Cornerstone Univ. Lifts 68 Year Ban on Staff Drinking

Bob,

You and I have often disagreed on many issures. But on this issue, we are in total agreement. I have never had the privilege of serving in the military. But I have worked in many industies (both blue collar and white collar) and I have family members that fit well in your categories of those who drink. My dad was the epitome of a functional drunk (but by God’s grace he never abused anyone).

Someone earlier spoke of the LCMC. I have alot of contact with that group because two of my children go to a LCMC school and my wife teaches there. I have yet to meet anyone who socially drinks and I have yet to meet ANYONE who never gets drunk. IMO, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to consume alchohol and NEVER violate the “be not drunk with wine.” Yet, I do have christian friends that do in my presense and we get along fine, we just disagree.

[Dan Miller] How do you think opportunity to shape lives is compromised here?

The change in the atmosphere on campus. Previously, the environment was not one friendly toward alcohol use in its modern forms. The atmosphere is now different, and students are not conditioned to the same degree as they once were about the dangers of alcohol use. I am arguing that conditioning was not a bad thing.

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.)

Standards are often used (and effectively so) in conditioning to desired behavior. Being trained to give a military salute, for example, does not in itself result in respect for superior officers. However, it is a practice conducive to an atmosphere that encourages it.

Personal holiness is often connected with external actions (or avoidance) in Scripture. Fleeing fornication does not mean one will never experience temptation to lust, but it certainly reduces the opportunity for temptation and sin.

Alcohol use (or lack thereof) or any other external is not in itself the key to personal holiness. That being said, what we choose to do and not to do is not irrelevant to the matter- and neither are the choices imposed upon us by outside authorities. Being raised in a home where expressions of anger have little restraint placed upon them will affect a person, as would being raised in a home where there was clear discouragement and even consequences for such expression.

[rogercarlson] Bob,

You and I have often disagreed on many issues. But on this issue, we are in total agreement.

I usually stay out of this discussion because it disturbs me too much. I too agree with Bob. My stepfather was an alcoholic and I saw first hand what a tyrant master it became in his life. He kept our family broke and hurting for many years before he went to bed drunk with a cigarette. It was a closed casket funeral.
Amazingly, I began drinking too and became a teenage alcoholic. Only by God’s grace did getting beat half to death in jail help me to turn to the Lord and be delivered.
No one knows when they step into the world of recreational use of alcohol whether it will trap them or not.

MIke,
You are right. It was only God’s common grace that my dad wasn’t like yours. The only summer that I drank was awful. I drank alot several times and it is only God’s grace that kept me from being a non functional drunk. I think Mike Harding’s paper/message on this is probably the best treatment of the topic. I don’t have a link but I believe it is on his church’s website. I have a copy of the notes when he presented it in Rockford, IL a few years ago. Pastor Harding if you are lurking maybe you could provide the link?

“I have yet to meet anyone who socially drinks and I have yet to meet ANYONE who never gets drunk.”

Roger, are you really serious? I know lots and lots of people (both Christians and Non-Christians) that fit that description. And I’m from the inner-city where I see drunkenness and the consequences of it all around me as well. In fact, I know very godly people who drink socially and have never gotten drunk……Regardless of one’s position (I respect both the abstainance and the moderation positions if they have developed a comprehensive Biblical argument), I am assuming that you are not claiming this as one of your main reasons for advocating abstainance because it could be that you have been isolated from this reality of life (that there are lots of people who are not affected by the destructive influences of alcohol as well and see it as Dan says, a gift to be enjoyed-to the Glory of God), even though you have been exposed to some of the depravity that can go along with alcohol.

It’s been my experience that decisions like this are not made without some kind of encouragement. I believe that an earlier poster implied that some faculty/staff may have been already drinking so the rule may have been meaningless. If that was the case, it may have been better to change the rule than enforce it and lose personnel.

That being said, I wonder what advantages this rule change will provide to the school. Will they be able to recruit better personnel? Will their tolerance be hailed by outsiders as an asset? In organizations, decisions like this are made for practical reasons and with the goal of visible results.

Joel,

I am serious. I know many social drinkers many who are godly. BUT i have yet to see any that have NEVER been drunk. To me, a violation of the drukennes prohibition one time in a year is a problem. I am sure there are those who never get drunk. I now many lost social drinkers who do not get drunk. But I have yet to meet a believer (whom I have talked to on the subject) that has never gotten drunk at least a few times a year. I respect those who don’t hold my abstinance view. In fact, I have been out to dinner with them and been in their homes when they drink. I am not scared to be around it, but I just don’t see the value in drinking. I am not going to break personal fellowship per se. But our church has a abstinance policy in place. So leaders in our church have to refrain.

