# Question about Southern Baptist Theological Seminary



## Marrow Man

I have been considering enrolling at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in the D.Min. They have an historical theology tract which interests me more than a lot of the other schools I've seen. Plus, it's only a few miles from house and that would save on travel and room and board costs if I were to attend.

However, I have heard that students at SBTS must sign a statement that says they will not consume alcoholic beverages while they are students. Is this true, or have I misunderstood? Perhaps it is only limited to M.Div. students or on-campus students.

It's not a huge deal if it's true, but it might make me reconsider the school. I do occasionally like to drink a beer, and I would not want to be bound by such a contract for the next 3 or so years.


----------



## SolaScriptura

From page 6 of their student handbook:

"Abstinence from alcoholic beverages and illegal substances is always required,
regardless of personal conviction or ecclesiastic tradition."


Fortunately, on page 7 they note: "Compliance with abstention
from alcoholic beverages and drug abuse does not apply to worship communion,
appropriate medications, etc."

So you can still use wine in your celebration of the Lord's Supper.

Southern is a great school and they have some very top-notch professors and undoubtedly the most impressive facilities I've seen in an evangelical seminary... but they've got that odious no-alcohol policy.


----------



## Marrow Man

Thanks, Ben. That answers my question, and that will factor into my decision.


----------



## Andres

Perhaps I'm being a crumudgeon, but that policy really bothers me. I could understand maybe not allowing alcohol in on-campus housing, but to require complete abstinence for any and all students seems to be binding the conscience a bit much. And I'll just beat anyone to the punch - I know if I don't like it, I don't have to go there; their school, their rules, etc. I would like to know what their reason is for the rule because surely they can't argue that scripture prohibits it.


----------



## pianoman

yes, it may be harsh, but I get why they have that rule. I wouldn't let it stop me from going to seminary though. its weighing the balance between having alcohol vs. seminary. I would take seminary any day. It is not that hard not to drink. but just my opinion though


----------



## Notthemama1984

Andres said:


> Perhaps I'm being a crumudgeon, but that policy really bothers me. I could understand maybe not allowing alcohol in on-campus housing, but to require complete abstinence for any and all students seems to be binding the conscience a bit much. And I'll just beat anyone to the punch - I know if I don't like it, I don't have to go there; their school, their rules, etc. I would like to know what their reason is for the rule because surely they can't argue that scripture prohibits it.



They think they can argue prohibition from Scripture.


----------



## Marrow Man

Chaplainintraining said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm being a crumudgeon, but that policy really bothers me. I could understand maybe not allowing alcohol in on-campus housing, but to require complete abstinence for any and all students seems to be binding the conscience a bit much. And I'll just beat anyone to the punch - I know if I don't like it, I don't have to go there; their school, their rules, etc. I would like to know what their reason is for the rule because surely they can't argue that scripture prohibits it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They think they can argue prohibition from Scripture.
Click to expand...


That's an interesting point and, if true, sheds a bit of a different light on the handbook phrase "regardless of personal conviction or ecclesiastic tradition." I hope it's not true, however, because it would make me question the exegetical methodology of the institution. At this point, though, I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Douglas P.

Any seminary that would exclude the Apostle Paul and Timothy (1 Tim. 5:23) from attending might want to re-think their admissions policy.


----------



## T.A.G.

they should allow guns as well, I mean what better place to have guns than on a Seminary campus...


----------



## Marrow Man

T.A.G. said:


> they should allow guns as well, I mean what better place to have guns than on a Seminary campus...



False analogy. That is not a good comparison, friend. No one has said a word about bringing alcohol on campus, and I think most of us would agree that should not happen. I wanted to know if I would be prohibited from occasionally drinking an alcoholic beverage in my home or in a restaurant if I were to enroll there, and it sounds like I would.

Incidentally, I own a handgun, but I don't plan on ever taking it onto the seminary campus. According to what you have stated, should the seminary also make me sign a statement than I can't own a gun in my own home?


----------



## T.A.G.

haha I was being serious, I really believe seminary students should be known for protecting their families. And yes, drinking should mean fellowship, so why not have that on campus


----------



## Douglas P.

SBTS – Resources – Alcohol and the Ministry found this on their website its a discussion about their alcohol policy


----------



## Scottish Lass

pianoman said:


> I wouldn't let it stop me from going to seminary though



Well, he has his M. Div---this is for his D. Min., so he has options.


----------



## steadfast7

Now, my question would be: would disobedience to this man-made rule in order to uphold one's conscience of Christian liberty be appropriate? or, is submission to this rule be the godly option?

I'm reminded of Luther..


----------



## Scottish Lass

I would say submission since one can choose whether to enroll. This isn't a state law we're talking about.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

T.A.G. said:


> they should allow guns as well, I mean what better place to have guns than on a Seminary campus...



Especially since the Mormons keep knocking on my door even though they know it is a Baptist seminary. Just kidding. I think the policy also prohibits tobacco and p0rnography.


----------



## Marrow Man

Douglas Padgett said:


> SBTS – Resources – Alcohol and the Ministry found this on their website its a discussion about their alcohol policy



Thanks, for posting this. That helps a lot in understanding the policy. I don't agree with it, but I can see where Dr. Mohler is coming from. Incidentally, I probably won't be applying to SBTS.


----------



## steadfast7

Scottish Lass said:


> I would say submission since one can choose whether to enroll. This isn't a state law we're talking about.


 Good point. Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, even state laws that impose on the conscience are not to be obeyed. How different is this situation, really?


