Cornerstone Univ. Lifts 68 Year Ban on Staff Drinking

I knew someone would eventually resort to the slippery slope argument. Actually, as a former alumni that went to the school from 1987-1991 and an adjunct professor from 2005-2007, I observed that the spiritual climate was much better from 2005-2007 with Cornerstone not having rules against dancing and movies, but rather encouraged Biblical discernment with these issues. In the 1980’s the legalistic atmosphere breeded rebellion. I remember many times back then when some of my classmates were sneaking girls into their dorm room late at night, off-campus drinking parties, going to clubs and sneaking off to movies, and etc…. Not everyone was like this, but there was a considerable amount of students that were because they were forced to go to a GARBC fundamentalist school by their parents against their wishes and they chose Cornerstone (back then it was Grand Rapids Baptist College). Also, I remember back 20 years ago, many of the students hated to go to chapel and many did not want to serve in a required ministry. Some of my classmates tried to find the easiest ministry to get involved with to put in their required hours of Christian ministry (such as parking lot attendant during Bible conference).

When I taught at Cornerstone a few years back, I was blown away by the passion that these students had for Christ. They went to extra worship and prayer times because they wanted to, rather than being forced to. Their motivation for doing ministry was because of the glory of God and to use their spiritual gifts. It was entirely different than what I expected and experienced when I was a student. Now, I also saw some students abuse their freedom that they had. In addition, I felt that the Biblical literacy of the students was quite low so they were not perfect. I just think we have to be careful before we employ the slippery slope argument or even a drawing lines in the sand argument (no one’s used it yet, but inevitably in comes up in our circles) http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2009/11/redrawing-the-lines/

As for the James 2, what if the teachers are able to model Biblical discernment with alcohol without the man made rules to govern them? What if it is actually the law of Christ that compels someone not to drink or to drink without getting drunk in a way that glorifies God?

Again, I don’t really care either way whether they have the rule or not. It really is not going to affect Cornerstone as the Christ-Centered institution that it is.

How many marriages end in divorce? Quite a substantial number, including Christian partners. Thus, should we propose teaching that getting married is unwise or even sinful because someone might get divorced and had they never been married this would never happen?

That aside, I enjoyed Joel’s observation and experience. While someone might, with some validity, question the precision of the language being used, that is calling the former policy “biblically indefensible”, the matter on the whole is really a larger and more significant issue. I know that with the LCMS (Lutheran Church of The Missouri Synod) students and faculty at their colleges are by and large filled with serious and passionate spiritual motivation and high ideas and are so in a context that allows for the appropriate use of alcohol.

I personally favor this decision, though I might have articulated a bit differently the reason for the change. But even at that. it does appear that they went beyond these two words to clarify and qualify their reasons and they are well presented. If a liberty is granted by God (and it is in the case of alcohol) what must be demonstrated by an institution that endeavors to train and model ministry and biblical truth for its students is the appropriate observation of that liberty which includes sensitivity and respect for believers whose conscience’s both permit and forbid its use.

In regards to their Biblical literacy, I would agree with you B Thomas if they were stagnant in their faith. However, because of their passion to know Christ through the scriptures, this was not the case. In someways it was frustrating, because certain Bible passages and stories that I would refer to were not clear to my students in the class that I taught (urban ministry). In some ways, it was refreshing because I felt that I didn’t have to deal with the baggage that sometimes takes place when people have grown up in the church (for example, some Christian’s view of heaven resembles pagan platonic thinking, rather than what the scriptures actually say). They were an open book when it came to learning how to apply a Biblical worldview to all the areas of their lives and to the vocation that they were studying because they were learning and embracing what it meant to have a comprehensive Biblical worldview.

A couple of possibly relevant thoughts on Rom 14

1. The point of Rom 14.21 is that anything can become sinful if you discover that it causes or is likely to cause harm to a brother
   
2. If we assume that every reference to eating in Rom.14 has meat offered to idols in view, shouldn’t we also assume that the reference to drinking wine there also refers to wine used in libations to idols? (FWIW, I’m not sure we should assume either one, but I’m not sure we can do it w/eating and not do it with drinking)
   
3. Does it necessarily follow that if we take drinking wine to be non-sinful in itself in Rom. 14 (by the way, I agree that this is the case) we must conclude that drinking wine is non-sinful today? Some elaborations…
   About #1, if the point of the verse is that just about anything can become sinful if we know it to be harming someone, it’s not really a blanket statement that “doing x is always non-sinful unless it harms a brother.” That’s reading into it a bit.
   On #3, the wisdom argument as that,
   
   
   1. Scripture repeatedly urges great caution toward wine/strong drink (this is not in dispute I don’t think)
      
   2. Today, the use of alcohol is completely unnecessary
      
   3. It is wise to avoid anything that is both completely unnecessary and potentially harmful
      
   4. It is sinful to do what is unwise
      Many would add…
      5. Because the application is somewhat complex (item 2 is often disputed in some cultures and traditions, and there is a theological tension involved when it appears we may be prohibiting something God expressly allows, etc) believers should respectfully allow one another room to disagree about whether social/recreational use of alcohol is necessarily “foolish.”
      
