Cornerstone Univ. Lifts 68 Year Ban on Staff Drinking

[Dan Miller]

[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?

I have seen it worded in such a way on the internet, if not exactly so in this particular discussion. If not explicitly stated here, that does often seem to be the implication when any kind of prohibition is enacted and that verse is used to counter.

Parents don’t forsake driving so that their 13 year-olds are reminded that they shouldn’t drive.

No- but they do (or should) deprive themselves of things for the benefit of their children- money, time, and other resources they could devote elsewhere, but do not.

No.

Then why cite “biblically indefensible” as the reasoning for altering the rule?

[Susan R]

[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…

I don’t think the rule in most places would be JUST about objectionable content. Some of it is reducing dorm distractions, I would imagine. Still, I also imagine that many campuses filter out “tv on a computer…” (Hulu, YouTube, etc)… at least the Fundamentalist-type schools.

I have a dim view of the idea that there is a need to babysit the young men and women who are old enough to attend college/university. By the time people have reached college/university level, I think they should be treated as adults in every respect. Low expectations and condescension never inspired anyone. If there are students are so immature as to not be able to behave in a moral/ethical manner, they will exhibit this fairly quickly, and they can be dealt with or removed.

BTW, if it were legal, I’d let my 13 year old drive. He doesn’t drive because of the law, not because he isn’t capable and mature enough to handle the responsibility.

We as a society have extended adolescence beyond the boundaries of sense and reason, and Christians are joining the movement to infantilize young people ad infinitum ad nauseum. I think Scripture gives abundant examples of very young people quite capable of accepting and excelling through incredible challenges. Our objective should be to follow these principles instead of the wrong-headed notions our culture has accepted as normal. Perhaps then our school and college handbooks could be about two paragraphs long instead of 50 pages.

I have a dim view of the idea that there is a need to babysit the young men and women who are old enough to attend college/university. By the time people have reached college/university level, I think they should be treated as adults in every respect. Low expectations and condescension never inspired anyone. If there are students are so immature as to not be able to behave in a moral/ethical manner, they will exhibit this fairly quickly, and they can be dealt with or removed.

That’s all well and good, but it simply isn’t realistic. Everyone isn’t built or trained the same, and what you term as “babysitting” reveals a bias, something that could be better described as a “disciplined” environment. Young people are still just that- young- and instilling discipline is something that should be seen as beneficial to a truly mature adult of any age. Is the military “babysitting” because they require things like grooming standards, uniforms, and polished boots and shoes? In some ways, I would compare an alcohol rule (or gambling, media regulation, etc), or more positive requirements (say, compulsory chapel attendance or dorm devotions) as similar kind of conditioning. The activities don’t in and of themselves assure inner change, but they do remove or diminish obstacles that make that change more challenging.

[Greg Linscott]

I have a dim view of the idea that there is a need to babysit the young men and women who are old enough to attend college/university. By the time people have reached college/university level, I think they should be treated as adults in every respect. Low expectations and condescension never inspired anyone. If there are students are so immature as to not be able to behave in a moral/ethical manner, they will exhibit this fairly quickly, and they can be dealt with or removed.

That’s all well and good, but it simply isn’t realistic. Everyone isn’t built or trained the same, and what you term as “babysitting” reveals a bias, something that could be better described as a “disciplined” environment. Young people are still just that- young- and instilling discipline is something that should be seen as beneficial to a truly mature adult of any age. Is the military “babysitting” because they require things like grooming standards, uniforms, and polished boots and shoes? In some ways, I would compare an alcohol rule (or gambling, media regulation, etc), or more positive requirements (say, compulsory chapel attendance or dorm devotions) as similar kind of conditioning. The activities don’t in and of themselves assure inner change, but they do remove or diminish obstacles that make that change more challenging.

The military is a completely different atmosphere because of its purpose. The reason my post doesn’t seem realistic is because Christians have allowed society to dictate to us how to raise our children. There was no such thing as adolescence and youth culture 150 years ago. Colleges feel the need to employ strict behavior modification because parents have not managed in 18 years to reach the hearts of their children with the fear of the Lord, nor have they instilled them with enough character to withstand the most basic of temptations. They can’t even keep their rooms clean for Pete’s sake.

