Is Contract Biblical?
Let me say first off - I don’t claim to be an expert on this issue. I don’t claim to know all the facts. Feel free to agree or disagree with me… and I’d love to have wisdom or advice from people who want to share it.
Covenant has this thing called “Standards of Conduct.” It is basically a two page list of standards that Covenant requires all entering students to sign and agree to. ”Students at Covenant are to practice all the virtues taught in the Scriptures, such as: self-discipline, modesty, patience, and honesty… Students are also required to abstain from all activities which violate Biblical teachings…”
I signed and agreed to it when I came to Covenant College as a freshman last fall semester.
One of the biggest things that is talked about on campus are the rules that students are prohibited from smoking and drinking while enrolled in the semester at Covenant. “Students are prohibited at all times, whether they are on or off the campus …from the possession and use of alcohol and/or tobacco.”
Some students have argued that the use of alcohol or tobacco do not go against Biblical teachings. Of course, God calls us to obey the law of the land that has been placed over us so long as it does not conflict with Biblical teachings. We are required to respect and obey the laws that say that a US citizen must be 18 years of age to use tobacco, and 21 years of age to consume alcohol. But what if i’m a student at Covenant who is perfectly old enough, according to the law of the land, to smoke and drink. Where in the Bible does it say, “Do not drink and do not smoke”? It doesn’t. So is this part of the “Standards of Conduct” which Covenant upholds necessary or even Biblical?
That’s the common argument that I have heard. Others may have heard differently or may disagree entirely. As I said earlier on, I am speaking from my own experience.. and merely trying to attain a better understanding of what we define as “biblical.”
Though the Bible may not explicitly say that one should not drink or smoke, the Bible does say that our bodies are temples of God. In I Corinthians 6:19-20 it says, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.” It says a similar thing in I Corinthians 3:16-17 - “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.”
I am not saying that one should never drink. I am not saying that one should never smoke. There is nothing inherently wrong with either of them - it is only when we abuse them that they can become harmful… and the abuse of either of them is a problem of the heart, not the substance itself.
Covenant College has decided to prohibit the use and possession of alcohol and tobacco not because they are evil… or because the use of them goes against Biblical teachings. Neither of those statements are true. There is nothing inherently wrong or evil about a shot of whiskey. But if we abuse it or get drunk by it, then we are going against what God commands us to do in I Corinthians 6:20 - “…Honor God with your body.” I believe Covenant has made a wise decision by choosing to prohibit the use or possession of alcohol or tobacco. God calls us to pursue that which is good, true, and right. Philippians 4:8 says, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” And likewise, I Timothy 6:11 says, “But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.”
Covenant upholds this thing called contract or “Standards of Conduct.” I believe we should not be asking ourselves the question that I wrote in the title - “Is contract Biblical?” But I believe we should be asking ourselves the question - “Is this pursuing the command God gives us in Philippians 4:8, as well as what God tells us in I Corinthians 3 and 6?”
Published on 31 Jan 2007 at 8:04 am.
11 Comments.
Filed under Real Life Issues.
This debate has been going around Covenant since before I was a freshman…nearly 10 years ago! I’m glad to see it’s still same old Covenant with the same old Wittenburg door/floor debates.
On the other hand, I found that my experience with Contract and Contract-like codes of conduct in my high school, the schools I’ve since taught in, and in Christian Circles can lead to elitism and pride. Contract forbids all non-Biblical behavior, including pridefulness, the chief sin of people like me who find it easier to obey a checklist of rules than to focus on my own heart’s state before the Lord. Both sides of Contract are important…the behavior restrictions AND the heart restrictions. Be careful of both, Philip.
Krista Work '02 on 31 Jan 2007 at 1:36 pm.
Your right in saying that we shouldn’t be asking the question you wrote in the title of this entry. The question we should be asking, rather, is it Covenant College’s responsibility as an academic institution to regulate the student’s actions outside the context of the academic environment? Let’s be clear, I whole-heartedly endorse the forbidding of an unmoderated use of alcohol and tobacco on campus (and, by extension, in the student apartments or the soccer fields, etc.). However, it only goes to display Covenant’s lack of faith and trust in the maturity of her students to extend contract beyond the scope of her actual authority. This does nothing to foster the student’s sense of responsiblity and, if anything, encourages rebellion in those who already have such irresponsible tendencies. It would be no diffcult task (though no small task, either) to rework the current contract to reflect a more mature attitude on Covenant’s part regarding issues of Christian liberty.
As for the biblical question, given the ecclesiastic/covenantal culture that Scripture provides us with, it is actually unbiblical to forbid drinking. After all, God didn’t give us strong drink for nothing; quite the opposite.
So, there’s a few little opinions from an alumni. Cheers!
jared leonard on 31 Jan 2007 at 2:31 pm.
Krista, I definitely agree with you that both sides of contract are important… the behavior restrictions and the heart restrictions. Just as Philippians 4:8 says, “…whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”
Heart restrictions, such as pridefulness as you said, also need to be taken into consideration - the Bible talks a lot about pride. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I addressed the issue of contract pertaining to alcohol and tobacco because they seem to be the more tangible and most talked about.
