exert, but try to imagine a scenario in which there is more than one way to arrive at the same conclusion and one is simply better than the other. Smile ... or more fantastic still, imagine that a particular conclusion was arrived at by invalid reasoning but the same conclusion can be arrived at later by better reasoning.
I don't find this hard to imagine at all.
In short, the fact that a case for a particular conclusion is weak does prove that another case for the same conclusion must also de facto be weak. I recommend getting a copy of the book (there may be a bootleg market!) and evaluating the arguments rather than dismissing them in advance by association w/weaker past arguments.

Aaron, my point was not to evaluate the book, but BJU's reaction. And I disagree that I was overly cynical. I believe I was accurate. I've never stated or implied that a conclusion is incorrect or false because the reasoning that led to it was invalid. But it should be enough to make it suspect, effectively loosing it from its moorings.

I don't really have time to address this much, but here's my point. Sometimes people piece things together that lead them to a particular conclusion (i.e. the conclusion is a legitmate result of what they've studied and researched). Sometimes people have an existing "conclusion" and they find a way to piece things together to justify it. When those things that were pieced together start to crumble, in the former case, the conclusion's anchor is weighed and it is free to sail to wherever the more accurate facts & research lead. In the latter case, the conclusion remains cemented firmly in place, and the search begins for new things to piece together in new ways to lead there again.

The latter reaction is what is disheartening. BJU has admitted that their old arguments were not tenable. I'm not sure at what point they decided that, but I've never once heard of them questioning their own conclusions on the matter, and I've been an Alumni member since I graduated. Rather than be open to the possibility that they might have been wrong, they started looking for new reasoning to support their existing conclusion. That introduces a lot of bias into your reasoning, and it almost ensures that the only way you're going to arrive at an accurate conclusion is by accident.

But even with all the brightest people debating and reasoning among themselves, Scripture should still trump. I recently posted these links, but they bear re-posting here because they were the first biblical, scriptural, logical and intellectually honest messages I ever heard a Fundamental pastor preach on the subject.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=32502151724 from Mar 24, 2002
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=480211416 from Apr 7, 2002
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2204151359 from Feb 1, 2004

That's all I have time for on this thread. But I would bet that BJU's email blast this morning will help this thead be the first to reach the page limit in the new format. Smile

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5070
concluding first, then "proving"

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
Pastor Harold's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 125
Is this horse dead yet?

I hope we are all settled in our own hearts and minds on where we stand with sipping,drinking, and drunkenness. Surely we can find something else to post about now. Or should we continue to argue about the out come? With 6 or 8 threads touching this topic, I am tired and think it is time to move on.

Pastor Marc Monte
Pastor Marc Monte's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 59
What about that bear?

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!

__________________

Just clinging to my guns and religion...

www.faithbaptistavon.com

Jim Peet
Jim Peet's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditorAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3252
Bear Story

*********** Forum Director Comment *************
I'm interested too ... but if you care to discuss it (Harold) ... please start a new thread
******************************************************************

John Benzing
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 49
Sorry to disappoint those who

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.

mounty
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Thu, May 21 2009
Posts: 424
So...content? Author? Institution? What's the real problem?

It seems to me that if anyone other than a faculty member at BJU had written this book, it would have been received with a resounding "Meh," even if the content was identical, maybe even if the content AND the author was identical and he just happened to work still at Champion International. It does appear that the backlash was more of a perfect storm of factors rather than any one single issue. So then what about this book was the real problem? I tend to think it wasn't so much the content but the fact of where the content was coming out of and that the content caught everyone to BJU's right off-guard.

John Benzing
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 49
Larry wrote: But if they read
Larry wrote:

But if they read the whole book, they won't think that Jaeggli thinks it's okay to have a glass of wine with dinner.

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:

C.D. Cauthorne, Jr. wrote:

Obviously, the BJU administration needs to do something to end the impression that it now believes that social drinking is an issue of Christian liberty

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.

Jason Boling
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 12
I second Bryan's statement

I second Bryan's statement about the influence of the SOTL on BJU. I never heard mention of SOTL in my years at BJU. It seems hard for me to see that they would make their decisions and policies based on that publication. I have been in Southern fundamentalism all my life and I don't think it is accurate to link these two organizations together this way - maybe at some point in histor, but not for quite a while. For BJU to make this kind of a move, the confusion would have to be from "friends" of the university.

