BJU Pulls Drinking Book

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.”

[Ron Bean] 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. :)

[Pastor Joe Roof]

[Ron Bean] 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. :)

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

[Pastor Joe Roof]

[Ron Bean] 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. :)

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/jrpeet/SharperIron/Christian_S…]

[“Marc Monte”] 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] 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] [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?”)

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.

[Greg] 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kudos, Stephen & Co. for humility and integrity.

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.