Cornerstone Univ. Lifts 68 Year Ban on Staff Drinking

After receiving a severe burn from touching high voltage contacts the man was asked; “didn’t you see the sign?” He replied; “what sign? Nothing said don’t touch. A sign only said Danger High Voltage.”

Aaron, what is the point of the verse about wine gladdening the heart of man if it is talking about grape juice?

[Greg Long] Aaron, what is the point of the verse about wine gladdening the heart of man if it is talking about grape juice?

I’ve been asked this before… and it’s even easier to understand if you’ve walked around in Israel much. Hot, dry climate. Nothing like a cool, refreshing beverage. Along with the moisture, there’s a good bit of fructose. My point is that in the right conditions, any ol’ fruit juice gladdens the heart and is a great gift from God. Grape juice gladdens my heart not infrequently even w/o the hot dry climate (it’s especially nice—even at room temperature—when you have a bad cold, though I have to admit my recent bout with the flu made me wish it had some medicinal alcohol in it. Would surely taste better than Nyquil!) That said, if someone would supply the reference, I’d like to check my interp against the context and maybe look at the Hebrew for “gladden” and some other passages where the expression is used. But I seem to vaguely recall the “gladden the heart” idea being applied to a number of life’s small pleasures.

About Mike Harding’s article that has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread. I believe we have it posted in another thread here: http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-what-does-scripture-say-about-use-o…

Just generally… want to thank everybody for keeping the discussion interesting and not quarrelsome.

[Psalm 104:14-15] He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
And vegetation for the service of man,
That he may bring forth food from the earth,

And wine that makes glad the heart of man,
Oil to make his face shine,
And bread which strengthens man’s heart.

Those of you arguing that this passage is the basis for obligation to enjoy God’s gift of alcohol- must we also enjoy gardening to the same degree? Is consumption of grain-fed cattle a perversion of God’s good gift? (vs. 14 ( http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Psa&chapter=104&verse=14] NET )- “He provides grass for the cattle, and crops for people to cultivate”)? Is someone who goes on a low-carb diet and thus avoiding bread scorning Divinely-ordained consumption of bread? Do you make it a point to daily apply oil your face?

Just wondering. :)

[Greg Linscott]

[Psalm 104:14-15] He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
And vegetation for the service of man,
That he may bring forth food from the earth,

And wine that makes glad the heart of man,
Oil to make his face shine,
And bread which strengthens man’s heart.

Those of you arguing that this passage is the basis for obligation to enjoy God’s gift of alcohol- must we also enjoy gardening to the same degree? Is consumption of grain-fed cattle a perversion of God’s good gift? (vs. 14 ( http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Psa&chapter=104&verse=14] NET )- “He provides grass for the cattle, and crops for people to cultivate”)? Is someone who goes on a low-carb diet and thus avoiding bread scorning Divinely-ordained consumption of bread? Do you make it a point to daily apply oil your face?

Just wondering. :)

I’m not sure of too many people who are arguing it is an obligation, Greg. They are arguing against the prohibition of wine.

Because it is a divine gift? There are all kinds of things prohibited in Scripture in certain circumstances that are not in themselves sinful, including alcohol consumption- the Nazarite vow, for example. Are we arguing that any prohibition or regulation of something God has given relegating it to sinful status? In the case of Cornerstone, I don’t think that reasoning behind prohibition of alcohol for the faculty/staff must needs be supported by an understanding that makes the behavior considered universally sinful.

It is interesting to see how many of you continue to argue the big issue of alcohol use (which has been discussed ad infinitum at SI since it began), rather than focus on the story at hand. Does something need to be “Biblically defensible” in order to have an institutional rule?

[Greg Linscott]
It is interesting to see how many of you continue to argue the big issue of alcohol use (which has been discussed ad infinitum at SI since it began), rather than focus on the story at hand. Does something need to be “Biblically defensible” in order to have an institutional rule?

Well, I was attempting to stick to that aspect of it, but I got carried away on a different rabbit trail myself! :)

In my first post, I said (or tried to say) that I didn’t believe an institutional rule or policy would be biblically indefensible as long as it didn’t base the rule or policy on something supposedly from scripture that scripture really didn’t say or support. Since I wrote that post, there has been info posted showing what Cornerstone’s previous text was on that policy. Assuming that document accurately represents Cornerstone’s previous position, it does raise a lot of questions on why they now found the rule to be “biblically indefensible.” It almost sounds as if Cornerstone does not believe they should have any institutional rules or policies not directly supported by the Bible, but that would most likely be inconsistent with a number of the rules in the rulebook which are simply functional. I’m really curious to hear the reasoning behind their statement, but I suppose that’s not going to happen…

[Greg Linscott] Because it is a divine gift? There are all kinds of things prohibited in Scripture in certain circumstances that are not in themselves sinful, including alcohol consumption- the Nazarite vow, for example. Are we arguing that any prohibition or regulation of something God has given relegating it to sinful status? In the case of Cornerstone, I don’t think that reasoning behind prohibition of alcohol for the faculty/staff must needs be supported by an understanding that makes the behavior considered universally sinful.

