# I have to sign a life style contract at my school that conflicts with my freedom of conscious



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Aug 23, 2005)

"The JBU community has also adopted prudential rules that are consistent with but not required by Scripture (Prohibitng the use of alcohol and refraining from university-sponsored social dances) in order to guide and encourage the Christian conduct of undergraduate students. "

Everyone in my dorm signed but me. 

Two things: 

I think they retract from Christs' holiness when they state this since he drank. 

This violates my liberty and forces me to submit my authority and preferance to man-made tradition or laws as though they were Gods.


----------



## turmeric (Aug 23, 2005)

How committed are you to attending this school? Are you required to sign?
They seem to hold typical Evanjellyfish views on what the Christian lifestyle looks like, if you want to go to this school, you may have to humor the poor floppy things!


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 23, 2005)

Here's a silly question: are you 21?


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> I think they retract from Christs' holiness when they state this since he drank.


 They say themselves these steps are not required by scripture so I can not see how you reach this conclusion that it retracts from Christ's holiness.

I would have a problem if they said these things were Biblical - but they admit they are not and are simply doing it out of some level of prudence. Must you sign it? Where _exactly_ is the problem? Is the small matter of alcohol really worth the fuss you could create?


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Here's a silly question: are you 21?



I will be soon.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 23, 2005)

I also don't see the conscience problem. It may be something that you don't want to do, but there is no violation of conscience. Schools do this all the time in order to deal with the realities of school life.

One example: Grove City College requires all freshmen to live in a dorm on campus. No exceptions (that I know of). That certainly is not a Biblical requirement, but something the school thinks is prudent.

Given the (legendary) penchant of college students to be drunkards, it seems to be presented reasonably. I might not like it either, and might choose another school because of it, but this does not appear to violate the Bible.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 23, 2005)

If their justification for restricting the use of alcohol by students is that it is unBiblical, they are directly contradicting Scripture. Scripture teaches God created alcohol for our good and enjoyment to His glory. Therefore, to ban alcohol use b/c it is "unBiblical" is a violation of God's revealed Will and is a doctrine of men. Christ condemns such practices of contradicting the commandments of God with commandments of men which are extra-Biblical. The WCF XX teaches:



> II. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and *hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word*, or beside it in matters of faith on worship. So that *to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience*; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.



To sign this document is to betray your true liberty of conscience as a Christian, b/c they are asking you to approve extra-Biblical commandments of men, which are in opposition to God's Word. The abolitionist position IS at enmity with God's Word, b/c it makes many righteous men - including Christ Himself - to be sinners. This is unacceptable.

I would either attend a different school, or kindly ask to explain to someone why you cannot, because of your faith, sign such a document.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> If their justification for restricting the use of alcohol by students is that it is unBiblical, they are directly contradicting Scripture. Scripture teaches God created alcohol for our good and enjoyment to His glory. Therefore, to ban alcohol use b/c it is "unBiblical" is a violation of God's revealed Will and is a doctrine of men. Christ condemns such practices of contradicting the commandments of God with commandments of men which are extra-Biblical. The WCF XX teaches:
> 
> 
> ...



 (especially wrt to the Lord's Supper)


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> If their justification for restricting the use of alcohol by students is that it is unBiblical, they are directly contradicting Scripture. Scripture teaches God created alcohol for our good and enjoyment to His glory. Therefore, to ban alcohol use b/c it is "unBiblical" is a violation of God's revealed Will and is a doctrine of men. Christ condemns such practices of contradicting the commandments of God with commandments of men which are extra-Biblical. The WCF XX teaches:
> 
> 
> ...



The Statement itself is prima facie not about impinging on liberty of conscience, or condemning alcohol:



> consistent with but not required by Scripture



If the position were that prohibitionist, it would be required by Scripture. This may not be wise, but it is not a liberty of conscience issue, any more than if the school made all roads on campus 15 MPH.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 23, 2005)

Drinking alcohol is an issue dealt with directly in Scripture, though. That contract is taking a prohibitionist stance, which is not only un-Biblical, but anti-Biblical and against the testimony of Christ as living a perfect life of obedience to God's Law on earth ... of course this is unacceptable! Blasphemy! God Forbid!

