Moody Bible Institute Drops Alcohol and Tobacco Ban for Employees

It grieves me to see how Moody is trying to accommodate its mores to the world. I guess Rom. 12:1-2 no longer hold any authority in their experience. You could expect this after the President and his son personally wrote a book which went soft on homosexuality. D.L. Moody, James Gray, and William Culbertson must be turning over in their graves. Now that alcohol, tatooes, and tobacco are being made legitimate for faculty and staff (who btw are supposed to be examples to the students), we can expect before long that truth will be compromised. Moody has never been far behind Wheaton. This is new-evangelicalism’s bitter fruits. They just said “good-bye” to a lot of donors. I wonder how long it will be before “Ichabod” is written over “The Arch”?

The walls of separation continue to come tumbling down between formerly solid institutions and the world. I was speaking to an older Pastor this past week, and he was reminiscing about how he remembered the days when Moody used to be a solid school.

I’m not really interested in debating non-explicit biblical topics in this venue. But I did want to put one comment on here that agrees with Moody’s decision. I think that this is a positive decision for the school. It is not the job of a parachurch organization to determine or undermine the consciences of its staff.

On a related note, the meaning of Romans 12:1-2 is best fleshed out by 1 Cor 10:31. The point of Romans 12:1 is not so much a call from worldliness as it is a plea to understand the “so-called” secular as an opportunity for the sacred. Upon conversion, all of life is means of worship.

Todd,

Is it acceptable for any non-church entity to have a code of conduct for its members?

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Todd,

Is it acceptable for any non-church entity to have a code of conduct for its members?

Certainly, but there is a distinction between establishing a code of conduct and mandating a moral code.

Companies establish codes of conduct all the time…but they focus on issues of legality and professionalism. They regulate at-work attire/behavior/conduct, but they do not (normally) make those same decisions for the private lives of staff members (except for issues of law or egregious violations of corporate image) Moody’s position seems to be more in line with this understanding of the “code.”

Based on what Moody has said about the situation, they are not commanding people to do one thing or the other…they are declining to impose on other people’s soul liberty. They still prohibit alcohol and tobacco for students, but they are removing themselves from establishing the minutiae with the homes of their faculty and staff.

Todd,

I’m a teacher at a public school. If I get arrested for solicitation one weekend, I can be fired. A sports broadcaster for our MLB team was fired for a DUI during the off-season. Institutions can and do make rules for the employees that apply to life away from work all the time. Employees know the rules before seeking employment and have no room for complaint if they get in trouble for violating the rules. I don’t think Moody was in any way violating their leadership parameters with the rule the way it was, whether you agree with drinking and/or smoking or not.

Indifferent because:

• Moody can set their standards. They explained = “desire to create a “high trust environment that emphasizes values, not rules,” said spokeswoman Christine Gorz. Employees must adhere to all “biblical absolutes,” Gorz said, but on issues where the Bible is not clear, Moody leaves it to employees’ conscience.”
• Many churches - even Fundy ones - are dropping phrase “abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage” from church covenant. Why - because most do not view it as a Biblical absolute.
• Moody’s orbit is more of the evangelical stripe and per the article total abstinence is not a sine qua non in that circle

Article notes:

“Policies on Christian college campuses can be trickier than other religious institutions like denominations, as some students are under the 21-year-old drinking age limit.

Forty percent of evangelical leaders said they “socially drink alcohol,” according to a 2010 survey of evangelical leaders conducted by the National Association of Evangelicals. In a survey of mostly Southern Baptists, the SBC’s LifeWay Research found that 29 percent of Southern Baptist congregants drink alcohol, compared with 3 percent of Southern Baptist pastors.”

