Cornerstone Univ. Lifts 68 Year Ban on Staff Drinking

From http://www.cornerstone.edu/departments/president/per_lifestyle_policy_r…. This seems a tad bit out-of-date, but hey, it’s Thanksgiving holiday and I know how backlogged IT departments get from a five-day weekend.

How might any potential changes in the Personnel Lifestyle Statement affect the campus or Cornerstone events?

The new Personnel Lifestyle Statement will retain all of the university’s historic commitment to living the Christian faith. For example, Cornerstone University ‘s campus and events have always been and will continue to be free of alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and any other behaviors considered inconsistent with student and personnel lifestyle standards.

What does the current policy say regarding personnel use of alcohol and tobacco and engaging in gambling?

The current policy states that employees must abstain from possession and use of alcoholic beverages and tobacco. It also states that gambling is a prohibited activity.

Is Cornerstone changing its historic stance on these issues?

The review is not a matter of specific activities, per se. It is simply a question of considering what personnel lifestyle statement and what possible community lifestyle limitations best enable the university to accomplish its mission. Further, the university is allowing personnel to honestly and prayerfully evaluate whether a blanket statement should be maintained on certain Christian liberty matters or whether choices such as these are better left to staff and faculty members as they engage in particular situations.

What is Cornerstone’s stance regarding matters of lifestyle for its employees?

Cornerstone holds that Christians are called to participate in God’s redemptive plan by making life-affirming choices and rejecting those choices that are ungodly. All Cornerstone University employees are to live in accordance with the restrictions spelled out in Scripture including the avoidance of all forms of immorality (such as immoral sexual behavior, homosexual conduct, pornography, lewd dancing, lying, stealing, and cheating), sins that diminish community and disrespect others (such as gossip, slander, racism, sexism and ageism), and sins of excess (such as hubris, drunkenness, gluttony, and other forms of substance abuse) In all activities, employees should exercise a godly discernment that seeks to reflect the image of Christ.

As redeemed people, Christians are free to celebrate the fullness of God’s creation. Out of love for others, however, they recognize that a person may freely choose to restrain this celebration. Each individual should manifest this loving action as he or she yields to civil laws and cares for brothers and sisters in Christ who may have more tender consciences. In interactions with others, one should assess whether particular actions might cause another to sin and refrain from the activity as necessary. Because Christians should seek to please Jesus Christ the Redeemer, they are motivated to do what is right and just, to love kindness and to walk humbly with their God (Micah 6:8).

Is this connected to the dance policy changes a few years back?

No. The current review is only connected to the extent that both dance and some of the activities being reviewed typically fall under the doctrine of Christian liberty. The consideration to change or not to change will be determined on the merits of the arguments in each area.

Ken,

I think those who hold to a moderation view try to look at the whole council of God in scripture (I’d also say that some Christians that advocate abstainance do as well) rather than just cherry picking bible verses such as I John 2:14-17 to back up their view. One could easily accuse certain fundamentalist pastors that order their congregation to abstain of holding to a “doctrine of demons” according to I Tim. 4:1-5 “1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.” However, they would be in error by cherry picking certain verses as well.

That is why on matters such of this, building a theology from all of scripture is essential. Also, we can gain some wisdom from D.A. Carson’s Christ and Culture Revisited. He maintains that by viewing these issues through the major turning points of redemptive history such as creation, fall, redemption, and the final judgment and consummation can help us Biblically critique this aspect of culture. However, when one of these turning points are ignored, we are in danger of falling short of embracing the entire council of God. For example, liberals or evangelicals that focus on creation (God creating everything good) but ignore the fall and the depravity of man when it comes to alcohol, are quite naive to its destructive influences. However, those fundamentalists that focus primarily on the fall and depravity of man and ignore creation, are dangerously close to embracing a gnostic Christian worldview which is also condemned throughout the New Testament.

[Ed Vasicek] 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.

I don’t care so much about their policy change regarding temperance as I am about the idea of having two sets of standards- one for staff and one for students. If anything it should be the other way around IMO, since what leadership does in moderation the followship will tend to do in excess.

[Joel Shaffer] However, those fundamentalists that focus primarily on the fall and depravity of man and ignore creation, are dangerously close to embracing a gnostic Christian worldview which is also condemned throughout the New Testament.