I don’t have that article on my website, but I will put it on ASAP. It is quite lengthy. For what its worth, I want to thank Bob T. for the profound story regarding George Ladd. Here we have a well-known theologian who decried legalism falling into the sin of drunkeness and then passing that sin on to his son. No drunkard will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Isn’t it ironic that a man who spent the better portion of his life writing about the Kingdom (incorrectly I might add) does not enter into it on account of his slavery to alcohol? I say that with a great deal of sadness. To the seven churches of Asia Minor Christ and the Spirit repeatedly warn the churches regarding their “deeds” and the absolutley necessity to be “overcomers”. In this case, if thy hand offend thee, cut it off. Now there’s a form of abstinence.

[Mike Harding] In this case, if thy hand offend thee, cut it off. Now there’s a form of abstinence.

That is oft quote in my wife’s family. I think her Dad started it. Every time anyone has an issue, like a headache or stub a toe, someone always says, you know what Jesus said, ‘if thy ___ offend thee, cut it off’.

[Dan Miller]
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.
…
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.

Couple things… I don’t think that getting really technical about “necessary” is—er, necessary, or really changes the outcome. If something is very enjoyable, yet carries a high risk of serious harm, the wisdom of doing it is still very questionable… even more questionable than when some needfulness exists. So adding enjoyment to the mix doesn’t really help get modern alcohol consumption out of its place deep in “unwise” territory.

As for “God’s gift meant to be received,” let me put this out for reflection: since the Scriptures that describe wine in this way were written at a time when beverage grape juice and alcohol were inseparable (to varying degrees), should we assume that these passages are speaking only of juice that includes alcohol? To put it another way, “wine” and “grape juice” were the same thing in the context in which these passages were written. So to say “wine is a gift from God to be enjoyed” is also to say “grape juice is a gift from God to be enjoyed.” At the time, they were basically the same thing. Consequently, it’s quite debatable whether the “endorsement” applies to today’s “wine” rather than today’s “grape juice,” since we are now quite capable of making these beverages without alcohol.
To put it another way, do these passages (I’m assuming they exist, though I don’t recall any at the moment) refer to juice+alcohol or to juice that happened to include alcohol because that was unavoidable? Given the warnings elsewhere, I have to think that wisdom again points to sans alcohol since today it is, as I’ve already argued, completely unnecessary.
By “necessary” I mean “unavoidable.” …and I’ve already made my case elsewhere that the usefulness of the alcohol itself (for anything good) is barely measurable.

Sacrificing some taste is an extremely small price to pay to take the warnings of Scripture seriously.
Can I claim to be “absolutely right”? Well, I’ll claim to be absolutely convinced, how about that? :D If folks will keep considering and reflecting on the arguments as several seem to be doing, I’m happy with that.

How about an analogy. These are always faulty in some ways, but here goes.
Most pastors nowadays are advised to never counsel a woman alone. Risks to reputation and of emotional and maybe moral compromises are just too high. Usually some variation of risk-benefit enters into the case people make for this policy. Yet consider the benefits that might be sacrificed: ability to help someone quickly rather than schedule a meeting at another time with one of the women, ability to help in marital situations where you’ve already been working with the husband for some time, possibly ability to offer the best counsel (if you don’t have a woman who is as skilled in this work). One could argue that these benefits are marginal. But they are greater than the benefits of a “better” tasting grape beverage compared to a non-alcoholic one. Yet most don’t blink at making that sacrifice as a matter of counseling policy.

But somehow it’s a great thing to give up a little flavor to avoid a situation that is equally dangerous (especially as a matter of policy)? No, there must be more to it.
I suspect that there is another dimension to the sacrifice involved: it’s just so old-school fundamentalist to be a total abstainer. So out of fashion. So uneducated-hickish. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-think004.gif So like the mindless knee-jerk brand of cultural fundamentalism we want to distance ourselves from. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-char151.gif Maybe that’s why the sacrifice seems to large?
But I think there’s another, more admirable dimension too, for many. I know that to many, rejecting beverage alcohol completely as unwise appears to involve sloppy handling of Scripture or is associated with alot of sloppy handling of Scripture and they want to take a more rigorous approach to applying biblical principle to cultural questions. So accepting total abst. feels like a sacrifice of important hermeneutical principle. I applaud that attitude. I really do. I just think the outworking of it is mistaken in this case.
[size=9] Edit: added smileys. Couldn’t resist.[/size]

But I think there’s another, more admirable dimension too, for many. I know that to many, rejecting beverage alcohol completely as unwise appears to involve sloppy handling of Scripture or is associated with alot of sloppy handling of Scripture and they want to take a more rigorous approach to applying biblical principle to cultural questions. So accepting total abst. feels like a sacrifice of important hermeneutical principle. I applaud that attitude. I really do. I just think the outworking of it is mistaken in this case.

