Biola is famous for it's contract. In case you aren't familiar with it, I'll fill you in:
While registered for my classes at Biola, or living on campus, I am not allowed to:
-Smoke tobacco products
-Drink alcoholic beverages
-Engage in sexual immorality
-Do illegal drugs
-Dance at campus events
Now, I have no qualms with the illegal drugs bit (after all, it is illegal)and the sexual immorality (as it's more than obvious in the bible that God hates sexual immorality) but tobacco, alcohol, and dancing seem a bit like pushing it.
To address alcohol and tobacco (because there are so many problems wrong with the no dancing rule that I'm not even going to go there), the problem with these substances is not use, but addiction. But there are those of us who can have a glass of wine at dinner (just like Jesus did) and be fine. No lure of addiction. There are those of us who smoke as a social recreation--who are not addicted in the least, but enjoy it for it's stress relief and relaxation aspects.
I enjoy smoking cigars. I don't even dip into the cigarettes because it weirds me out that you're inhaling the nicotine, but every few months I'll smoke a cigar and relax and enjoy it. There is no addiction, the health risks are so incredibly minimal that they aren't even worth mentioning, and it's inexpensive. But I'm not allowed to do this. Because I go to Biola. I am almost legalistically bound to refuse this behavior that I see as perfectly fine. Not sinful at all. But, I'm allowed to indulge in my addiction, in fact, almost encouraged considering that they sell the stuff on campus--coffee. I am severely addicted to coffee (probably a mental addiction, but the physical aspect is there too). I drink it in excess, and I waste money on it and simply cannot function without it.
But nobody cares that I'm addicted to coffee. It's coffee. It's a mundane, everyday substance that everyone loves. Why would it matter? It's not as if it were alcohol or tobacco. But I'm still addicted, and so it is still sinful.
How backwards is it that Biola coddles my addiction and denies me a sinless hobby?
How backwards is it that I cannot use something like alcohol--grabbing a drink with a bunch of unbelieving friends--as a ministry opportunity?
Just food for thought.
A journal of life as a college student
About Me
Notable Entries
What I'm Listening To
Recent Reads
- Augusten Burroughs' "Running with Scissors"
- C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters"
- Douglas Adams' "The HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
- Gregory Maguire's "Wicked"
- J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows"
- J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince"
- Jane Austen's "Persuasion"
- Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
- Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass"
- Papademetriou and Tebbetts' "M or F?"
- Scott O'Dell's "Island of the Blue Dolphins"
Classes this Semester
- Theology I
- Theology II
- Ancient Political Philosophy
- Intro to Philosophy
- English Lit to 1798
- Beginning Greek Grammar
7 comments:
All right, so you can't have a glass of wine with dinner -- and, yes, a bit of Merlot with a plate of penne all'arrabiata is Heaven on Earth. And you're not prohibited from blazing up any stogies, and it doesn't look like you're going to the prom.
Tough tacos.
You knew this going in. The system that you incorrectly deem "legalistic" [legalism defined by Christianity as a system or specific actions having some salvific function, which you darned well know Biola does not claim for its contract terms] was fully known to you prior to your having made your now-chafing commitment. Turns out the yoke's a little heavy, huh? Wah! Nobody forced it on your shoulders, pal.
Think that having a glass of wine at dinner with unbelieving friends would "witness" to them? Try this on as a witness: Remain true to your commitments, regardless of their convenience or appeal.
sentence two should delete the negation and read "And you're prohibited from blazing up... ."
Perhaps I misread your comment and inserted a tone of hostility and condescension, but it seems to me that you're attacking me for even bringing up the possibility that contract isn't the greatest system; and I meant this simply as a conversation starter. Yes, I disagree with contract--after dealing with it for over a year (and having it change my way of living in no way--I don't drink, and I don't smoke except for the occasional cigar; and that was just over the summer, and if you knew me at all, you would know that 'no dancing at school events' is a very silly rule that, again, would not affect how I behave; and I could go on a huge rant about how flippantly biola students break contract quite often with dancing yet condemn any who breaks contract by having a glass of wine with thanksgiving dinner) I have come to the realization that in some cases it does more harm than good.
