Moody Bible Institute Drops Alcohol and Tobacco Ban for Employees

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 think we need to be careful to assume that this rule change will result in a slippery slope of compromise. For instance, under Joe Stowell’s leadership, a few years ago Cornerstone did the exact same thing with their policy as Moody, allowing their professors to drink in moderation. The same concerns were raised, including the slippery slope logical fallacy. Interestingly enough, a liberal Bible/ministry professor was hired at Cornerstone about 4 years before Cornerstone decided to do away with the alcohol rule for teachers. She taught that doing good works was the gospel of Jesus Christ, and taught in her youth ministry class that women choosing motherhood over a career were wasting their lives, among other things. (It wasn’t until later did she show her liberal tendencies) Despite Cornerstone dropping their alcohol taboo for professors, Dr. Stowell actually has lead Cornerstone in a conservative theological direction. Stowell has clearly emphasized the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the importance of local church. Stowell has also brought back a strong chapel ministry on campus. Under the previous administration, the gospel had become deluted, the local church minimized, and its chapel almost non-existent. As these changes were being made, this certain liberal professor saw the writing on the wall and left.

We need to be extremely careful not to jump to conclusions that this decision will result in a chain of events leading to the demise of an institution.

It seems that one can’t have it both ways, implying that the earlier founders of Moody might have misinterpreted the application of certain principles of personal sanctification, but that now the current leaders have every right to re-interpret them to fit with what is accepted by a decadent modern culture. Scriptural injunctions against the danger of alcohol are pretty plain.

A Christian institution, such as a church or school, is certainly within its bounds to require a certain application of Scripture to its operation. It seems that Paul held this view in 1 Cor. 5:11, where the lifestyle of a believer is subject to the discipline of the body of believers. Such a verse certainly applied to all the believer’s time, not just to when he was assembled with other believers. Certainly, if a person does not agree with the standards of a Christian institution, he has the liberty to leave and be identified with another institution of his choosing. No one denies a person that liberty.

The point of this discussion about Moody, in my opinion, is whether the school has the right to expect a certain standard of conduct from those who are deemed spiritual leaders (faculty/staff) and exemplary models of the institution. By extension it might include whether believers should financially support Moody since it has changed its position on these issues. It might also be about whether a school, dedicated to the training of Christian leaders has the right to expect a certain standard of discipline and conduct from those it is training at its own expense, but at great cost to donors. It is really not about the liberty of believers to use alcohol or tobacco privately, which it must be admitted, has no explicit prohibition in Scripture.

I feel sure that a great number, not to say the majority, of churches follow these principles in their own operation. I think most pastors of fundamentalist churches expect and even require staff and deacons to comply with the code of conduct of the church in their daily lives and not just when they are present in church services. I think most congregations expect their pastors to do the same. So what is so strange that a Christian college might do likewise?

Moody has made a great choice. Trusting Moody faculty to walk out their faith in accordance with their own conscience and beliefs is a great step in making mature believers. I (We) don’t need other believers to outline a code-of-conduct for me that makes me acceptable to the group. I carry the very presence of God inside me. Father God loves me as much as He loves Jesus. Holiness is not pointing to what I will not do. Holiness is not compliance with a list of prohibited activity. Institutional rules for order are wholly acceptable. Extra biblical prohibitions that follow you home are just fear based meddling. Good on Moody and others for realizing the obvious.

[jimcarwest]

It seems that one can’t have it both ways, implying that the earlier founders of Moody might have misinterpreted the application of certain principles of personal sanctification, but that now the current leaders have every right to re-interpret them to fit with what is accepted by a decadent modern culture. Scriptural injunctions against the danger of alcohol are pretty plain.

A Christian institution, such as a church or school, is certainly within its bounds to require a certain application of Scripture to its operation. It seems that Paul held this view in 1 Cor. 5:11, where the lifestyle of a believer is subject to the discipline of the body of believers. Such a verse certainly applied to all the believer’s time, not just to when he was assembled with other believers. Certainly, if a person does not agree with the standards of a Christian institution, he has the liberty to leave and be identified with another institution of his choosing. No one denies a person that liberty.

The point of this discussion about Moody, in my opinion, is whether the school has the right to expect a certain standard of conduct from those who are deemed spiritual leaders (faculty/staff) and exemplary models of the institution. By extension it might include whether believers should financially support Moody since it has changed its position on these issues. It might also be about whether a school, dedicated to the training of Christian leaders has the right to expect a certain standard of discipline and conduct from those it is training at its own expense, but at great cost to donors. It is really not about the liberty of believers to use alcohol or tobacco privately, which it must be admitted, has no explicit prohibition in Scripture.

I feel sure that a great number, not to say the majority, of churches follow these principles in their own operation. I think most pastors of fundamentalist churches expect and even require staff and deacons to comply with the code of conduct of the church in their daily lives and not just when they are present in church services. I think most congregations expect their pastors to do the same. So what is so strange that a Christian college might do likewise?

Jim, thanks for developing your thoughts…I have a better understanding of where you’re going with this. I don’t have the time to address your post in detail, but I think our conversation hinges upon what place we think a Christian college has.

You seem to be suggesting that it is much more of an ecclesiastical position. You believe that the church has the right to limit Christian liberty ( and I don’t disagree, but I would guess that I have a more nuanced position in some ways). By extension, you suggest that Moody does have the right and, dare I say, obligation to regulate the liberty of its staff.