----------



## Marrow Man

steadfast7 said:


> Now, my question would be: would disobedience to this man-made rule in order to uphold one's conscience of Christian liberty be appropriate? or, is submission to this rule be the godly option?
> 
> I'm reminded of Luther..



'Tis a good question, Dennis.


----------



## Scottish Lass

steadfast7 said:


> even state laws that impose on the conscience are not to be obeyed. How different is this situation, really?



Again, the difference is that one can choose whether to enroll at SBTS. State laws generally don't have the option to choose. I also see a difference between imposing on my conscience (a state law forbidding public worship, for example) and imposing on my liberty (Prohibition).


----------



## Bill The Baptist

The ability for private institutions to make their own policies is essential to a free society. We certainly don't have to agree with them, but as long as we are free to choose not to become a part of the institution, then the institution should be free to make whatever rules it sees fit.


----------



## steadfast7

Scottish Lass said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> even state laws that impose on the conscience are not to be obeyed. How different is this situation, really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the difference is that one can choose whether to enroll at SBTS. State laws generally don't have the option to choose. I also see a difference between imposing on my conscience (a state law forbidding public worship, for example) and imposing on my liberty (Prohibition).
Click to expand...

 One can also choose the country of one's citizenship, knowing that some of its laws cannot be obeyed for conscience's sake, but he signs up and vows allegiance to the country's charter regardless. Also, imposing on one's Christian liberty (ie. Paul's argument in Galatians) is quite a serious matter indeed, such that Paul would anathematize such an act.


----------



## Scottish Lass

steadfast7 said:


> Also, imposing on one's Christian liberty (ie. Paul's argument in Galatians) is quite a serious matter indeed, such that Paul would anathematize such an act.



I never said it wasn't serious, just that they weren't the same in my opinion. Others will likely disagree.


----------



## T.A.G.

Bill The Baptist said:


> The ability for private institutions to make their own policies is essential to a free society. We certainly don't have to agree with them, but as long as we are free to choose not to become a part of the institution, then the institution should be free to make whatever rules it sees fit.



We witnessed to them for about 20 min a few weeks ago and have not seen them since, I guess they went to yalls side of the campus instead


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> I think the policy also prohibits tobacco...



Well then, that's the final straw!


----------



## MarieP

Marrow Man said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm being a crumudgeon, but that policy really bothers me. I could understand maybe not allowing alcohol in on-campus housing, but to require complete abstinence for any and all students seems to be binding the conscience a bit much. And I'll just beat anyone to the punch - I know if I don't like it, I don't have to go there; their school, their rules, etc. I would like to know what their reason is for the rule because surely they can't argue that scripture prohibits it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They think they can argue prohibition from Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an interesting point and, if true, sheds a bit of a different light on the handbook phrase "regardless of personal conviction or ecclesiastic tradition." I hope it's not true, however, because it would make me question the exegetical methodology of the institution. At this point, though, I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

 
The interesting thing is they have no such prohibition for us seminary employees...except for the obvious: not during work or during lunch breaks, not abusing it, not drinking and driving.

---------- Post added at 08:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 PM ----------




Marrow Man said:


> However, I have heard that students at SBTS must sign a statement that says they will not consume alcoholic beverages while they are students. Is this true, or have I misunderstood? Perhaps it is only limited to M.Div. students or on-campus students.



From my understanding, it is all students. 


Scottish Lass said:


> this is for his D. Min., so he has options.



Well, you know what many think about D. Min. rum....!


----------



## Scottish Lass

MarieP said:


> The interesting thing is they have no such prohibition for us seminary employees.



I was hoping we'd hear from you on this. That's interesting---I'm guessing they're holding ministers to a higher standard.


----------



## Douglas P.

Douglas Padgett said:


> SBTS – Resources – Alcohol and the Ministry found this on their website its a discussion about their alcohol policy


 
I finished listening to the lecture/talk. At about the 12 min. mark Dr. Mohler laid out why the SBTS has an alcohol abstinence policy. The policy is mainly based upon how alcohol is viewed in society today and Christian witness as a minister of the Gospel. They deny that the bible says alcohol is wrong is all contexts and cultures.

The strongest point made was the distinction between today's mass-produced beer culture and the N.T.'s use of wine. Namely, during the N.T. time period, fermentation was used to kill off bacteria in water, and that there are warnings in the N.T. about consuming overly fermented wine (would anyone know of an actual bible verse for this?).

Beyond that, the arguments were pretty weak, if not outright bizarre. At the 27 mark, Dr. Moore uses the example of a preacher getting a red dragon tattoo on his neck and his witness to the church as being analogous to a preacher who drinks alcohol.

I get the witness argument and would never tell a recovering alcoholic "Christian Liberty brother". At the same time our witness can be just as effective if not more effective in showing non-believers the joys of enjoying God's creation in a responsible and ultimately glorifying way.

My problem with the entire argument, and something that really troubles me being that this is a conservative Christian seminary is; why set such a _low_ standard for students and faculty?


----------



## Marrow Man

MarieP said:


> The interesting thing is they have no such prohibition for us seminary employees...except for the obvious: not during work or during lunch breaks, not abusing it, not drinking and driving.



Marie, in the audio file that Douglas posted, Dr. Mohler says fairly early on that SBTS's policy is that all students _and employees_ of SBTS totally abstain from alcohol. Did he make a mistake (e.g., he meant "faculty" instead of "employees")?