If their document took a moderation standpoint, that would be perfectly biblical, asking students who are of age to drink responsibly in Christ and to God's glory. This is the only contract I would sign, otherwise I would be violating my conscience and in sin.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Drinking alcohol is an issue dealt with directly in Scripture, though. That contract is taking a prohibitionist stance, which is not only un-Biblical, but anti-Biblical and against the testimony of Christ as living a perfect life of obedience to God's Law on earth ... of course this is unacceptable! Blasphemy! God Forbid!
> 
> If their document took a moderation standpoint, that would be perfectly biblical, asking students who are of age to drink responsibly in Christ and to God's glory. This is the only contract I would sign, otherwise I would be violating my conscience and in sin.



Then Paul was a sinner. There is absolutely nothing wrong with refraining from Biblically permissible activities for reasons of prudence.

I do not permit "moderation" in drinking with my 7 year old. There is a reason. The school is clearly saying that certain activities, while NOT required by Scripture (that is what they say, so it is again not a position of testimony against Christ) will not be permitted for prudential reasons. You may certainly think they are being imprudent, even dumb. But you do not understand liberty of conscience or 1 Cor 6, if you think it is violative of liberty of conscience.

Or is no authority ever permitted to prohibit anything unless the Bible explicitly calls it sin?


----------



## turmeric (Aug 23, 2005)

With all due respect, I get the impression that some Christians think drinking is a means of grace!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 23, 2005)

Can Tim no longer partake of the Lord's Supper, then?

How does the "all things are permissable/not all things are beneficial? argument apply to alcohol? Is not alcohol required of Christians (in the LS) and recommended for their benefit by Scripture??



> Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.)
> 
> Deut 14:26 and spend the money for whatever you desire"”oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.
> 
> Psalm 104:14 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth 15 and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man's heart.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> With all due respect, I get the impression that some Christians think drinking is a means of grace!



The Lord's Supper is!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by turmeric_
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Can Tim no longer partake of the Lord's Supper, then?
> 
> How does the "all things are permissable/not all things are beneficial? argument apply to alcohol? Is not alcohol required of Christians (in the LS) and recommended for their benefit by Scripture??
> ...



I guess you have your first case then to bring against your Church for unbiblically binding the consciences of every member of the RPCNA:



> 5. Because drunkenness is so common,
> and because the intemperate use of
> alcohol is constantly being promoted
> by advertising, business practices,
> ...



That certainly is not the statement of a voluntary secular organization - it has the authority of Church discipline behind it. Why don't you start there instead of worrying about a voluntary school's policy on its property?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 23, 2005)

That is no longer binding within the RPCNA, according to a few Pastors I have asked (before I joined the Church) but thank you for your concern, sir.



> *RPCNA Synod 2004:*
> "The Committee to Study Sacramental Wine reported some progress but also expressed the need for more committee members. Part of the committee's assignment was to consider whether the Scriptures "require the use of alcoholic wine in the Lord's supper." [. . .] Some reminded the Synod that congregations were already free to use or not use wine in the Lord's supper, or to use a "split cup" to serve both. Instead of continuing the committee, the Synod decided to ask presbyteries to consider whether they have need to address the question in their own jurisdictions, and to give appropriate shepherding responses if needed."



[Edited on 8-23-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]

[Edited on 8-23-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Aug 23, 2005)

The jist of the topic seems to be,

At what point does liberty of conscious override God given authority figures.

Id say only at points of contradiction to the Bible. Remembering that the Bible support being subject to governing authorities (Rom. 13). 

Thus, can a governing authority establish an extra Biblical "law" binding upon the conscious, that would yet be based upon the moral law. (case in point- not drinking till your 21)


----------



## satz (Aug 23, 2005)

From my reading of the statement it seems to apply only to when Tim is on campus or in the dorm? If that is the case than the arguments about the Lord's Supper don't really apply. 

I see it as simply a extra requirement set by a external body for participation in their activities. It is no different from a corporate company requiring men to have neat hair cuts or what not. There is no issue of conscience that i see. Simply a question of whether you consider going to that school to be worth giving up receational drinking. If signing the statement meant endorsing prohibitionist views or binding you for your entire life even outside of school then there would be problems.

Just as a sidenote, i question why people love to forbid something in a way 'consistent with but not required by the scriptures'. If scripture does not forbid something why should men go along making up their own regulations to control others? God obviously knew that alcohol abuse would be a temptation to some of his children as well as cause much suffering in the fallen world. If he decided that prohibiting drunkedness and allowing moderation was ok, why do men need to go further? In 1 Cor Paul did not tell the corinthians that since idol meat was obviously an issue at that time and place they should lay off all meat 'just in case'. He gave them principles to be applied on a case by case basis. 

Since the school itself admits that such a prohibition cannot be proven from scripture, i think they are wrong to try to regulate their students that way. I mean wrong as in it is not a biblical practice...obviously from a secular point of view it is their school and they set the rules they want. 