I have read the book and enjoyed it. I didn't find it confusing, but I did notice them approaching the matter from a new direction.

Jonathan Charles
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 3 2009
Posts: 297
The only written thing I've

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.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5070
Smaller brush, please
Jonathan Charles wrote:

quotes taken out of context, logical fallacies, and Scripture taken out of context-pretty much the entire hermeneutic of IFB.

I'm IFB and that's not my hermeneutic... nor was it the hermeneutic of the churches I grew up in, nor--for the most part--the college or seminary I attended. ... just a gentle reminder that it might be helpful to be a bit more precise.

Ron Bean
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 289
Don't confuse them with the facts

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 Smile )

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.

__________________

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

JohnBrian
JohnBrian's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 444
oh no

Ron, now you really are trying to start a fundamental fight, by mixing Calvinism with alcohol. Smile

__________________

j...@g...l.com - my email
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter

A. Carpenter
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 3 2009
Posts: 82
Pastor Harold wrote: I hope
Pastor Harold wrote:

I hope we are all settled in our own hearts and minds on where we stand with sipping,drinking, and drunkenness. Surely we can find something else to post about now. Or should we continue to argue about the out come? With 6 or 8 threads touching this topic, I am tired and think it is time to move on.

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! Laughing out loud

__________________

Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.

Ron Bean
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 289
JohnBrian wrote: Ron, now you
JohnBrian wrote:

Ron, now you really are trying to start a fundamental fight, by mixing Calvinism with alcohol. Smile

Mixing elixirs and election. Rum and reformed theology. Sour grapes and sovereign grace. Laughing out loud

I'll quit now.

__________________

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

mounty
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Thu, May 21 2009
Posts: 424
blaming the blame
A. Carpenter wrote:

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! Laughing out loud

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!

JohnBrian
JohnBrian's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 444
Ron Bean wrote: JohnBrian
Ron Bean wrote:
JohnBrian wrote:

Ron, now you really are trying to start a fundamental fight, by mixing Calvinism with alcohol. Smile

Mixing elixirs and election. Rum and reformed theology. Sour grapes and sovereign grace. Laughing out loud

I'll quit now.

That's 3 points, now all you need is a poem and you have a sermon. Can I get an Amen! in the house!

__________________

j...@g...l.com - my email
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter

Pastor Harold
Pastor Harold's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 125
Bear Story

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.

Daniel Herman
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jul 1 2009
Posts: 6
The 'Calvinism with alcohol'

The 'Calvinism with alcohol' comment tempted me onto the keyboard from my usual lurker state! Several years ago a coworker recommended a book to me entitled 'Drinking with Calvin and Luther! - A History of Alcohol in the Church.' It's written by Jim West and (at least the edition that I have) has a forward by R.C. Sproul, Jr.

It's (obviously) a spirited and humorous defense of moderation but is also enlightening as to how far back the theological disagreement between moderation and abstinance actually goes.

As a BJ alumnus I think the university should have have backed its book & professor but then I was a science major and we were viewed as maybe being a bit heretical anyway.

On a related note, I hear that the SOTL is getting ready to publish a book on gluttony that also advocates total abstinence as opposed to moderation... Wink

Carry on everyone, I'm enjoying the discussion

Diane Heeney
Diane Heeney's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 455
Daniel Herman wrote: The
Daniel Herman wrote:

The 'Calvinism with alcohol' comment tempted me onto the keyboard from my usual lurker state! Several years ago a coworker recommended a book to me entitled 'Drinking with Calvin and Luther! - A History of Alcohol in the Church.' It's written by Jim West and (at least the edition that I have) has a forward by R.C. Sproul, Jr.

It's (obviously) a spirited and humorous defense of moderation but is also enlightening as to how far back the theological disagreement between moderation and abstinance actually goes.

As a BJ alumnus I think the university should have have backed its book & professor but then I was a science major and we were viewed as maybe being a bit heretical anyway.

On a related note, I hear that the SOTL is getting ready to publish a book on gluttony that also advocates total abstinence as opposed to moderation... Wink

Carry on everyone, I'm enjoying the discussion

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.

