For a personalized avatar, register at gravatar.com
Frank writes:
“The argument that beer and wine are causing social havoc is unsustainable -- because there's no havoc. It is certain -- indisputable -- that alcohol abuse causes some social instability.”
I write:
(Referencing the Wizard of Oz)
Frank, you WEREN'T supposed to look behind the curtain!
Excellent point.
My name is Michael Spencer and my pastor is Creflo Dollar.
Now that I have that out of the way, I want to ask you to turn off the torrent of truth coming from this post. Here in the dry counties, where the rhetoric level is toxic, you're messing with the very fabric of reality.
Frank:
Are you saying that unbelievers manifest the fruits of the Spirit? Or that they are more trustworthy to drink in moderation than those radical southern baptists?
Consider this also; the next time you see a racy beer commercial or billboard, it was those moderate reformed types that financed it.
You see the cry of the moderate has been around for a long time.
Moderates despise anyone who espouses absolutes, Whether it be total abstention or a fundamental view of morality. Moderates are always calling for compromise, seeking middle ground in a mishmash of mixed ideology and eucumenism.
The question should be: does a church or conference have the right to exercise authority over another man's conscience in matters that are not completely black and white.
Moderation by its inherent nature leads to excess. Restraint and self control are more precise words to describe the use of any product.
Jim: you kill me.
Please tell me, my friend: are there more believers or unbeliever in the United States? Are you really ready to stand up for the idea that there are more unregenerate types in the US than otherwise?
I'll be back in a few minutes with more.
Frank; I am trying my best. 
I would be more inclined to say that the percentage of believers is definitely less than 50% of the population.
If that is not true, we have a serious case of apostasy and luke warmness amongst the Church.
You tell me why the morality and righteousness of America is in the toilet if there are so many Christians on fire for God? I don't doubt there are lots, but how else do you explain the steady decline?
"If the foundations be destroyed, what will the righteous do?"
Hey, this is your sandbox!
"why the morality and righteousness of America is in the toilet"... seriously? No really, seriously?
So.. you're in America right? Is your "morality and righteousness.. in the toilet"? What does that even mean? And who are you applying it to? The 0.0001% of Americans you see on TV and ads? Sure, we have Madonna, but she's just one person out of 300 million. And how do we judge if even one person, much less an entire nation, has it's morality and righteousness "in the toilet"?
Frank...are you serious! Did you not see this picture in Pec's post on the Dodgers? http://pecadillo.blogspot.com/ Now tell me that the guy in the hat with snot running down his face is not a candidate for this quote you made. "The question is whether or not someone who uses alcohol is more likely to become a danger to society and a moral scofflaw than not " Now....I ask you seriously...doesn't this guy look like a danger to anybody who gets within snot flinging range??? I would rethink your premise if I was you.
Darel, are you just trying to be stubborn? I understand the term "moral climate" is relative.
For example, if we compared ourselves to many other nations, we would seem like a picture of heaven itself. However, scripture warns us not to compare ourselves amongst ourselves. Rather, we must use the standard of God's word.
However, consider some of the following statistics.
-40 million abortions
-The divorce rate among christians rivals that of the world
-Rising homosexual influence and acceptance
-Increasing violence on tv
-Music becoming more vulgar and immoral
-Rights of Christians under increasing attack
-10 commandments being dismantled
Now, if we are truly being salty, please explain these stats? While I am not saying we christians are all fully partaking of the world's iniquity, we are definitely not being the salt and light God has called us to be, myself included.
If you disagree, I suggest pulling your head out of the sand and stepping outside your comfy little conservative community and take a look around.
We have only to look at Western Europe to see where we will be not too far from now, should not God's mercy and grace allow a change in the spiritual climate.
What I like about Jim is that he's reliable -- he's going to say what I expect him to say when I ask him a question. That doesn't mean he's right: it means he's reliable.
The problem with his answer, of course, is that it confuses categories. There are certainly only two soteriological groups -- the born again, and those not born again, right? But the acts of men are not just dictated by their soteriological states!
On the one hand, Rom 1&2 says pretty clearly that all kinds of men know enough about God's law to demonstrate understanding of it sometimes -- which is the basis for rejecting the argument that they are sinning in ignorance. And on the other hand, James and Paul and John are all clear that regenerate believers can sin when they do not act as they ought to act.
So what is at issue in the end is not whether regenerate men can sin, or whether the unregenerate can behave in a lawful way sometimes, or what causes either of them to do either of these things. What is at stake is whether, in fact, people can and do demonstrate self-control in the matter of alcohol consumtpion.
And when Baptists are speaking to other Baptists, they should be speaking as Christians to other Christians. In that, the matter of the fruit of the spirit is 100% a part of the issue.
* more *
* cont *
It is in that question -- that is, whether or not baptists can demonstrate the fruit of the spirit in self control in something which the Bible says explicitly is given to man to "gladden his heart" but can also be abused to man's ruin that resolution #5 has a big problem.