Your position seems to me entirely inconsistent. Would it not be a violation of the “soul liberty” of students who are adults old enough to vote and get married to apply to them a standard as well? Can you imagine the Apostol Paul asking Timothy to adopt a standard of conduct that he did not impose upon himself? As an alumnus of MBI, I can remember times when students were expelled for much lesser “crimes”; was that a violation of their “soul liberty”? Would you be implying that D.L. Moody, James Gray, Will Houghton, William Culbertson, and George Sweeting didn’t understand they were violating Scripture by standing firm on these issues over the last 127 years? It is commonly accepted by medical science that tobacco and alcohol are dangerous drugs. Insurance companies require applicants to answer whether they use either of these harmful drugs. Can it be wrong to require a code of conduct on all those who receive their salaries from Moody? While we’re on the subject of morals, here’s one even harder to understand — President Paul Nyquist and his son, Carson, relaxing standards against homosexuality, transgender sexualism , tatoos, etc. http://www.moodyradio.org/brd_ProgramDetail.aspx?id=116304

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Todd,

I’m a teacher at a public school. If I get arrested for solicitation one weekend, I can be fired. A sports broadcaster for our MLB team was fired for a DUI during the off-season. Institutions can and do make rules for the employees that apply to life away from work all the time. Employees know the rules before seeking employment and have no room for complaint if they get in trouble for violating the rules. I don’t think Moody was in any way violating their leadership parameters with the rule the way it was, whether you agree with drinking and/or smoking or not.

Thanks for the interaction, Chip. I think my statement about “legal and image violations” summarizes your point. I think that its fine for a company to have those standards. Solitication and DUI’s are against the law. They aren’t really a good “apples to apples” comparison. I think a fairer approximation would be if a company forbade its employees to drink soda. Soda can have negative health impacts, but its not a clear-cut moral issue. I don’t know of any company (though there are probably exceptions) that has a code of conduct that delves into such specific and irrelevant issues to the company image.

[jimcarwest]

Your position seems to me entirely inconsistent. Would it not be a violation of the “soul liberty” of students who are adults old enough to vote and get married to apply to them a standard as well? Can you imagine the Apostol Paul asking Timothy to adopt a standard of conduct that he did not impose upon himself? As an alumnus of MBI, I can remember times when students were expelled for much lesser “crimes”; was that a violation of their “soul liberty”? Would you be implying that D.L. Moody, James Gray, Will Houghton, William Culbertson, and George Sweeting didn’t understand they were violating Scripture by standing firm on these issues over the last 127 years? It is commonly accepted by medical science that tobacco and alcohol are dangerous drugs. Insurance companies require applicants to answer whether they use either of these harmful drugs. Can it be wrong to require a code of conduct on all those who receive their salaries from Moody? While we’re on the subject of morals, here’s one even harder to understand — President Paul Nyquist and his son, Carson, relaxing standards against homosexuality, transgender sexualism , tatoos, etc. http://www.moodyradio.org/brd_ProgramDetail.aspx?id=116304

Jim, the homosexual issue is a different topic and not relevant to this conversation. Moody’s stance on homosexuality has no logical (in the formalized reasoning sense of the word) connection to the topic of alcohol and tobacco.

Insurance companies (one of which I work for) also require information about State of birth, participation in boxing, current insurance coverage, and prescription drugs that are being taken. Their desire for this information (or any information) does not have any attached morality. Tobacco does have a rate increase because there are definite health consequences for even moderate usage. That being said, obesity is just a frequently a factor in higher premium costs. Alcohol does not have any affect on rates. Excessive use of alcohol (exclusively limited to DUI/OWI) does impact premium figures.

Furthermore, the harmfulness of something that does necessarily equate to its morality. Ski-jumping is very dangerous…but not immoral. Pumpkin pie is almost 400 calories a slice (with whipped topping!)…quite harmful…but not an issue of morality.

I am not implying anything about Moody, Houghton, etc…they were godly men who held positions that they believed were right.

Lastly, neither Moody or myself are being inconsistent. The issue is not so much whether a college/company can regulate issues on its campus. The issue is whether the college gets to follow its faculty home and regulate their lives. Moody has graciously stated that they are not the God-ordained baby-sitters of their faculty and staff. While they are on campus, students, faculty, and staff are to be alcohol and tobacco free. The campus is alcohol and tobacco free. There is no inconsistency in this division of regulations. For example, A company can require a dress code for their on the clock-employees…they might even regulate what they can wear when they show-up at work prior to starting for the day. But companies do not regulate clothing choices in their employee’s homes.