I believe that only a church can operate with the authority of a church. A college is a business/ministry that does not operate with the authority of a church. I do not believe that Moody can claim ecclesiastical authority in this situation…they have no right to claim that. That being said, I also believe that a church should not regulate Christian liberty, but promote grace and humility in all things. A healthy church has unity through the diversity of its members. The church unites people around the Gospel and the clear teachings of Scripture.

Does that make sense? I believe that we disagree on how to classify the authority of a school. We also disagree on what authority a church should exercise. Even if Moody has the authority of a church, I don’t believe it would have authority in these areas… fair enough?

I agree with you that a school does not have the same authority as a church. A Christian school, however, is an extension of a church’s ministry for training Christian workers, like a Mission Board is an extension of the church for doing the work of world evangelization. It is the church that should hold its servant ministries to account.

My point has to do with the fact that Moody does not charge tuition; it freely provides education to its students. This is provided by the donations of Christians who are dedicated to the mission of the school. Those donors come from a variety of churches with varying convictions on the kinds of issues we are discussing. It seems to me a wise policy for Moody to maintain a very strict standard so as not to alienate its constituency of supporters who most generally do not agree with the use of alcohol and tobacco, along with perhaps other practices. If the school changes its long-held position of these matters, it should certainly expect that its donors may object. It may also expect that its graduates who lived under the ethical rules of the past may feel that Moody is compromising its positions.

It seems to me that people who work and minister in an environment where a strict code of ethics is practiced would not believe they should change the institution in order to keep their jobs. It’s a wide world, and people are free to seek employment and ministry where they are happy and at peace. It is something like a church being changed in its core convictions by people who are willing to upend the ministry and risk the damage that follows just so they can pursue their own agenda. Something like this is happening at Moody it appears.

Thanks for your insights.

Jim,

Thanks for your comments. I am in agreement with you. It is very sad to see the compromise at Moody on these issues. It is also hypocritical to say that the faculty can smoke and drink, but not on campus. If smoking and drinking are such innocent activities, why prohibit their practice on campus? Also, it is the height of inconsistency to say that the faculty can smoke and drink, but the students can’t, age notwithstanding. What’s next? The modern dance, all manner of body piercing and tattooing, recreational marihuana, abandonment of dress and grooming standards? It’s all coming to a school near you. This is good news, however, for NIU. Now they can distinguish themselves clearly from Moody, Wheaton, Cornerstone. For how long though? It seems to me that the trend is downward in many schools. Thank God for those Christian institutions which are not going with the flow of our increasingly decadent culture.

If smoking and drinking are such innocent activities, why prohibit their practice on campus?

Romans 14 springs to mind.

1 Peter 1:12-16 comes to mind.

Certainly. Yet we dare not chuck the former for the latter, and we must inquire diligently of what elements are expressly listed in the former, for it may be helpful in determining our understanding of the latter.

I strongly suggest that one read Dr. Mark Snoeberger’s treatment of Roman’s 14 at dbts.edu before invoking it here.

I’ve read it in the past and just skim-scanned it a bit. Are you playing it as a trump card or shall we discuss it?

[Romans 14] calls most narrowly for the relinquishment of liberties explicitly stated in
Scripture (which I have labeled “real” rights). By argument from the greater to the lesser, however, it seems quite legitimate to suggest that believers be willing to relinquish “liberties” either inferred from Scripture or assumed apart from Scripture (which I have labeled “perceived” rights). In fact, I should be even more willing to relinquish the latter because of their more tenuous identity as “rights.” I might be convinced by some Scripture inference that it is acceptable to play cards or relax with a good movie, but these are not rights worth fighting over, and they surely should not be maintained to the spiritual detriment of my brother.
This does not mean that all Christians need to revert to the strictest common denominator and automatically give up movies, playing cards, etc., etc., merely because a single believer adheres to such strictures. However, it does mean that we should be willing to forfeit these perceived rights if continuance in them would cause a brother to violate his conscience, sin against God, and thus pollute his worship.

(Snoeberger, from footnote 62, p 15.)

Let’s assume Snoeberger is right on every point in the paper. He himself is nevertheless willing to open it up a bit, arguing, as he puts it, “from greater to lesser” and apply the general principles to situations not directly within the tightly focused view he argues Paul holds.

So, if the administration of Moody recognizes that some faculty view sipping wine at dinner and smoking a pipe afterward as rights inferred from scripture while others think it unwise and still other think it oughtright sin, would it not be a proper use of Romans 14 and even consistent with Snoeberger for said administration to allow those activities, but exclude them from campus where those with scruples might be damaged?

[Mike Harding]

I strongly suggest that one read Dr. Mark Snoeberger’s treatment of Roman’s 14 at dbts.edu before invoking it here.

It may also expect that its graduates who lived under the ethical rules of the past may feel that Moody is compromising its positions.

Jim,

My wife is a graduate of Moody Bible Institute 1995 with an urban ministry degree. Both She and I are inner-city missionaries in Grand Rapids MI. She does not believe Moody is compromising. My brother-in-law is a pastor of a large GARBC church in the Grand Rapids area. He is a graduate of one of Moody’s first seminary classes about 20 years ago. He does not believe that Moody is compromising. My point is that there are many more than you think within conservative evangelicalism and even fundamentalism that do not see this as compromise, but rather Biblical discernment.

I believe you might need to explain what you mean by biblical discernment. What it doesn’t necessarily mean is “majority opinion,” which you might be implying. I think if you would go back sixty-five years ago in my generation, you might find that those of that generation “discerned” the matter differently. And if you went back 500 years to the Reformation period, the matter we are discussing might have been view even differently. So is “discernment” purely a generational thing, or does it not involve understanding clearly the Bible’s commands and examples and the principles that grow out of these. Just saying…