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
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.
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.
[Greg Linscott] 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: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.
- 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.”
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. :bigsmile:
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. :bigsmile:
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Ron Bean] 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. :bigsmile: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.
************Moderator Reaction**************
We must not tolerate the questioning of the boiled frog illustration on SI! Shame on Ron Bean!
:)
We must not tolerate the questioning of the boiled frog illustration on SI! Shame on Ron Bean!
:)
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… ;)
Moderators, please don’t ban me for sharing that… ;)
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.
but the penalty for debunking a myth on SI is http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent029.gif
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.
[Susan R] but the penalty for debunking a myth on SI is http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent029.gifEww.
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. :D
Well, I guess we’ve run out of “serious” things to say on this topic, eh? Probably a good thing. :D
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.
[Pastor Joe Roof] ************Moderator Reaction**************
We must not tolerate the questioning of the boiled frog illustration on SI! Shame on Ron Bean!
:)
I guess this means that my week of special meetings in Albany has been canceled. :cry:
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I didn’t realize Joe had that much pull with the Albany Unitarian Universalists… :D
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
I am sure you would be welcome with open arms at http://sharperiron.org/filings/9-3-09/11989] Beer and Hymns . They probably don’t care what you say about frogs. Or ducks even.
[Ron Bean] 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”.My thoughts exactly. Asking fundamentalists to be involved in social causes?? Oh the humanity!!
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. :bigsmile:
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.
[Norm][Ron Bean] 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”.My thoughts exactly. Asking fundamentalists to be involved in social causes?? Oh the humanity!!
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. :bigsmile:
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! ;)
[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]
"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