There is a place for so called 'extra-biblical' rules. Authority figures like fathers or husbands can use their authority to set rules that are not biblical commands, though they should be careful not to be too harsh or controlling. Likewise individual christians may set rules for themselves to avoid temptation etc. But In my humble opinion it is not for a school to set rules like this. I think the bible is crystal clear on the lawfulness and even commends proper use of alcohol. You are right to observe the Christ himself drank alcohol. Hence a all out prohibition is not more christian in any sense. I am more understanding to where people are coming from on the dancing issue, i still think a blanket prohibition is forcing one's own convictions on others.

That being said, again, if you don't mind i see no sin in signing the statement, if the school's education is worth it to you.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> With all due respect, I get the impression that some Christians think drinking is a means of grace!


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> With all due respect, I get the impression that some Christians think drinking is a means of grace!



It's a blessing


----------



## alwaysreforming (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> "The JBU community has also adopted prudential rules that are consistent with but not required by Scripture (Prohibitng the use of alcohol and refraining from university-sponsored social dances) in order to guide and encourage the Christian conduct of undergraduate students. "
> 
> Everyone in my dorm signed but me.
> ...



Tim,
This shouldn't violate your conscience. The point that is being overlooked here is: These people are not making this a requirement for being a Church member, or a Christian.

They are simply setting out rules and guidelines for their own student body as students, not as Christians.

As Mark said above, it is no different from companies requiring certain standards from their employees. We must not be so quick to find our "conscience violated" when it doesn't have to do with the context of Church membership or the Gospel. That's the only place it counts.

Would shopping at Albertsons violate your conscience because they say "10 items or less" in their line, even though Scripture allows you to purchase numerous items? 

Companies and schools and other organizations are allowed to have rules. And in doing so they are not violating the conscience. You never see a football player doing whatever he wants on the field and yelling back to the referee, "I only follow what's written in the Bible!"

Its the same as going to the Dr. and being put on a strict diet. If you want to go to that school, then you may have to make a few sacrifices, but maybe you'd be better prepared to make those if you didn't feel as though your conscience is violated, because I don't think it needs to be.


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 23, 2005)

They won't let me drink here at work either, so don't feel bad Tim.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 23, 2005)

Tim, 

Perhaps you could clarify a couple of points about the extent to which this contract applies. 

1) Does it apply off campus, at all times (summertime, visits to home or church, etc.), for the duration of your status as a student?

2) Does it extend to the Lord's Supper?


----------



## satz (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Tim,
> 
> Perhaps you could clarify a couple of points about the extent to which this contract applies.
> ...



heh..Andrew, i think if the school is trying to control his behavior at all times even during summertime, at home and in church, ( Tim you say you are 18? ) then i think there is a bigger problem then just liberty to drink...


----------



## pastorway (Aug 23, 2005)

this is indeed not a violation of conscience - it is an opportunity to defer, to deny self, to use restraint and self control in order to honor the authority to which you have submitted yourself. There is nothing unBiblical in this requirement at all. So sign it already and get on with school and life......

(as an aside, can you even drink legally where you live if you are under 21? Here in Texas, unless you are with your parents, you cannot drink or purchase alcohol if you are under 21.)

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> ...



This is exactly the point I was making.


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 23, 2005)

I'd like to say that:
1) most students in college are under the age of 21.
2) This really has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper.
3) The school probably doesn't want beer cans/bottles all around the campus.
4) I got more, but you guys won't listen anyway. You are all DRUNKARDS!


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> this is indeed not a violation of conscience - it is an opportunity to defer, to deny self, to use restraint and self control in order to honor the authority to which you have submitted yourself. There is nothing unBiblical in this requirement at all. So sign it already and get on with school and life......





As much as I might like keeping drinks in my refrigerator on campus at my Baptist college, I rather prefer the fact that I can't, because it means that everyone else (including those who might abuse and disturb the rest of us) can't, either. As a prudential rule, it isn't even a bad one. As I understand it, plenty of state schools have dry campuses, too. (And I imagine plenty of workplaces prohibit alcohol, too...)

Does the policy extend off-campus? Our college's working rule is that you can't come back on campus "under the influence."


----------



## satz (Aug 23, 2005)

> "The JBU community has also adopted prudential rules that are consistent with but not required by Scripture (Prohibitng the use of alcohol and refraining from university-sponsored social dances) in order to guide and encourage the Christian conduct of undergraduate students. "



I guess the problematic issue is the fact that the statement was phrased as if it was somehow a religious issue of holiness. Which prehaps it is. If they had simply stated ' no drinking we don't want drunks trashing our furniture' then i don't think anyone would have had a problem.