It's lopsided in a somewhat obvious way. To call all uses of drinking alcohol destructive is careless and ridiculous; to call all sinners unregenerate is absurd; and to seek laws to scold men for things they do not do is somewhat ruthless.
And listen: this is all amplified 100 times over when we consider that these mistakes are being made by an alliance of allegedly-evangelistic churches!
It is right to condemn sin -- but to call anything that is upstream of sinfulness "sin" is not righteousness but absurdity. All drinkers had to get out of bed in the morning to get their hooch: does that mean getting out of bed in the morning leads to drinking? All drinkers had to spend money to get their sauce: does that mean commerce leads to drinking? All drinkers had to open a container in order to get to their hair of the dof: does that mean that opening containes leads to drinking?
I stand by, with zero regret, the affirmation that self control among Christians is a greater virtue than rote abstinence, especially when the abstinence is due to myopic moral equivalence.
* 30 *
I am with you 100%... self-control is a greater virtue.
BTW: I would like to see how many southern Baptists who support this resolution are overweight.
In light of the answer, I wonder if at next years convention, we should advocate a resolution calling for total abstinence from food.
DJ: don't be silly. Man can live without alcohol -- man can't live without food.
The resolution should be against the fast food industry, like chic-fil-a and Popeye's fried chicken, which are clearly the cause of fat baptists. And against catfish buffets, and gravy, and anything outside of the food pyramid, and anything more or less than 7 servings of vegetables a day.
And against biscuits and gravy. And against Shoney's. Nobody would be a glutton except for those.
And let's boycott WAL*MART, which sells more beer than anyone else in the US and sells more fatty foods than anyone in the US.
Now we're talking. Man can live without alcohol, and he can live without all of this stuff, too.
We can't ban fried chicken... that would destroy the meaning of the word "fellowship" 
What I like about Jim is that he's reliable -- he's going to say what I expect him to say when I ask him a question. That doesn't mean he's right: it means he's reliable.
I'm flattered, I think?
The problem with his answer, of course, is that it confuses categories. There are certainly only two soteriological groups -- the born again, and those not born again, right? But the acts of men are not just dictated by their soteriological states!
And I thought Calvinist's determined regeneration by fruit bearing, or lack thereof? You are starting to sound like a Free Gracer? I sure hope Antonio doesn't read this meta. hee hee.
I'm with DJ on the gluttony issue, I think more Baptists have a problem with overeating than binging.
Darel:
I do hope you didn't take my comments personally. I take that liberty with Cent, but perhaps I overstepped it with you?
God bless,
Jim
Since you've advertised this as a rabbit trail anyhow, I'm gonna take up some of your comment space by relating a series of events that happened when I attempted to ask questions about alcohol in the church I attend. (I derive some security from believing that no one I know personally reads this.)
Let me start by saying that the last time I drank alcohol as a beverage was over 19 years ago. (I have had some alcohol in medicines like 50 proof Nyquil and relatia. I'm convinced these are made to taste bad so people will not be tempted to use them for intoxication.)
I have asked a few times in Sunday School how (given the fact that my church teaches abstinence) we are to respond to Christians who disagree, e.g., conservative Presbyterians. From my both my teacher and from my pastor (both now in other churches) I got only testimonies. From the pastor: "I knew when I was saved as a college senior what that meant I would have to do about my drinking." From my SS teacher: "Before I was saved, I drank to get drunk." Neither of them set forth more than a single verse; in both cases, it was "Do not be drunk with wine ..."; you know the line of argument.
This brings me to two pet peeves.
First is the tendency to solve everything with a personal testimony. How many times have you heard, "Someone you're witnessing to may be able to shoot down your argument, but they can't touch your testimony."? This is true as far as it goes, but giving your testimony is not the same thing as presenting the Gospel.
Second is the argument of the "trump verse." (I can hear someone yelling, "Wait a minute! This is supposed to be about drinking, not about cards!" It's a figure of speech. Deal.) Rather than taking into account everything the Bible teaches on a subject, it's easier to pick a comfort zone of verses and just live in those. (This is rampant in the Calvinist-Arminian debate, by the way. I recently heard the same Sunday School teacher declare, "No one has repealed John 3:16." 1 John 2:2 is a favorite for this as well. And neither has the extent of the Atonement as its subject.)
Neither of these things, testimonies nor individual scriptures, is wrong in itself. Sometimes your testimony will illustrate the Biblical point you are making. Sometimes there is a summary verse that packages a lot of what the Bible has to say about something. But neither a testimony nor a single verse is any kind of substitute for the hard work of understanding the Bible.
Crigler:
You trouble-maker.
Haloscan hates me. It won't let me post my response. Maybe later.
haloscan is having fits today. I don't know why.
All this abstinence discussion would be easier to swallow if someone could name ONE example of a non-believer, so shocked and dismayed over seeing a Christian drink that he/she fully and finally rejected the Gospel and died in sin, or ONE example of a weak Christian, emboldened by seeing another Christian drinking that he/she immediately starting drinking, went to abusing alcohol, and make a train wreck of their life.
Good point Bill.
Trying again...
