Cornerstone Univ. Lifts 68 Year Ban on Staff Drinking

OK, “We don’t think it’s necessary” I can buy, but “biblically indefensible”!?
I wonder what biblical “defense” they have for banning students from drinking that would not apply just about as well to staff?
I realize we’ve batted this topic around quite a bit, but I’ll keep repeating a couple of facts: nobody has ever been harmed by not drinking… hence, it does not have to be “biblically defensible” any more than say, requiring a helmet when you ride a bike.

I can’t really speak as to their thinking, but I guess it would depend on whether they mean biblically indefensible as a moral issue vs. an issue of wisdom/safety/practicality, what have you. I believe there is a qualitative difference between the institution in question making whatever rules it deems necessary (which they certainly have a right to do) vs. telling students the rule is because of biblical prohibition when it isn’t or is not clear enough to avoid saying “God hath said …” when he hasn’t so said. It seems they may be confusing the different rule authorities/reasons behind rules. I don’t believe that we have the right, in the name of “safety,” to create a biblical prohibition where there is none (and I’m not talking specifically about alcohol here).

And regarding riding bikes, my kids are always required to wear helmets because of local laws, but in my neighborhood (as compared with driving out on highways with fast-moving traffic) I refuse to do so. It’s a matter of both what I’m used to from when I was a kid, and also my libertarian leanings that I don’t like pressure from others (even when it’s not the law) to do things for my own good, when I’ve already made a determination of what risks I will personally accept. (See my avatar to see one of those risks I accept.)

We don’t helmets either where we don’t have to… but if an individual or institution wants to do that, they don’t have to defend that biblically.
I agree with the principle that you don’t go claiming a biblical case where isn’t one. At the same time, though, biblical principles are not as far removed as many seem to think, even in matters of safety. Using the helmet idea as an example, we are told our bodies are temples of the Spirit and that we are stewards of our bodies/lives and will give an account for how we used them. So even safety is a “spiritual” question. For a believer, I think every question is a “spiritual” one in some sense. (“do all to the glory of God” at least, but usually there are more specific principles that apply in some respect).
But of course the helmet example illustrates the pitfalls as well. There is obviously some point where the pursuit of safety becomes counterproductive. The “safest” way to live is probably to never leave your house. That way, you can’t get struck by lightening, get mugged, get in a traffic accident, etc. So there is an interplay of principles and purposes and figuring out where lines should be drawn is complex… and consequently much of it falls under Rom 14 as matters of conscience.

Cornerstone’s move disturbs be a great deal for a couple of reasons:

1. If the rule has been good enough for 68 years, you do not need a reason to retain it. You need a reason to discard it. I’ll concede that this is pretty much an a priori for me. I’m a conservative and believing conserving is important.
   
2. You don’t have to have a biblical case for everything that you deem prudent.
   So maybe by “biblically indefensible” they are referring to the language of the policy itself, which maybe makes overly expansive claims for what Scripture teaches in that area. If that’s the case, a more precise statement on it would have been better. Even a “biblical defense” only has to establish two things: 1) The Bible recommends wisdom and 2) We believe not drinking is wise. You can hold that position without claiming that everyone must agree in order to be a proper Christian.
   So it’s quite possible—and ought to be routine—to have a “biblical position” that is framed as a matter of conscience.

While it might be “biblicaly indefensible” to say that drinking alcohol is sin, does that mean it is “biblically indefensible” for a Christian institution to have certain rules for faculty and students? Are there ever any good reasons for a Christian institution to have rules that may not necessarily be demanded by Scripture?

If they trust their spiritually mature faculty/staff to use discernement about alcohol, why will they not trust their spiritually mature 21 and 22 year-old juniors and seniors to practice the same discernment. to me, the stance they have struck is hypocritical. If I am a 22 year-old student I cannot drink, if I am a 22 year-old male working in HVAC, I can drink. It is inevitable that if you make such a change for faculty/staff, you must for students who are older than the legal age to drink.

Could I venture the assertion that this rule was changed because there are faculty/staff at Cornerstone who wanted the liberty to drink alcohol and the administration yielded to their wishes. I’m sure there are are other policies at the school that are not “biblicaly defensible” that are not being amended.

As an Alumnus of Cornerstone and a former adjunct faculty member, I am actually quite ambivalent about the rule change.