Douglas, I was commenting on Dr. Mohler's presentation early on. I was not particularly impressed with the things Dr. Moore said and stopped listening once they went the Q&A portion of the program. The first hypothetical situation sounded so ridiculous (something about going to a church where alcohol was being served during Sunday School or something like that?) that I quickly lost interest.


----------



## MarieP

Marrow Man said:


> Marie, in the audio file that Douglas posted, Dr. Mohler says fairly early on that SBTS's policy is that all students and employees of SBTS totally abstain from alcohol. Did he make a mistake (e.g., he meant "faculty" instead of "employees")?



I assume he made a mistake- the employee handbook says otherwise. I was employed by the Seminary before he made that talk, and I never had to sign anything, and I saw nothing prohibiting it. There actually was not a detailed Employee Handbook until several years ago. It reads:



> 3.0 Use of Drugs and/or Alcohol
> The Seminary expects all employees to report for and perform work free from the influence of illegal drugs, alcohol, or other controlled substances. Employees are responsible for ensuring they have the ability to perform their work in a safe and reliable manner every workday. Employees are encouraged to consult with their doctor or pharmacist concerning their ability to work safely while on prescription drugs and must inform their supervisor when using prescription or over-the-counter medications that might adversely affect their ability to operate a Seminary vehicle or equipment.
> 
> Seminary employees are prohibited from the following: (1) the use of illegal drugs, whether on or off duty; (2) the use of alcohol or being under the influence of alcohol while on duty (including during meal and break periods), whether on or off Seminary property, or in a Seminary vehicle; (3) testing positive for the use of alcohol or the illegal use of drugs; (4) the abuse of alcohol off duty which adversely affects the employee's job performance; and (5) any off duty conduct related to the illegal use or possession of drugs or abuse of alcohol which may reflect adversely on the reputation of the Seminary. Employees who engage in this prohibited conduct will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge.
> 
> To effectively enforce the provisions of this Drug and Alcohol Policy, the Seminary, at its sole discretion, may require employees to submit to substance abuse testing. Specifically, employees may be required to submit to some or all of the following tests: drug screening prior to employment, random testing, post accident testing, and ―reasonable cause‖ testing. Refusal to submit to a substance abuse test, or alteration or attempted alteration of a sample submitted for such testing, may result in discharge.
> 
> Employees must inform their supervisor when using prescription or over-the-counter medications that might adversely affect the safe and reliable performance of their work. Employees using prescription medications must be under a physician‘s immediate care during its use or they must be taking the medication as part of an ongoing treatment plan that can be verified by the physician.
> 
> Employees who observe conduct that may indicate a violation of the Seminary‘s Drug and Alcohol policy should report such observations to their supervisor, the Chief of Campus Police, Safety and Security, or the Director of Human Resources. Compliance with this policy is a condition of continued employment and violations may result in disciplinary action being taken, up to and including termination.



http://inside.sbts.edu/files/2011/04/employeehandbookfinalrevision4-15-11.pdf


----------



## JoannaV

steadfast7 said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> even state laws that impose on the conscience are not to be obeyed. How different is this situation, really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the difference is that one can choose whether to enroll at SBTS. State laws generally don't have the option to choose. I also see a difference between imposing on my conscience (a state law forbidding public worship, for example) and imposing on my liberty (Prohibition).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can also choose the country of one's citizenship, knowing that some of its laws cannot be obeyed for conscience's sake, but he signs up and vows allegiance to the country's charter regardless. Also, imposing on one's Christian liberty (ie. Paul's argument in Galatians) is quite a serious matter indeed, such that Paul would anathematize such an act.
Click to expand...


Most people do not have the freedom to choose their country of citizenship. In many cases they may not even have the option of renouncing their citizenship.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Douglas Padgett said:


> Any seminary that would exclude the Apostle Paul and Timothy (1 Tim. 5:23) from attending might want to re-think their admissions policy.



Of course, this is a false statement, since the policy permits it for medicinal uses, as in 1 Timothy 5:23.

In general, I think it is a good policy, and is no different than other Seminaries having dress codes, or even certain reading requirements. Those who are making this an issue of conscience, that can therefore be ignored, tell me; would this also apply to the textbooks that are assigned? If an Arminian has a conscience issue regarding the reading of Calvin's works, should the seminary then change their curriculum? Or is the student obligated to look at the requirements, and forego the class/go to a different seminary?

Alcohol is no different. I know that I can drink alcohol, in moderation, but being a Southern Baptist I choose to abstain completely. Why? Because I know that many of my brothers grew up instructed with a wrong view of these things, and their consciences are weak. I do not want to cause them to stumble. Certainly I do not think it is wrong of a seminary to have policies that protect the "weaker brother,"; in fact, it is not only o.k., I think it is a good policy.

We as followers of Christ should be willing to surrender all things for the sake of His glorious name...including alcohol, if necessary, if only for a time.


----------



## steadfast7

Damon Rambo said:


> Douglas Padgett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any seminary that would exclude the Apostle Paul and Timothy (1 Tim. 5:23) from attending might want to re-think their admissions policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, this is a false statement, since the policy permits it for medicinal uses, as in 1 Timothy 5:23.
> 
> In general, I think it is a good policy, and is no different than other Seminaries having dress codes, or even certain reading requirements. Those who are making this an issue of conscience, that can therefore be ignored, tell me; would this also apply to the textbooks that are assigned? If an Arminian has a conscience issue regarding the reading of Calvin's works, should the seminary then change their curriculum? Or is the student obligated to look at the requirements, and forego the class/go to a different seminary?
> 
> Alcohol is no different. I know that I can drink alcohol, in moderation, but being a Southern Baptist I choose to abstain completely. Why? Because I know that many of my brothers grew up instructed with a wrong view of these things, and their consciences are weak. I do not want to cause them to stumble. Certainly I do not think it is wrong of a seminary to have policies that protect the "weaker brother,"; in fact, it is not only o.k., I think it is a good policy.
> 
> We as followers of Christ should be willing to surrender all things for the sake of His glorious name...including alcohol, if necessary, if only for a time.
Click to expand...

