Question about Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

[JoannaV]

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).

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.