I feel there is merit in Aaron’s argument of not everything in an educational institution has to have a Biblical reason for what you deem prudent…….or even the Biblical wisdom argument about abstaining from alcohol. However, for the first 50 or so years, the argument for abstaining was not based upon Biblical wisdom. It was considered (like most fundamental instituations did at the time) a flat-out sin, in the same realm as sexual immorality. Even in the 1980’s I heard some of the worst exegesis of the scriptures on defending the abstinence of alcohol in chapel or its Bible conferences (such as how Jesus really turned water into grape juice!) Hence, I am not really sure if we would want to conserve many of these warts that come out of its 68 year history. Also, Cornerstone is much broader than its GARBC roots nowadays, although still very much in the conservative evangelical spectrum. Therefore, many of their trustees, administration, faculty, and students don’t understand a tradition from its heritage like abstinence, yet they will more understand its theological heritage such as Baptism by immersion, distinction of Israel and the N.T. Church, or that the sign gifts are not normative for today (all of which are found in the Cornerstone Confession) even though there are many Christian Reformed and Charismatics that attend Cornerstone. Incidentally, if Cornerstone hadn’t broadened their base, they probably would have closed their doors by now. With the GARBC struggling during the past 20 or so years and many GARBC churches not willing to embrace its liberal arts and university partners in the same manner as its Bible college partners (because of some worldview differences, example-distrust of these institutions that have a psychology major), they connected with like-minded groups among conservative evangelicalism that would embrace them.

[Jonathan Charles] While it might be “biblicaly indefensible” to say that drinking alcohol is sin, does that mean it is “biblically indefensible” for a Christian institution to have certain rules for faculty and students? Are there ever any good reasons for a Christian institution to have rules that may not necessarily be demanded by Scripture?

I note from article that they are being careful to maintain the ban on campus. From what I gather they are removing the rule for off-campus action only. And this makes sense, because they really don’t have the right to prohibit legal adults from doing, really, anything when they’re not on-campus and on the clock. They have that right with students because of in loco parentis and with faculty/staff when they’re clocked in and/or on school property because of federal labor laws, depending on how Michigan handles those sorts of things. From the article: “’[W] e are releasing our faculty and staff to discern what is best for them concerning its use in their personal lives,’ said [President Joe] Stowell…The change doesn’t apply to students, who remain banned from using alcohol. Faculty and staff are being told to avoid using alcohol in any setting where students are present. Cornerstone will continue to ban alcohol on campus and at all university-sponsored events, Stowell said.” So students are banned, no alcohol on campus or at off-campus sponsored events, and really the only change is that they’re giving the faculty and staff the option to choose what they feel is best.

I understand that the school must maintain a standard of behavior from their faculty and staff that is consistent with Biblical principles. But with so much ambiguity about where exactly the Bible draws the line, it would make sense to avoid being dogmatic and relegate this topic to individual persuasion and Christian liberty. If f/s folks there who feel they have the liberty to consume alcohol do it right, none of their students will ever know and there will be no occasion to cause a student to sin.

So the question isn’t quite cut-and-dried. Institutions can have rules about things that aren’t demanded by Scripture, but they should be careful not to overstep their boundaries and try to make rules where they have no authority to do so, either scripturally or legally. In this case I think it boiled down to them realizing they had no authority to make this kind of rule if they couldn’t give chapter and verse.

[mounty]….. And this makes sense, because they really don’t have the right to prohibit legal adults from doing, really, anything when they’re not on-campus and on the clock…..

Yes, this is true, but these “legal adults” do not have the “right” to work at Cornerstone either. There is no law against immorality, but Cornerstone has the right to prohibit it - even if they are “legal adults.”

You are confusing God’s laws with man’s laws.

No, I’m not confusing the two. I’m quite aware that there are God’s laws and then there are man’s laws with a multitude of purposes behind the laws. Nor am I making the argument that their “expected conduct” from their faculty and staff should fall clearly along lines of legality alone. I’m saying that when it comes to man’s laws, organizations (churches, colleges, christian schools, etc.) should be very careful not to supersede the order of authority. A Christian school I attended at one point dropped the rule that students were forbidden from going to movie theaters. Not because a theater is such a bastion of wholesome family-friendly entertainment, but because they recognized that the parent, not the school, was God’s ordained head of the child in the home. When it comes to a 45-year-old man who teaches at a Christian college, he is the head of his household, not his employing organization’s CEO. There’s enough debate on his matter in particular that one has to start doing all sorts of interpretative tricks to back up the statement “God hath said.” And if you can’t prove definitely that “God hath said” then you are treading on man’s laws. Clearly they felt that the person to make the call of “right vs. wrong” was the individual and not the entity.