That said i agree with what everyone has said. If one wants to go to this school, just submit.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Tim,
> 
> Perhaps you could clarify a couple of points about the extent to which this contract applies.
> ...



All I know is what it says. But I will prob. drink off campus just not on. This school makes me uptight and nervous.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...




Outside of this contract you are to sign, are there any other laws that would prohibit you from drinking off campus, as per your resolve noted above?

What are the penalties of not signing this, "Life stlye contract?"


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JKLeoPCA_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> ...



On school campus I can understand their policy--if it includes off of campus actvities I would say something like "liberty of conscious trumps stupid rules."

I would throw them a bone and abide by their on-campus rules. If it applies to off-campus as well, well...I don't want to go into it now....my opinions are probably evident....read some of my posts on arbitrary laws.


----------



## BrianBowman (Aug 23, 2005)

> This school makes me uptight and nervous



... then why are you a student at JBU? Why not use your Christian liberty and freedom of conscience to attend another school where you don't have to sign a lifestyle contract if this issue is so important to you? From all accounts JBU is a good "Christian" school where you have an opportunity to get a solid education. From where I sit you either appreciate it for what it is and abide by the rules or find another square to dance in.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 23, 2005)

*Just sign the stupid contract and don't drink any alcohol...* Otherwise, you might consider going to another school... Going to a private college is contractual and you're bound by their rules... Besides, with all due respect, that's the most absurd objection about being compelled not to drink alcohol -- that is to say "religious conscience," as if our faith compels us to have alcohol to get through our undergraduate education... You don't need any alcohol anyway. Given the American culture, that is the last thing young teens and twentysomethings (even over 21) need while going to college... Spend your money on books. Alcohol prohibition at undergrad Christian institutions is a good thing. There I said it!

I had to live with a drunken partyanimal at Regent (who got us threatened with eviction, and who was always fomenting strife, loud parties until early in AM which disrupted my sleep, tossing out slander) and I loathed every minute of it... My other roommate was okay, just too timid to stand up to the partyanimal. I wished Regent was as strict as Liberty-- it's difficult when most students live off campus, plus they had no prohibition, just recommended against alcohol in excess. I get tired of hearing Reformed people groveling about ills of prohibition and fundamentalist legalism... From my vantage point, we seem to have a little problem with _alcohol in excess_ particularly among the young-uns... Banning alcohol until people become more mature in their judgment is a good thing...


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Drinking alcohol is an issue dealt with directly in Scripture, though. That contract is taking a prohibitionist stance, which is not only un-Biblical, but anti-Biblical and against the testimony of Christ as living a perfect life of obedience to God's Law on earth ... of course this is unacceptable! Blasphemy! God Forbid!
> 
> If their document took a moderation standpoint, that would be perfectly biblical, asking students who are of age to drink responsibly in Christ and to God's glory. This is the only contract I would sign, otherwise I would be violating my conscience and in sin.



Why stop there Gabe? Are you letting some _anti-biblical_ man-made positive law enforcing the prohibition of alcohol trump the conscience of young, eager-to-consume-alcohol Christians beholden to _God's law_?!?!?! Signing the contract and enrolling at school that bans alcohol is voluntary, but the law prohibiting alcohol until age twenty-one is not. Underaged Christians would be sinning against their conscience to _NOT_ drink! Oh no! We can't have that!! _of course this is unacceptable! Blasphemy! God Forbid!_ That's why we should hand out Bibles and help underage Reformed kids get beer and alcohol!



You set yourself up for that one!


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 23, 2005)

> That's why we should hand out Bibles and help underage Reformed kids get beer and alcohol!



Well, now that you mention it...


----------



## pastorway (Aug 23, 2005)

thinking about this today I want to make some points that need to be heard, not just by those posting in this thread - but by us all.

Christian liberty is not a right. It is not something we ENFORCE. It is freedom. However, there are limits! The Bible makes it clear that if our freedom offends a weaker brother, then we curb our freedom. We abstain for the good and peace of the Body of Christ.

And here we are again, looking right at the verse "esteem all others as better than yourself."

You see, liberty is not about SELF. It is not about ME. It is about others, fellowship, edification, etc. And further, as soon as an issue of liberty becomes about self and rights and demands, then a crucial line has been crossed!! Which line?