 I think the alcohol issue is a little different from textbook and assignment requirements. Textbooks and assignments speak of how an institution wants to function to accomplish its goals, which are amoral. The alcohol ban is put in place because the policy makers view it as a _moral_ problem, not a simple administrative or collegiate issue. They are effectively saying, "we don't want our students to drink because we are convinced it is wrong."


----------



## Scottish Lass

Damon Rambo said:


> Because I know that many of my brothers grew up instructed with a wrong view of these things, and their consciences are weak. I do not want to cause them to stumble.



All well and good, but why should that restrict private use at home where no weaker brother will stumble?


----------



## Fly Caster

Some random thoughts:

I lean toward thinking that such a rule is unnecessary, but agree that the school has liberty to set its own rules. Prospective students should take these rules into consideration and weigh options with other schools without such rules.

A student enrolled there should be careful to observe such rules, as long as they do not require one to sin against God. When one voluntarily places oneself under authority, he should submit to that authority. If he doesn't want to submit to the rule, he should choose another school. 

I've noticed that some seminaries require students to carry health insurance. Is not this too an area of 'personal Christian liberty?' If we are going to be consistent we are going to have to object to this rule too-- as well as many others necessary to a properly functioning study environment.

Although, as I have already mentioned, I view the rule as unnecessary, I cannot condemn it as being without scriptural example. The Nazarite vow comes to mind-- as does the example of John the Baptist. With this in mind, while such a rule may keep me from attending there, attacking it as unlawful is not a battle in which I would dare engage.


----------



## Marrow Man

Timothy, I think I am in complete agreement with you on your post. The institution has the right to set its policies, and no one is compelling a student to attend.

Dr. Mohler's comments on the subject matter were (as typical with him) very thoughtful and carefully measured. As I said above, I disagree, but he's the president and I'm not, and he's a lot wise than I. However, one thing in the audio file did bother me just a bit. Dr. Mohler seemed to say that because SBTS is a SBC institution, the no alcohol policy was more or less an expectation from a great many churches. This, of course, speaks to the "weaker brethren" argument. But how much does it speak to the money aspect of things. I admit that is speculative on my part, and even if it is not speculative, it is a practical concern. But to me, reading between the lines, it sounded like a "if we expect SBC churches to financially support us, we have to do this" statement.

As Marie has already pointed out, they don't require this of their employees, but make certain common sense restrictions. Why not do the same with students? I understand that ministers and future ministers are being held to a higher standard. But couldn't individual church autonomy play a role here, and a better role at that? If the church who is sending the student wants him to refrain from alcohol -- and they would be the ones who have spiritual oversight over him -- wouldn't that be a better course of action? Of course, I'm not Baptist and am sometimes confused on Baptist polity, but it would seem that there could be a possible conflict between the institution and the autonomy of the local church. Plus, there is the added problem that the institution is being brought into conflict with other ecclesiastical traditions.


----------



## Zenas

I don't trust a man that won't drink a beer with me.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Marrow Man said:


> Timothy, I think I am in complete agreement with you on your post. The institution has the right to set its policies, and no one is compelling a student to attend.
> 
> Dr. Mohler's comments on the subject matter were (as typical with him) very thoughtful and carefully measured. As I said above, I disagree, but he's the president and I'm not, and he's a lot wise than I. However, one thing in the audio file did bother me just a bit. Dr. Mohler seemed to say that because SBTS is a SBC institution, the no alcohol policy was more or less an expectation from a great many churches. This, of course, speaks to the "weaker brethren" argument. But how much does it speak to the money aspect of things. I admit that is speculative on my part, and even if it is not speculative, it is a practical concern. But to me, reading between the lines, it sounded like a "if we expect SBC churches to financially support us, we have to do this" statement.
> 
> As Marie has already pointed out, they don't require this of their employees, but make certain common sense restrictions. Why not do the same with students? I understand that ministers and future ministers are being held to a higher standard. But couldn't individual church autonomy play a role here, and a better role at that? If the church who is sending the student wants him to refrain from alcohol -- and they would be the ones who have spiritual oversight over him -- wouldn't that be a better course of action? Of course, I'm not Baptist and am sometimes confused on Baptist polity, but it would seem that there could be a possible conflict between the institution and the autonomy of the local church. Plus, there is the added problem that the institution is being brought into conflict with other ecclesiastical traditions.



From a practical standpoint, I think it is because most of the students live on campus while the employees do not. I think they are just trying to avoid the type of problems that sometimes result from alcohol use by students in any college or university. The last thing a seminary wants to be known as is a party school.


----------



## Marrow Man

Bill The Baptist said:


> From a practical standpoint, I think it is because most of the students live on campus while the employees do not. I think they are just trying to avoid the type of problems that sometimes result from alcohol use by students in any college or university. The last thing a seminary wants to be known as is a party school.



 I think that's a reputation all seminaries want to avoid. 