Todd,

My district can also fire me for getting my face tatooed like Mike Tyson. The military will no longer enlist people with tatoos above the neckline of their clothing. It’s the same difference.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Todd,

My district can also fire me for getting my face tatooed like Mike Tyson. The military will no longer enlist people with tatoos above the neckline of their clothing. It’s the same difference.

A facial tattoo cannot be covered up. It definitely falls under the “image of the company” idea. Companies/colleges/school districts are free to make any “on the clock” rules that they want to make. But that is far different from regulating the minutiaie of their employee’s home life. That is what Moody’s policy states as their motivation for the policy.

And I apologize for being unclear in my first response to you. A code of conduct can be established by a college…but areas of Christian liberty should never be couched as absolute moral truths. On a personal level, I prefer a more minimalistic code of conduct for colleges. Adults should be treated like adults. Issues of christian liberty are often simplified by a code of conduct…but they should be couched as institutional rules rather than moral rules.

That is different from the point that i brought up to Jim about soul liberty as it relates to off-campus life. I should have made a better effort to distinguish the concepts. The school should not be that intrusive into the homes of their staff. I applaud Moody for recognizing that their authority stops at the edge of campus.

Let’s suppose that you are the Dean of a Christian college. You can indeed regulate moral conduct and code of ethics on your campus. But suppose your students go home at Christmas or in the summer and drink and use tobacco or drugs, do you have the right to exclude them from returning to school as long as they agree to live by the rules “while on campus”? Seems to me that your reasoning breaks down. You lose the disciplinary authority of your school. You also make yourself look ridiculous to the students.

My mention of homosexuality was not to equate this sin with the practice of drinking or using tobacco. It was simply to say that the leadership at Moody at present is responsible for this confusion and for the shame that many of us think is being brought on a good school.

The former leaders at Moody didn’t just “think they were right.” They based their thinking on solid biblical principles: (1) abuse of personal liberty that causes a weaker brother to sin, (2) all things may be lawful, but all things are not expedient, (3) not bringing reproach on the body of Christ, (4) spiritual leaders are more accountable to God than others — just to name a few. It seems that current leadership now has repudiated those principles.

So where will Moody go from here? Will this trend that preceded liberal theology at Wheaton now lead to the same liberalizing of theology at Moody?

And one last point, I hardly think that the regulation of alcohol by Christian leaders may be equated with rules about clothing one may wear at home. Even that goes a bit far in my estimation.

[jimcarwest]

Let’s suppose that you are the Dean of a Christian college. You can indeed regulate moral conduct and code of ethics on your campus. But suppose your students go home at Christmas or in the summer and drink and use tobacco or drugs, do you have the right to exclude them from returning to school as long as they agree to live by the rules “while on campus”?

I’m not Todd, but what students do while they are at home under the purview of their parents is none of my business as dean of a Christian college, as long as they don’t bring it back with them to college. This reminds me of a “questionnaire” I was required to complete to enroll my daughter at a local IFB Christian day school. The questionnaire asked whether my daughter wore pants at home or whether she listened to CCM at home. I replied it was none of the school’s business what my daughter wore or listened to while at home. We would make sure she obeyed the standards of the school while she was at school or at a school function, but the school had no authority or say about what she wears or listens to in our home. The principle didn’t like that response, but tough. I could just as easily enroll her in another Christian school or home school her rather than put up with that intrusive craziness.

This also reminds me of my days at PCC when the school administration required all working-aged children of the staff/faculty to work for “the ministry” during the summer. Not only that, but spouses of staff/faculty were not given the option of staying at home. They, too, had to work for “the ministry” and use the daycare services provided by “the ministry.” This is all craziness.

[jimcarwest] The former leaders at Moody didn’t just “think they were right.” They based their thinking on solid biblical principles: (1) abuse of personal liberty that causes a weaker brother to sin, (2) all things may be lawful, but all things are not expedient, (3) not bringing reproach on the body of Christ, (4) spiritual leaders are more accountable to God than others — just to name a few. It seems that current leadership now has repudiated those principles.