I hate to say it, for fear that someone will hear and take me seriously, but if we've got to ban something potentially dangerous, oughtn't it be the internet? Free, mostly anonymous access to gambling and porn is a far more dangerous problem in my mind.
But here's the kicker: whether we ban it altogether, or just install the BeSafe filter from the American Family Association doesn't fix the real problem, because the real problem comes from inside--a man's greed, and his lust. Take away his access to the internet, and he'll still have a sin problem, and he'll still eventually find another way to act on that impulse. If you want to fix the problem, change the man's heart.
The same thing goes for alcohol (where the problem isn't the booze as much as it's the man who loves gettin' likkered up), and for junk food (can you say Little Debbies?).
BTW, I'm gonna say that if you adjust for the number of Christians who don't drink, Frank's statistics may become even more compelling. Even people without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit manage more often than not to avoid (to use his phrase) "creating social havoc."
Finally, if we're going to talk about ways to influence social policy, perhaps the SBC could consider lobbying Congress to lower speed limits, which I bet have a much greater impact on traffic fatalities than drinking alcohol does. Further, I would suggest going after credit card and other finance companies, whose easy credit policies have put millions into debt, the resultant financial strain contributing to problems and breakups in marriages (finances are undisputedly the number one cause of divorce).
I had a wonderful dinner last night with some good friends who are in the SBC and come from families who are SBC old school. They personally do not drink and asked my opinion on the whole booze in a blender and what it might render (HT: Jimmy Buffet) dialogue.
I told them that as a Christian my concern should be: what does the bible say? After determining this we should bring every thought captive to Christ (2 Cor 10:5). As has been pointed out by our able bodied host Resolution 5 did not attempt to ascertain the answer to the first question, which makes obedience difficult to say the least.
In the midst of the discussion we talked about a biblical abstinence and what we should do with our children's training in the matter of mighty fine wine (HT: Three Dog Night). A biblical abstinence has been addressed here so no rehash, but the second question deserves some attention.
It is my opinion that we as believers need to teach our children what it is to enjoy God's gifts. If wine truly makes the heart glad and God gave us wine then we should be teaching our children how to obey God in matters of feasting and gladness. This means teaching them to drink wine rightly.
Eat and drink before the Lord is a positive command in scripture. May we teach our kids what that means (after we learn it ourselves of course)!
Al sends
Gummby?!
WHAT?!?!?!
You mean:
WHAT
COMES
OUT OF
A MAN
?!
Al:
paedobaptist
Frank -
first, some of my best friends are credobaptists. second, come on over to the other side... the water is fine, if not as abundant.
al sends
devil, thy name is haloscan!
al sends
Bravo, Frank. Such rational thinking combined with a respect for Scripture is commendable, and I commend you.
I live in Texas, though, where even Southern Baptists drink beer -- so long as no other Southern Baptists are present. As a sweet Southern Baptist midwife once explained to me, there's just nothing more refreshing on a hot summer afternoon than a bottle of (mumble) Light. I don't remember the brand, but it wasn't anything I would drink.
Hey man, the comments in your post responding to me no longer work. This happened after I responded again.
hhmmmm......
Mark
From the post:
The argument that beer and wine are causing social havoc is unsustainable -- because there's no havoc.
Are you sure there's no havoc? If you grew up in the midst of social havoc, would you recognize it as social havoc?
If you go fishing with an elder/deacon from your church, always invite two. They won't even touch your beer. You invite one, they tell you they never touch the stuff and then drink it all.
A bit more seriously, I liked the thoughts mentioned by DJ. Why is it that certain things are picked out and then resolutions made? Why is it in 2005, that the SBC Resolution Number 6 was to "REDUCE" and not outlaw totally smoking? Yeah, there are some comments about "prevent" but not in the way that alcohol is being discussed. Maybe I just don't see it anywhere, but I don't see where smoking is outright prohibited.
I just don't like it when certain things are targeted by themselves. Because, as DJ said, what about all the overweight Baptists? While we can't prohibit food outright, why is there not something about "reduce" it's usage amongst the membership?
My point is: there are many sins of abuse - of gluttony type - and that should be the "prohibited item". There are many things that are used in excess, like the way I go through Oreo cookies!
Why not pick on the overall problem - and not just target one item?
See: you people thought I was kidding when I said that my next-office neighbor was Bill Hubbs.
Hey Bill. Wazzup?
I'm usually just one of those "fly on the wall" readers that lets all you clever people do the thinking. And, then, I decide for myself what I think about something.
But, this is one of those issues for me that just bothers me when we go out and "pick the sin" and then go after it. There are people abusing legal things in our churches and our convention all the time. But, we don't worry about that.
We seem to pick out one of the "big" sins and then make rules about it. The issue to me is that while some people are abusing alcohol we shouldn't outright ban it - because most aren't. The people that are abusing it may need help that we can offer. BUT, so do the people abusing cigarettes, and the internet, and food, and...and...and...
We just never seem to worry about that.
