A DRY CAMPUS

Here is an interesting dialogue from another blog with comments by Southern Seminary president Dr. Al Mohler. As always, a disclaimer: the editor of Panis Circenses is not imbiding alcohol while he is in seminary.

Wheaton College's decision last year to relax their alcohol (and dancing) policy has apparently instigated some policy reform in other fundamentalist institutions (or at least discussion)... Seattle Pacific University is in the midst of such a conversation, according to this story from the Seattle Times.

I'll admit I have a hard time understanding the institutionalized teetotalism discussed here - evangelicals seem to be realizing that many of the activities identified as 'evils' (dancing, cards, movies, alcohol, etc.) by our fundamentalist forbears are not forbidden by Scripture, but are still clinging to the legislation that was the product of such theology. Southern has a similar ban on alcohol use - we are in tobacco country though, so smoke up! - and I got to hear Dr. Mohler address the issue my first semester here in a Systematic Theology class (wondering how that question came up in a Systematic class? Last day of the semester was a free-for-all Q&A!). He explained that he readily admits that there is no biblical warrant for forbidding a Christian use of alcohol. But given the attitudes among Southern Baptists on alcohol (not known for enjoying a glass of Shiraz), it would be unwise to revoke a policy which would cause disunity in the Convention and be a source of worry for members. I'd never thought of the issue in that way - it certainly helped me to understand why people who are so biblical in their theology would retain such a policy (i.e. It would be unbiblical to unecessarily take action that would lead to disunity). So what do you think? Whether you drink or not - Should schools such as Wheaton, SPU, and Southern retain policies for the sake of denominational unity? And for any high-level administrators at evangelical institutions - I'd love your take on this!

Posted by Matt at December 1, 2004 11:38 PM

Comments

Southern can't change its policy. The political ramifications would be huge. Other schools need to evaluate where their denominations are and make the call on a case-by-case basis.

I too am not in favor of the dry policy here in and of itself. But I am in favor of seminaries being accountable to the churches that pay to keep them in business, and I'm glad to submit to the policy if unity can be preserved, and we can hold many weightier theological issues in common.

Posted by: Aaron at December 1, 2004 11:59 PM

if the convention is held together by such tenous issues as alcohol use, then it has bigger troubles than whether or not the seminarians know a white wine from a red. i think this is the problem all we Baptists in general have, on a larger level: that we don't know what unity consists of--we think that it is an achievement, when we do not realize that church unity is an ontological reality. We ARE one body, like it or not.

Posted by: myles at December 2, 2004 12:37 AM

I would hope that Dr. Mohler would labor, over time, to change the policy of the seminary. This is not a huge issue practically, but it has huge implications (What is authoritative: tradition vs. the Word ?, binding consciences without biblical warrant, etc.). With that said, I do respect the desire for unity and peace: we are required to forbear with our brothers. Slow, gradual sanctification (maturity?) vs. radical, take no prisoners revolution is preferred.

Maybe you and Dr. Mohler can discuss over your favorite Merlot? Cigars, too?

Posted by: Brett Flenniken at December 2, 2004 12:41 AM

If that meeting were to ever take place you can be sure it will be reported on here - but it sounds highly unlikely! Maybe over an ice-cold glass of sweet tea.

Posted by: matt h. at December 2, 2004 01:31 AM

I want to go to SBTS... and I understand it's a dry schoool.... but it's SO worth it! (But I mean come on........... no SMIRNOFF ICE???!!!)

Posted by: Aaron Shafovaloff at December 2, 2004 02:02 AM

I like punk rawk. But I was asked by an elder, who's also my occupational supervisor and an administrative pastor at my church, to stop wearing sweatshirts and Dickies jackets that had patches representing certain bands on them. The reason being, these secular bands sang about certain things that might stumble some weaker brothers. It was really hard for me to submit (especially since I spent so much time sewing these patches on), but I did. For these kinds of issues you gotta look at Romans 15:1-3 and 1 Cor 10:32-33.

Posted by: Aaron Lord at December 2, 2004 04:40 AM

I think the dry policy should stand. To do otherwise would send a message that it is acceptable and you open the campus up to other evils. Why does anyone studying for the ministry want to drink on campus or off? I don't understand the want to consume that which is proven to kill brain cells.

Posted by: The Pastor at December 2, 2004 10:37 AM

Pastor - none of these institutions seems to be debating the acceptability of alcohol use among Christians (or ministers). Maybe we should be, I don't know. What other 'evils' would the campus be opened up to? There have been scores of brilliant Christians who enjoyed moderate (and not-so-moderate) alcohol use - the whole 'alcohol kills brain cells' thing just doesn't seem to be very helpful or hold much water. On the same token, why would anyone want to eat McDonalds when it is proven they lead to higher blood pressure, higher cholesterol, higher risk of heart disease, etc.? The subject makes more sense when painted in light of restricting our own Christian liberty for the sake of our brethren (although I'm not sure it should be imposed - still thinking that through).

