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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Scottish Lass]

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.]

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]

I think the policy also prohibits tobacco...

Well then, that's the final straw!

 

[MarieP]

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.

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.

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 ----------

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.

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

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

 

[Scottish Lass]

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.]

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]

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]

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