-40 million abortions
-The divorce rate among christians rivals that of the world
-Rising homosexual influence and acceptance
-Increasing violence on tv
-Music becoming more vulgar and immoral
-Rights of Christians under increasing attack
-10 commandments being dismantled
Those are bad things.
What do they have to do with having a glass of wine with dinner?
I can sin a lot (A LOT) without having a drink. When I have a drink I just go to sleep.
Having been trebly duded in the meta two posts ago, I shant advance another argument. However, Jim said:
Consider this also; the next time you see a racy beer commercial or billboard, it was those moderate reformed types that financed it.
I just wanted to point out that I only fund tasteful commercials made by brewers of opaque beer. My contribution probably funds a nanosecond or two.
Oh, and I'm not buying that I'm a moderate. If you look into it, I think you'll find that the temperance movement came from the progressives (liberals).
Jeremy: I'm sure you're no moderate.
Ellen: ...very funny...
I just want to apologize for my crude comment much earlier. I had an image in my head that I still can't shake (Pecadillo, ummm, is this guy walking the streets?) and then this post about alcohol just put me over the edge because of that image.
I think you make a good point about God's moral law written on men's hearts, but I also think that God can withdraw his hand of grace and restraint from mankind, and the stats may change drastically someday. Man can make more and more restrictions and laws of abstention...but just like the 10 Commandments, they are there to show us our utter lack of ability in our own strength to accomplish success. It has to come by God's revelation and grace and our response in obedience, whatever He shows us. So the point about self-control is more encompassing than singling out alcohol. It is like we stamp out a burning match but not see the forest burning behind us.
Jeremy Felden,
Need to be careful with the comments about the total abstinence movement. Here in Cardiff, the Church I go to was founded by evangelical, Calvinistic teetotalers. It's still thriving amidst a world of apostacy (anyone thinks you Americans have a problem needs to go visit Wales).
The key issue for me is that the Bible does not mandate total abstinence. We should not be setting up extra-Biblical standards. If you believe that drinking is wrong, then don't drink. If you can't drink without getting 'off your face', don't drink. Here in this city of Cardiff, we have one of the best advertisements for total abstinence. It's called St. Mary's Street on weekends (more drunk people falling over than you ever wanted to see), yet I would not force someone to give up a glass of wine with a meal or a single beer with friends.
Gee, a glass of beer with friends always goes down better with a doobie chaser... didn't God give us weed too? What's a baptist to do with dope? Oh, and about that white powder... it certainly can be used in a responsible and God honoring way as well, without leading to moral havoc, right? I mean, as long as you;re using in moderation, and not abusing, right?
(Clown me now.)
I may be with Glenn on this.
Is that the new clown face? Or did Glenn supply his own?
Frank, I think this thread is in a tailspin.
Glenn & Bug: Can't we safely make a distinction between alcohol, which the Bible clearly and repeatedly speaks about, and those other substances, for which we must derive rules? Or are you going to argue that beer, Jack Daniels, dope, and crack are all the same?
Or did I entirely miss the point?
Anyone who can't see the difference between beer and cocaine doesn't get any play from me.
I think Glenn was being facetious, but was trying to make the point that since the slope is so slippery why step out on it in the first place. That is the way I read him. And if that is in fact his point, then I agree with him completely.
And the doobie question is valid I think. If casual beer consumption in moderation is quite alrighty, then perhaps casual marijuauna consumption in moderation is okay as well? The effect on the brain is of the same magnitude.
Beer and wine alone do cause significant social havoc. How much premarital teenage sex is preceded by strictly beer consumption? How many of these instances result in pregnancy? In abortion? How many alcoholics drink mainly beer? (I have at least two uncles in this category, both of whom have broken homes, and one of whom trotted alone into the woods with a gun before his 15 year old daughter talked some sense into him.) How many deaths and maimings result from drunk driving after consuming strictly beer? (I've seen several in my line of work, including the loss of an unborn child.)
The first drink that every single alcoholic took was casual. To paraphrase a friend, anyone who can't see that alcohol consumption of any sort has extreme potential to cause mucho ugliness and havoc doesn't get much play from me.
Have a Pepsi. Tastes fine, and you won't slip down the slope.
Sorry for the rant.
Gummby,
Yes I agree there is a distinction, and it is Biblical. I just think that for me (and only speaking for me), it is not wise to stand on a hill and defend my Biblical right to drink casually in the 21st century. They needed wine back in Bible days, because it was potable and for medicinal purposes. We don't.
Well said Bugblaster!
Anyone who has spent any time around the abusers of alcohol will not have many kind words for those touting moderation.
I realize this is late... I meant to say to Jim that no harm was done. (As may be evident to some people, I often "flip out", though I honestly try to do that with a heavy dash of humor and exaggeration).
I can quote lots of positive statistics for the US. For instance, the rate of violent crime in the US has plummeted since 1991 reaching a level lower than any since we started keeping records. The divorce rates from 1990-2004 dropped from 0.49% to 0.37% per capita. Total number of highway accidents from 1990-2004 has declined from 6.4 million to 6.3 million. The NY supreme court ruled that homosexual marriage is not a constitutional right. The US Supreme Court in the last decade has reaffirmed that the 1st amendment is to protect religion from interference by the government. Christian church attendance as a percentage of population is higher in the US than any other country in the world Etc. etc. etc.