Posted by: matt h. at December 2, 2004 12:11 PM

There is no prohibition against alcohol, although drunkenness and "addiction" are definitly forbidden. in fact, in Deuteronomy 14:22-26 you will find specific liscence to spend the tithe feasting before the Lord with wine or strong drink. I don't think we can question that.

However, many institutions enforce extra-biblical rules of discipline. Curfews are an example. No one has to abstain for life, or observe a curfew, but if that discipline is too burdensome for the few years he spends in college and/or seminary, he is not fit for leadership.

Times of training are times of enforced discipline. Try joining the army and see how much liberty you have during training. Extreme discipline focuses the mind on the task at hand, and makes better soldiers.

Posted by: david at December 2, 2004 02:21 PM

some discipline instituted by an institution is good. i mean, what would happen if all institutional restraints were released? you'd have a libertarian society, which is...well, i was going to say Republicanism gone to seed...but i won't. (read that with a guilty little smirk that is immediately ashamed of itself).

anyway, yes, discipline. but, there comes a time at which all instititutions, ministerial, or otherwise, have to let the students make that call. otherwise, the mistakes of the past are perpetuated along with the sucesses. some of the successes may be predicated on the mistakes, which is a totally other discussion. however, ministerial training grounds need to let their students make those calls when it comes down to it, given that the students are the church, not only "as well", but also "when the administration is dead".

so, lift your chirazz and drink up.

Posted by: myles at December 3, 2004 09:44 AM

This is a very interesting discussion--and very responsible comments. I want to be intellectually and theologically honest about the alcohol issue. The case for a total abstinence policy is based, not on a clear biblical prohibition of all beverage alcohol use, but on the clear convictions of so many faithful Christians who pay our bills, pray for us, and expect us to uphold the very highest standards of moral conduct. The Scriptural warnings about drunkenness are clear, and many of the families to whom you will minister have been ravaged by alcohol abuse and addiction, or drunk driving and its consequences.

As ministers of the Gospel, we must be very sensitive to the issue of moral credibility. Frankly, alcohol is just not an issue worth wasting even one atom of my leadership credibility--and I would think this true for most Southern Baptists.
One final thought has to do with covenant. This institution makes a covenant with its churches and its students, and that covenant is made by students in accepting admission to the institution--and that covenant binds us all to a total abstinence policy so long as we are enrolled or employed at Southern Seminary. Covenant is a moral issue as well, and, because it each of us enters it willingly, it does not violate Christian liberty. Have a great final exam week. Blog on.

Posted by: AlbertMohler at December 3, 2004 12:21 PM

Oh--and Myles--the administration ain't dead yet.
Still kicking for now.

Posted by: AlbertMohler at December 3, 2004 12:22 PM

myles..you certainly are not a presbyterian...you must be a regular Baptist!!! Its Shiraz NOT chirazz!!!

Posted by: mark at December 3, 2004 05:37 PM

Wow - this post has elicited more interaction than any have in a while, even pulling Dr. Mohler into the conversation. Dr. Mohler - you certainly explained the reasoning for Southern's policy to my satisfaction (and no everyone, I'm not just saying that because I'm a SBTS student and am under covenant obligations!).

David - I do not think the issue of discipline is central here - I would argue that students at Westminster (where they can drink) are just as, if not more, disciplined. If anything, our SBC pastors could use better Christian discipline - not sure that comes from teetotalism.

Here are my two cents. If I were J.P. Boyce and were founding the seminary all over again I certainly would not institute the policy. But I understand and appreciate the position that Dr. Mohler, and we as the SBTS community, are in to be sensitive to our supporting churches. And I think there is some sense in which we should have such a love for our Southern Baptist churches that we would welcome some limited liberties for the sake of not wounding our fellowship and unity. Perhaps this is a case where Luther's paradox of "servant to none/servant to all" is helpful.

Posted by: matt h. at December 3, 2004 08:51 PM

yeah, it was a typo. i know it's "shiraz", as i have some in hand at the moment. and for the record, i seriously don't believe that Albert Mohler, who canned the school of Social Work and, providentially, sent Truett our Dean of Academic Affairs, really posted here.

Posted by: myles at December 4, 2004 07:27 PM

sorry about the last piece. mohler brings up strong feelings in me, most of them not positive. and for that, i apologize. i'm sure he has good intentions, but i just fundamentally disagree with a lot of what he has done. there's no need for social work in the Gospel? the Gospel is social work.

Posted by: myles at December 4, 2004 07:35 PM

I suppose you are entitled to your own evaluation Myles, but from what I can tell the problem was that there was a lot of "social work", but little to none of the gospel. But to say that "the Gospel is social work" certainly requires clarification - I hope you're not going for some good ol' fashioned Rauschenbusch-like theology! Maybe that glass in your hand has clouded your thinking on the matter? :)

Posted by: matt h. at December 4, 2004 09:15 PM

The Gospel is not mere social work nor mere morality, it is relationship and transformation, in my view. Transformation, or discipleship, then leads to both social work and morality. But the spirit that emanates from this new being is not one that gets caught up in the boundary issues but one that gets caught up in hope. Therefore, legalism becomes moot as well as the question of whether or not we are to take care of those in need in our society. Of course we do.