__________________

"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield
http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com

Jay C.
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditor
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 2096
Daniel Herman wrote: On a
Daniel Herman wrote:

On a related note, I hear that the SOTL is getting ready to publish a book on gluttony that also advocates total abstinence as opposed to moderation... Wink

That is the single best quote I have read on the New SharperIron. Thanks for putting it up - I needed a good laugh.

__________________

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
-Eph. 4:29-32, ESV

Todd Mitchell
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Jun 18 2009
Posts: 26
West's Book

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?

__________________

And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Pastor Joe Roof
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 367
Soda Summit

Just before the new edition is released, I would like to call for a Soda Summit to make sure that the revised content is acceptable for all branches of fundamentalism.

mounty
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Thu, May 21 2009
Posts: 424
careful
Pastor Joe Roof wrote:

Just before the new edition is released, I would like to call for a Soda Summit to make sure that the revised content is acceptable for all branches of fundamentalism.

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).

Jay C.
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditor
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 2096
Jones Soda

Mounty, is BJ still selling Jones Soda in the Snack Shop?

For those of you who are wondering, no, Jones Soda isn't affiliated with BJU in any way. It was a running joke on campus [when I was there anyway] that we only got the rights to carry it because of all the free advertising they got from the University.

__________________

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
-Eph. 4:29-32, ESV

mounty
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Thu, May 21 2009
Posts: 424
dunno
Jay C wrote:

Mounty, is BJ still selling Jones Soda in the Snack Shop?

For those of you who are wondering, no, Jones Soda isn't affiliated with BJU in any way. It was a running joke on campus [when I was there anyway] that we only got the rights to carry it because of all the free advertising they got from the University.

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. Smile

Greg Linscott
Greg Linscott's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Fri, May 22 2009
Posts: 672
"Soda..." The Next Debate...
Wikipedia wrote:

Carbonated soft drinks are commonly known as soda, soda pop, pop, coke, cola or tonic in various parts of the United States, pop in Canada, cooldrink, colddrink, fizzy drink or soft drink(formal) in South Africa, fizzy drinks, pop or soft drinks in the United Kingdom and Australia and sometimes minerals in Ireland.

You BJU guys just have to open up all the old debates all over again, don't you...

__________________

Just and holy is Thy Name, I am all unrighteousness;
False and full of sin I am; Thou art full of truth and grace.
-Charles Wesley

Greg Linscott
Greg Linscott's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Fri, May 22 2009
Posts: 672
Actually, this is interesting...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_drink

Quote:

Alcohol content

A report in October 2006 demonstrates that some soft drinks contain measurable amounts of alcohol. In some older preparations, this resulted from natural fermentation used to build the carbonation. Modern drinks use introduced carbon dioxide but alcohol might result from fermentation of sugars in an unsterile environment. A small amount of alcohol is introduced to at least some soft drinks where alcohol is used in the preparation of the flavoring extracts. The Turkish soft drink manufacturer whose product was listed as highest in alcohol in the October 2006 study noted that the naturally occurring alcohol level in soft drinks is 1.56 times higher than that found in Kool-Aid.

Hmmm... Shock

__________________

Just and holy is Thy Name, I am all unrighteousness;
False and full of sin I am; Thou art full of truth and grace.
-Charles Wesley

Greg Long
Greg Long's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 468
Jones Soda Co.
Jay C wrote:

Mounty, is BJ still selling Jones Soda in the Snack Shop?

For those of you who are wondering, no, Jones Soda isn't affiliated with BJU in any way. It was a running joke on campus [when I was there anyway] that we only got the rights to carry it because of all the free advertising they got from the University.

Seriously, BJU sold Jones Soda?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_Soda

Quote:

To help break into the soft drink marketplace, Jones pursued what it calls an "alternative distribution strategy" to attract consumer attention, selling soft drinks in venues such as clothing and music stores, tattoo and piercing parlors, and sporting equipment shops.

I wonder, did BJU sell Jones WhoopA** energy drink or M.F. Grape Soda (I'll let you guess what "M.F." stands for)?

Or how about this:

Quote:

Flavors released at the end of October 2005 in many Target stores (and, eventually, via the Jones Soda website) included, as in 2004, five different varieties. "Turkey & Gravy" and "Cranberry" made a return from 2004, with three new additions: Wild Herb Stuffing, Pumpkin Pie, and Brussels sprout. A list of wines, half-humorously included on a label of the front of the box, offered suggestions which would "match" with said flavors.