So because it is ‘unrealistic’ for us to apply Biblical principles of child-rearing, and the expectation now is that a person will hopefully reach mature adulthood by the time they are 30, colleges will felt compelled to continue to wipe the chins of those who attend.

I’m curious how you would envision the purposes to be different.

It’s a completely different mindset and culture. If you suggested to someone in the military that their lifestyle and purpose was no different than a civilian attending Bible college, there wouldn’t be enough left of you to scrape off the sidewalk with a spatula. ;)

[Susan R] It’s a completely different mindset and culture. If you suggested to someone in the military that their lifestyle and purpose was no different than a civilian attending Bible college, there wouldn’t be enough left of you to scrape off the sidewalk with a spatula. ;)

That doesn’t even come close to answering the question, as cute as it might be. Members of the military are not, per your humorous stereotype, in a constant state of barely -restrained rage just waiting to be unleashed on the first person who jostles the chip precariously perched on their shoulders. And I am not speaking from someone completely on the outside, either- I was born in a Naval hospital and grew up on US Naval bases. The “mindset and culture” may be different to some degree, but that degree is discipline and respect for authority in key areas.

A “civilian attending Bible College” is also supposed to be different in key areas from the “mindset and culture” that surrounds him. The differences are not the same as the military, but we are not told in Scripture to endure hardness as a “good soldier of Jesus Christ” because of the dissimilarities. A college that attempts a degree of conditioning and implementation of restraint is not necessarily treating its students like children, nor are parents necessarily deficient in their training to that point. Rules in institutions designed to help reinforce that distinction
are not necessarily a bad thing, in my assessment.

Wondering if Greg has been in the military? If so, you must know that the philosophy and science behind military protocol and the inculcation of its members is quite removed from the objectives of theological academic institutions. While one might observe the employment of certain universal realities in both bodies they are anecdotal and any rigorous comparison would and does reveal two very different “genomes”.

Now one can attempt to impose a militaristic philosophical science onto and into the rules and regulations of an adult theological academic institution (particularly one with spiritual intent) however when you do just be assured you have opted for a design that does not stem from biblical comprehension rather from a militaristic comprehension and your end product will lose some of its premium in this context.

Liberties are not granted by God with the ignorance of the Holy Trinity failing to imagine that we, in being given these liberties, will always use them appropriately. And this is the argument many make. Something bad might happen, someone might misuse it therefore it must be denied.

Simply because they may not be used properly once or often does not undo the counsel of God and render by default for all, due to the misuse by one or many, such liberties rather it speaks to us about our sin, God’s redemption and our need to mature and use the gifts God has given and operate both within the limits and liberties God has granted. While pragmatism is a valid device it cannot supersede God’s wisdom in granting liberties or issuing limits.

The difference is that the training and discipline one receives in the military is to prepare the soldier for physical combat situations. ‘The weapons of our warfare are not carnal’, and while rules that govern conduct directly related to the function of an institution are necessary, rules that govern behavior in one’s private life that is not necessarily sinful (watching tv, listening to music, and as per this discussion, drinking in moderation) is something I can’t wrap my mind around. Obvious sin should always be addressed, be it regarding moral, ethical, or legal issues. But a rule that states that while there is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol, only the staff will be allowed to do so is in my opinion treating the legal adults in that institution in a condescending manner not befitting their situation.

Members of the military are not, per your humorous stereotype, in a constant state of barely -restrained rage just waiting to be unleashed on the first person who jostles the chip precariously perched on their shoulders.

This is a mischaracterization of my comment, which was in no way intended to be received in the way that you chose to interpret it.

I’m going to have to run in a sec- heading up to seminary classes.

I do understand the differences, Alex. I am just arguing that conditioning of habits is not inconsistent with academic instruction.