It’s really not that easy to be gnostic. You can pick up a gnostic “tilt” be being anti-physical, etc. But doctrinally, it’s not subtle if you compare it to core Christianity. You have to believe that Jesus is not God in the flesh, for starters. And you have to reject the idea that sin is transgression of the law and that God’s design in salvation is redeem the whole man on the merits of Jesus’ shed blood on the cross. Gnosticism rejects the Trinity. The list goes on. Not accusing anybody, but sometimes “gnostic” is a handy way of dismissing a set of ideas without actually showing how they are unbiblical in particular. In other words, it’s often more of a dodge than an argument.
There is nothing gnostic about taking what Scripture teaches about wisdom and applying to today’s knowledge and today’s options in connection with alcohol consumption.

[Susan R]
I don’t care so much about their policy change regarding temperance as I am about the idea of having two sets of standards- one for staff and one for students. If anything it should be the other way around IMO, since what leadership does in moderation the followship will tend to do in excess.

At Bob Jones there are different handbooks for Day Students, Resident Students, and Faculty/Staff. I believe having additional regulations for Resident Students is justified because these students live on campus full-time. BJU over the past several years has been relaxing some rules that governed off-campus conduct. I have no problem with an institution making rules of conduct that apply on campus, as long as those rules are not equated with genuine spirituality.

[Aaron Blumer] 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.
   

I guess I was too unclear in my last response. I wasn’t saying that evaluation of risk was unbiblical. What I was wondering was whether the “relative approach,” which, as I understood it, throws away things deemed “more risky and unnecessary” for things deemed “less risky,” was biblically required.

I do agree with you that because of the scriptures specifically mentioning it, alcohol is a special case, and carries specific warnings (your original point #1). In fact, it’s not the “alcohol” part of this discussion which really interests me — it’s the thought process we are using to make conclusions that I’m really interested in. So, if your points 2-4 are actually valid (which is what I’m not convinced of), then hot dogs as Alex mentioned would have to be considered sinful by your argument. There is no limiting factor in your previous points 2-4 for things that are either biblically mentioned as being sinful or requiring a warning, or other factors we must consider with biblical principle, such as addicting, intoxicating, or in other ways leading or enticing to known sinful behavior, so they could apply to many things way less dangerous than alcohol.

I’m not trying to say that there has to be a scripture saying “no sleeping on railroad tracks,” to be able to make a judgment about that activity — I’m not a reductionist. I *am* still questioning how something that “risks much harm to ourselves … (for no adequate reason) is indeed sin.” (I’ll leave out the part about others, as that is, I think, a separate question.) What is the level “risk” must cross to be sin? Is doing something (like smoking) that would cause a little bit of damage every time, even if not noticeable, different from something like sky-diving, which if done successfully, causes no damage at all, but which if it goes wrong could result in death? I could easily consider the “temple” argument about the former, but does it really apply to the latter? (And why wouldn’t it apply to eating a Big Mac?) Does doing the latter put one in the Proverbs “fool” category? How would we know that?

I guess I still can’t see how your argument as presented doesn’t lead to the attempt to eliminate all risk that isn’t strictly necessary for one’s God-given mission in life. If your argument is really true, alcohol is the least of the problems most of us would need to deal with.

Aaron,

“There is nothing gnostic about taking what Scripture teaches about wisdom and applying to today’s knowledge and today’s options in connection with alcohol consumption.”

I think one can make a good case for “They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods” from I Tim. 4:1-5. Paul is dealing with some of the gnostic tendencies of teachers within the church. Again, my point is that this verse or this passage shouldn’t be taken alone. One of the themes of this passage is that God created everything good (which would include the ingredients for alcohol). However, throughout scripture, we can see that it has been distorted by the fall and the depravity of man. I think we can both agree upon that.

Aaron,

Actually, I reread what you said (I tried to edit it but the time had given out) and I actually agree with you (your last line). I am not stating that those who believe as you do are somehow gnostic because I believe you have a much more Scriptural basis for abstainance. However, those that quote passages such as I John 2:14-17 as the silver bullet against alcohol consumption with moderation without taking in account the whole Biblical narrative……that is a different story. I probably didn’t make myself clear and assumed something that you did not say…….

[dcbii] Does doing the latter put one in the Proverbs “fool” category? How would we know that?

I guess I still can’t see how your argument as presented doesn’t lead to the attempt to eliminate all risk that isn’t strictly necessary for one’s God-given mission in life. If your argument is really true, alcohol is the least of the problems most of us would need to deal with.

I think what’s happening here, Dave, is that situations where it would be difficult to apply the principles are sort of obscuring the fact that there are cases where it’s easy.
I’ll repost my earlier four points and comment to explain what I mean.