True story: Mercer University in Macon, GA, used to be a college connected to the SBC. But then some things started to happen that ruffled feathers. Like MU being named one of _Playboy_ magazine's top party schools. And having a student pose in that issue. Rightly so, they came under fire from the Georgia Baptist Convention (I think that is the name) and I believe they later wound up leaving the group. You know how those fundamentalists are. 

Bill, I can completely agree on this with seminary students living on campus. But what I do in my on home, in moderation, in Christian liberty, is my own business. And it's not that I drink a lot of beer; just one every now and then. But I don't want to be bound for 3 years or more by signing such a statement. Which is fine; no one is compelling me to attend.


----------



## Jack K

Marrow Man said:


> Dr. Mohler seemed to say that because SBTS is a SBC institution, the no alcohol policy was more or less an expectation from a great many churches.



This is an important consideration. SBTS and Dr. Mohler are admirably challenging firmly entrenched aspects of SBC culture on several important fronts. This is effective and necessary work within that denomination, and it might be sidetracked if the seminary got embroiled in controversy over secondary issues such as alcohol. It may simply be wise to avoid offending people on this issue, at this time, in order that the seminary's leadership on other fronts may go forward without distraction.


----------



## Marrow Man

Jack K said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Mohler seemed to say that because SBTS is a SBC institution, the no alcohol policy was more or less an expectation from a great many churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an important consideration. SBTS and Dr. Mohler are admirably challenging firmly entrenched aspects of SBC culture on several important fronts. This is effective and necessary work within that denomination, and it might be sidetracked if the seminary got embroiled in controversy over secondary issues such as alcohol. It may simply be wise to avoid offending people on this issue, at this time, in order that the seminary's leadership on other fronts may go forward without distraction.
Click to expand...


Excellent point, Jack. Look at how he was assailed over the homosexual issue because of comments he made, when Dr. Mohler is absolute orthodox on the issue, of course.


----------



## DMcFadden

With the stress Tim probably suffers as a working pastor, I'm sure there is some casuistic way to justify drinking as a "medicinal" necessity. 

After all, next to Jesuits, most well educated Reformed pastors are the best casuists I know. 

Seriously, I bet that it is more of a tip of the hat to tradition than theology. Do they have dances on campus? Poker games? My guess is that it has more to do with the traditional "expectations" of donors, alums, and SBC sensibilities generally. Dylan sang that the "times they are a'changin," but he is now in his 70s and somethings are pretty much the same.

Tim, if the program interests you, you might try writing your essay (if there is one) with your demurrer about your convictions regarding off campus moderate beer drinking contained in the piece. If they admit you anyway, I wouldn't worry about the conscience issue. I have known of people who have listed conscientiously held differences from stated doctrinal positions (albeit primarily eschatological ones) on job applications in schools and still getting hired. It would be a test case of how seriously they are willing to press the issue in the case of a non residential student.


----------



## Marrow Man

DMcFadden said:


> Tim, if the program interests you, you might try writing your essay (if there is one) with your demurrer about your convictions regarding off campus moderate beer drinking contained in the piece. If they admit you anyway, I wouldn't worry about the conscience issue. I have known of people who have listed conscientiously held differences from stated doctrinal positions (albeit primarily eschatological ones) on job applications in schools and still getting hired. It would be a test case of how seriously they are willing to press the issue in the case of a non residential student.



That's an interesting suggestion. When I was in seminary, I taught a couple of adjunct math classes for a Wesleyan school for income. They made instructors sign a statement of faith, which included some very Arminian theology. I could not in good conscience sign it. I asked one of my professors (who taught church history at the school at one time), and he told me to write an explanatory note beside those particular points explaining my exception to them. Since I was not teaching theology at the school, it was not a problem.

SBTS might not permit alcohol, but they do serve the finest coffee in Louisville on campus -- Sunergos!!!


----------



## Edward

MarieP said:


> (3) testing positive for the use of alcohol


 That one's a bit ambiguous, and could be more carefully drafted.


----------



## louis_jp

To the tune of "Battle hymn of the Republic:"

Our marshaled hosts are bringing
down the haughty rum combine;
Oh, hear the message ringing
all along our battle line,
Oh, hear our comrades singing
as our banners brightly shine --
The saloons will have to go!

Glory, glory, hallelujah,
glory, glory, hallelujah,
The saloons will have to go!

Everybody now.....


----------



## DMcFadden

Tim,

If my guess is correct, the prohibition has more to do with history, tradition, and donor/alum expectations than with a firm and principled position.

They may be willing to admit you for the sake of numbers (and $$$) in their program, regardless of your view of drinking. Afterall, you don't exactly hold to their credo position on baptism either. And, I would like to think that believer's baptism is more important to them than watered down American beer.


----------



## steadfast7

The question is not what he thinks of watered down American beer, but whether he's willing to stop drinking it  Maybe they'll allow Guinness? yumm


----------



## Marrow Man

steadfast7 said:


> The question is not what he thinks of watered down American beer, but whether he's willing to stop drinking it  Maybe they'll allow Guinness? yumm



 I assure you I stopped drinking water-down American beer a long time ago!


----------



## elnwood

Tim, did you call or e-mail SBTS about the alcohol policy for D.Min. students? It seems like a question more appropriate to ask directly than to pose to PB and let us all speculate on whether it applies on or off campus, or to MDiv, DMin students or staff. I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't apply as rigorously to DMin students, given most students won't be anywhere near campus for 11 months out of the year.