      I’m still mulling over #5, but I’ve yet to hear a persuasive case against 1-4.
      
      As for the Cornerstone case, to me the fact that the policy has been in place for more than six decades creates a very high threshold—a heavy burden of proof—for the case for change (admittedly, 160 years would be more meaningful, but still…). If things were worded in a way that incorrectly handled Scripture, the solution would be to re-articulate the policy rather than throw it out (rather like the case of the Jaeggli book on the subject a few months ago). As I think I’ve shown here, it’s very easy to make a case from the biblical call to wisdom.

2. Today, the use of alcohol is completely unnecessary
3. It is wise to avoid anything that is both completely unnecessary and potentially harmful
4. It is sinful to do what is unwise

Just replace “alcohol” with “hot dogs” and you have eating hot dogs becoming a sin.

But of course, we know what this is called….circular reasoning. Tsk tsk.

(BTW what argument is being made that we are only allowed what is necessary? Isn’t that the very nature of our liberty in Scripture)?

[Aaron Blumer]
On #3, the wisdom argument as that,

1. Scripture repeatedly urges great caution toward wine/strong drink (this is not in dispute I don’t think)
   
2. Today, the use of alcohol is completely unnecessary
   
3. It is wise to avoid anything that is both completely unnecessary and potentially harmful
   
4. It is sinful to do what is unwise
   Many would add…
   5. Because the application is somewhat complex (item 2 is often disputed in some cultures and traditions, and there is a theological tension involved when it appears we may be prohibiting something God expressly allows, etc) believers should respectfully allow one another room to disagree about whether social/recreational use of alcohol is necessarily “foolish.”
   
   I’m still mulling over #5, but I’ve yet to hear a persuasive case against 1-4.
   

No argument with your point #1. Point #2 could be debatable, but I generally agree with it if you are referring to alcohol as a beverage.

I’m not sure about point #4 — I’d have to look that one up in scripture, but I do have some reservations on how it combines with point #3.

My main problem is with point #3. I think one could easily argue that eating something like a Quarter Pounder is completely unnecessary and potentially harmful, knowing what we know today about fat, etc. Are you really going to argue that points 3-4 would make it a sin to eat a Quarter Pounder? One could just as easily say the same thing about “risky” activities like sky-diving and hang-gliding, or for that matter, crossing a six-lane highway at the closest point rather than walking 1/4 mile to the nearest overpass.

Thinking out loud here, I’m wondering if the definition of “wisdom” has shifted a little over points 1-4. When the Bible says something is unwise, is that really the same kind of unwise as eating something with unhealthy fat content? This would get back to what I think about point #4, and I think would change whether or not the activity could be considered sinful.

Honestly, though, a lot of things we do are *potentially* harmful, and it would be fairly easy to find someone else to say that they are completely unnecessary, because *they* find it to be so. Does one’s doing that then meet the qualifications of causing a brother to stumble? Obviously most of my examples are leaving out your point #1. Do you think that because the scriptures urge great caution regarding the use of alcohol that it really can add anything to the argument in 2-4? If 3-4 are really true, then we could put a lot of things in the blank in #2 and they would be sinful even though they lack argument #1.

I’d have to think this through some more, but I still think there is something not quite right about points 3-4.

Edit: Looks like Alex & I were composing at the same time and he was a lot more concise!

This 4 step logic fails very quickly with a minimal amount of thought. This gets to the point where many I know are turned away from Christianity. The logic results in the case that if something is safer, fills the bill and can replace that which is potentially harmful, then that which is potentially harmful should be removed since it is unnecessary. Just a few quick examples which fall into this category:
Safer means of exercise are available than:
football
skiing

Safer means of transportation are readily than:
motorcycles

Safer foods are available than:
fried foods

Safer hobbies are available than:
hang gliding
parachuting

These are quick examples which are obvious and stand out. I am certain there are others, some of which will cause disagreements. I will allow any of you to add to this list at your whim and whimsy.

I would support that the school can have this rule if they so choose. I am a firm believer in the old adage of ‘what is good for the goose is good for the gander’ and feel the faculty should be required to follow the same rules which the students follow. Otherwise, this does result in the appearance of hypocrisy to the students. I would imagine that many of their rules are not ‘Biblically defensible’ if examined closely.