So based on statistics, I can say that people are being more moral and considerate of others, more likely to attend church, etc. Of course, none of that makes any difference really, which is my point.
I'm not a big fan of "defending the right to drink," and it's getting cold and lonely up on this hill.
My problem is not with the case you laid out (which I happen to agree with, and I bet Cent does too). The problem (for me) is when the case for abstinence comes not out of clear Scriptural exegesis or sound reason, but out of misapplying Scripture and outright legalism. Scripture twisting to arrive at a desirable result is still Scripture twisting.
Oh, and Pepsi doesn't taste fine.
Jim and bug,
You talk as if drunks were unknown in biblical times, as if America were especially prone to demon drink. The slippery slope to which you refer existed in the 1st Century Church and yet wine was still served at the Lord's Supper and the Agape feast.
When was the last time someone at your church got drunk at the Lord's Supper? I know, I know it would take awhile, what with those little cups and all...
The First Century Church had their drunks and God preached to them self-control not abstinence.
Al sends
Ha, I chose Pepsi specifically for you Matt!
Well, it does taste better than beer, but that's not sayin' much.
Al, perhaps the biggest problem with the demon likker is its cultural abuse in our society. Most unbelievers I know would never offer me a drink as a christian.
I have not tried to use scripture to prove total abstinence.
Paul tells us that all things are indeed lawful, but not all things are beneficial. I think that is the key, I have liberty, but not to indulge the fleshly desires.
Now, if my liberty becomes a stumbling block to others, I have in fact become complicit in their trip up. That was a sober warning Jesus gave...that we not stumble a babe in Christ.
Self-love will always defend its rights, but self-denial will have regard for others first.
So, it's not a legalistic matter but rather one of principle. Settle it in your heart, for if your heart condemns you in the matter, you do not have liberty.
Grace and Peace,
oh boy, Buggy. Here we go. I'm going to order this by magnitude of error, worst first.
Let's assume for one second that all -- 100% -- of alcoholics are exclusively beer-drinkers. That doesn't mean beer causes alcoholism: because, sadly, not all beer drinkers are alcoholics. The vast majority of them are not. Causal link? none. Point for your argument? None.
Next, let's assume that all teen pregnancies happen after a kegger when one or both of the scrappers have imbibed. All – ok? How does that correlate to the vast majority of drinking? Is teen drinking even 5% of all alcohol sales? 10%? 15%? Let’s say it’s 20% of all drinking – you’re advocating an end to 80% of the behavior for 20% of the abuse in a worst-case hypothetical scenario.
You might from here argue that the end of drink would be worth it to cut abortions in half, or whatever – but that’s not the case. About 18% of all abortions in the US are had by women under the age of 20. (source) And think about this: you still have to make the case that all these abortions happened because all the girls had sex were dunk when they did it. My suggestion to you is that while it might be half, it was certainly not all.
-more-
-cont-
Next is the problem the issue of classifications. Unlike beer, cocaine has the documented effect of causing addiction in as few as one use. Unlike beer, one common "serving" of cocaine can kill you. Using the other popular demon of choice, marijuana has a cumulative effect even at the losest doses (unlike beer) which impairs the user over time. So if I am a one-joint smoker and my bubby next door is a one-beer drinker, in 60 days he'll still be a one-beer drinker, and I may still be a one-joint smoker, but my brain and motor functions will be significantly more impaired than his will be -- and it will get worse over time. Yes, beer does technically cause brain damage because of the alcohol content, but the Australian government reports that long-term health effects are not prevalent in men who drink 4-or-fewer beers per day. (source)
There is nothing worse in this discussion than fear-mongering and demonizing -- but that's exactly what arguments like "only drunk girls get pregnant" and "well, you must be in favor of 'moderate' drug use, too, cent" are: trying to leverage fear of the tragic to make a point about the majority of cases which do not even veer close to the tragic.
-more-
-cont-
The last thing I'm going to go off about is this: the idea that every drunk at some time was a one-drink drinker, and if he hadn't had that first drink, he'd be a sober man today. Listen: every drunk was also at one time a person who wore shoes. If he didn't have shoes on, he wouldn't have been able to walk into the grocery store and buy the 6-pack or whatever, so if we outlaw shoes it will keep people out of the grocery stores and we can put an end to drunkeness forever.
I'm going to make a point here using a parable I have written about before. If we see someone driving like a fool while we are driving, we make quite a stink out of it -- we beep our horns, use sign language to communicate dissatisfaction, yell, call the cops on our cell phones, whatever. That is: if someone is driving irresponsibly, we do something to intervene and alert them to their stupid mistake. But somehow, when someone is drinking irresponsibly, we feel like we are morally obliged (while they are standing there and we are standing there watching them get tanked) to do nothing -- and then after the fact, we want the SBC to pass a resolution at the convention to get the alcohol industry to shut down.