There is no law against immorality, but Cornerstone has the right to prohibit it - even if they are “legal adults.”

As I stated earlier, “I understand that the school must maintain a standard of behavior from their faculty and staff that is consistent with Biblical principles.” Immorality clearly falls within unambiguous Biblical principles and thus I have absolutely no problem with them making that a life standard of conduct for all their employees. Christian institutes, above all others, must respect the law of the land, as commanded in Scripture. Beyond that I think they have the right to codify God’s laws into expectations of their employees - thus employees who practice immorality, drunkenness, consistent violation of the law of the land, etc. are not upholding God’s laws and can forfeit their privilege of working at this Christian institution. But when the Christian institution begins adding laws of their own in matters that God has not clearly made a law, and mask that law in the guise of “holy living,” that’s when you can start leveling the “P” word without too much difficulty, and those are the laws that should not be.

Now the faculty and staff can be like everyone else in the culture. We definitely do not want them to be too different.

The university leadership took a lesson from one of Napoleon’s generals at Waterloo. While the battle raged he sat banqueting in his tent. Suddenly, an officer burst into the tent and informed the general they were losing and his men were retreating. The general said; “quick get my horse, I must be in front of my men leading them.”

This is the most popular form of leadership in American Christianity.

The proper first premise question is “what does the Bible state regarding the use of alcohol? Answer; possible allowance (some cultural explanations) but there are numerous warnings about misuse.

The proper second question is; “what steps or precautions may be necessary to prevent its misuse? Answer: “The best precaution may be avoidance.”

The proper third question is; what are the consequences of having a disciplinary rule demanding avoidance?” Ansewr: a few will feel deprived of the opportunity to drink alcohol.”

Proper fourth question: “why will they feel deprived when there are numerous good tasting and healthy non alcoholic beverages that can be drank? Answer; They will be deprived of that one ingrediant called Alcohol.”

The proper fifth question: “what is that that alcohol will give them, or do for them, that the many good non alcoholic beverages will not?” Answer; …!?

George Eldon Ladd, formerly of Fuller theological Seminary, and probably the most influential scholar against Dispensationalism and it’s view of the kingdom, tribulation period, and rapture, was a an alcoholic most of his adult life. He retired from Fuller and died in his Alcoholism. In his last years he could be seen staggering through the streets of Pasadena with his adult alcoholic son. His wife and children hated him. Fuller attempted to take disciplinary action twice but would never dismiss him. Some who knew him thought his scholarship was used as a tool against a theology that was advocated by the churches he despised because of their so called legalism and advocacy of total abstinance. A recent Biography calls attention to this tragic case.

It appears that some Christian schools want to create the opportunity for more Ladd’s.

James 2 says: “Be not many masters (teachers) for we shall receive the greater condemnation,” or as the NKJV says: “My breathren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive stricter judgment.” Let me get this straight: the faculty/staff at Cornerstone may use alcohol, but the students may not. Isn’t there something in reverse order here? Shouldn’t faculty be modeling the higher standard for the students? Fact is, statistics prove that ten per cent of social drinkers become alcoholics. Isn’t that a pretty high risk to take, even for Bible college “leaders”? Now that Cornerstone has approved both dancing and alcohol, what will be next? Once the recreational use of marijuana becomes legal, maybe those wise leaders will conveniently find that the Bible has nothing to say about that either. But even if the Bible doesn’t spell it out clearly for everyone to see, doesn’t common sense tell one that parents have a right to expect that a Bible college should maintain an environment of righteousness and an expectation of moral rectitude from its teachers? And who says that the Bible permits the use of alcohol for some and not for others who have reached the age of legal permission? I believe Cornerstone has started down a slippery slope.

Just to play devil’s advocate, jimcarwest, technically Cornerstone isn’t “approving” alcohol, they’re choosing to be neutral. I imagine their new rule regarding on- and off-campus situations reflects in some degree a judgment of maturity. To use a similar (though overkill) analogy it’s like legal driving age. There are plenty of thirteen-year-olds who have head knowledge of how to operate a vehicle but the law (in most states) says that one has to be 16 to drive, and then only with an adult in the car and only during daylight hours. At 21 (at the latest) those restrictions are lifted because it’s assumed at that point the child has enough maturity and experience to operate a vehicle safely and without supervision. Now, of course, that example doesn’t address morality, only maturity, but for them, once you decide there is no strong leaning one way or another from Scripture, the decision becomes purely procedural and not an issue of morality at all.