It’s hard to monitor someone’s pride. How do you point the finger at someone and say, “You’ve been found guilty of having pride.” It’s a much grayer area.
But, I believe you are right - pride is often a much bigger problem on our campus than alcohol or tobacco.
Thanks for your thoughts, Krista.
And Jared, I can definitely see where you are coming from. I fully understand and agree with Covenant’s decision to prohibit the use of alcohol and tobacco on campus. Though the use of either of them may not be unbiblical (as you mentioned in the bottom of your comment - “it is actually unbiblical to forbid drinking.”), I believe the use of them on campus is unhelpful and can often cause people to stumble. I personally don’t have a problem with someone having a drink. It doesn’t cause me to stumble or to even desire to drink for myself. But I know for a fact that for many other people drinking is a very serious temptation and problem…. the same goes for smoking. It’s easy to think, “Well, if it’s not a problem for me, and I am mature enough to know my limits, why can’t I be allowed to drink or smoke?” But we need to remember that our actions don’t just affect us… they spread their arms and fingers to all of those surrounding us. For this reason, I agree with and support Covenant’s decision to prohibit the use or possession of alcohol and tobacco on campus.
As for off of campus, I think you made a valid point. Is Covenant showing a lack of trust or faith in the maturity of its students by prohibiting the use/possession of alcohol/tobacco off of campus (which by the way, is only prohibited while the student is in the current semester. During official breaks - including summer break, fall break, spring break, etc. - students are not bound by the terms of contract.)? It’s not my place to question or judge that decision. I can see where you are coming from, Jared. But I can’t agree entirely with you. I would agree with you that it is not Covenant’s place to enforce contract during official breaks. And Covenant does not prohibit that. But even if you are off of campus, the smell of alcohol or smoking come back with you to campus. And even those are enough to cause a person to stumble, in my mind.
Philip Codington on 31 Jan 2007 at 4:17 pm.
Philip, two things:
1 - You referred several times to “stumble” in reference to alcohol and tobacco. Is the use of these substances the stumble you are concerned about, or the abuse (under legal terms) of them?
2 - I’m going to have to debate you on your stance that “It’s not my place to question or judge that decision.” Maybe after you read some good John Locke you’ll agree. We put our well-being into the hands of the school, but with authority comes a responsibility to those you govern. It is what Presbyterians and Americans both believe, and set up their institutions of government accordingly. If we, the students, feel that questions need answers or respectfully let our disagreements known, then Student Development, along with the administration at large, should respectfully listen. At which point both parties should engage in respectful conversation as adults in order to better this College.
Don’t take this as a disgruntled, cynical upperclassman (though I am all three at one point or another) ranting at this blog. I do have my suspicions, but I like to think I have a pretty level head about these things.
Stuart on 1 Feb 2007 at 4:28 am.
Philip, your use of Corinthians to justify contract is a misattribution of the verse which is very clearly written about sexual sin contextual to the Corinthian church and applicable to the Church universal as a body not to be attributed to individuals so readily (thought is application goes beyond the Corinthian church but not quite as far as you and others might want to stretch the verse), and it shows a willingness to justify what Jared already spoke of as the unjustifiable from a biblical context.
Furthermore your use of the oft quoted Philippians text as well as the I Timothy text is misleading, as the use of alcohol can and often is true, lovely and admirable. Indeed it is righteous, godly and can very often be gentle. The fact that alcohol has a bad reputation in the USA comes from a cultural understanding of alcohol use that is perversion of a proper understanding of what is true, good and admirable. The same goes for tobacco.
If we would take the same line of argument you are using, which I don’t agree with, but which for the sake of argument I will point out, we might also say that food containing saturated or trans-fats, as well as coffee and sugar should not be allowed to be consumed on and off campus. We should also force people of a heavier persuasion to undergo rigorous fitness training, while at the same time being put on probation and have weekly meetings with the student development staff, and have other students turning students in for having that one brownie too many.
If as you state it is not your place to question or judge the decision then a) why are you talking about it at all, since you judge it positively and b) what is students senate about, what community are you a part of and why are you not doing your God given duty to be involved with the responsibilities that come with being a member of a community?
Finally your use of the weaker brother argument holds water only to the extent that the weaker brother should not be protected by the college, but by his fellow brother. By taking away that responsibility from mature students who are adults in there own right, you take away the possibility that they might practice such love and self sacrifice for the right reasons, keeping the person they are protecting in mind. So when the college makes a blanket rule about drinking and smoking it is both doing a disservice to God given Christian liberty and to the development of a mature Christian choice to help a weaker brother.
Lauri on 1 Feb 2007 at 7:40 am.
Stuart. In terms of the the first thing you mentioned, I was referring to the abuse of alcohol and tobacco. I tried to make it clear in the post (though I am not always the clearest of writers) that I am not against alcohol or tobacco use. Likewise, I think that they can both (if used responsibly) be “lovely and admirable,” as Lauri stated. My post about contract was more to present Covenant’s position on the issue and try to gain a better understanding of why it is prohibited. I welcome any thoughts, and I don’t take your comment as from a disgruntled, cynical upperclassmen. I am open to thoughts and conversation about this because I realize it is an issue that is still being discussed. And I would also like to gain a better understanding. I didn’t claim to be an expert or to know all the facts. This is a conversation - not pointing the finger or trying to bring someone down.