I do believe that going out for a drink with unbelieving friends can be a huge witness. Alcohol as a means of social lubricant is quite affective; typically unbelievers are more likely to listen and to be open; it doesn't matter that you only order two beers in four hours while they order five, or whatever. What matters is that you have the ability to talk to them and they will be more likely to trust you. In this way, the students from Azusa Pacific University have a huge advantage over Biola students. And most unbelievers don't look at someone's upholding a contract on principal as some sort of great achievement. More often than not when contract comes up in conversation with my unbelieving friends, they don't admire me for my strength of character in keeping contract, but instead look at Biola and Christianity as a school and religion set on following stupid and insignificant rules to achieve salvation. From the outsider's point of view, Biola is nothing but legalistic.
And the legalism permeates throughout the school too--even if it does not manage to infiltrate our faith (or what we say our faith is). As a school full of Christians, where we are supposed to fit in and find a place to worship God openly in everything that we do, the layer of judgment that rests over everything is thick. Unless you happen to find yourself in the middle of one of the crowds that blatantly disregards contract (and they exist)--unless these people are your friends, breaking contract in a way that is not even minutely sinning in any other situation is grounds for condemnation. The forgiving, accepting and Christian society that we would be, we are not--perhaps not because of contract, but contract definitely makes it worse.
Okay, so let's grant that "contract" is a list of stupid, largely-pointless rules and regulations, and -- for the sake of argument -- let's further stipulate that "contract" constitutes some form of legalism (salvation attained wholly or in part by one's own efforts). Let's even say that going out and belting down a few rounds with your unbelieving friends will buy you some sort of credibility in their sight.
Given that, two concerns remain:
1] You had full disclosure of the terms and you made an informed decision regarding their acceptance when you enrolled;
2] Why must your behaviour change in response to your unbelieving friends' mores and sensibilities in order for you to evince an effective witness? You may suggest that doing so is merely becoming "all things..." but would you carry this reasoning to the point of intoxication? At what point would you cease your drinking with unsaved friends, and at that point would they then not simply disdain your limit the same way they now disdain your abstention?
Alright, let me first state that I'm not condoning breaking contract, simply questioning the 'good' that it does--or whatever. So, your first point is null and void. Because contract exists, we should not break it, regardless.
And, to address your second point, your behavior should most definitely not change (in these circumstances) in response to unbelievers around you. If you have a personal issue with drinking, then by all means, do not drink. But it seems rather ludicrous to me that you should be prevented by a convention (that you do not personally agree with) that goes hand in hand with Biola (and, again, I'm simply questioning the convention--not encouraging anyone to break contract). But, you should always know your own limits and follow them. If going out with friends will inevitably lead to intoxication, then by all means you should avoid it--if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with a social outing in which alcohol is consumed...in moderation. That is my point. Contract prevents people from engaging in sinless social contact that could, in some way, be fulfilling the Great Commission. We should not be conformed to the world, but that does not mean that alcohol is completely off limits.
Mr. Anon needs to get his panties out of his ass. I see nothing wrong with venting about how lame something is. Sure, we all have to put up with some things to go/do/get things we desire (in this case, going to a lame chirstian school). Does it mean it should be liked? No.
Then I ask, why is it a big deal? And I too sensed hostility.
I also will mention that I too find it rather silly that a christian school has their students sign a contract. To me, that implies distrust of the students judgments and gives more room to use the cliched tool of religion on them, guilt.
P.S. Anon, you damn coward, show yourself! (Make a blog account so you are not anon or prepare to be BUTTPLUGGED!) XP:::::
Hm. I wonder how much of a witness it is to allow vulgar threats on one's blog? Your guest's warning about being "buttplugged" also connotes homophobia, so the comment scores a second point, for being biased as well as crude. So much for that WWJD? braclet, huh?
As for the substance of your last post, my point was -- and is -- that contract, whatever its merits or shortcomings, was fully disclosed to you prior to its acceptance by you. Re-read your initial post, in which you describe the attitude of Biola as "backwards," because their contract as "coddles my addiction and denies me a sinless hobby." Both the words you wrote and the tone of your writing were plaintive, and these characteristics continue in your follow-up responses as well. Attempting to characterise your writings at this time as merely analytical and academic, rather than a screed against contract, is pure revisionism on your part.
Bottom line: You agreed to something you now find objectionable, and you are attempting to rationalise your objections. Sputter about all you want, but the language you've used supports this interpretation (unless this blog is being posted on the side of the looking glass where the meaning of "is" gets debated).
Lastly, directly to your point about social drinking being a tool for sharing the gospel: Your witness with alcohol will be no better than it is now without.
Sharing the Christian faith isn't about using the right programs, tools, or demographics, and it isn't about you being one of the guys; it's about being faithful to God and His word.
Post a Comment