Having said that, I agree that the decision to recreationally drink alcohol is unwise. However, Cornerstone said, and many folks “out there” might agree, that while there are commands to “be not drunk” there are no commands to “touch not alcohol.” There are, however, commands to avoid the appearance of evil and to live in such a way as to be blameless in front of others. Is it possible to have a bottle of Cabernet in the back of the fridge and have a nightly toast to antioxidants and heart health without crossing those commands? Maybe. Cornerstone’s answer seems to be, “If you can figure out a way to do that, knock yourself out.” I still say it would be awful hard to do this and still be blameless, and that it’s a huge amount of work to go through for practically nil benefits. (Though I do know folks who keep little bottles of Jack Daniels around for cough season - they say it works better than any cough syrup. Still, it’s almost impossible for a faculty member at a Christian university to walk into a liquor store and convincingly say “I’m just getting more cough syrup.”)

[RPittman] Cornerstone did not lift the ban on smoking because it was harmful and destructive to the body. Are not alcohol and alcoholism equally destructive and disruptive? How can this be consistent? If their presumed Biblical defense of a smoking ban is harm to the individual and his body, could not the same argument be applied to alcohol? Or, is it just the politically correct thing to ban smoking?

I noticed that. I can think of two reasons off the top of my head, and it’s possible there are elements of both:

1.) Smoking is immediately harmful, and there is absolutely no benefit to inhaling used motor oil into one’s lungs, and no one has ever made a serious attempt to prove otherwise, indicating that a pack of cigs from the gas station has absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. Arguably, the same might not be said for alcohol, and depending on which doctor or medical journal you read, it’s only in excess that alcohol has the same damaging effect on the body.

2.) Though I hate to think this is a reason, it’s entirely possible they know a significant segment of their faculty and staff are *already* consuming alcohol, significant enough that replacing them in a crackdown on that particular rule would be logistically difficult, not to mention costly, trying to replace folks before second semester starts up, and with the ambiguity surrounding alcohol in the Bible, an easy out was to drop the rule. I mean, an unenforced rule isn’t a rule at all, right?

In either case, I still think there’s a little “hands-off” approach where they’d rather not take a position for or against when it comes to folks in their own homes. I’m sure there’s not just one reason. But you’re right, it does seem odd that they would ban one and not the other, since the two have historically been lumped together when talking about social substance abuse. Question of degrees? Which would make it a very weak move…

RPittman, your use of Romans 14 inverts the passage. Romans 14 is a defense of Christian liberty in adiaphora. One of Paul’s points is, “Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.” If we are to make any sense of the passage, the same must apply for drinking wine and regarding days, the other two examples. Now, if any of these things were sins, Paul certainly would not take such a laissez-faire approach to the issue. Romans 14 proves, conclusively, that there is no inherent sin in drinking.

In fact, the part you bring up, vs. 21, says, “It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.” Once again, it would be absurd for Paul to phrase things this way if drinking were a sin. Can you imagine him saying, “It is good not to commit adultery, by which your brother stumbles”? Of course not.

Then, a prohibitionist position is entirely out of line with Romans 14, unless you also want to take a prohibitionist position toward eating meat and celebrating Christmas. What Romans 14 does teach is that (1) drinking is not necessary for a normal social life and (2) there are certainly times and situations in which a compassionate believer will forego his biblically secure decision to drink out of regard for possible consequences to other people. However, this is not a lifestyle decision such as, “I will never drink alcohol because it could make someone stumble.” If you read the passage, it is an occasional decision when the situation demands it. Thus, the decision to abstain from alcohol is an individual one, and the passage forbids forbidding it. The one who does not drink may not pass judgment on the one who does. Employing the argument from the lesser to the greater, if a Christian shouldn’t even judge his brother in his heart, he definitely shouldn’t be forbidding his brother’s conduct in church constitutions and the like.

Now, the Cornerstone position makes good sense to me. First, as has already been noted, micromanaging people’s personal lives outside a given context is a thorny issue. Second, a staff person is much less likely to be in a position to make someone stumble. An upperclass student has a rather high probability of influencing his underclass roommates to drink, even without his trying to. They look up to him and want to be like him, to do the things he does. So, even though I wouldn’t terribly mind if they let legal students drink, I’m somewhat sympathetic to retaining the ban.