Susan- For now, I will just observe that chaplains, corpsman and clerks are instructed in the same rules of decorum that the infantry are.Military oOrder serves beneficial purposes in peacetime as well as in combat, and shapes the man post-enlistment, too.

“Colleges feel the need to employ strict behavior modification because parents have not managed in 18 years to reach the hearts of their children with the fear of the Lord, nor have they instilled them with enough character to withstand the most basic of temptations.”

But colleges feel the pressure to do this because of the pressure that the older generation of alumni and supporting churches put on these institutions. One of the best decisions that Cornerstone made in the past 20 years was its changes to its lifestyle statement. After they got rid of the movie rule at Cornerstone, their student development spent much of its energy helping students in their spiritual formation develop Biblical discernment with their entertainment choices (which they continue today). Even though it has been a positive move, the older alumni and supporting churches didn’t see it that way. In their view, Cornerstone was on its path to spiritual compromise and embracing worldliness. The whole process of teaching Biblical discernment that Cornerstone was doing with these issues in the minds of some of these fundamentalists was pointless and fruitless. In 1997, Cornerstone and the GARBC quietly severed their relationship for the sake of unity so that the school would not be such as lightning rod issue (there were other ecclesiastical separation issues as well) among the GARBC (especially among churches that were outside of Michigan that had no relationship with Cornerstone). Ironically, the spiritual climate was in much better shape after these rule changes than in the 1980’s when it was a GARBC approved agency. Eventually, Cornerstone began getting more students that had been spiritually trained by their parents, rather than (as Susan stated) students whose “parents had not managed in 18 years to reach the hearts of their children with the fear of the Lord, nor had they instilled them with enough character to withsand the most basic of temptations.” (Maybe most of the spiritually mature students in the GARBC were going to other institutions like Faith, BBC or Cedarville) Now Cornerstone has doubled in size since all of this took place because as the numbers of fundamentalist of students shrunk within the GARBC which all of these other schools were competing for, they were able to recruit from a much larger group among the conservative evangelicals…….

By the way, I’m sure there are ways to teach Biblical discernment at an educational institution without getting rid of some of the rules. I am only providing info about Cornerstone as a Case Study. And of course as I mentioned before, there have been cases of abuse when it comes to these issues of Christian liberty….so not everything is rosy at Cornerstone (However, I happen to believe it is better for the changes it made). I will be very interested to know if in 5-10 years Cornerstone makes the change to allow students that are 21 the allowance to drink in moderation……….

[Greg Linscott] I’m going to have to run in a sec- heading up to seminary classes.

I do understand the differences, Alex. I am just arguing that conditioning of habits is not inconsistent with academic instruction.

You proposal is reasonable I suspect the differences lie in the degree of its prescription.

Joel- great post. I think a common misconception is that not having a specific rule is interpreted as approval of that behavior. If a college has a rule about going to the theatre, even though attending is not itself a sin, I think it is essential to have a substantial reason as to why certain ‘not sinful’ activities are regulated (in this case, moderate drinking) while others (hot dog eating contests) are not. I think sometimes these kinds of institutional rules hinder the natural sharpening that takes place when more spiritually discerning and mature students and staff are able to mentor and influence the less discerning.

The pressures and political machinations of groups and ‘leaders’ on fellow Christians that are trying to find ways to effectively minister is completely repugnant to me. If they weren’t doing anything immoral, illegal, or unethical, then they should be lending support instead of engaging in passive-aggressive bullying.

BTW, I personally believe in abstention, but for this aspect of the discussion I’m assuming that moderate drinking is Scriptural.

[Greg Linscott]

No.

Then why cite “biblically indefensible” as the reasoning for altering the rule?

I don’t know. I didn’t say that. And we don’t really have the context in which it was said, so it’s tough to criticize.

Maybe most of us could agree on a few things:

The idea that a Christian University MUST have such a rule for its faculty:
That’s biblically indefensible.

The idea that a Christian Univ. will see such a rule as wise and has the right to place it on its faculty:
That’s biblically defensible.

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

A difference in philosophy as far status quo has been mentioned as well.
I don’t see any need to keep a rule just because it has been the rule in years past.