It is interesting to see how many of you continue to argue the big issue of alcohol use (which has been discussed ad infinitum at SI since it began), rather than focus on the story at hand. Does something need to be “Biblically defensible” in order to have an institutional rule?

I was arguing from the perspective of prohibitionism in general, not necessarily at an educational institution. Colleges have every right to ban alcohol consumption for both student and faculty. There are many good reasons for doing so.

Sorry for following the rabbit trail. Back to the OP…

In the past threads we’ve had at SI about institutional rules, I’ve been of the mind that institutions should have rules that relate directly to their function or have serious moral/ethical/legal implications for staff and students… but if there is nothing wrong with moderate drinking, why would there be a rule at all? If it’s just the same as eating hot dogs, then they either 1) need to have rules about eating too many hot dogs 2) don’t need rules about moderate alcohol consumption.

I am not, however, enamored of the idea of having two different sets of rules for students and faculty. The obvious exception would be rules that govern dormitory life, such as a curfew/lights out, but that is still a policy directly related to the operation of the campus, and not one’s private life off campus. I doubt anyone would condone a curfew/lights out policy for off-campus students, even if getting a good night’s sleep would be beneficial to the students and staff.

[quote G.Linscott] It is interesting to see how many of you continue to argue the big issue of alcohol use (which has been discussed ad infinitum at SI since it began), rather than focus on the story at hand. Does something need to be “Biblically defensible” in order to have an institutional rule?
I think the reason it keeps going back to the general principles is that this is where the real dispute is. That is, there are not many who would say that an institution has to have chapter and verse in order to have a rule (though there are a few who insist on that pretty emphatically). And even though Cornerstone says “biblically indefensible” in reference to a policy, I suspect what it’s really about is whether Scripture allows beverage alcohol. Have to speculate on that at the moment, but I suspect the chain is something like “Scripture grants liberty here and we’re wrong to restrict what Scripture allows…. that’s [shudders of revulsion] legalism!” The problems with this reasoning are easy for many of us to see, but it’s still a very, very common attitude in evangelicalism generally. Were I a wagerin’ man, I’d bet on some variation of that being the thought process.
Students there are, no doubt, already complaining that they are not permitted the same set of options. I do think it’s quite possible to permit activity A for staff and not students, but painting the motive for change as a “biblical” matter frames that in a way that is more difficult. A different thought process from “we’re avoiding legalism” is needed to make allowances for staff and not for students (I wonder what students who are also staff may do? But I’m sure they’ve already got that figured for other privileges that are granted to one and not the other).

Anyway, I do think the theology regarding beverage alcohol in general is much intertwined with the question of institutional policy.
Yes, we’ve discussed it a zillion times here, but it’s never exactly the same twice. ;) I’ve actually kind of enjoyed this particular go-round… and I don’t usually find the topic pleasant. (Edit: if this keeps up I might start liking threads on the translation issue!)

[Susan R] In the past threads we’ve had at SI about institutional rules, I’ve been of the mind that institutions should have rules that relate directly to their function or have serious moral/ethical/legal implications for staff and students… but if there is nothing wrong with moderate drinking, why would there be a rule at all? If it’s just the same as eating hot dogs, then they either 1) need to have rules about eating too many hot dogs 2) don’t need rules about moderate alcohol consumption.

I am not, however, enamored of the idea of having two different sets of rules for students and faculty. The obvious exception would be rules that govern dormitory life, such as a curfew/lights out, but that is still a policy directly related to the operation of the campus, and not one’s private life off campus. I doubt anyone would condone a curfew/lights out policy for off-campus students, even if getting a good night’s sleep would be beneficial to the students and staff.

Susan,

What about media exposure? Televisions have been commonly not permitted in dorms, but I know of no institution that forbids a faculty member or off-campus student from owning one.

[Greg Linscott] What about media exposure? Televisions have been commonly not permitted in dorms, but I know of no institution that forbids a faculty member or off-campus student from owning one.

I said that curfew/lights out is an obvious exception, but not the only exception. But not having televisions in dorm rooms does not prevent students from watching television at the homes of staff and other students… so I personally don’t get the point of that rule. And nowadays you can watch tv on a computer…

[Greg Linscott]…Those of you arguing that this passage is the basis for obligation to enjoy God’s gift of alcohol…

[dan miller, Post 64] 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.

Hey, Greg, I just wanted to point out that I was not one of “those.” Was anyone really arguing that?

[Greg Linscott]… 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.

Sure. And that might indeed have the effect you indicate. But we routinely make different rules for the mature and the immature - or less mature. And often we do so when there is danger associated with the activity. Parents don’t forsake driving so that their 13 year-olds are reminded that they shouldn’t drive.

[Greg Linscott]…It is interesting to see how many of you continue to argue the big issue of alcohol use (which has been discussed ad infinitum at SI since it began), rather than focus on the story at hand. Does something need to be “Biblically defensible” in order to have an institutional rule?

No.