Moody Bible Institute Drops Alcohol and Tobacco Ban for Employees

I think there is another factor in the “conscience” motif of some responders, tangentially related to the strong/weak people issue. And that is the (biblical) idea of a corporate conscience on some of these issues. Most churches and fundamental institutions have a corporate conscience for certain doctrinal and practical issues, and, by the same token, against smoking, drinking, et al, written in the orthodox confession/doctrinal statement, or by-laws, standing resolutions,and the like. These were drawn up by the founders, prayer warriors, financial backers, and many more. People looking to become affiliated as members, students, employees, board members,etc, are usually given to know these convictions ahead of time, as Moody and others have done for scores of years. Which leaves only a few options in administration:

1. Those who do not share the corporate conscience can opt to go to another of probably dozens of institutions to join, attend, work for, et al.

2. Those who choose to attend, etc, and change their thinking/conscience about the standards which they formerly assented to can leave and find what is agreeable with them.

3. In no case, in my judgment, is it justifiable, when becoming uncomfortable with the accepted institution’s conscience, to agitate for change in the name of one’s own soul liberty, conscience, deviation on doctrine, or ideas antithetical to the institution’s conscience.

4. The prognosis of such change in the name of what’s “acceptable out there” has consistently been intense division among the institution’s students, employees, board members, and supporters. This has happened over and again, NIU comes to mind in recent memory. And who knows in how many other churches, mission organizations, and Christian endeavors. In times like these, one does not often hear about “unity” from the agitators and sympathizers, for whatever reason.

Dave,

No trump card intended. I think it is easy to invoke Romans 14 on morally questionable practices, when as Mark effectively demonstrates, morals were not the issue. The leadership of Moody will not allow their students to practice these things. I am sure many of their students are of legal age to smoke and drink. What possible defense could they invoke other than a misinterpretation of Romans 14? Other restrictions will inevitably be lifted based on their flawed reasoning in the article.

[Rolland McCune]

I think there is another factor in the “conscience” motif of some responders, tangentially related to the strong/weak people issue. And that is the (biblical) idea of a corporate conscience on some of these issues. Most churches and fundamental institutions have a corporate conscience for certain doctrinal and practical issues, and, by the same token, against smoking, drinking, et al, written in the orthodox confession/doctrinal statement, or by-laws, standing resolutions,and the like. These were drawn up by the founders, prayer warriors, financial backers, and many more. People looking to become affiliated as members, students, employees, board members,etc, are usually given to know these convictions ahead of time, as Moody and others have done for scores of years. Which leaves only a few options in administration:

1. Those who do not share the corporate conscience can opt to go to another of probably dozens of institutions to join, attend, work for, et al.

2. Those who choose to attend, etc, and change their thinking/conscience about the standards which they formerly assented to can leave and find what is agreeable with them.

3. In no case, in my judgment, is it justifiable, when becoming uncomfortable with the accepted institution’s conscience, to agitate for change in the name of one’s own soul liberty, conscience, deviation on doctrine, or ideas antithetical to the institution’s conscience.

4. The prognosis of such change in the name of what’s “acceptable out there” has consistently been intense division among the institution’s students, employees, board members, and supporters. This has happened over and again, NIU comes to mind in recent memory. And who knows in how many other churches, mission organizations, and Christian endeavors. In times like these, one does not often hear about “unity” from the agitators and sympathizers, for whatever reason.

Dr. McCune, I understand your point…but I feel as if you give undue credence to the opinions of founder, prayer warriors, financial backers, etc. Institutions certainly owe gratitude to those opinions…but not necessarily adherence to every point.

For instance, in the founding years of BJU, interacial dating was prohibited…with the support of founder, prayer warriors, financial backers, etc. Thankfully, a later administration recognized the illegitimacy of that position and quietly disavowed or recanted that position.

In many ways, institutions and organizations are the children of their founders. But in organizations, as in families, parents can merely provide the direction and training…they cannot control it in its entirety. In my opinion, an institution’s conscience is a consciousness that can change…it is not merely a snapshot of the founder’s intent.

Again, I come back to the concept that Moody has not changed its institutional rules…they have declined to continuing asserting their authority over the private lives of their staff.

Todd,

Every Christian institution worth its salt asserts authority over the private lives of their staff. It is obvious here that the leadership sees no moral danger or violation of biblical principle in permitting its staff to drink and smoke. On what basis, other than age, could they consistently prohibit their students, many of whom are of age to legally participate in these activities. Obviously, due to common grace the secular, godless government sees some danger here. Otherwise, why the restrictions?