Aaron,

It is to this point that I direct to Mike Harding’s treatment of the issue. He deals honestly with the text (he doesn’t say wine always = grape juice). But he also gives an excellent case for abstinence too.

---

Edit: Link to Mike’s article http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-what-does-scripture-say-about-use-o…
At least I think this is the one. -Aaron B.

[Greg Linscott]

[Dan Miller] How do you think opportunity to shape lives is compromised here?

The change in the atmosphere on campus. Previously, the environment was not one friendly toward alcohol use in its modern forms. The atmosphere is now different, and students are not conditioned to the same degree as they once were about the dangers of alcohol use. I am arguing that conditioning was not a bad thing.

Ok, so the question is, How much should be done in this area to lock alcohol away from them and thus honor its dangers? I think that’s a tough question in this case, given the danger.

The level of avoidance that Scripture prescribes is to allow alcohol, enjoy alcohol, but to give many and various warnings about it.

That being said, things are different now than in Biblical times. Alcohol is available in higher concentration and other beverage sources are more readily available. So I can understand how someone would come to the conviction that total abstinence is wiser than the Scriptural model.

[Greg Linscott]

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.)

Standards are often used (and effectively so) in conditioning to desired behavior. Being trained to give a military salute, for example, does not in itself result in respect for superior officers. However, it is a practice conducive to an atmosphere that encourages it.

I think that the line of thinking you’re displaying here is reasonable for the total abstention conviction.
A salute is a sign of respect. Just a sign. In a culture that expects respect=salute, like the military, it is expected and wrong to leave undone.

I think that there is a difference between demands on adults (faculty) and those whom the school is training.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Aaron,
Re: wine, grape juice… Probably best to refer to previous discussions.
My understanding is that drinking grape juice would have been like eating bread dough. Sure, you can do it, but better to wait till it’s done. And you’re only going to get it one season of the year.

I certainly respect your reasoning and conviction. (I emphasize that any Biblically derived conviction must be met with respect from those who don’t share it.)

I don’t think it’s appropriate to cavalierly discard God’s gifts. But I would NOT argue that if something is a gift of God, it must be used by everyone.

Let’s take two Minnesota MBA (Minnesota Baptist Association) churches

Case # 1: One has this in the covenant

To abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage …

Case # 2: The other has this

… to avoid all addictive behaviors and other such activities which dishonor the Lord Jesus Christ …

One church is a new church plant …. the other is over 30 years old (not identifying which is which!).

Both churches are fundamentalist churches. Both agree with the MBA doctrinal position. The one is not encouraging drinking …. nor is the other. I would suppose that the Pastors of both preach again drunkenness and the perils of drinking. But one takes a little different approach than the other. Has case # 2 compromised? I don’t think so!

I think that there is a difference between demands on adults (faculty) and those whom the school is training.

There is a difference, sure. The difference I would see is with the students, the regulation is because a lesson is intended to be taught to them. For the faculty, they are voluntarily depriving themselves in order that that lesson might be more clear, and that the students might be reminded that life without alcohol can nevertheless be a satisfying one. No one forces them to be employed at the institution.

[Aaron Blumer]
…and they want to take a more rigorous approach to applying biblical principle to cultural questions.

This is it exactly. I’d probably still like to explore your argument with respect to applying biblical principle to cultural questions, but that rabbit trail has probably gone a little too far afield of the question of Cornerstone’s change in policy.

So accepting total abst. feels like a sacrifice of important hermeneutical principle.

Not so much (at least not to me). It just matters to me on what grounds. If the grounds someone gives me for abstinence are based on their view that “not avoiding anything that is unnecessary and potentially harmful is sinful,” then I will have to (respectfully) disagree with their reasoning, even if I respect their stance. If they are demanding prohibition rather than abstinence, and base their stance on their reading of scripture, they are going to have to be that much more rigorous in their argument, and at this point, I’m not sure even then that they would be convincing.

Regarding Cornerstone’s stance on the issue, to me it would have been adequate for them to say they have an institutional policy of “no alcohol for students or faculty,” as long as they are are not basing that on “God said so.”