Cornerstone Univ. Lifts 68 Year Ban on Staff Drinking
“…a three-year internal study concluded it is ‘biblically indefensible.’” More at MLIVE
(Students are still not permitted to drink alcohol)
- 50 views
“But discernment, as it is portrayed in Scripture, is about judging right from wrong, good from bad; it is about determining what is best, rather than an attempt at deciding what is allowable or permissible.”
And I have witnessed Cornerstone doing a commendable job teaching this to their students, even as they have gotten rid of some of these rules during the past 20 years.
And I have witnessed Cornerstone doing a commendable job teaching this to their students, even as they have gotten rid of some of these rules during the past 20 years.
You’re right about discernment being the ability to judge right from wrong is true.
But I fear that our propensity to legislate so many things causes a sense among those we want to train that discernment is a fait accompli. The message is, “We did discernment and here are the results.”
I’ll add:
Discernment, as it is portrayed in Scripture, is about each person judging right from wrong, rather than people living according to the judgments of other people.
But I fear that our propensity to legislate so many things causes a sense among those we want to train that discernment is a fait accompli. The message is, “We did discernment and here are the results.”
I’ll add:
Discernment, as it is portrayed in Scripture, is about each person judging right from wrong, rather than people living according to the judgments of other people.
They need to make this change complete. Now that students can go to bars and shake their bodies around dancing and the faculty can meet the students there and booz it up, they need a name change.
They should change their name to “Rollingstone University.”
They should also have a required class titled: “Bible loopholes for you to live by.” The hermeneutics of limited application and rationalization. No second and third premises for conlusions allowed.
Send their Poker team to all the big tournaments.
Of course this would be all in the name of teaching discernment and cultural integration for evangelism. The poker team could wear their T shirts with the theme ” Divine Providence not Luck.”
They should change their name to “Rollingstone University.”
They should also have a required class titled: “Bible loopholes for you to live by.” The hermeneutics of limited application and rationalization. No second and third premises for conlusions allowed.
Send their Poker team to all the big tournaments.
Of course this would be all in the name of teaching discernment and cultural integration for evangelism. The poker team could wear their T shirts with the theme ” Divine Providence not Luck.”
Bob,
That was Funny! :bigsmile: Even if I think you are off base with your assessment. ;)
That was Funny! :bigsmile: Even if I think you are off base with your assessment. ;)
[Dan Miller] You’re right about discernment being the ability to judge right from wrong is true.
But I fear that our propensity to legislate so many things causes a sense among those we want to train that discernment is a fait accompli. The message is, “We did discernment and here are the results.”
I’ll add:
Discernment, as it is portrayed in Scripture, is about each person judging right from wrong, rather than people living according to the judgments of other people.
I think you have a point. I have seen this happen. I believe the solution though is not always to regulate less but rather to teach more, because there is no inherent conflict. That is, when someone in authority has “discerned for you,” in the form of policy, you still get to discern all over again in regards to what you believe. Though we have no real choice about what we do in these situations, we have plenty of freedom to discern which is a separate activity.
Been trying to raise my kids this way. Gradually encouraging them to think about things, regardless of whether they have any actual choices to make yet (give family rules).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
If a Christian institution, based on institutional discernment for others without the claim of its necessary prescription personally, does in fact draw lines regarding matters of liberty then it is a valid principle for such a practice. The hope is this would not be the only or singular principle considered as to whether or not to prohibit or allow certain practices that fall outside the range of dogma but it is a strongly meritorious one in itself.
The problem it appears is that many Christian institutions, while invoking this reasonable privilege and duty do one of two things:
1. They further the institutional boundary beyond institutional discernment and attempt raise its status to the “right” or “only acceptable” determination on a matter of liberty, thus denying what Aaron points out, the right given to believers by God for personal discernment, seeing they have placed a de facto judgment (Dan Miller’s fait accompli) on any personal view to the contrary.
2. They act without discretion or at least with obvious inconsideration and over extend such institutional discernment in a manner that is inappropriately invasive, tends to promote judgmentalism and pseudo-piety among both the faculty and student body, and and aids in unnecessary spiritual and personal injury.
Five years from now will indicate how well Cornerstone managed the change and exampled the allowance of this liberty for its faculty.
The problem it appears is that many Christian institutions, while invoking this reasonable privilege and duty do one of two things:
1. They further the institutional boundary beyond institutional discernment and attempt raise its status to the “right” or “only acceptable” determination on a matter of liberty, thus denying what Aaron points out, the right given to believers by God for personal discernment, seeing they have placed a de facto judgment (Dan Miller’s fait accompli) on any personal view to the contrary.
2. They act without discretion or at least with obvious inconsideration and over extend such institutional discernment in a manner that is inappropriately invasive, tends to promote judgmentalism and pseudo-piety among both the faculty and student body, and and aids in unnecessary spiritual and personal injury.
Five years from now will indicate how well Cornerstone managed the change and exampled the allowance of this liberty for its faculty.
Prohibition ended in the U.S. 76 years ago today. Seemed relevant.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Has Cornerstone thought about what they’re going to do when a faculty/staff member is arrested for DUI? Considering the increased emphasis law enforcement is placing on this problem, the possibility of this happening seems likely.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
When it comes down to it, there exists that possibility at any Christian organization. If someone *really* wants to drink, they’re going to drink, regardless of what a rule says. It’s the same for movies, music, dress, etc. If someone truly has abstained solely on the basis of his employer’s handbook, I doubt he would be at-risk for DUI. People careful enough to follow that rule despite their own desires are going to be careful about drinking too much.
Discussion