__________________

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

mounty
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Thu, May 21 2009
Posts: 424
Yup

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:

Jay C.
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditor
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 2096
Old Debates
Greg Linscott wrote:

You BJU guys just have to open up all the old debates all over again, don't you...

But...what else IS there to talk about? Tongue FWIW, put me down as a "Soda" guy. God will straighten the rest of you out later. Laughing out loud

Greg L, no, BJU did not carry the two other drink, so we can put that rumor to sleep right away.

__________________

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
-Eph. 4:29-32, ESV

Greg Long
Greg Long's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 468
Jay C wrote: Greg Linscott
Jay C wrote:
Greg Linscott wrote:

You BJU guys just have to open up all the old debates all over again, don't you...

But...what else IS there to talk about? Tongue FWIW, put me down as a "Soda" guy. God will straighten the rest of you out later. Laughing out loud

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.

Jay C wrote:

Greg L, no, BJU did not carry the two other drink, so we can put that rumor to sleep right away.

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

__________________

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Keri L.
Keri L.'s picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 17
disappointment

I was disappointed when I got the e-mail from the school saying they were pulling this book. It seems to me that Dr. Jaeggli's book maintained the school's abstainance position while presenting Biblical facts about alcohol. I fail to see the confusion over the fact that people in Bible times drank alcohol. This type of scholarly book cannot be accurately written without making use of everything the Bible has to say about alcohol. It seems to me that the SOTL and others want those parts of Scripture where drinking alcohol is accepted to be ignored.

__________________

Keri
www.thegracepost.com

Greg Linscott
Greg Linscott's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Fri, May 22 2009
Posts: 672
Aug 21 edition of the SOTL

It's not available online, but Shelton Smith has a front page editorial in the Sword of the Lord entitled "Bob Jones University Withdraws Controversial Book." He notes:

  • Drs. Jaeggli and Hankins flew to Murfreesboro to discuss the matter with Smith in person.
  • After lengthy discussion. no resolution of the "misunderstanding" was reached- the disagreement remains.
  • A request was made by BJU to read the statement from Stephen Jones at the National Sword Conference. It was denied.
  • Smith does not think a rewrite will accomplish anything, and suggested that they remove the book from publication completely. Here is how he describes and assesses the BJU response- "The other option which they have chosen is to rewrite and clarify. They indicated their position would not change but they would work diligently to clear up the misunderstanding about it. if indeed that is the sum and substance of the rewrite, it is likely, I think, that the firestorm over it will continue and that the fallout for BJU will also continue."

__________________

Just and holy is Thy Name, I am all unrighteousness;
False and full of sin I am; Thou art full of truth and grace.
-Charles Wesley

Jay C.
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditor
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 2096
Interesting
Greg Linscott wrote:

...

  • A request was made by BJU to read the statement from Stephen Jones at the National Sword Conference. It was denied.
  • Smith does not think a rewrite will accomplish anything, and suggested that they remove the book from publication completely. Here is how he describes and assesses the BJU response- "The other option which they have chosen is to rewrite and clarify. They indicated their position would not change but they would work diligently to clear up the misunderstanding about it. if indeed that is the sum and substance of the rewrite, it is likely, I think, that the firestorm over it will continue and that the fallout for BJU will also continue."

Sounds to me like BJU is trying to resolve the situation fairly and SOTL is digging their heels in. IMHO, This is not going to end well for the SOTL group; I think what will wind up happening is that SOTL is going to wind up causing their constituency to choose between BJU and SOTL. If that is correct, I'll be surprised if 60% of their affiliates don't stick with BJU and therefore further marginalize the Sword and push it further to the right.

Satan must love fights like this. It gets nothing good accomplished, wastes time and energy and resources, and distracts from the main goal of things.

__________________

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
-Eph. 4:29-32, ESV

Greg Linscott
Greg Linscott's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Fri, May 22 2009
Posts: 672
On the other hand...

BJU is perhaps inadvertently perpetuating this controversy by pulling the book in the first place. They should have stuck to their position and let the book speak for itself. The conversation that Smith describes demonstrates that no amount of defense (whether firsthand or rewrite) is going to persuade those who disagree with the premise presented in the book (and which BJU has already stated they aren't going to change). Going to the lengths they are may seem admirable, but it seems to me they are pursuing a publication and its constituency that has already distinguished itself from BJU in a number of prominent areas. At what point is it wiser just to walk away and let the critics be critics? As it stands now, BJU is lending credibility to the SOTL by taking the measures they have. Judging from the advertisers in the current SOTL, it seems to me that train left the Greenville station a long time ago.

