Moody Bible Institute Drops Alcohol and Tobacco Ban for Employees

[Chip Van Emmerik] This is one of the most arrogant statements I have ever seen posted here on SI then.

[Mike Harding]

Greg Long,

I realize that the professor’s statement was very strong. His credentials are impeccable and he has had a 40 year track record teaching at various seminaries and colleges. Nevertheless, if you and others strongly object, that’s fine. I thought the statement revealed the potential seriousness of the issue. Greg, since you are doing grad work at Southern, do you have knowledge of their position and policy?

Again, my response was not necessarily about whether or not I agreed with Moody’s policy change. It was regarding the characterization of some who seem to know for sure that the policy was changed to appease the world or because of a slide into postmodernism or some such thing. It may be due to those things; it may also be due to a conviction based on Scriptural principles.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

This is one of the most arrogant statements I have ever seen posted here on SI then.

Thanks Todd for letting me know about your interaction with someone who was struggling with smoking. You understand what I am talking about. More of those I deal with, wish like everything they could quit. They are hooked.

We will probably have to agree to disagree about the other part. Here is why I see it differently:

Sugar is necessary for the body. Carbonic acid is not harmful. Obesity comes through excessive intake of sugar (e.g. too many sodas). The problem is excess.

Tobacco contains 60 carcinogens. Nicotine is strongly addictive. The problem is the substance.

One can help a faculty member that is having problems with too much intake of sugar and get them on the right road in a few months. One will struggle probably for years helping a faculty member who smokes to end his or her nicotine addiction, and maybe for a lifetime. Christian schools that drop tobacco prohibition have a responsibility to teach all their students, in regular seminars, the dangers of smoking.

Thanks for the exchange.

[Dan Miller]

[Chip Van Emmerik] This is one of the most arrogant statements I have ever seen posted here on SI then.

Do you feel set at naught? Or despised?

[Marsilius]

Thanks Todd for letting me know about your interaction with someone who was struggling with smoking. You understand what I am talking about. More of those I deal with, wish like everything they could quit. They are hooked.

We will probably have to agree to disagree about the other part. Here is why I see it differently:

Sugar is necessary for the body. Carbonic acid is not harmful. Obesity comes through excessive intake of sugar (e.g. too many sodas). The problem is excess.

Tobacco contains 60 carcinogens. Nicotine is strongly addictive. The problem is the substance.

One can help a faculty member that is having problems with too much intake of sugar and get them on the right road in a few months. One will struggle probably for years helping a faculty member who smokes to end his or her nicotine addiction, and maybe for a lifetime. Christian schools that drop tobacco prohibition have a responsibility to teach all their students, in regular seminars, the dangers of smoking.

Thanks for the exchange.

I won’t disagree with the idea that smoking is more harmful than drinking soda. But my point is that smoking is only considered “wrong” because of the harm that it causes. A myriad of other lifestyle choices are also harmful. I think that fact that we can have extended discussion to differentiate smoking indicates that maybe we should just allow people’s common sense (or lack thereof) rule.

I know dozens of people that smoke “in moderation” in that…they will have a cigar on a special occasion or smoke a pipe as a hobby 1x-2x week. The impact on their health is negligible…no worse than drinking soda or consuming saturated fat via the meat of the gods (bacon). There is a stigma around tobacco that views it as inherently evil…when a person’s personal choice of moderate use causes them minimal harm, why is it my business? it could be perceived as positively self-righteous to condemn an occasional cigar while consuming starchy, high fat, high sodium Doritos…that was my point in our little sidebar.

I enjoy a reasonable and reasoned discussion on any topic. Thanks for taking the time, Marsilius.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

[Dan Miller]

[Chip Van Emmerik] This is one of the most arrogant statements I have ever seen posted here on SI then.

Do you feel set at naught? Or despised?

I don’t understand what you are looking for here?

Nevertheless, I take Romans 14 to be about such things as ‘moderate use of alcohol’ -vs- ‘total abstinence.’ The passage says that one with a conviction against any consumption must not be “set at naught”(KJV, 14:10) or “despised”(KJV, 14,3) by his brother.

We should respect one another’s convictions.

I think that a very good case can be made that:

1. Wine consumption is a Romans 14 issue

2. Paul himself was a total-wine-abstainer as he was writing Romans. And Paul would have expected that his own convictions would be treated with respect.

[Dan Miller]

[Chip Van Emmerik]

[Dan Miller]

[Chip Van Emmerik] This is one of the most arrogant statements I have ever seen posted here on SI then.

Do you feel set at naught? Or despised?

I don’t understand what you are looking for here?

I mistook mmartin’s view. When I saw that he thought that anyone who honestly studies Scripture would come to his conclusion, I assumed his conclusion must be ‘moderate use of alcohol.’ I re-read his post and I see that my assumption was wrong.

Nevertheless, I take Romans 14 to be about such things as ‘moderate use of alcohol’ -vs- ‘total abstinence.’ The passage says that one with a conviction against any consumption must not be “set at naught”(KJV, 14:10) or “despised”(KJV, 14,3) by his brother.

We should respect one another’s convictions.

I think that a very good case can be made that:

1. Wine consumption is a Romans 14 issue

2. Paul himself was a total-wine-abstainer as he was writing Romans. And Paul would have expected that his own convictions would be treated with respect.

