Below is the comment at SBC Voices from Dr. Danny Akin:
Following Dr. Akins' comment is the edited version of Dave Miller's piece
==========================================================
Danny Akin October 16, 2010 at 11:30 am
Seldom do I respond to blogs. However, in this instance, given Peter Lumpkins blog and this one by Dave Miller, I felt it might be helpful in speaking to it this one time. I would add anyone could have contacted me at any time and I would have been happy to receive and respond to their questions or concerns. That is a good and wise policy I believe I should have as a servant of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, and one I delight in honoring. It also would have saved many of you some time and loss of sleep! 
Every semester I hold a president’s forum where students may ask me any question they wish. It has been well received by students and faculty alike. On this occasion I was asked if I had ever written anything concerning my position on the use of alcohol. I was also informed that some students at SEBTS and other seminaries and Baptist Colleges (not a large number at SEBTS, and I suspect not a large number at our other schools) looked for loopholes in the various conduct covenants, believing, for example, it was OK to drink alcohol between semesters, thinking that they were not enrolled in school at that particular time. I told them I had written on the matter and that I would make those writings available. I went to my website at http://www.danielakin.com and discovered I did not have a category for Alcohol (there is one now), nor could I locate the BP article I wrote several years ago or the chapter on Wise Decision-making I had written for a book on the Emergent Church. Both are now avaialble at the website (with B&H permission), and the BP article basically is the conclusion of the book chapter. I then addressed the “loophole” issue in the forum. You may listen to or view it at http://www.sebts.edu under chapel messages. I then asked the administrators of BTT to post both so that it would be available in the public realm. I had written a brief preface to the BP article noting it’s time and context of writing, but that mistakenly got left off. I do not think that was a big deal though I now see it raised some questions for some of you. So, is there a alcohol problem at SEBTS? No, there is not. Will we maintain our current policy on this issue as long as I am here? Yes we will. Do I think our students can learn from those with whom we disagree on certain issues and be sufficiently discerning to know what to embrace and what to reject? Again, yes I do.
Since I have decided to enter this conversation, let me take the opportunity to explain why I invite certain persons to the campus of SEBTS which, again, has been the concern of a some. You may not agree, but hopefully it will foster better understanding. Let me use an example to make my point. In the last century there was a wonderful apologist, maybe the most effective one of that era. Now, this individual was known to regularly take a drink, smoke a pipe or cigar, and use from time to time what we might call “salty language.” He was also a theistic evolutionist and held a number of other doctoral positions with which I would strongly disagree. I speak, of course, of C.S. Lewis. Now, were he alive today, would I invite Lewis to join my faculty? Of course not. Would I invite him to come and lecture at SEBTS? YES! And, I suspect, and rightly so, I could move to a local area and easly draw a crowd of 20,000 or more Southern Baptists alone to learn from this servant of our Lord. Would I expect or hope that those SEBTS students in attendance would adopt his worldview at every point? Of course not. He is not a model at every point as none of us are. Still, would I challenge them to listen carefully and learn from this brother in Christ whom God raised up to serve His Church? Absolutely, trusting in their ability to be discerning and wise in what to embrace and what to set aside. Right or wrong, and of course I think it is right, that is why I have and will again invite certain persons to SEBTS who may hold view that I personally reject. I hope this is at least somewhat helpful to those who wonder why I do some of the things I do.
Thank you for allowing me to enter into this conversation. Pray for me and SEBTS as we seek to honor Jesus in all we do and fulfill His final marching orders of making disciples of all the nations for His great glory. That should be our focus. That should be our passion and priority. Danny Akin
=====================================================
Responding to Peter Lumpkins re Alcohol and SEBTS
by Dave Miller on October 15, 2010
(NOTE: Danny Akin has graciously responded to this post. His comment is currently #77, though numbering changes when people respond to comments.)
I just posted on why I love blogging, and soon after posting, I was directed by a friend to Peter Lumpkins’ latest post, ”Here Come Those Boozin’ [young, cool, and hip] Baptists: A Problem for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary?”
Peter has written often criticizing Danny Akin and Southeastern Seminary. Nothing wrong with that. He has the right to his opinion, even if it differs from mine. And this post was typical of his criticisms of SEBTS. But, the last section of this post was an example of what I believe Baptist blogging shouldn’t be or do. It is irresponsible and sensationalistic.
Akin’s post argued for abstention from alcohol, but not from the prohibitionist perspective, which Peter holds to. Akin arrives at the same place as Lumpkins, but takes a different road to get there. While I do not agree with his analysis, it is legitimate debate, right up until the point where Peter writes:
Could it be…
Could it possibly be…
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary is facing a crisis…perhaps a crisis where students are, shall we say, a bit more corinthianistic than they would like?…
Is this possible? After all, when one of the faculty members rhetorically asks, over the cyberways, “Is alcohol a good thing? Sure! If it is taken in moderation,” would it be surprising if a crisis were brewing amongst the student-body? Not from my side of the creek.
Could it be, similar to Shurden’s, catchy phrase above, Southeastern is sounding the alarm: “Here come those boozin’ Baptists!”?
I don’t know.
I do know this.
When one makes the consumption of intoxicants for pleasurable purposes, a consumption of which is widely accepted within our culture, into a mere unimportant, insignificant third-tier, non-gospel-centered, libertarian, amoral issue, what under the blue sky do you think is going to happen? (highlights are mine)
He has every right to oppose Southeastern and its president. He does not have the right to raise the specter of a scandal that even he admits there is NO EVIDENCE for. It is just not right.
I would make one note – Peter wonders if the SEBTS student body is “a bit more corinthianistic than they would like?” The word “to corinthianize” is based on a Greek verb which meant “to practice sexual immorality.” I do not think that Peter means to imply that. I think he chose the wrong word to convey the idea that SEBTS might have a lot of alcohol flowing. He misuses the word, but I don’t think he is implying that there is sexual immorality rampant at the school.
I challenged him in a comment, and his answer was the kind of defense that could have made Johnny Cochran proud, parsing words and meanings.
He said:
In other words, you wrongly conclude I made an “accusation” on the issue you raised when I categorically did not. I stated some facts, asked why such and such, and then concluded it wouldn’t “be surprising if a crisis [concerning alcohol] were brewing [at SEBTS],” hardly an “accusation” as you call it. (again, highlights are mine)
Okay, you make the call. Look at the sections I highlighted above in Peter’s quotes. Does that constitute an accusation? He admits he has no evidence, but he uses insinuation to effectively accuse SEBTS of being an alcohol haven. Yes, he couched his accusation in the speculative, but it was an accusation and I think he is disingenuous to deny it.
If I said, “Could it be that Bob Smith has a pornography addiction? I don’t know.” Do you think Bob Smith would appreciate that I couched my accusation in speculation? That distinction wouldn’t mean much to the man accused. Does the fact that he added the words “I don’t know” at the end of the insinuation lessen the fact that it is an accusation?
I would renew my call to him to take it down and suggest he apologize to Danny Akin and SEBTS for making this kind of public accusation.
======================================================
