BJU Pulls Drinking Book

[NathanL] 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. :) … 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.

[Pastor Marc Monte] 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:

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

“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.

[BryanBice] 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].

[Aaron Blumer] 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. :) … 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. :)

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.

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 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!

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

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.

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.

[Larry] 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.] 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.

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.

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.

[Jonathan Charles] 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.