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.
Baptist School Loses Third of Faculty
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Jerome, Jun 1, 2012.
Page 2 of 6
-
-
-
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
All the other things listed are gross sins. Drinking alcohol, by great contrast, is not a sin, gross or otherwise. -
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 Because no one travels as the ancients, then such is no longer applicable to the present.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." -
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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.
And I am also writing against a form of legalism. -
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." -
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
righteousdude2 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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? -
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. -
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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.
-
-
-
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?
-
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? -
-
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. -
Scarlett O. ModeratorModerator
I have no qualms about a school having a code of conduct for employees. And like any business, one doesn't have to work there if they choose not to.
However, what bothers me about this thread is the fact there are posters here who are insinuating that because this 33% will not be returning is because this 33% aren't "good Christians".
-
Ask and ye shall receive, Oldtimer.
Just yesterday, the new administration issued an interdict against tobacco:
http://www.shorter.edu/campuslife/tobacco_free_policy.pdf
"Shorter University Transforming Lives Through Christ
. . . . .
Tobacco-Free Policy, effective June 1, 2012
. . . . .
Shorter University is a tobacco-free campus. This policy applies to all University faculty, staff, students, visitors, contractors, vendors and guests at all times. Tobacco use includes any lighted tobacco product and/or any type of smokeless tobacco product. The use of all tobacco products is prohibited within the boundaries of each of the University’s four campuses. The prohibited areas within each of the campuses’ boundaries include all buildings, facilities, indoor and outdoor spaces and grounds owned, rented and licensed by the University. This policy also applies to parking lots, walkways, sidewalks, sports venues, University vehicles and private vehicles parked or operated on University property." -
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.
Page 2 of 6