__________________

Just and holy is Thy Name, I am all unrighteousness;
False and full of sin I am; Thou art full of truth and grace.
-Charles Wesley

JohnBrian
JohnBrian's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 444
aerated water
Wikipedia wrote:

Carbonated soft drinks are commonly known as soda, soda pop, pop, coke, cola or tonic in various parts of the United States, pop in Canada, cooldrink, colddrink, fizzy drink or soft drink(formal) in South Africa, fizzy drinks, pop or soft drinks in the United Kingdom and Australia and sometimes minerals in Ireland.

In Jamaica it's referred to as aerated water.

__________________

j...@g...l.com - my email
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5070
Hindsight
Greg Linscott wrote:

BJU is perhaps inadvertently perpetuating this controversy by pulling the book in the first place. They should have stuck to their position and let the book speak for itself. The conversation that Smith describes demonstrates that no amount of defense (whether firsthand or rewrite) is going to persuade those who disagree with the premise presented in the book (and which BJU has already stated they aren't going to change). Going to the lengths they are may seem admirable, but...

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.

Rev Karl
Rev Karl's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 160
Greg Linscott wrote: BJU is
Greg Linscott wrote:

BJU is perhaps inadvertently perpetuating this controversy by pulling the book in the first place. They should have stuck to their position and let the book speak for itself. The conversation that Smith describes demonstrates that no amount of defense (whether firsthand or rewrite) is going to persuade those who disagree with the premise presented in the book (and which BJU has already stated they aren't going to change). Going to the lengths they are may seem admirable, but it seems to me they are pursuing a publication and its constituency that has already distinguished itself from BJU in a number of prominent areas. At what point is it wiser just to walk away and let the critics be critics? As it stands now, BJU is lending credibility to the SOTL by taking the measures they have. Judging from the advertisers in the current SOTL, it seems to me that train left the Greenville station a long time ago.

An expression comes to mind about being in a certain condition "if you do", and in the same condition "if you don't".

At this point I don't think the University could do anything that would please anybody, anywhere.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3210
An expression comes to my mind too, Bro. Karl

"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."

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at Sunniemom's Survival Guide

Jay C.
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditor
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 2096
Yup
Greg Linscott wrote:

BJU is perhaps inadvertently perpetuating this controversy by pulling the book in the first place. They should have stuck to their position and let the book speak for itself. The conversation that Smith describes demonstrates that no amount of defense (whether firsthand or rewrite) is going to persuade those who disagree with the premise presented in the book (and which BJU has already stated they aren't going to change). Going to the lengths they are may seem admirable, but it seems to me they are pursuing a publication and its constituency that has already distinguished itself from BJU in a number of prominent areas. At what point is it wiser just to walk away and let the critics be critics? As it stands now, BJU is lending credibility to the SOTL by taking the measures they have. Judging from the advertisers in the current SOTL, it seems to me that train left the Greenville station a long time ago.

I agree with you, Greg. I though that it was a bad idea to pull the book in the beginning, but that horse has left the barn, so to speak. Unfortunately, I can't dwell in hypothetical futures [unlike God :)], so it seems like of a moot point to bring that up. As for the current SOTL constituency, well, I wouldn't know too much about that because I haven't read the paper in years. What little I've seen hasn't done much to make me want to read it again.

__________________

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
-Eph. 4:29-32, ESV

Todd Mitchell
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Jun 18 2009
Posts: 26
Impasse

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 are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Pastor Joe Roof
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 367
Feed The Sheep
Greg Linscott wrote:

It's not available online, but Shelton Smith has a front page editorial in the Sword of the Lord entitled "Bob Jones University Withdraws Controversial Book." He notes:

  • Drs. Jaeggli and Hankins flew to Murfreesboro to discuss the matter with Smith in person.
  • After lengthy discussion. no resolution of the "misunderstanding" was reached- the disagreement remains.
  • A request was made by BJU to read the statement from Stephen Jones at the National Sword Conference. It was denied.
  • Smith does not think a rewrite will accomplish anything, and suggested that they remove the book from publication completely. Here is how he describes and assesses the BJU response- "The other option which they have chosen is to rewrite and clarify. They indicated their position would not change but they would work diligently to clear up the misunderstanding about it. if indeed that is the sum and substance of the rewrite, it is likely, I think, that the firestorm over it will continue and that the fallout for BJU will also continue."

