BJU Pulls Drinking Book
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 ProblemThe 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 PositionLet 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. . All of the administration and Bible and Seminary faculty, including Dr. Jaeggli, fully support complete abstinence from alcohol and teach and preach this position.php The SolutionWhile 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 JonesPresident
Also see http://www.bjupress.com/product/261412 (“This item is not available for purchase.”)
- 118 views
[Wikipedia] 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…
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_drink
Alcohol contentHmmm… :shock:
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.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Jay C] Mounty, is BJ still selling Jones Soda in the Snack Shop?Seriously, BJU sold Jones Soda?
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.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_Soda
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:
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.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
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:
What can I say, it was a down year. :shrug:
[Greg Linscott] 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? :P FWIW, put me down as a “Soda” guy. God will straighten the rest of you out later. :D
Greg L, no, BJU did not carry the two other drink, so we can put that rumor to sleep right away.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay C]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.[Greg Linscott] 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? :P FWIW, put me down as a “Soda” guy. God will straighten the rest of you out later. :D
[Jay C] 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.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
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
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.”
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott]…
- 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.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
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.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Wikipedia] 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.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[Greg Linscott] 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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Greg Linscott] 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.
“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.”
[Greg Linscott] 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.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Discussion