Featured Baptist School Loses Third of Faculty

I believe that this is not limited to that school. I believe that what happened there is a more true test of what is in the church today with so many claiming to be Christians and yet they fail the tests. The real problem today is not the world, but the claimed church that has lowered its standards. I applaud that school.
Over 60% have either resigned or made it clear that they disagree with the standards. That means that most likely there are more, perhaps another 20% who have remained silent. I believe that the same percentage of close to 80% of claimed believers are not really believers at all in the churches today. Paul said that we who are of the faith can do nothing against the faith but only for it.
Just look at how many reject what the written word of God says for their own understanding, and desires, and you will see it is a very high percentage that go against the faith.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

So you are equating all those who did not sign the statement with ... denying the faith? I wouldn't have signed it, but solely for the alcohol reason, and for the message that that sends.

All the other things listed are gross sins. Drinking alcohol, by great contrast, is not a sin, gross or otherwise.

 

You saying that something is biblical and then attempting to make Scriptures fit in to your scheme is old territory that I really don't want to get into on this thread, but for readers will post these few points.

I do not consider the Scriptures allow for the consumption of ANY intoxicant without doctors permission, and that does include alcohol laced cough syrup. There are abundant remedies for cough that do not include intoxicants.

The Scriptures do speak that in particular wine and strong drink have a single purpose - to mock and rage. Fools are deceived by both.

Christ, being the very word of God, cannot violate himself, nor would he allow even on the micro cellular level to not remain the perfectly pure lamb of God. All intoxicants have one basic desire - an intoxicant adds an agent to the body to toxify. Toxify means poison.

In Deut. a person having journeyed for extended time (perhaps a month or more) was granted permission to consume - however it was for cleansing and curative aspects as the Scriptures would read. Because no one travels as the ancients, then such is no longer applicable to the present. This also applies to all who would assume that consumption by the ancients, because of a lack of clean water and refrigeration, also applies to this era. Such is merely excuse for consumption and has no real Biblical foundation.

Though it is claimed by the unregenerate that Christ engaged in consumption, they were in fact looking to establish any justification for their critical spirit and there is no place that Christ took any intoxicant - even on the cross, where He was offered drink twice. The first was water which He drank, the second was water mixed with an intoxicant which He spit it out.

asterisktom, I figure that you will desire to contend about how wrong I am, but save the posting. Consider that it is doubtful that you will change nor will I.

I post this only for the young (or old) reader who might need a bit of thinking from one who has studied most thoroughly the matter and find absolutely no evidence that consuming an intoxicant (without a doctor's approval and oversight) is most certainly not Scriptural.

"Give strong drink to those who have no hope."

 

No, I am saying that something is not biblical. You cannot find a single verse prohibiting the moderate use of alcohol. I am "attempting" nothing. I am just reading what the Bible says.

Arguing from silence. Anyhow, I am not arguing for intoxication. Not all alcohol consumption leads to intoxication.

Christ made the wine for those fools at the Cana wedding. I guess the mocking and raging happened after Christ and the disciples left.

And eisegesis means infusing into scripture something that is not there. Intoxicants have no basic desire. People have basic desires. While it is true that Scripture speaks often about the evils of wine there are also other passages. It is the matter of the right use of wine. It is a matter of balance, using, enjoying; but not abusing. The same as with eating. I don't know how many church socials I have gone to where the men joked about having "pigged out" on the food. Yet that was considered one of the "seven deadly sins" at one time.

Now who is the greater sinner: The one who openly has a beer or one glass of wine or the big beefy guy who can hardly fit into his three-piece suit because he keeps going back for more at the buffet line? Today's Christianity points the "bony finger of blame" (as Walt Kelly would write) at the first one, giving the second a wink and a nod.

I would like to see the verse for that. Then I have a few others I could add.

At the risk of continuing in my degeneracy - what about Cana? Do you suppose that He didn't also drink what He made?

Thanks for the caution, agedman, but I am not really writing to you. This being a public board I felt the freedom to respond to the points raised.

I have changed. I pretty much believed for years all the things you wrote. But at one time n North Carolina I was challenged to defend my position. After a while it became obvious to me that my position, acquired by my undue respect for teachers at school, was no longer tenable.

We have both, then, studied this quite thoroughly - and came to differing conclusions.

A single verse does not make a point. At any rate, the issue here is not to "strong drink". But to any use of alcohol. I am not advocating drunkenness. But I am writing about the right to use and enjoy wine that "gladdens the heart".

And I am also writing against a form of legalism.

 

Like I posted, I have been through every verse, every instance of usage, you won't change my mind, and I won't change yours.