How many of the opinions here written come from leaders/pastors of churches, and just how much “liberty” do these churches give to deacons and pastors in the use of alcohol and tobacco? My point is that is customarily accepted among fundamentalist churches that some higher standard is required of those who lead and teach in the church. This has worked well for decades if not centuries, and why are we seeking to change this now? Is it not because many churches and institutions have fallen for the idea that we can reach more and be more accepted if we accommodate to the lower standard of conduct followed by the “world”? As someone pointed out, it is strange that the students are asked to live by a higher standard that their professors! It never ceases to amaze how some people reason!

There is debate about which issues are properly Romans 14 type issues. And Mark’s contribution to that debate is interesting.

But it must be undeniable that alcohol must be a “Romans 14 issue,” since the oinos is one of the issues actually named in the passage.

Dr. McCune, the idea of “corporate conscience” is very interesting. You called it “(Biblical).” I think that some sort of corporate conscience is Biblical. 1 Cor 5 demands church discipline over things like greed and idolatry. Both of these are clearly weak/strong issues (idolatry is the subject of the weak/strong discussion in 1 Cor 8). So the church body, at some point, must be able to decide collectively about some “line that must be drawn.”

However…
1. Why should we believe that the authority to draw such a line is given to any body other than the local church?

2. Where you say:

3. In no case, in my judgment, is it justifiable, when becoming uncomfortable with the accepted institution’s conscience, to agitate for change in the name of one’s own soul liberty, conscience, deviation on doctrine, or ideas antithetical to the institution’s conscience.

[Mike Harding]

Every Christian institution worth its salt asserts authority over the private lives of their staff.

That is actually the point of this discussion…it doesn’t make much sense to assert it prima facie…

[Mike Harding]

It is obvious here that the leadership sees no moral danger or violation of biblical principle in permitting its staff to drink and smoke.

Ok.

[Mike Harding]

On what basis, other than age, could they consistently prohibit their students, many of whom are of age to legally participate in these activities.

They have the authority to establish a unilateral code of conduct. I wouldn’t pretend to know all their reasons. It probably comes down to the fact that enforcement of alcohol restrictions on campus is a difficult task (meaning: how can you ensure legal drinking age, etc). For the safety and testimony of the student body (on campus), they have an easily enforceable standard. Staff homes are outside of their jurisdiction, in my opinion.

[Mike Harding]

Obviously, due to common grace the secular, godless government sees some danger here. Otherwise, why the restrictions?

Probably the same reason that we can’t drive till we’re 16, vote till we’re 18, or become president until we’re 35. Interestingly enough, you have to be at least 18 to buy most cold/cough medicines. Also, it is a misconception that the legal drinking age is 21. Age 21 is the age at which one can purchase alcohol. Most states allow minors to drink in private residences with the consent of their parents. To use the governmental restrictions as a support of your position is painting with very broad (and inaccurate) strokes.

[Mike Harding] The leadership of Moody will not allow their students to practice these things. I am sure many of their students are of legal age to smoke and drink. What possible defense could they invoke other than a misinterpretation of Romans 14?

Thanks for your clarification. I had read your criticism of hypocrisy to be based on the administration allowing teachers to drink off campus but not on (which to me seems consistent with various understandings of Romans 14). I see now you are pointing out the allowances made to adult teachers that are not made to adult students (of legal age). A fair point, I think, but I would probably characterize it as an inconsistency that falls short of full-on two-facedness.

[Mike Harding]

It is obvious here that the leadership sees no moral danger or violation of biblical principle in permitting its staff to drink and smoke. On what basis, other than age, could they consistently prohibit their students, many of whom are of age to legally participate in these activities.

First, I am not in favor of Moody’s move.

But, for sake of discussion, Mike, many institutions have also prohibited students from viewing televisions, but place no such limitation on faculty and staff. Many institutions have strict internet filters and do not permit students to access the net with alternative access, but do not prevent their faculty and staff from having their own personal ISP. It could be argued that the students are not trusted to exhibit the self-discipline to adequately regulate their viewing choices, while the faculty and staff are assumed to have the discernment necessary to limit their choices without having a blanket ban.

Many churches have “church covenants”, which church members agree to, that forbid smoking and drinking. How are the people in your church doing with these? I believe there has been a lot of deterioration in local churches of these standards of conduct. You can agree or disagree with them, but perhaps Moody is a reflection of what is going on in churches?

It brings up a tension for me as a pastor. I’m working with people from the prison system, and we see them get saved and/or committed to the Lord. But they don’t give up all their habits in one shot. The Lord will be helping them to give up meth or drunkenness or gambling, but not smoking many times. Do you baptize them and bring them into church membership even though your covenant forbids smoking?

Todd and Dave, thanks for your feed back.