Galatians 5:13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only *do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another*. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "œYou shall love your neighbor as yourself." 15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!

Liberty is FOR OTHERS. And when we begin to expect our liberty unhindered, even by other weaker, or even misonformed believers, we reject what Paul taught. And we make SELF the issue, not liberty. And THAT is using liberty for the flesh! 

In this thread what we have is a school that has every right to demand that its students refrain from using alcohol. This does not contradict Scripture, it is their right. And for a student there to submit to the authority of the school, but then refuse to sign a lifestyle contract, puts that student in a place of rebellion. It is not a place of freedom, it is not an issue of Christian liberty, it is rebellion against authority. Even though liberty is being claimed, such rebellion is a work of the flesh - so even if one is free to drink alcohol, to claim this as an issue of freedom is to violate clear Scriptural teaching by using libery as an occassion for the flesh to exert its will! It has made an IDOL of liberty.

Remember that Paul taught that he was free to eat meat offered to idols. But then he said if eating such meat caused a weaker brother to stumble, then he would not eat meat at all. He would refrain, abstain, and not eat ANY meat at all. He did not want to give another believer cause to fall into sin themselves, and if they saw him eat meat, even if it was not offered to idols, and this caused them to sin themselves, then Paul would become a vegetarian.

How is that for FREEDOM??

Phillip


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Christian liberty is not a right. It is not something we ENFORCE.




That's right -- in much the same way is that God's laws are just negatives... The Ten Commandments are full of "Thou shall not..." which is similar to "Congress shall make no law..." The Mosaic Law was not concerned with positive grants of freedom and New Testament is not some strange inversion concerned with positive grants of freedom either. The Bible doesn't concern itself with positive grants of freedom or a freedom to drink alcohol whereever and whenever. That is not what Christian liberty is about. 

First and foremost, the Christian concept of liberty is about freedom from the bondage of sin, not freedom to do this, and freedom to do that.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Aug 23, 2005)

Those were good points Pastor Way.

As a student I would gladly submit to rules against the drinking of alcohol (as long as it did not clash with the Lord's Supper). I have seen too many terrible things happen because of alcohol. Friends get beaten up in drunken fights. Other people you know get themselves killed - their heads cracked open as they are thrown through the front windscreen of their cars and thrown into trees and everything else. People you care about or used to know well get brain damaged and disabled. I believe student drinking is going out of control - maybe it is where I am (and statistically New Zealand students are some of the worst in the world for binge drinking) - but such prohibitions save lives.


----------



## doulosChristou (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> "The JBU community has also adopted prudential rules that are consistent with but not required by Scripture (Prohibitng the use of alcohol and refraining from university-sponsored social dances) in order to guide and encourage the Christian conduct of undergraduate students. "
> 
> Everyone in my dorm signed but me.
> ...



The general principle from Scripture regarding Christian submission to authority is this: Obey them in all things unless they 1) command what Scripture forbids or 2) forbid what Scripture commands. In either of these two exceptional cases, it is the Christian's duty to disobey authority. 

Take the head master of a prepatory school, for example. If the head master commands students to dress modestly on campus, Christian students are duty bound to obey the head master (for Scripture commands the same thing!) If the head master forbids students from chewing gum on school grounds, Christian students are accountable to God to obey the head master (even though Scripture has absuloutely nothing to say about gum-chewing!) If, on the other hand, the head master commands a Christian student to steal a car (a clear violation of Scripture!), the Christian is under obligation to disobey the head master -- in Peter's words, "to obey God rather than men."


----------



## Craig (Aug 25, 2005)

Unless you find a clear command from scripture to consume alcohol while at school or with your friends...you're outta luck. 

The school may have it's own rules if it desires...and it does. You enrolled there, you knew that there are rules particular to the school...are you the one in error, or your school? 

It's far more difficult to deal with drunkenness...as you have to have some sort of evidence to discipline someone...it's much easier to deal with simply drinking. If they find alcohol in your room or someone tattles on you, or whatever, it makes discipline easier. While alcohol is a fine thing, and beneficial to a rounded education, the attitude towards it from the collegiate level is generally wicked and juvenile. Yours probably isn't...but the point of college isn't so much drinking, it's education and spiritual training. If a school thinks alcohol will detract from those goals, that school is free to make a rule banning it. You are free to enroll somewhere else, though. 

If, however, you find in the Bible that you are required to drink alcohol, and required to attend JBU, I will join you in berating the school.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> 
> 
> > This school makes me uptight and nervous
> ...



My views changed since being here. I have a meeting tomorrow to discuss this.


----------