And in terms of your second point, I would have to agree with you and Lauri… that to a certain degree I am taking a stance on this matter by writing about it. I agree that the student body is there to uphold, challenge, and change Covenant College. Like Lauri said, that is the purpose of our student senate. And as a member of the community, I should be taking part in upholding, challenging, and changing where necessary - so long as it is within the bounds of Scripture and Biblical teachings.
I shy away from making judgments about issues, things or people, though I realize that by writing this I have already made judgments and formulated my own beliefs. I have seen what judging people has done… and I have been on the receiving end, as well as the giving end. For that reason, I wrote in my comment that it is not my place to judge.
Though, as a member of the student body, I agree with you in that it is part of my responsibility to question and offer changes. I shy away from questioning and pointing the finger without giving a solution to a problem though… I’m not going to criticize unless I believe that it is in my means to offer or suggest a better solution.
Again, thank you for your thoughts, Stuart. I appreciate them.
Philip Codington on 1 Feb 2007 at 9:07 am.
Phil,
I would like to read your engagement with some of the points that I make as they seem to refute your own defence and as you yourself say the colleges defence of having contract. The two points that should be clear here are that you seem to say that your blog post is the college’s position on why they have a “contract”. I am not aware that these are actually the reason why the college enforces a strict no drink no smoke rule on and off campus during term time, though I am open to criticism here and would love to know how you know this.
I would also appreciate if you would mention a bit about the hermeneutical basis you use in quoting the Bible in the way you have, as we are called to give answers for what we believe (perhaps here I am committing hermeneutical violence, but that is only to give an example of what H. violence is…) :-)
People use the Bible to justify a lot of things, including racism. See Dr. Haddads forthcoming work on those in the Presbyterian tradition that have promoted slavery (R. L. Dabney). I find that it is so so so important to really tread lightly when we justify a specific type of behaviour because the bible seems to say so.
Lauri Moyle on 1 Feb 2007 at 9:40 am.
In my opinion, the passages about our bodies being temples (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19) are not terribly applicable in this case.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 has nothing to do with our bodies — in this passage it is the church, the community of the people of God, that is called the temple of God. The sins against the temple in the context of this passage have to do with the divisions in the Corinthian church caused by some Christians who thought themselves superior to other Christians (the main subject of 1 Cor. 1-4).
While 1 Cor. 6:19 does relate to believers and their individual bodies, the sins Paul wrote about here had nothing to do with harming or mistreating the body, but rather with involving the body in sexual sin. The “temple” aspect enters in this case because they are united to Christ in body and soul (1 Cor. 6:15) and indwelt by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). Thus, when believers sin, the include their Lord and Spirit in sinful relationships. To defile the temple in this case has to do with engaging the body in sexual sins that defile the people to whom God is united. We can infer from this passage that our bodies are essential parts of who were are, and that it is important to avoid sins of the body — but this passage does not teach that exposing the body to physical harm is a sin.
However, I do think there are two arguments against smoking: one of wisdom (think of risk vs. rewards, negative vs. positive) and morality (second hand smoke, etc). I can’t expound regarding these two right now.
Carlo Saulzallido on 1 Feb 2007 at 11:06 pm.
The Standards of Conduct, as they are worded, do not say that smoking and drinking are un-Biblical acts; thus we don’t have to get into the exegetical issue (about which I think the commenters are correct). The SoC states that “students are also required to abstain from all activities which violate Biblical teachings” - drinking and smoking are forbidden separately from that statement.
This is, of course, a perennial debate, and the college has the right to make stipulations about how students behave on its grounds or when they will be returning to its grounds (i.e., if students were to drink off-campus and then return to campus intoxicated).
On the other hand, what I think is indefensible is the college’s attempt to regulate students’ behavior in off-campus housing and now, especially, trips abroad. Unenforceable rules like those just mentioned are really self-defeating, since they will be (and, in the case of off-campus housing, have already been) broken so many times that they can only undermine people’s respect for the authority of the college as a whole. I’m not saying that, Biblically, people should defy these rules, but I do question whether it is prudent or even right that they should be made.
Evan Donovan '06 on 6 Feb 2007 at 11:52 pm.
Just want to say that I find this discussion really encouraging. In about 20 years, most of us who have opinions about and experiences under the SoC will be setting certain standards for other people, whether it’s our own children or people under our authority in some other realm (employees, students, residents, etc.). The ways we react and respond now have a lot to do with how we think about future decisions.
So in that light, it’s nice to see some thought going into this. Energy spent in being thoughtful usually reflects values, and it seems like there are some good ones here. Thanks.
bob on 18 Feb 2007 at 8:23 am.
Hello,
I hope that this blog has not been abandoned. Does anyone have an article or resource that defends smoking from the bible?
Regards,
Mark Thomas
EZRA 7.10
Mark S. Thomas on 22 Dec 2007 at 10:41 pm.