What if, rather than allow our brother to get drunk and then feel guilty for our complicity and then sublimate that guilt into what we think is healthy indigation, we instead told Uncle Bud, "dude, I love you when you demonstrate self-control because that's when I see Christ in you," or whatever it takes so that we were actually responsible for each other and accountable to one another.
Torches and pitchforks are bad for society, and for those of you who need Scripture for every moral assertion, you can go ahead and note that mob rule is not endorsed by either the OT or the NT. Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.
-30-
As has been pointed out... scripture, scripture, scripture. How about enjoying wine because God has given it to man for his enjoyment? Would it be a sin to frame the discussion of say, blogging, in the way some have with reference to wine?
We must stick to scripture if we are to know the mind of Christ. So, to simply say that it is not a legalistic matter on the one hand but couch the conversation with phrases like "self-love always defends its rights..." strike me as legalistic. Again, this is assuming that wine is a positive good to be enjoyed at God's command.
al sends
Not to stoke back up the fires, but here's an example of what I'm talking about. Look at how Paige Patterson looks at dietary restrictions of Nazarites and John the Baptist and the argument he makes about abstinence. The problem I have is not with saying "I think abstinence is the best," but in trying to apply rules that don't apply. I don't see Patterson suggesting that we eat locusts, or abstain from dead bodies, or any of the other requirements that Levites had. He's taking this out of context to make his point.
And then, of course, there's the argument that the oinos Jesus produced was unfermented:
(c) From a standpoint of logic, the oinos that Jesus produced was more likely pure, rather than fermented, grape juice, since that which comes from the Creator’s hand is inevitably pure. Also, there was no time subsequent to the miracle for fermentation to take place. Furthermore, the ancients always acknowledged that the best oinos was the unferemented oinos, i.e., that which came from the initial mixing of the grapes.
And then, my favorite: there is no evidence that [Jesus] drank oinos or anything other than the fresh natural fruit of the vine.
Oh, nope, sorry. This one: Let us return to the three categories—the prohibited, the acceptable, and God’s ideal. God originally intended monogamy. For a while He tolerated polygamy, even working mightily through such men as Solomon and Abraham, despite their polygamous marriages. But with the final revelation of God in Christ, polygamy was once again clearly prohibited. The noticeable absence of any mention of wine prior to Noah might indicate that men, in their pristine state, were not drawn to wine.
I've seen drinking compared to smoking dope, taking crack, compared to slavery, and now polygamy. Is there no end to which people will bend the Scripture to make their point, particularly if such a point is supposedly so clear and unambiguous?
The reason this is a problem is because those in leadership are suggesting that if people don't hold the line to a abstentionist position--scratch that, to a prohibitionist position (you must actively oppose alcohol) should leave the SBC.
Meanwhile, there is active opposition to culling membership roles of unbelievers. Something is clearly wrong here. I can see that, and I'm not even a Baptist.
______________________
"twist" was changed to "bend" in this post at the request of the author
~cent
Hey Matt, I guess you were wrong: Cent did have a problem with what I said.
I agree with any and all that total abstinence is not an admonition from scripture.
Frank,
If the path to alcoholism first passes through casual drinking and then "hard drinking", then the causal link is certainly there.
I think it would be a valid statistical inference to say that beer drinking is causal for alcoholism, in the same manner that cigarette smoking is causal for lung cancer, even though the vast majority of casual smokers don't get lung cancer, and a good portion of lung cancer victims aren't smokers. At the risk of provoking more flame, your logic on this is flawed.
Regarding the teenager issue, I will continue to pound in the message of abstinence to my teenagers. My logic may be flawed here, but I just don't like yours.
You didn't address my drunk driving point, and the statistics wouldn't be your friend in that area. In certain circumstances, a single beer can impair judgement and reaction enough to make a driver dangerous.
Al, no one in Bible times had a remote chance to be driving a two-ton deadly weapon at 50 mph after the agape meal.
I believe that there should be no drinking of a single beer by anyone that has potential to be driving within four hours. Yes, that goes way beyond the statute laws. Yes, if you follow this advice you are guaranteed never to cause an deadly accident because of your impaired driving.
Frank, I know that your post and series are talking about the SBC resolution and the fallacy that the Bible teaches abstinence, and to repeat, I agree that the SBC resolution is silly, and that the Bible does not teach abstinence.
And to repeat myself from another comment, I'm speaking for only me. If you want to view me as a weaker brother on this, then that's okay with me. The only reason I spoke up was because I just don't see the crying need to defend social drinking with such vigour when I perceive great risks in it. All things are permissible, but not all things are profitable.
Peace and Grace. Have a good weekend all.
I stand by Buggy's reading of my prior post, and his elaboration thereof. Sorry about having to post and run, but sometimes there's more to life than refreshing Frank's haloscan window.