Greg,

I agree with you that differences can be made between students and faculty in certain areas. If we view smoking and the recreational use of alcohol as issues not in violation of biblical principle and mores, then the policy change makes sense. If, however, we do see those issues as a violation of biblical principle and mores, then the policy change is wrong. Christian liberty does not gives us the right to violate biblical principle. MBI for many decades saw these issues as a violation of biblical principle; now they don’t. That is what has really changed. Does this change possibly influence traditionally fundamental colleges, seminaries, and churches? I think it does. The natural drift of institutions tends to be to the left. We have already seen this at NIU and I wonder if others might follow. I am currently very concerned about one fundamental college that is changing many of their lifestyle policies for faculty and students, some innocent and others not so innocent. Fortunately, NIU has not changed their policy on these matters (smoking and drinking) and hopefully will not in the future. When an institution as notable as MBI makes such a dramatic change, it does have ripple effects in the evangelical world, and that influence trickles down into the fundamentalist environment.

[Steve Newman]

Many churches have “church covenants”, which church members agree to, that forbid smoking and drinking. How are the people in your church doing with these? I believe there has been a lot of deterioration in local churches of these standards of conduct…It brings up a tension for me as a pastor. I’m working with people from the prison system, and we see them get saved and/or committed to the Lord. But they don’t give up all their habits in one shot. The Lord will be helping them to give up meth or drunkenness or gambling, but not smoking many times. Do you baptize them and bring them into church membership even though your covenant forbids smoking?

I’m asking a serious question here - what is the advantage to having a church covenant? I’ve seen quite a few, and affirmed them every time, but what exactly is the function that they serve? To inform my conscience? To make the church walk in (semi-forced?) unity?

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with Steve, but it seems to me that the orders from Jesus are to go in the world and make disciples. So why would we ask members to bind themselves to covenants if the covenants are not drawn from explicitly Scriptural teaching?

[Jay]

[Steve Newman]

Many churches have “church covenants”, which church members agree to, that forbid smoking and drinking. How are the people in your church doing with these? I believe there has been a lot of deterioration in local churches of these standards of conduct…It brings up a tension for me as a pastor. I’m working with people from the prison system, and we see them get saved and/or committed to the Lord. But they don’t give up all their habits in one shot. The Lord will be helping them to give up meth or drunkenness or gambling, but not smoking many times. Do you baptize them and bring them into church membership even though your covenant forbids smoking?

I’m asking a serious question here - what is the advantage to having a church covenant? I’ve seen quite a few, and affirmed them every time, but what exactly is the function that they serve? To inform my conscience? To make the church walk in (semi-forced?) unity?

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with Steve, but it seems to me that the orders from Jesus are to go in the world and make disciples. So why would we ask members to bind themselves to covenants if the covenants are not drawn from explicitly Scriptural teaching?

I think that churches have the ability and authority to exercise to make stronger statements on these issues than a college/ministry/business. That being said, I am of the opinion that church covenants should major on the majors and minor on the minors. Core doctrines and explicit biblical truth can and should be affirmed. Issues of Christian liberty should not be regulated…but again, I have more tolerance for a church making some guidelines than an institutions.

For instance, based upon the regional, cultural differences in their community, a church might ask its members to avoid certain matters of liberty for the sake of the testimony of the church…however, many churches way overstep their rights in this area. I know of churches that regulate the “around-the-house” clothing of their members. Some churches mandate that their members avoid shopping at Walmart or such things…that is an abuse of authority that Christ has given the church (in my opinion).

[Mike Harding] Christian liberty does not gives us the right to violate biblical principle.

I argue that Christian liberty does give us the right to do what we do not believe violates a Biblical principle, even though our brother does believe it violates a Biblical principle.

The Southern Baptist Convention was mentioned in the article as affirming a resolution regarding abstinence for those in leadership. Not too long ago, SEBTS changed its policy regarding alcohol so that both students and employees agreed to abstain from alcohol. It used to be that only the students had to abstain. The students sign a covenant agreeing to abstain from possessing or using alcohol (as a beverage, not communion element) and tobacco, and that covenant applies no matter where they are or if school is in session or not. As long as they are students of the seminary who have neither graduated nor officially withdrawn they are to adhere to this covenant even on Christmas or summer breaks. The president of SEBTS, Danny Akin, has a four-page paper explaining his position. In that paper he states that if he were a pastor, he would not expect abstinence from church members, but he would from church leadership. In that paper he writes, “I challenge anyone to show me the superior wisdom of drinking “in moderation,” as opposed to not drinking at all.”

SEBTS also has on their website a video from a campus event where they discussed alcohol and the reasons for the school’s policy.

Looking at what SEBTS is doing and why they are doing it is an interesting juxtaposition to what Moody is doing and why they are doing it.