I predicted in how you would respond. You didn't disappoint. You would post to "justify" purchase and use of an intoxicant in which the sole purpose is ultimately to control the person and pervert justice and judgment and call that righteous.

"Wine IS a mocker.

Strong drink IS raging.

Fools are deceived thereby."

 

OK, your last word to me is that I am a fool. Gotcha.

You've "been through every verse"? I doubt it. You wouldn't even respond to the few that I brought up. But, oh well. Moving on.

 

Applause!!!

Well said, Gina! :applause::applause::applause:

It looks to me like a third of the staff members knew they would have difficulty following these rules, so they did the honorable thing.

It wasn't all about drinking. How many left because of the sexual clause?

And how many of these folks left because they knew they were guilty by association?

 

More than a morality question, which is totally justified in an organization like this, it is a condition of employment. It is very simple, if one wants to work here, then abide by these rules. If you cannot abide by these rules, hit the road jack. The employer is paying the salary, so they set the standards.

It is not out of bounds anyhow. In my job as a substitute teacher, I could be fired for outside life styles that do not reflect well on the public school system according to local standards. There has been another thread about this, but several years ago a teacher was let go because she had been a porn star fifteen years ago. Since then, she had stopped, got married, got her teaching certificate, and had kids. Her husband knew nothing of it. Some of the high schools got some of the movies (how I do not know since they are minors and thousands are made each year, where were the parents, another thread), and saw her. They turned it in, no doubt out of meanness. Anyhow, she was gone.

When one works for the government, there are certain political activities one cannot engage in off the clock.

The bottom line is wherever you work, know the rules and abide by them. As Christians, this should not even be a question anyhow. So, to answer the question, yes, the situation is legal and justified.

 

It's a submission to authority thing. The trustees and leadership of Shorter have put in place a confessional statement of behavior for their faculty. It isn't unlike what the SBC seminaries have in place. So as a faculty member you either sign it or don't. If you choose to not submit to their leadership you will need to find other employment. It's biblical and simple.

 

Alcohol is an intoxicant. As an intoxicant, any amount of alcohol ingested (whether one swallow or one glass, or more) intoxicates the body to a degree.

 

The question is, what wine is the Bible referring to that makes one glad? The wine that God's Word says to not even look upon when it is fermented? or the wine that God's Word says to drink abundantly of?

 

If drunkenness is equal to being impaired because of what you have ingested, and it is as the only thing that varies is the severity of the impairment, then according to the laws on the books it is anything that shows up in the blood as alcohol.
Impairment begins with the first drink according to the law.

"The legal limit for intoxication in Texas is .08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC). However, Texas has a zero tolerance law. Drivers can be stopped and cited for impaired driving from alcohol or other drugs no matter what their BAC may be. For anyone under the age of 21 it is unlawful to drive having consumed any detectable amount of alcohol."

http://www.alamodefense.com/dwi-limit.asp

http://www.austin-dwi-specialist.com/bac-alcohol-texas

As to Psalm 140:15 the writer is not suggesting that we are to seek after wine to become glad. God makes it clear we are not to even look on it when fermented. The Psalmist is simply stating a fact about the effects of the wine. Our gladness is to come from knowing the Lord not drugs.

Wine [is] a mocker, strong drink [is] raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, [when] it moveth itself aright.

 

The rule itself makes perfect sense to me, whether you think it is sin to drink or not. A majority of college students are under the drinking age. And the rule does not ban drinking entirely, only where there might be students present (admittedly, this basically confines it to your own home).

Since gluttony keeps coming up, let's make a comparison. Let's say a friend (or a student, in this case) was struggling with gluttony, and was overweight. They decided to do something about it, and started watching what they eat. Would you eat an ice-cream sundae in front of them? Or talk about how great a dessert was? I would hope your answer would be a resounding "no". So, why wouldn't you do the same thing with alcohol?

 

Good example. :thumbs:

 

Would we be having this debate if using tobacco had been substituted for using alcohol?

FWIW, I have no qualms about an employer setting a code of behavior for the people who work for them. As far as I know, except for community service as a legal penalty, there are no rules that force people to work for specific employers.

 

The ban on tobacco on the campus isn't exactly the same as the ban on alcohol. The big difference here is that no tobacco use is allowed on campus, but no alcohol is allowed anywhere there might be students. This means that the faculty (at least according to what was written) would still be allowed to smoke in public, just not on the campus. However, they are not allowed to drink alcohol practically anywhere except their own homes.

Again, I am not against the rule. I just wanted to point out the difference here.