[Aaron] 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

All I’m really saying here is that when something has a very high risk of harm to oneself and others and offers nothing needful in return, it’s not a smart option. It might help if I stated #2 as “Today—unlike in Bible times—alcohol consumption is completely unnecessary.”
And then, it might also help to reword #3 as “It is wise to avoid anything that is both super duper unnecessary and has a high potential to be really, really harmful.” I wanted to put the principle more broadly, and I still think it’s valid in the broader form, but the narrow one works fine for the wisdom case for abstinence.
As for the broader version and the hotdog example, it’s not like eating a hotdog does you no good. There is lots of protein there along with all the other undesirable stuff. Is it “necessary,” when we could theoretically always eat something better? No. It would be wise to eat something else in most cases. But often the margin of “wiser” would be very small and depending on what you eat the rest of the time, it would make no difference at all. I’d say #4 still applies, but in the case of a hotdog once in a while in the context of a healthy diet, it’s debatable that there is risk or foolishness in that.
Someone is likely to object that a glass of wine once in a while is likewise not damaging etc., but again, see my earlier posts. Scripture alerts us specifically to the risks of strong drink and alcohol itself does zero good to the human body.
So using the hotdog illustration is taking a case near the furthest possible point on the risk-benefit scale (risk barely worth considering, benefit not terrific but nowhere near zero), and using it to try to dismiss a case at the opposite end of the spectrum (risk extreme, value just about nil).

“Scripture alerts us specifically to the risks of strong drink and alcohol itself does zero good to the human body.”

Not sure about that statement. While I grant that there isn’t any benefit unique to alcohol, there are numerous studies about antioxidants and whatnot. I’m on my iPhone now so finding sources are a little difficult. But if alcohol does zero good to the human body, I doubt Paul would have recommended Timothy to take a little wine for his recurring stomach issues. In that passage to dance around “grape juice” and “sanitized water” would make very little sense. Of course you can get by with the “this is just Paul’s opinion like the thing in Corinthians about marriage” but IMO that’s stretching the bounds of interpretation and believability.

You can make the same second half of the argument for celery. Just sayin’.

The polyphenols that are credited with providing health benefits are found in the skin of the grape, so allowing grapes to ferment does not increase their effectiveness, and the waste (discarded skins, seeds, and stems) created when making wine is actually richer in polyphenols than the wine itself . The only health benefit of wine that I would consider legitimate is that it has some anti-bacterial properties. If you eat meat that is tainted, drinking a glass of wine afterwards kills e. coli and salmonella- hence Paul’s medical advice to Timothy- and it might be a good tip for those who are lined up at the All-You-Can-Eat-Buffet on Sunday afternoon.

I think we’re somewhat going about this the wrong way in this discussion. The issue here is not whether or not alcohol has health benefits, or even if its use is clearly endorsed or prohibited in the Bible, for that matter. I would be much more concerned about the commentary this makes on personal holiness and environments that are set on college campus to assist in cultivating sensitivity to it.

An institutional rule can be made without clear Biblical principle- say, who must live on campus, or who is able to park in a certain lot, or what events are compulsory to attend. This is not necessarily a principle to gauge or define the relative spirituality of student or staff, but instead is desirable for good order in the institutional community. I am much more concerned about the statement dropping the rule makes than the rule itself. College campuses and alcohol are not generally associated with moderation- and this includes faculty and staff in many cases. It would seem to me that surrendering the privilege to consume, whether or not it was by Biblical conviction, would be a relatively small thing in comparison with the opportunity to shape lives and create an atmosphere conducive towards consecration in this area. There are many things we “can” do, but surrender of the privilege still has benefit.

Aaron, your logical process involves a risk/benefit calculation:

Criticisms:
1. I have a problem with your choice of “unnecessary.”
- You use “unnecessary” in a way that suggests you think that “necessity” is the only “benefit” possible.
What about enjoyment? Do you not believe that God intended some things simply for our pleasure, and for the lessons that accompany it?
- Plus, what is truly necessary? I mean if we’re talking about what is truly necessary, very little would apply except those things we need to sustain life.

2. Even if you change your formula to Risk/(Enjoyability+Benefit+Necessity), it is not going to give objective results. It needs these if it is to be used to apply convictions to other [all] people.
Consider the motorcycle. Not necessary. Enjoyable [but how valuable is that?] Definitely risky.
So, for a Harley, perhaps 2 of enjoyability, 0 of necessity, and 5 of danger. 2.5 is the overall score. (for Greg L’s motor scooter, maybe give 1 unit of enjoyability and 10 units of danger).
And for a glass of wine with supper, 3 of enjoyability, 0 of necessity, 4 of health benefits, and 4 of danger: Overall score: 0.57
With this formula and these data, a low score is better, so the wine is less sinful than the Harley.