You’re sounding desperate, guys. :)

Nobody gets addicted to hotdogs or quarter pounders, or thoughtlessly consumes too much then drives their Chevy into a pedestrian or goes home and beats the wife and kids (as a result of eating too much)
James B., I’m not really making a relativity argument at all. It’s not about something safer vs. something less safe. It’s something with an extremely poor risk-benefit ratio…. (risk very high, benefit… um, almost nil. I say “almost” because arguably there are some superb tasting wines that just can’t be duplicated w/o alcohol… and also because some of us introverted types would probably do better at social gatherings if we’re a bit loosened up… but the risk-benefit ratio remains deep in the “unwise” category, IMO)

Edit: I would argue though that if we actually could accurately analyze risk-benefit for all the activities of life and know the result, the relativity approach is not a bad one. The trouble is that a) with so many things it’s really hard to measure the trade off, and b) with many, many things the advantage of one option over another would be extremely marginal even if we could figure it out for sure.
This is not the case with the use of alcohol, by a huge margin.
But the fact that risk-benefit cannot be used effectively with many choices, does not mean it’s invalid in application to some. For example, we all know sleeping in our bedrooms is generally safer than sleeping on the railroad tracks. The latter would be “unwise.” The former is wiser, even though it’s quite possible your house will burn down or a plane will crash on it.

[Aaron Blumer]
Nobody gets addicted to hotdogs or quarter pounders, or thoughtlessly consumes too much then drives their Chevy into a pedestrian or goes home and beats the wife and kids (as a result of eating too much)

It’s something with an extremely poor risk-benefit ratio….

the risk-benefit ratio remains deep in the “unwise” category, IMO

So you would have to modify point #3 a bit then to mean things with an “extremely poor risk-benefit ratio?” Is that scriptural? And even if it is (which I’m currently doubting), is that type of “unwise” always sinful?

Edit: I would argue though that if we actually could accurately analyze risk-benefit for all the activities of life and know the result, the relativity approach is not a bad one. The trouble is that a) with so many things it’s really hard to measure the trade off, and b) with many, many things the advantage of one option over another would be extremely marginal even if we could figure it out for sure.

I’m not saying that what you are saying is necessarily a bad approach to life, but does scripture demand it?

But the fact that risk-benefit cannot be used effectively with many choices, does not mean it’s invalid in application to some. For example, we all know sleeping in our bedrooms is generally safer than sleeping on the railroad tracks. The latter would be “unwise.” The former is wiser, even though it’s quite possible your house will burn down or a plane will crash on it.

I’d agree, but is it sinful to sleep on railroad tracks or just extremely stupid? I think we all draw lines as to what behavior crosses the line from “acceptably risky,” to “idiotic,” but other than general principles, where is the scripture to help us make such choices? If you sleep on railroad tracks *knowing* you are going to get killed, you could call that suicide, but if you are planning to get out of the way when you hear the train, is that really anything more than stupid?

Alcohol might present a pretty large risk (larger than eating fatty foods), but I still have a hard time seeing that as sin if you are obeying the scriptures about drunkenness, being careful about not being deceived (e.g having *very* strict limits) and not causing your brother to sin by your actions.

I’m not trying to defend drinking of alcohol by what I’m arguing, but I fail to see how your points 1-4 are completely airtight. “Unwise” is used too loosely to be of much help.

It most definitely is relative. You are trying to make a determination based upon a shade of gray. Your gray shading is different from mine in various manners. Being obese has a higher health risk than smoking cigarettes, established through studies. But smoking cigarettes is the one which is attacked as a sin. I most definitely am not advocating drinking, but I also do not advocate overeating, sky diving, etc. I will not indicate that another person performing such an action is sinning either. If they starting getting intoxicated and telling lies, cheating on their spouse (even just lusting), dreaming of what they do not have an coveting it, then I will discuss that with them, when they are of a sound mind. I do this with people when they are of a sound mind when doing these things as well.

Am I correct in assuming that since it is unwise to sleep on railroad tracks that it would be a sin to do so? It is completely unnecessary and most definitely potentially dangerous - deeply in the ‘unwise’ category, in my shading of gray.

This is the problem which I have in talking with so many people who are not saved. They immediately point out some of the items such as this which are at best tenuous, and at worse completely untenable. I stick with the sins which are obvious in the Bible and would be very happy if I could live my life within them 100% every minute of every day for the rest of my life. But the problem is that I am a sinner who, even momentarily, will step away from God and into me, and my mind will stray. It is a sin for me to covet my neighbors BMW or Mercedes (which I do not since I do not like either car). In cases, words are the equivalent of murder. Just think about ‘loving thy neighbor as thyself’. Can I draw shades of gray as to the extent of those thoughts or the magnitude of the words or how I treat my neighbor (either to the face or behind their back)? As a sinner trying to justify myself I can, but as a Christian I realize that those shades of gray are wrong. Again, it is difficult enough to talk to a non-believer (and many believers) about Christ and Christianity without having to deal with shades of gray being drawn in areas which do not exist as sins, IMHO.

but is it sinful to sleep on railroad tracks or just extremely stupid?