It wasn’t Mmartin’s conclusion, but his insistence that anyone who disagreed was either ignorant or in rebellion. He left no room for anyone to come to a conviction other than his. which smacks of arrogance on this particular topic. As an abstainer myself, I find it easy to sympathize with those who come to the conclusion that all alcohol should be avoided, even if I disagree about the clarity and rigidness of scripture on the issue.

But my point is that smoking is only considered “wrong” because of the harm that it causes.

That’s not actually true. A lot of people consider it wrong because it is addictive, it is harmful to others, it is generally considered dirty, and it can be a poor testimony. One will have to evaluate the relative merits of each argument, but it doesn’t just boil down to being harmful.

[Chip Van Emmerik]…It wasn’t Mmartin’s conclusion, but his insistence that anyone who disagreed was either ignorant or in rebellion. He left no room for anyone to come to a conviction other than his. which smacks of arrogance on this particular topic…

No one wants to be on the receiving end of those things, but it’s very easy to find yourself slipping and being on the giving end.

Dan.

I think the issue of wine in Romans 14 has to do with its identification with the pagan Temples, perhaps part of their pagan offerings. Snoeberger addresses this in his Romans 14 article in the DBTS journal. Moo mentions this on pages 856 and 861. The issue here is contamination by association. The weak were avoiding this particular wine for the exact same reason they were avoiding the meat, that it did not meet the ritual requirements of the OT Law.

It seems to me that Christian culture too often focuses on particular sins as being strictly verboten, while ignoring others that are just as harmful physically, morally, and spiritually. When I was in school, there was much concern and dire consequences for anyone caught listening to Barry Manilow. Their arguments, at the time, seemed compelling (at least to those who were busy playing his records backwards and parsing the lyrics for references to Satan worship).

It becomes difficult to take Christian schools and colleges seriously after awhile.

In this instance, I think the bottom line(s) is - an institution must make a solid Biblical case that all internal use of tobacco (or is the prohibition only about smoking tobacco?) or alcohol is immoral, and then to what extent can a college, which is basically a business, legitimately dictate the private lives of its staff.

issue of wine in Romans 14 has to do with its identification with the pagan Temples, perhaps part of their pagan offerings. Snoeberger addresses this in his Romans 14 article in the DBTS journal. Moo mentions this on pages 856 and 861. The issue here is contamination by association.

This, though, is still a basis for abstinence convictions today. “Even if it’s ok, do we want to support this industry? Do we want to be associated with this lifestyle?” Therefore, I do think it’s reasonable to invoke Romans 14 here.

However,

Paul opens the door for other types of issues in both Romans 14 and 1 Cor 7-10.

And

Jews did take vows, which required total wine-abstinence. Paul seems to have been under such a vow while he wrote Romans, which would make him a “weaker-brother” with respect to wine for reasons other than association.

Dan,

I see your point. There are different kinds of association issues today than that of the first century in regard to wine. I think the definition of the weaker and stronger brother has more to do with those who were weak or strong “in faith” and “in the faith” as opposed to those who were simply strict or less strict. If the weak are new Jewish believers who had a difficult time transitioning from Judaism to Christianity, then the issue in Romans 14 (primarily a Jewish problem) is somewhat different than 1 Corinthians 8-10 (primarily a Gentile problem). The newly converted Jews were weak in regard to the faith and were in possible danger of turning away from the faith because of these Jewish issues regarding the Mosaic Law which Paul had explicitly said were no longer issues. The strong were strong in their understanding of the gospel, the relationship of the Christian to the OT Law, and the implications of the new dispensation. Paul’s ultimate goal was for the weak to become strong, but in the meantime the strong were to be personally sacrificial in order not to destroy these people. Long term God wants the weak to become strong. Short term God wants the Strong in the faith to be sacrificial so as not to destroy the weak or possibly cause their apostasy.

A lot there, Pastor Harding. I’d love to have a discussion about both these passages. I doubt either of us really have time.

[Mike Harding]… I think the definition of the weaker and stronger brother has more to do with those who were weak or strong “in faith” and “in the faith” as opposed to those who were simply strict or less strict. …

Just as “τῇ χάριτί” in Eph 2:8 is rendered “by grace,” “τῇ πίστει” in Rom 14:1 should be translated “by faith.” i.e., it is living out and thinking through the faith that has caused his weakness.

Can either of us point to something to convince the other accept our understanding of “τῇ πίστει”? I think not.

I do believe that both Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 7-10 are about those who are more strict in their application of Biblical principles and those who are less strict. It is also a defense for the idea that we should embrace “strictness” when we are so convicted.

[Mike Harding]…The strong were strong in their understanding of the gospel …

[Snoeberger’s paper] 15 As Moo observes, “Paul’s plea for understanding and acceptance of the ‘weak’ within the community makes clear that they were not propagating a view antithetical to the gospel.

But guess what. Even with this, I don’t agree. Look at 1 Cor 8 and 10. Paul thinks it’s ok to go into the pagan temple and eat idol-meat? I really don’t think he has much confidence that this is ok. But Paul he still calls it the “strong” position. I almost read between the lines of ch8 Paul saying, “Yeah, you’re strong. Whatever.” Then read 1 Cor 10:21. Read it in Greek: “Not! you are strong the cup of the Lord to drink and the cup of demons.”

Notice that “you are able” and “you are strong” are the same thing. That understanding is foundation to my view: “weak”=unable and “strong”=able.