Wheaton now allows drinking, dancing and smoking

Wheaton is replacing their older "Statement of Responsibilities" with a new Community Covenant.

Here is a relevant paragraph:

"Of particular concern in a collegiate environment are those issues related to alcohol, illegal drugs, and tobacco. While the use of illegal drugs or the abuse of legal drugs is by definition illicit, and the use of tobacco in any form has been shown to be injurious to health, the situation regarding beverage alcohol is more complex. The Bible requires moderation in the use of alcohol, not abstinence. Yet the fact that alcohol is addictive to many, coupled with the biblical warnings against its dangers, also suggests the need for caution. The abuse of alcohol constitutes by far our society's greatest substance abuse problem, not to mention the fact that many Christians avoid it as a matter of conscience. Thus the question of alcohol consumption represents a prime opportunity for Christians to exercise their freedom responsibly, carefully, and in Christ-like love."

Here, in a letter from the president of Wheaton is a justification of the change:

"As part of their research the committee also happened upon a development which added a new wrinkle to their work. In 1991 the Illinois legislature passed the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act (IRPWA). This act prohibits discriminating against an applicant or employee 'because the individual uses lawful products off the premises of the employer during non-working hours.' According to the act, 'lawful products' specifically include 'all tobacco products, all alcoholic beverages, [and] all food products . . . provided, however, that any use or overconsumption of these lawful products that directly impairs the performance of the employee at the workplace shall not be protected by the Act.' Legal authorities believe IRPWA probably exempts religious employers in cases where they can argue that the 'lawful products' under consideration are prohibited as a matter of clear and consistent religious requirement. For example, a Muslim organization might successfully argue that the consumption of alcohol is 'against our religion.' But short of such an ironclad argument, no such prohibition appears to be legal under Illinois law."

This is just sophistry. I seriously doubt that the state of Illinois has any desire to prosecute Wheaton for forbidding drinking, etc. I suppose lawyers might argue that Wheaton may have some liability exposure if an employee were to sue. If so, so be it. Christians should suffer for doing right, not go along to get along.

The bottom line? Wheaton wanted to make the change and found this law a convenient excuse to blame the change on.

Pretty sad.

Christianity Today Magazine - What Conversion Is and Is Not

Stackhouse makes some good points concerning conversion. Conversion is both an event and a process. If the process does not exist, the event has not happened. I think that is what James is getting at when he says "faith, if it hath not works, is dead".

However, I have to take issue with Stackhouse on this conclusion:

"Is he saved?" I don't know, and I cannot know until "the roll is called up yonder." The actual condition of another's heart is mysterious, even to that individual. So from the outside I certainly cannot presume to know, and therefore I do not need to try to know.

It seems to me that this conclusion flies in the face of God's clear revelation, at least as far as personal assurance of salvation is concerned. The apostle Johns says "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life." 1 John 5:13. John says we can know. I will accept him as a much higher authority than Stackhouse on this point.

Further, the apostle Paul says "and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." Romans 8:30. All of these verbs are aorist tense, viewing the action as an accomplished fact. While there is a process of sanctification leading to glorification in this life, the event is already complete in Christ. If I am in Christ, I am glorified. I don't have to grow into it.

Thus, while Stackhouse's article provides some push towards a right and godly motivation for pressing on about our own conversion (as a process), i.e., sanctification, it betrays the corrupting influence of his liberal friends and does not adequately portray the biblical picture concerning conversion.

This story points to the corrupting effect of compromise:

Yahoo! News - Libya Elected to Chair U.N. Human Rights Body
(Article no longer available at Yahoo)

Here is the first line:

"Libya, under fire for years from human rights activists, was overwhelmingly elected Monday to chair the top United Nations rights body after the United States broke with tradition and forced a vote."

It is rather incredible that such an event would take place. However, it demonstrates the corrupting effect of compromise. If you assume that all parties have an equal seat at the table, you must eventually accept the unacceptable.

The same effects are seen in the recent history of the church. Many evangelicals in the 50s decided to 'broaden the borders' and 'widen the tent' within which cooperative efforts and 'Christian' dialogue could take place. The result is that men who deny Christ must be accepted as brothers lest one damage the 'spirit of tolerance' and 'acceptance' which is rule no. 1 in current thought.

The UN serves as a hindrance to security and safety of many right thinking nations and people. Evangelical compromise, the NEA, and the BGEA, et al, serve as a hindrance to the purity and integrity of the gospel of Jesus Christ.