I think the Bible has a lot to say about stupid behavior… for example- Proverbs 24:9 The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men. I think stupid behavior qualifies as sinful. Lying down on railroad tracks with the intent of getting up just in time sounds pretty scornful to me, and I imagine you might cause the conductor to stumble. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry049.gif

Moderation (Phil.4:5) is a principle that is seldom applied, and the result is everything from cirrhosis of the liver to The Biggest Loser. I am also of the mind that alcohol (as in social drinking) is problematic enough with baggage enough to qualify as something to avoid on that basis alone. However, for this school to make social drinking a matter of conscience instead of school policy for the staff only… what’s up with that? If it’s ok, then it’s ok- at least for students of legal age.

Have to be quick because I have to do some other stuff before midnight.

This is mostly in response to Dave’s last post.
Is weighing risk-benefit biblical? In answer, consider these factors.

1. Scripture says love does no harm to a neighbor (Rom.13.10), so thinking about harm is definitely a biblical responsibility (Rom.14 on this also)
   
2. Since we can really be 100% sure of future results, thinking about harm is always thinking about likelihood of harm. When we talk about risk, we’re talking about the likelihood that something bad will happen. So, Rom.13.10 calls us to think about risk to others.
   
3. We are also stewards of our bodies and have to think about harm to ourselves as well (2 Cor.5:10, 1 Cor.6:19-20). So being guided in part by risk-benefit applies to ourselves as well as others.
   
4. A large part of the biblical call to wisdom is a call to reflect on likely results of our choices (Prov.22.3, 27:12)
   
5. Add to all of this the fact that the Bible points out the risks of wine/strong drink in strong terms in multiple places. This means alcohol consumption is in a special category. When Proverbs says watch out for what strong drink can do to you (paraphrase), it is calling us to reflect on risk and factor that into the choices we make. So, while many things in life fall under the biblical wisdom mandate that compels us to reflect on the likelihood of harm—alcohol even more so. To return to my railroad tracks illustration, yes, to do what we know risks much harm to ourselves or others (for no adequate reason) is indeed sin, but the Bible doesn’t even say “sleeping on railroad tracks is risky.” It does however say that consuming wine/strong drink is very risky. About relative risk… more on that in a minute.
   Edit: On second thought, I think I don’t have anything to add on that point.
   James… I don’t disagree w/much in your last post. It just doesn’t really impact the wisdom argument as far as I can see. I do think we have to be careful not to be reductionist about the pursuit of holiness though… only care about the really clear things. There are only 66 books in the Bible. Given the fact that a thousand wouldn’t answer all of our questions, every word of what God chose to include must be important. And applying every bit of it as thoroughly as possible is surely our duty. In my experience, unbelievers who bring up these things when hearing the gospel are dodging. Sort of like the woman in John 4. If we removed all the valid gripes (of which there are many), a person who does not want to obey the gospel would still find an excuse in an instant. This is part of what Jesus is getting at in Matt.11.16-19.

Guys, whatever you think, give it another 25 years and the ban on alcohol use (except for excessive use) will be lifted from pretty much all the Christain colleges and seminaries.

I think part of our strategy as fundamentalists is to determine what fights to join in on.

What will they do when a faculty/staff gets arrested for DUI? After all, guessing when you have reached .08 on the breathalyzer is an imperfect art.

Did Cornerstone define exactly what is “moderation”? There are strict commands to “be not drunk with wine wherein is excess”. Even the ones dropping abstenance agree that “moderation” is the line to not cross. I have yet to have someone on that side explain exactly what is moderation and what is not.

I guess there will be a new page in the Church supply catalogs to order breathalyzers. We will need them to decide if we should keep Mrs. Smith off the road when she has had a little too much of the communion wine. Or if we should “throw the book” at deacon Jones for public drunkeness when the church discipline meeting is called.

Will the campus security pull over Dr. Stowell for weaving as he drives across campus? Will they get him out of the car and do a field sobriety test? I can see it now, “Dr. Stowell can you stand on one foot and repeat John 3:16 backwords?”

And someone on the “moderation” side of the arguement please explain how desireing to drink alcohol does not violate this: 1Jn 2:14 I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
1Jn 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jn 2:16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone seen the wording of the rule now lifted? It may be that term “Biblically indefensible” was chosen because the rule as presented made a case that the Bible demanded abstinence, and they believe that not to be the case. Even Jaeggli’s book, arguing in favor of an essentially prohibitive conclusion, lays the case that some consumption of alcohol was permitted in Scripture.