But wait! We have to debate the health benefits and the danger.

- Perhaps you don’t agree with my numbers. Oh, and you’ll find some presbyterians who don’t believe that it’s acceptable to vary the items for communion. For them, grape juice is not acceptable. Wine, at least on occasion, is necessary.

- But what are those numbers? There are no units. Just “4 of danger.” How would we even begin to challenge one another’s numbers?

My point is that you just can’t do a calculation and conclude that everyone should figure this out the way you have. That doesn’t mean that you’re wrong or that your thought process is invalid. But you can’t make claim of being absolutely right. Someone else might put more weight on the fact that wine is God’s gift, meant to be received with thanksgiving and to gladden the heart of man.

[Greg Linscott] I think we’re somewhat going about this the wrong way in this discussion. The issue here is not whether or not alcohol has health benefits, or even if its use is clearly endorsed or prohibited in the Bible, for that matter. I would be much more concerned about the commentary this makes on personal holiness and environments that are set on college campus to assist in cultivating sensitivity to it.

An institutional rule can be made without clear Biblical principle- say, who must live on campus, or who is able to park in a certain lot, or what events are compulsory to attend. This is not necessarily a principle to gauge or define the relative spirituality of student or staff, but instead is desirable for good order in the institutional community. I am much more concerned about the statement dropping the rule makes than the rule itself. College campuses and alcohol are not generally associated with moderation- and this includes faculty and staff in many cases. It would seem to me that surrendering the privilege to consume, whether or not it was by Biblical conviction, would be a relatively small thing in comparison with the opportunity to shape lives and create an atmosphere conducive towards consecration in this area. There are many things we “can” do, but surrender of the privilege still has benefit.

How do you think opportunity to shape lives is compromised here?
How does the removal of an external standard relate to personal holiness?

(I would think that personal holiness is quite independent of a rule placed on a person by someone else.)

This is an issue often looked at from the viewpoint of “what does the Bible say and allow.” It appears that the reality of life is minimized. Alcoholic beverages are a mind altering substance. They can be classified with drugs in that respect. The drinking of an alcoholic beverage starts the mind altering process from the first sip. From that point on it is merely a matter of degrees. When the Bible condemns drunkenness, what degree of mind alteration crosses the line to the drunk zone?

The reality is there are two classes of people with regard to drinking alcohol. Those who will drink and those who abstain. Those who take the first sip must take into consideration all the warnings of the Bible. These warnings appear to be against the effects and consequences of this mind altering substance. Therefore, if a Christian will sip a mind altering substance called alcohol, they lose the moral authority of example toward their own children and others for not being involved with the mind altering substances of alcohol, pot, or other drugs.

Social functioning reality, as observed in 4 years of military active duty and years in the business and professional realm, is that there are but two classes of people with regard to alcohol. The “Boozers” and the “non Boozers.” The Boozers range from the sophisticated wine at dinner and just a Cocktail at the reception, to the more moderate bar and social crowd, to the heavier more regular tipsters and on to the drunkard. The drunkards include many “functional drunkards” who practice law, medicine, are CEOs, are professors, some even at seminaries. Also, there are the occasional Pastors found in the number of the functional drunkards (even fundamentalists). Then there are the “dysfunctional drunkards” unable to hold a job, abuse their families, and often wind up on the street. It should also be noted that “Functional Drunkards” often abuse their families. All these are the of the one Boozer class.

The young, sophisticated, educated couple who have that occasional glass of Wine need to ask themselves; what are we doing? Why wine? Why not just a fruit of the vine still sweet or a nice glass of sparkling cider? They will need to admit the times they did get the “buzz on” and felt more socially loose. Then they need to ask if these “buzz on” times could be classified as “drunkenness” as it did involve a mind altering. There are no innocent Boozers. Their common thread is the beverage with alcohol verses the beverage that contains no alcohol. The common thread reason for choosing the one is the alcohol. I have talked with young Christian couples who felt the liberty to drink wine but then came to the reality of asking why and what effect and consequences it could have on them and their family? After facing the realities of why, abstinence became the true liberty for them.

We can go into long discourses on the Biblical truth and application. However, the reality goes beyond the intellectual arguments that are often involved in such discussion. The reality is that we live in a culture of drugs and alcohol that have devastating effects on millions. If you use a mind altering substance how do you tell your teenagers or students you teach to stay away from mind altering substances?

Prov. 20:1