Many believers are weary of firestorms and fallouts over stuff like this. You have a magazine trying to cast doubt on BJU's position, which is that they are against alcohol. I hope the leadership at BJU will not choke on all of this smoke and just press on with their plans as the Lord directs.

Ron Bean
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 289
And we wonder why the young

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. Big smile

__________________

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Paul Matzko
Paul Matzko's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 3 2009
Posts: 67
Praise God!
Ron Bean wrote:

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. Big smile

I think that Stephen Jones's response to this latest kerfuffel once again reveals the humble spirit at the core of his administration. His interaction with Starbucks and his response to Soulforce's visit were much the same. He has shown himself loathe to fight fire with fire, but his willingness to be firm when push finally comes to shove. It is refreshing to observe a fundamentalist leader who avoids controversy (rather than courts it), stands on his principles, and cares little for how he is perceived.

Pastor Joe Roof
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 367
Moderator Reaction

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

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

Smile

Bob Hayton
Bob Hayton's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Mon, Jul 27 2009
Posts: 469
frog and boiling water

You probably know this, but snopes.com has an examination of the frog in a boiling pot story. They conclude it is false (an urban legend). Details here: http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

Moderators, please don't ban me for sharing that... Wink

__________________

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7

I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3210
I'm sorry

but the penalty for debunking a myth on SI is

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at Sunniemom's Survival Guide

Bob Hayton
Bob Hayton's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Mon, Jul 27 2009
Posts: 469
LOL

Too bad there's no graphic of a frog in a pot...

__________________

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7

I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

mounty
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Thu, May 21 2009
Posts: 424
Susan R wrote: but the
Susan R wrote:

but the penalty for debunking a myth on SI is

Eww.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5070
Self cleaning oven

At least it's a self cleaning microwave oven. Notice that?

Well, I guess we've run out of "serious" things to say on this topic, eh? Probably a good thing. Laughing out loud

Ron Bean
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 289
Pastor Joe Roof
Pastor Joe Roof wrote:

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

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

Smile

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

__________________

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Greg Linscott
Greg Linscott's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Fri, May 22 2009
Posts: 672
Hmmm...

I didn't realize Joe had that much pull with the Albany Unitarian Universalists... Laughing out loud

__________________

Just and holy is Thy Name, I am all unrighteousness;
False and full of sin I am; Thou art full of truth and grace.
-Charles Wesley

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3210
Don't worry, Ron

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.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at Sunniemom's Survival Guide

Norm
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 3 2009
Posts: 24
Ron Bean wrote: And we wonder
Ron Bean wrote:

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. Big smile

My thoughts exactly. Asking fundamentalists to be involved in social causes?? Oh the humanity!!

Hasty generalization alert: It's been my experience that the SOTL type, especially SOTL reading clergy, don't appreciate being questioned. They have a "That's the way it's always been", "Because I said so" mentality that is not supported by scripture, and when a weak position is challenged, the typical response is to attack and sling the "liberal" label early and often.

As an alumnus of BJU, I'd like to see the school distance themselves from the Sword/KJVO/Revival Fires crowd. It was noble and courteous of the administration to attempt to reason with the editor of the publication, but we see how fruitful that was.

Jay C.
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditor
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 2096
Isn't so
Norm wrote:
Ron Bean wrote:

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. Big smile

My thoughts exactly. Asking fundamentalists to be involved in social causes?? Oh the humanity!!

Hasty generalization alert: It's been my experience that the SOTL type, especially SOTL reading clergy, don't appreciate being questioned. They have a "That's the way it's always been", "Because I said so" mentality that is not supported by scripture, and when a weak position is challenged, the typical response is to attack and sling the "liberal" label early and often.

As an alumnus of BJU, I'd like to see the school distance themselves from the Sword/KJVO/Revival Fires crowd. It was noble and courteous of the administration to attempt to reason with the editor of the publication, but we see how fruitful that was.

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

[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]

__________________

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
-Eph. 4:29-32, ESV