Cent- I just want to make sure I'm following your argument here... Beer is good for you because;
1) Not everybody that uses or abuses beer becomes an alcoholic
2) It's not the main cause of teenage premarital sex (teenagers having unmarried sex is)
3) Abortions are caused by pregnant people, not drunk people
4) Beer takes longer to enslave you to it's addictive properties than cocaine
5) It takes a lot more beer to kill you than cocaine
6) Alcohol induced stupidification is not cumulative
7) Australians can drink up to four beers a day without their livers rotting
8 ) Drunk drivers don't kill people, their cars do. We should take away their cars, their shoes, their keys, their loaded weapons and sharp instruments, but not their alcohol.
I'm sure that's not an entirely fair reading of your argument, but I don't think yours was entirely fair to buggy's (and by proxy, mine.)
Last one before the weekend:
| Cent- I just want to make sure I'm following
| your argument here... Beer is good for you
| because;
This is my first major complaint with the forces of prohibition: I didn’t say “beer is good for you”, and to say that I did only demonstrates dishonesty.
My position is that beer and wine aare not expressly forbidden by the Bible, are expressly said to “gladden the heart” by the Bible, and are warned to be used in moderation. Why is that so hard to grasp?
| 1) Not everybody that uses or abuses beer
| becomes an alcoholic
That is also not what I said: I said that almost no one who uses alcohol can be proven to be an abuser of alcohol – that is, that there is no correlation between all users and the alleged problems with the substance. A small minority abuses the substance – a fact I do not deny. However, a small minority abuses car driving and there is no SBC angry-eyebrows pointed at the automobile industry.
| 2) It's not the main cause of teenage
| premarital sex (teenagers having unmarried
| sex is)
My suggestion is that it is not even not the main thing: forbidding it will not change the behavior of teens. You can prove that forbidding it changes the behaviors of teens right now when it is already forbidden to them.
| 3) Abortions are caused by pregnant people,
| not drunk people
That’s close enough, I guess, given your obvious inability to read the arguments posted.
-more-
-cont-
| 4) Beer takes longer to enslave you to it's
| addictive properties than cocaine
Again, that’s a pretty wild misrepresentation – factually, you cannot describe what “moderate” cocaine use looks like because the effects of cocaine are vastly different than the effect of beer or wine. I can describe what moderate beer and wine drinking looks like – and have done so.
| 5) It takes a lot more beer to kill you than
| cocaine
Again, you have misrepresented what I said to your own advantage.
| 6) Alcohol induced stupidification is not
| cumulative
Ditto.
| 7) Australians can drink up to four beers a
| day without their livers rotting
Actually, I cited their government’s research on brain damage. So two strikes on that one.
| 8 ) Drunk drivers don't kill people, their cars
| do. We should take away their cars, their
| shoes, their keys, their loaded weapons and
| sharp instruments, but not their alcohol.
Actually, if you read my argument I said that if you really want to take away their alcohol, you should do it by taking away their shoes – which would eliminate their ability to go wherever the alcohol is.
| I'm sure that's not an entirely fair reading of
| your argument, but I don't think yours was
| entirely fair to buggy's (and by proxy, mine.)
See: the difference between your ham-handed treatment of what I said and my alleged ham-handedness is that my arguments addressed your points: yours had to make my statements into rank falsehoods. For example, in thei series so far, I have cited about 6 or 8 primary sources for data relating to my point. Your side? Zero.
I have demonstrated why your arguments, again and again, miss the point. Your side? I’m a devil for saying (ahem) “beer is good for you”, but addressing what I actually said? Nobody’s done it yet.
-more-
-cont-
Wagging your finger at me when you cannot even explain what I mean is tone deaf, logically. The abstinence crowd is trying to make a pretty sweeping moral and theological point, and they have to do better than, “my pastor tol’ me that I better steer clear of the deemin likker.”
And let’s be 100% clear about something: I don’t drink. I can’t say that I am 100% abstinent because I am not afraid to drink and I haven’t sworn off alcohol, but if you divide the number of drinks I have had in the last 6 month by the number of months in the last 6 months, you get a number less than 1 but greater than zero. What that means is that, as far as personal testimonies go, I can prove that moderation is both possible and demonstrable. Can you people prove that abstinence creates a better society? I think the data I have already provided says “no” – because strong-hold SBC states seem to have a drinking problem in their communities, and other states with less-legalistic theological views do not. So until there’s any kind of reasoning going on – reasoning as opposed to fear-mongering and emotional threats – please steer clear of saying “I know you are but what am I?”
-30-
Listen: there were about 46,000 auto fatalities last year in the US, and about 13,000 of them were alcohol-related. That's bad, right? about 30% were alcohol related?
Yes: it turns out that 70% were committed by sober people. Sober people were killing people with their autos at a 2-to-1 ratio to drunks. Doesn't that make you think for a minute about what exactly that means?
"well, wait a minute, cent," you say, "a higher percent of people driving while drunk committed vehicular homicide; the drunks were more likely to kill somebody than the non-drunks as a percentage."
I say, "finish your argument." See: last year, 9 million people abused alcohol. In the worst case, they all drove home drunk, and they caused all those traffic fatalities -- which means that driving drunk has a higher rate of causing accidents than driving sober, but not something approaching 30% or even 25%.