----------



## Marrow Man

elnwood said:


> Tim, did you call or e-mail SBTS about the alcohol policy for D.Min. students? It seems like a question more appropriate to ask directly than to pose to PB and let us all speculate on whether it applies on or off campus, or to MDiv, DMin students or staff. I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't apply as rigorously to DMin students, given most students won't be anywhere near campus for 11 months out of the year.



Thanks, Don, that is a good suggestion. I will do that, especially since I've looked at other D.Min. programs and I really haven't seen anything that interests me nearly as much as the SBTS program (not to mention its proximity to me). The reason I posed the question here is because I knew some of the PBers had attended SBTS, including at least a couple of D.Min. students.


----------



## reaganmarsh

Tim, just curious -- are you looking at the D.Min. in Applied Theology? I checked SBTS – Professional Doctoral Degrees and didn't see a program in historical theology...and such a degree sounds fascinating...


----------



## Pilgrim

At this point I tend to lean toward an abstentionist (though not prohibitionist) view. But I'm not looking to argue that here. "To his own master he standeth or falleth." 

I'm not nearly as troubled by the alcohol clause as I am about other more weighty issues that I've observed since I left Presbyterianism three years ago. For the purposes of this thread, I'll limit it to SBTS. Ben or any others who know the men or events in question firsthand may want to comment or rebut, etc.

Dr. Mohler's views on homosexuality are apparently orthodox and he's been a very articulate Valiant for Truth on that issue for years. But with his statements to Jonathan Merritt and his affirmation of them at the Convention, he got into trouble for using the terminology of the homosexual activists (homophobia and choice, or lack thereof) without using their definitions. Even if the idea was to shake some "conservative" church people out of their slumber, at this point it's questionable in my mind whether or not it was well executed since it resulted in people from all sides of the issue questioning whether or not he had changed his views.

I have also been troubled by Dr. Moore referring to various EO and RC leaders as "Christians" on his blog with no qualification whatsoever. He certainly knows the difference, but making statements like that on a site read by many young and impressionable people is not at all helpful, in my opinion. But it is consistent with signing the Manhattan Declaration. 

At the most recent Southern Baptist Convention, we were told that immigration is a "Gospel issue." This leaves the impression that if you didn't agree with their resolution on illegal immigration that you are somehow denying the gospel. Whether or not this is a result of casting aside the Third Use of the Law (and the adoption by many SBC Calvinistic non-Dispensationalists of what amounts to a largely dispensational view of the law) and replacing it with so-called "Gospel Centeredness" is best left for another thread, especially since to some degree that's a controversy that largely affects the Reformed as a whole. 

Those who favor something approximating the Spirituality of the Church will not likely find a champion for those views at SBTS. Looking on from afar, it seems to me that you're more likely to find pointed criticism of it, particularly from those who identify most closely with the administration. I take exceptions to some forms of it, (and r2k) but the almost shrill pronounciations of immigration policy being a "Gospel Issue!!!!" may cause me to reevaluate. 

Dr. Schreiner's book _The Race Set Before Us_ appears to set forth a theology of perseverance and assurance that is not too far removed from Norman Shepherd's. In fact, the co-author, Dr. Caneday (who is not a SBTS faculty member,) has noted his admiration for Shepherd and for much of his teaching. As you can see on that site, criticisms of the book are greeted with the usual "I've been misread" that we're familiar with in the Shepherd, FV and NPP controversies. We cannot impute all of Dr. Caneday's statements to Dr. Schreiner, but I would think it's safe to assume they are in close agreement on the issue to have co-authored the book together. 

All that being said, the state of SBTS today vs. 20 years ago (when it was the most liberal of the SBC's six seminaries) is quite remarkable and is certainly cause for giving thanks to the Lord. And being such a large institution with many excellent teachers, none of the above examples may rise to the level of causing a faithful servant of the Lord to reject the school outright as an option for doctoral study, particularly if he is not SBC anyway. It's undoubtedly one of the finest institutions in evangelicalism. 

Maybe I'm just too much of a fundamentalist (from a separatist standpoint) to fit in long term with the SBC as it is at this point with the vast diversity of views on nearly every side. It seems that almost anything goes just so long as one pays lip service to some approximation of inerrancy. (That being said, an instructor at one of the SB seminaries told me privately that inerrancy was a "fundamentalist" concept. But you've had similar problems at some Reformed institutions.) It could well be argued that this diversity is almost inevitable in such a large denomination of autonomous churches with such a long history. But a widespread casting aside of its doctrinal moorings over the course of much of the 20th C didn't help. 

After having run into one too many Southern Baptist N.T. Wright fan seminarians and other instances of doctrinal compromise that are largely unrelated to Calvinism, I became so frustrated about 2 1/2 years ago that unfortunately I spewed the virtual equivalent of napalm on this board before going on a 2 year self imposed break.


----------



## Marrow Man

reaganmarsh said:


> Tim, just curious -- are you looking at the D.Min. in Applied Theology? I checked SBTS – Professional Doctoral Degrees and didn't see a program in historical theology...and such a degree sounds fascinating...



Indeed, you are correct, and I made a slight error. The area is applied theology, but they mention the application of biblical, historical, and practical theology in the description.


----------



## Marrow Man

Pilgrim said:


> Maybe I'm just too much of a fundamentalist (from a separatist standpoint) to fit in long term with the SBC as it is at this point with the vast diversity of views on nearly every side.



No, you sound more like a former Presbyterian who finds it hard to shake the "warrior child" mentality, even as a Baptist! 

