That’s the question Joe Carter asks with a substitle of “Alcohol, Ethics, and Christian Liberty.” Can we be more ethical than Jesus?
Carter concludes:
There is no disputing the fact that alcohol abuse is, as my SBC brethren point out, the cause of much “physical, mental, and emotional damage.” No doubt that was as true in 1st century Palestine as it is in 21st century America. So why didn’t Jesus say that we should avoid alcohol? If nothing else, why did he not refrain from drinking alcohol himself in order to set an example?
These types of questions have important implications that go far beyond the concerns about drinking beer or wine. Where does Christian liberty end and institutional authority over matters of conscience begin? Obviously there are times when we need to delineate such boundaries. But we should be cautious about where we mark those lines — especially when they would put Jesus on the wrong side.
I argued that the boundaries and lines of cooperation and identity were falsely drawn last year at Greensboro over resolution #5. To read Carter’s entire post, go here.
Are you even allowed to link to this? 🙂 Keep your head down.
I am not a staunch alcohol drinker, by no means. Nor do I wave my fists, demanding my rights, and I always cringe at those who do. I agree with the thrust of the article, yet, I have never felt comfortable lobbying for this one…
It is important for many people to remember that food and drink are not inherently evil, and while it may make us feel hyper-spiritual when we abstain from meat and wine, it is not a sin to drink “to the glory of God”. Drunkenness is a sin, drinking alcohol is not.
Personally, I abhor television. I feel that it is a blight on America, and our churches, and I do not generally watch it. Television brings us at best violence, sensuality, covetous, etc. At worst, it detracts us from spiritual disclipines. However, abstaining from television is not a spiritual test of holiness. Lord forbid I ever use that to justify or condemn fellow believers, or worse, prop myself up as super spiritual for it.
It is far easier for us to “do” something like not drink wine, refrain from television, drink wine, watch television, than it is for us to love God with all our hearts, and our neighbors as ourselves. It is far easier to make rules to follow than simply follow ones already given. It is far easier to ignore the real threats in our churches ( like the abundunt confusion regarding what the Gospel is in many churches) in place of superficial ones.
I usually do not comment regarding this issue…because I do not desire my immaturity and youth to be displayed, and many do this on both sides of the issue. Good article, and thanks for posting it.
In Christ,
Steven
What grieved me about Res 5 was the way in which it elevated a very recent tradition over and above scripture. During the discussion on the floor (I won’t dignify it by calling it a debate) what I saw was an unwillingness on the part of the vast majority there in the convention hall to have their point of view and tradition informed by scripture. I do not oppose the Total Abstinence position. I do not oppose the promotion of a Total Abstinence position. What I oppose is the notion that Total Abstinence is the only biblical position, and the drawing of lines in the sand around that issue, while blatantly looking the other way as our churches deny the old, old Baptist doctrine of regenerate church membership.
I probably won’t go to San Antonio, but if I did, I would present a motion calling for a Blue Ribbon committee to be formed for the specific purpose of amending the BFM 2000 to include Total Abstinence and Cessationism in it. I say, if we are going to draw a line in the sand on this issue, it should be in the statement of faith. If Total Abstinence was promoted as the only biblical position in tbe BFM, then there would be no trouble with the IMB, NAMB, or the Seminaries drawing a line in the sand on that issue. Such a motion would be a motion for the powers that be to fish or cut bait. Either way would be better than the situation we have now, with this denomination not being run according to its written statement of faith, but according to unwritten rules and “non-binding” resolutions.
By the way, I think Regent University’s statement on Alcohol use (in Carter’s post) is one that would be a substantial improvement over Southern’s. At least it is a policy backed up by scripture in some way. “Lawful but not beneficial” is a tension I can live with. Branding something unlawful that the Bible obviously permits in moderation is a tension I cannot live with for long.
In the interest of choosing battles, alcohol isn’t a battle I’d wage. While codifying abstinence is administratively legalistic, it isn’t necessarily sociologically legalistic. (To understand the difference, try following the speed limit.)
One battle I’d wage are the ill effects – or more importantly, the causes – of widespread alcohol abuse on a society, but forced abstinence isn’t necessarily beneficial to this fight: where in some cases it can be helpful, the argument has been made that such a rule raises the level of temptation.
Another battle I would wage would have to comprise more than mere abstinence, and this is the battle against legalism in the church. One of Christ’s themes was that righteousness is something other than merely following the letter of the law.