I'd rather give my tithe to a good charity than a morally-fixated church any day. And, I'd rather invest my time in feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, or healing the sick than "evangelizing the lost" any day. (I'm such a hypocrite, though.) ;) Well, maybe not. Because the truth is, I really never find myself doing either. (Give me a break, I'm in an awkward stage in my growth.)

Posted by: Blake at December 6, 2004 12:20 AM

Blake - welcome! But it is troubling that in your comments on the nature of the gospel you never once mention sin, atonement, righteousness, etc. What impedes relationship? Why must we be transformed? Those concepts have no significance apart from a proper perspective on the nature and necessity of the atonement.

And the duty of the church to be active in pursuing a 'redeemed society' is not an either/or... churches should be active in both clothing the naked/feeding the poor and in preaching the full message of Christ's saving work on behalf of his people.

Posted by: matt h. at December 7, 2004 09:27 AM

This is an intersting discussion--one which I stumbled upon in the vacuous world of cyberspace. I applaud Matt H. for raising this question. I'm having a hard time with the logic offered by the Southern administration. Rather than risk controversy (which the Southern Baptist Convention has proven on a global scale that it is not averse to), will the institution continue to bow the proverbial knee to "those who pay the bills"? By this standard, the morals of the future SBC leaders is up for sale, to be mandated by the highest bidder. So instead, they will continue to foster a generation of closet-drinkers, who instill the kind of hypocrisy that is causing a mass exodus from the church. I say, if we are going to be biblical then we must admit that every major character in the Bible (with the possible exception of those acquiescing to the Nazarite mores) drank alcohol. We should therefore educate the layity about the truth. While we are at it, why not treat the students at Southern Seminary like adults, who are free to search the Scriptures and perceive the Spirits guidance without legislation. Peace.

Posted by: Jake at December 7, 2004 04:15 PM

Jake, Southern Seminary is an institution of the Southern Baptist Convention. It is, therefore, accountable to the Southern Baptist churches that collectively form that Convention. This is not selling out to the highest bidder. This is plain old accountability, a concept that the old Southern pretty much missed completely.

This issue is not of paramount importance to the gospel or to Christian theology in general. It is a Romans 14 or 1 Corinthians 8 kind of issue, one in which we are called to be fully convinced in our own minds, but always acting in a loving way toward the conscience of others. It's not worth fighting over.

The reason Southern Seminary has been such a controversial place in the last ten years is because the school has returned to being accountable to the churches of the convention. Those who formerly ran things around here, who didn't want things to go that way, are the ones who reacted and made the issue controversial.

Posted by: Aaron at December 10, 2004 01:15 AM

you assume that the churches had the light as it were, while the old Southern was a ship tossed in the sea. what if the old Southern was speaking valued words to churches that did not want to hear? just a thought. our institutions of learning have a role that, if we let them, is prophetic to the local congregation, illuminating blind spots that sometimes persist.

Posted by: myles at December 11, 2004 06:07 PM

Yes, I do make that assumption, but not without good warrant.

Posted by: Aaron at December 11, 2004 10:14 PM

seeing as many of my profs from two different schools did their PhD at the "old Southern", i'd be interested to hear someone's take on it now, as to the differences before and after.

Posted by: myles at December 13, 2004 10:02 AM

anyone? bueller, bueller?

Posted by: myles at December 15, 2004 10:02 AM

Are you looking for a perspective from current students/faculty?

Posted by: matt h. at December 15, 2004 02:02 PM

either one. seriously. i'm interested in the student perspective on the new/old.

Posted by: myles at December 15, 2004 06:26 PM

Well, seeing as this post is fading into the background, I suppose I'll give it a shot. The climate at SBTS pre-1993 will be interpreted differently depending on who you talk to. I know conservative students who were here during the time who were shocked at the heresy they heard in the classroom, even denying the virgin birth. The problematic thing is that while full-fledged liberalism was being taught, it was done with a wink and smile. Professors would encourage students to adopt the traditional language of SBC churches, and to not show their theological cards. So you had a generation of pastors who came out "sounding" orthodox, but when pressed, they subscribed to a host of heretical views. Moderates seem to remember the days being marked by tolerance, openness, and a heightened 'academic vigour.' Battle for the Minds, a documentary on the events surrounding Molly Marshall's dismissal at SBTS, is probably a fair representation of the moderate position (although it is a gross misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the conservative agenda).

As far as the current climate goes - it is a human institution like any other and has problems and faults to be sure. But in spite of these, the seminary is grounded in its historic and biblical commitments. It has become less inbred as outstanding scholars from outside of the SBC have been brought in to join the faculty. There is a heightened commitment to the local church, as students and faculty are actively involved in ministry and service (I've been told that pre-1993 faculty were expressly not allowed to serve in any pastoral office in local churches). Above all there is an understanding that the institution exists to serve our SBC churches, so students - whether they plan on teaching, pastoring, engaging in foreign mission work - are constantly reminded and pointed toward a greater love and commitment to the church in accord with biblical truth.