J/K. I think you for pointing out these things. SBTS is still a great school, but you are correct to point out some of the teachings about the law would be troubling (but they some "presbyterians" have the same problems). I did not know anything about the comparisons between Schreiner and Shepherd -- that exceeds the parameters of this thread, but I think I might like to discuss this with you further via PM if you are so inclined.

And, on a side note, I was at our locally-owned Christian bookstore yesterday (which is generally a fabulous store). They carry and sell a lot of books for SBTS. On the counter was a recommendation by one of the employees -- a new translation of Thomas a' Kempis' _The Imitation of Christ_. I made a slight joke to the owner about the suggestion (something like "I don't think I want to read books by Roman Catholic mystics, even if _____ recommends it"), and he said they were reading it on the seminary campus. I don't know what that means. It may not mean anything (obviously, if they were studying a false religion, they would read books on the religion, for instance; besides, someone once gave me a free copy of that book and I have it on my bookshelf at present). But it did make me curious as to how the book is being used in class.

Addendum: Someone passed along to me this helpful blog post on a' Kempis, maintaining that while he should be read with caution, he can also be read with benefit.


----------



## Herald

Tim, For what it's worth I wouldn't consider SBTS' policy on alcohol to be a binding of your conscience. Consider whether there is a greater good to be had. Once you complete your course work your checked liberty will be freed. 

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.


----------



## Marrow Man

Herald said:


> Tim, For what it's worth I wouldn't consider SBTS' policy on alcohol to be a binding of your conscience. Consider whether there is a greater good to be had. Once you complete your course work your checked liberty will be freed.
> 
> sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.



You know, you're pretty smart for someone from Jaws-sey.


----------



## Herald

Marrow Man said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim, For what it's worth I wouldn't consider SBTS' policy on alcohol to be a binding of your conscience. Consider whether there is a greater good to be had. Once you complete your course work your checked liberty will be freed.
> 
> sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you're pretty smart for someone from Jaws-sey.
Click to expand...


Don't let James Helbert hear that.


----------



## Wayne

To the earlier statement about "arguing prohibition from Scripture" -- I can't speak for that institution, but my guess would be that their position is more nuanced than that.

The old Bible Presbyterian Church took a prohibitive position--it was one of three reasons they split from the OPC. But their stance was _not_ to teach that Scripture says we can't drink; rather, they held that we cannot maintain our testimony in this culture if we consume beverage alcohol. 

We might still disagree, but there is a big difference between those two positions.


----------



## Wayne

Kind of prompts a review of the Confession on what constitutes a lawful oath.


----------



## Marrow Man

Wayne said:


> But their stance was not to teach that Scripture says we can't drink; rather, they held that we cannot maintain our testimony in this culture if we consume beverage alcohol.



Wayne, this is somewhat similar to the stance Dr. Mohler articulated in the audio file posted above.


----------



## Pilgrim

Marrow Man said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm just too much of a fundamentalist (from a separatist standpoint) to fit in long term with the SBC as it is at this point with the vast diversity of views on nearly every side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you sound more like a former Presbyterian who finds it hard to shake the "warrior child" mentality, even as a Baptist!
Click to expand...


That's actually pretty accurate except that I came into Presbyterianism with the "warrior child" mentality fully intact! To cut a long story short, the "warrior" mentality was actually a hindrance to me joining a congregation of the *O*nly *P*erfect *C*hurch in the first place. The justification controversy was raging at its hottest then and the report on that issue was still a couple of years away.

With regard to how I view evangelicalism (including the SBC) the second volume of Iain Murray's biography of Martyn Lloyd-Jones had a profound impact on me. By contrast, those who take their cues from Keller and others of a similar mindset identify a lot more with the late John Stott on the issues that caused the division between them. (And they disagreed on a lot more than just whether or not evangelicals should get out of the Church of England.) Not realizing the number of those of the latter mentality among younger SB's was one of the main sources of my frustration in having to don the warrior helmet again. 

The Lloyd-Jones (and MacArthur, even if you take out the teetotalism and dispensationalism) brand of evangelical separatism is deemed "fundamentalism" by many Southern Baptists, including many of the "Young, Restless and Reformed." With some of them (and I'm referring to Calvinistic men) if you question anything that an apparently successful ministry is doing, especially a Calvinistic ministry, you're called a fundamentalist, (or some other label depending on the issue) which is often an attempt to dismiss the concern without addressing it. "Don't bother with that fundy." 

I don't know that anyone who strongly identifies with the position Lloyd-Jones took with regard to Graham, Packer, etc. can be fully at home in the SBC or any other similarly broad based denomination. I know a good many men of that mindset who do make that their home from a denominational standpoint, but to borrow a term from our political discourse, they are basically SBINOS (in name only) who have little or no interest in denominational involvement beyond the local church or at best the associational level. Where I get hung up is "but the $$ I put in the plate is going to support such and such abomination." But that's probably inevitable to some extent no matter what your affiliation is if you support any kind of work beyond the local congregation. 

With regard to the "New Evangelicalism" that Lloyd-Jones differed with (in a somewhat less strident way than American fundamentalists did) there's a good case to be made that the turnaround of SBTS (and the SBC in general) is their greatest triumph. Both Mohler and Moore have been strongly influenced by Carl F.H. Henry. With regard to cultural engagement coupled with orthodox protestantism (albeit somewhat less broadly evangelical, being a denominational school) they seem to be succeeding where Fuller failed.


----------



## NB3K

Jack K said:


> It may simply be wise to avoid offending people on this issue, at this time, in order that the seminary's leadership on other fronts may go forward without distraction.