Perhaps the current leaders at Moody don’t want to be the Christian liberty police like the former leaders.

[jimcarwest]

Let’s suppose that you are the Dean of a Christian college. You can indeed regulate moral conduct and code of ethics on your campus. But suppose your students go home at Christmas or in the summer and drink and use tobacco or drugs, do you have the right to exclude them from returning to school as long as they agree to live by the rules “while on campus”? Seems to me that your reasoning breaks down. You lose the disciplinary authority of your school. You also make yourself look ridiculous to the students.

Jim, if I were Dean at a Christian college, I would expect students to comply with the institutional rules on campus. That being said, I would make sure that the rules reflected the grace of the Gospel and the diversity of God’s people. I would have no problem with students choosing to not comply with the school’s code once they were unenrolled and off-campus. There is nothing ridiculous about allowing adults to live out the Christ-life within the bounds of Scripture and the realm of liberty. It is a sad mockery of 1 Corinthians to claim that a single interpretation of any liberty issue is the only right interpretation.

[jimcarwest]

My mention of homosexuality was not to equate this sin with the practice of drinking or using tobacco. It was simply to say that the leadership at Moody at present is responsible for this confusion and for the shame that many of us think is being brought on a good school.

My point was the homosexuality issue was a non-sequitur for this discussion. It may provide some context in your mind. But for the sake of clarity, I wanted to make sure that we weren’t using an administrator’s personal writings on homosexuality to categorize/mis-categorize the institutional removal of policies against alcohol and tobacco.

[jimcarwest]

The former leaders at Moody didn’t just “think they were right.” They based their thinking on solid biblical principles: (1) abuse of personal liberty that causes a weaker brother to sin, (2) all things may be lawful, but all things are not expedient, (3) not bringing reproach on the body of Christ, (4) spiritual leaders are more accountable to God than others — just to name a few. It seems that current leadership now has repudiated those principles.

That would be a point at which we disagree, I fear. Moody had many admirable qualities and an unshakeable passion for Christ, that being said, he was not known for the cohesiveness of his theological system. I believe that you are right to call these “principles” for principles must be interpreted. These are not direct commands, but living, breathing principles that Christians must wrestle with individually. This is perhaps the crux of the discussion. I think that they thought they were right…you think that they were right….we probably can’t make much headway on this point.

1) Abuse of a weak conscience that limits the freedom in Christ…Paul said, “eat the meat” and “let others eat the meat if you can’t”

2) All things are not expedient, but they are not unlawful. In the context of the discussion, it appears that eating meat in the temple proper in the presence of a weaker brother was not expedient….not the actual eating of the meat.

3) The body of Christ is not reproached by the issue of alcohol or tobacco. The body of Christ is reproached by the abuse of alcohol and tobacco. The body of Christ is reproached by gluttony, obesity, gossip, hypocrisy, self-righteousness.

4) spiritual leaders are more accountable. That is why Paul told Timothy to “take a little wine” but to not “be given to much wine”

We obviously disagree on our 4 points. My point is not to argue against yours, but merely to show the opposing side of those principles. The fact is that we often want principles to say or mean something that they didn’t mean to originally. I would suggest that my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7-10 is better than yours…but I imagine that you feel the same in reverse.

[jimcarwest]

So where will Moody go from here? Will this trend that preceded liberal theology at Wheaton now lead to the same liberalizing of theology at Moody?

I don’t know where Moody will go. But I can say that Wheaton has not gone into “liberal theology.” They still affirm the fundamentals of the faith. They are definitely more broadly evangelical than some would like, but that does not make them liberal in their theology.

[jimcarwest]

And one last point, I hardly think that the regulation of alcohol by Christian leaders may be equated with rules about clothing one may wear at home. Even that goes a bit far in my estimation.

Of course, but that is the point of our disagreement. It’s either a moral issue of a non-moral issue. You believe its moral and absolute; I believe that its non-moral and a matter of liberty.