Personally, I generally don’t imbibe for two reasons: 1) I don’t want to cause my brother to stumble and 2) There usually isn’t any benefit to it. There are RARE instances in our society where I find it appropriate to drink, where my witness isn’t compromised and where the activity may actually carry some benefit. Alcohol can be effectively medicinal and carry less bodily harm than some medicines of modern formulation. Another example is when visiting among Christian brothers and sisters in another denomination for whom moderate alcohol use is normalized for certain religious celebration, participation can establish a measure of unity.
Anybody ever read “GOD GAVE WINE” ?
Or, how about, “DRINKING WITH CALVIN & LUTHER.”
Good stuff…
Wow. Some excellent comments here. Where do I begin?
Joe, as one who has never had an ounce of alcohol, there’s no shame here brother. 😉
Steven, you are right that we often express selective moral outrage. Superficial and superfluous indeed. But wait, isn’t watching TBN a spiritual discipline? 🙂
Guillaume, the idea of proposing to have total abstinence and cessationism in the BF&M is a good idea. Much of the politiking in the SBC reflects D.C. politics. We like non-binding resolutions to make statements. I thought we had a statement called the Baptist Faith and Message. Should they do that, I suspect the future of the SBC would look quite different, and perhaps that is why the leaders are unwilling to step up to the plate and man-up on their convictions.
Jim, I share your sentiments. The battle of alcohol in the SBC has nothing to do with alcohol but the sufficiency of Scripture and the narrowing of cooperation beyond the BF&M while elevating nonessential matters to first level matters. The movement to force a personal peference over another brother in the SBC is damaging to gospel unity, baptist identity, and cooperation in mission.
Steven said, “Television brings us at best violence, sensuality, covetous, etc.”. I’ll assume for Steven’s sake that he misspoke with this statement, because with even the most cynical view of television this is a little over-dramatic in my opinion.
Tristan,
Let me clarify myself. The issue I had in mind was the hypocrisy of the “alcohol” debate. Take any inanimate object that can bring some sort of pleasure to man, and chances are it will be abused. Alcohol is abused, but personally I would venture that Television abuse is more widespread, and much more harmful to the Church than wine. However, I would not tell you personally to give either up, but rather, go to the Lord.
I didn’t go at length at what the damaging effects are of television, but let me tell you what I see.
I see lost people, spiritually dead, starring, producing, and consuming, in the context of television and movies. The blurb about “violence, sensuality, and covetous” may seem a little dramatic, but consider this. We are not judging the quality of television in how many acts of violence we see, how many cigarettes are smoked, or how many sex acts are witnessed. Those are easy, and by that standard, some of television would seem reasonable. But consider the deeper inherent sinfulness of the cultural assumptions. Every commercial is bent on having you buy their product. You may not want it, you may recognize what they are attempting, but after a while you may actually believe that to consume that product is your inherent right. Your children might be safe with PBS, but what about years of watching and they come away with a belief that they are each individually special and the center of the world? We know this clashes with the scriptures that says that Christ is the center of the world, and our purpose is to give God glory, and that each man is sinful.
What about years of coming home and through watching television, you take it for granted that cinema and television is reality, and it starts affecting your own life choices? I could go on, but I think you can see where I am going.
Television at best portrays a dead God-hating culture. It doesn’t make me angry when I see it, I don’t think I am better for largely ignoring it, rather, it makes me grieve and mourn for a world who do not know Christ. It prompts me to be even more prayerful and evangelistic for my friends, neighbors, and co-workers, who largely miss the Darwinian and Freudian world views presented as inherent truths and realities. You by and large will not see an accurate Christian world view on television.
We have to practice discernment. It is not as easy as counting cuss words and short skirts. Reminds me of the subtle danger we all face as Christians. How easy it is for us to throw away the Law of Christ for our own laws, such as banning alcohol or television. Those laws are easy to conform to, they are very performance based and surface level. The Law of Christ is so deep. Love your God with all your heart, soul, mind, heart, and your neighbor as yourself, which encompasses the 10 commandments, cuts through EVERYTHING. Christ’s law forces us to examine every thought and deed; and it forces us to always realize how dependent on Grace we are. We can achieve righteousness with our law, but Christ’s law will always point us to our need in Christ, and our need to sanctify everything in Him. We not only have to consider how much we drink, or what kind of television we watch, we actually have to consider if using and purchasing those things are good investments of the money God has given us…
I am so thankful I am not in control of this salvation thing, and that Christ is doing a work within me. How liberating! What a God we serve! This is transcending! That Christ who died has overcome the World and will reign!
In Christ,
Steven
Guillaume,
Can we call this committee the Pabst Blue Ribbon committee? 😀
There’s a David Allan Coe song entitled “Drink Canada Dry” that uses that pun. Look it up for a laugh.