Perfectly said! I guess my seminary is my library. Filled with all the greats such as Augustine, Chrysostom, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Owens, Bunyan, Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Hodges, Boyce (SBC Founder), Pink, Berkouf, Sproul, & Piper. (Chrysostom & Aquinas are used for reference only). Of all those men Augustine, Luther are tied in second, and Calvin is my favorite. I like Calvin not just because his teaching is so clear and lucid and easy to understand, but most of all I like his fruit. MISSIONARIES WORLD WIDE.


----------



## Grimmson

Bill The Baptist said:


> From a practical standpoint, I think it is because most of the students live on campus while the employees do not. I think they are just trying to avoid the type of problems that sometimes result from alcohol use by students in any college or university. The last thing a seminary wants to be known as is a party school.



At Westminster Seminary of California, one (student or employee) is also not allowed to drink on campus. The reason, if I remember right, is due to their insurance policy that they keep. This may be the case for other seminaries as well. So when considering SBTS on the issue of no drinking on campus, other seminaries may also share fault even though the reasoning behind the probation may be different. 


Jack K said:


> SBTS and Dr. Mohler are admirably challenging firmly entrenched aspects of SBC culture on several important fronts. This is effective and necessary work within that denomination, and it might be sidetracked if the seminary got embroiled in controversy over secondary issues such as alcohol. It may simply be wise to avoid offending people on this issue, at this time, in order that the seminary's leadership on other fronts may go forward without distraction.


I couldn’t agree more. Of course this is only speculation of policy and beliefs behind closed doors with Mohler and with those that work with him.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Grimmson said:


> So when considering SBTS on the issue of no drinking on campus, other seminaries may also share fault even though the reasoning behind the probation may be different.



Except SBTS' prohibition extends to all students, including those off-campus, at all times with exceptions only for health and communion.


----------



## Marrow Man

Let me reiterate -- I have absolutely no problem with a no-alcohol policy for the school campus, and I would not have a problem for on-campus students. But I would be on campus at most two or three weeks _a year_ (and that would be just during the daytime). I would gladly refrain from using alcohol even during those times. But to extend that policy to me when I won't be anywhere near the campus (or no closer than I am now) 24/7 for the next 3+ years seems a bit much to me.


----------



## Grimmson

Scottish Lass said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when considering SBTS on the issue of no drinking on campus, other seminaries may also share fault even though the reasoning behind the probation may be different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except SBTS' prohibition extends to all students, including those off-campus, at all times with exceptions only for health and communion.
Click to expand...


Anna, am aware of that. I was just dealing with the issue of drinking on campus.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Marrow Man said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm being a crumudgeon, but that policy really bothers me. I could understand maybe not allowing alcohol in on-campus housing, but to require complete abstinence for any and all students seems to be binding the conscience a bit much. And I'll just beat anyone to the punch - I know if I don't like it, I don't have to go there; their school, their rules, etc. I would like to know what their reason is for the rule because surely they can't argue that scripture prohibits it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They think they can argue prohibition from Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an interesting point and, if true, sheds a bit of a different light on the handbook phrase "regardless of personal conviction or ecclesiastic tradition." I hope it's not true, however, because it would make me question the exegetical methodology of the institution. At this point, though, I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...


Tim, 

I have not spent any time at Southern so maybe I am wrong, but while attending Southwestern and DTS I have heard the argument of abstinence from Scripture. Seeing that all three institutions have the same alcohol policy and the fact that many of the profs could teach at any of them (I know some that have taught at least two of them), it does not seem to be a stretch to assume that at minimum some believe that prohibition can be shown through Scripture.

It is not uncommon for a typical Dispensational to claim prohibition as Biblical. Even Johnny Mac will argue that being around alcohol is sinful.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Marrow Man said:


> Let me reiterate -- I have absolutely no problem with a no-alcohol policy for the school campus, and I would not have a problem for on-campus students. But I would be on campus at most two or three weeks _a year_ (and that would be just during the daytime). I would gladly refrain from using alcohol even during those times. But to extend that policy to me when I won't be anywhere near the campus (or no closer than I am now) 24/7 for the next 3+ years seems a bit much to me.



To me as well.

I don't think they wrote the student handbook with students in modular/distance ed/indepenent studies programs in mind, even if their language sounds all-inclusive.


----------



## BJClark

It is also very possible they do not want the reputation that many secular colleges have as a 'party' school, would that be a good thing for a Seminary?

For whatever reason, many within the secular world believe Christians should abstain from drinking, they do not understand Christian liberty in this area, and hold Christians to a higher standard..

The typical conversation is not "your a christian why aren't you having a drink"

it's more..

"I didn't know it was okay for Christians to drink" or "I thought you were a Christian, why are you drinking?"


----------



## Andres

BJClark said:


> "your a Christian? Why are you drinking? Christians aren't supposed to drink"
> 
> Or "I didn't know it was okay for Christians to drink" or "I thought you were a Christian, why are you drinking?"



I think theese are great questions to get asked. I've been asked them before and I happily give them my answer explaining that there is absolutely nothing wrong with alcohol in moderation. I explain to them that the scriptures only condemn drunkenness or alcohol abuse, but moderate alcohol consumption is actually applauded in scripture.


----------



## Wayne

All of this is just another indication that you should instead work on a serious Ph.D. at some Scottish or English school. 

Some schools have programs where you can go just a few weeks a year. The European model minimizes course work and focuses on the dissertation. Spurgeon's College/University of Wales would be one such.


----------