Now, as you reduce the number of drunk drivers to get to the higher percentage of accidents to try to make that point, you have another statistic evolving: the number of people who can be "UI" and have the sense not to "D". That is: the ability of men to exercise self-control. If you get the drunks-to-accidents ratio inside the 6:1 or 5:1 range, you wind up with something like 138:1 who are able and willing to exercise self control.
That means 99% of all people who drink are drinking responsibly. How can you justify prohibition under those circumstances? You can't.
Weeell, I'm not about to really get into a debate about this, because I'm a conflict-avoiding homeschool mom. However, I haven't really seen anywhere where some has mentioned prohibition specifically, but then again, there are so many comments, perhaps I have not read carefully enough.
Sometimes, our feelings about alcohol can not escape being influenced by our exposure to it. I did not grow up around alcohol abuse per se, but I did grow up around drinking and occasional drunkenness. My family members did not regularly abuse alcohol, but it wreaked havoc without systematic abuse taking place. Even a little "social drinking" once created a very terrible situation between my parents. Because of that, my feelings toward alcohol consumption are influenced by that.
I have teenagers, and I remember being a teenager and seeing what alcohol could do, and that also affects my feelings about its use. I also, quite unfortunately, know what it's like to be under the influence of it, although I was never an abuser. I guess I just see nothing but my pre-conceived notions and that makes me very unwilling to see drinking in a positive light. Devoid of my pre-conceived notions, perhaps I would feel differently. I'm not very good at separating my emotions from my thinking.
Kim wrote: I haven't really seen anywhere where some has mentioned prohibition specifically
This post (among many others in the blogosphere) is a result of SBC Resoultion #5 (for 2006). Note particularly the first "resolved":
WHEREAS, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that alcohol use leads to physical, mental, and emotional damage (e.g., Proverbs 23:29-35); and
WHEREAS, Alcohol use has led to countless injuries and deaths on our nation's highways; and
WHEREAS, The breakup of families and homes can be directly and indirectly attributed to alcohol use by one or more members of a family; and
WHEREAS, The use of alcohol as a recreational beverage has been shown to lead individuals down a path of addiction to alcohol and toward the use of other kinds of drugs, both legal and illegal; and
WHEREAS, There are some religious leaders who are now advocating the consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of "our freedom in Christ"; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages.
RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in supporting legislation that is intended to curb alcohol use in our communities and nation; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.
Charmley,
I don't doubt that abstinence from alcohol has taken many forms. I was referring to the American "temperence" movement. This is an interesting take on our peculiar history.
I've been to Scotland and observed your Celtic cousins. I know what you're talking about. It seems like you understand that the problem resides in the human heart and not a pint glass. Sadly, some don't.
Taliesin:
I meant specifically in the comments box here at Frank's site. I was not going outside the context of the comments.
I'm familiar with the SBC resolutions, and I realize Frank was posting this as somewhat of a response to that, but my comment was in the context of those who commented here.
I had a professor in university who had a very interesting take on the reasons for the popularity of the temprance movement. I'm not going to post it here at Frank's because personally, I don't like dissertations in comments boxes, so I'm posting at my own blog. However, beware: it's a WOMAN blog, and there's a great chance it might seem like total fluff.
Frank--thanks for bringing up the causation question.
Butcher knives are used to cut meat and vegetables...but in the wrong hands can be used to murder. Do we outlaw those as well? I practice law, and there are plenty of laws/rules already that mankind doesn't keep. In the ESV version I read, it doesn't even indicate that Cain needed a weapon to murder Abel--he simply "rose up against" him.
The focal point is truly the heart of man, and while I would not trumpet that everyone should drink alcohol, I would not condemn someone for simply drinking it either (though drunkenness is specifically condemned in the Bible, as has been said).
Whether it is a sober person or a drunk person that causes fatalities in a car accident, who is charged for the crime? The person, not the alcohol or the extenuating circumstances. Certain choices lead up to certain consequences--teenagers get involved in precarious situations with alcohol and sex because they had to first make the decision to go to THAT party and THAT house. I'm personally convinced that if some were honest with themselves, they wouldn't REALLY want to act that way--but they are just trying fill the lusts of their heart. And both serve as a vehicle to do just that.
In this case, each person has to determine, in light of Scripture, if their use of it is glorifying to God (and be like in the Psalms where wine was given "to gladden man's heart")--it is a matter of personal conviction. But God has also given us the science of genetics, which can tell us if alcoholism runs in the family and there's a possible predisposition, it might not be a good idea.
Sorry to ramble on--just my two cents on this matter.
I don't know if anyone is still reading this thread but...
If I had my own blog I would title this one, "See... Reformation is taking place."
http://poll.gallup.com/content/d...t.aspx?
ci=23935
al sends
Nice one, Al.
What's holding you back on the blog front?
I know this has already been dealt with, but I have to say it because it bugs me so. Alcohol does not necessarily lead to sex. In fact (although I can't back this up) I would say that more teenage pregnancies occur sober than drunk. I definitely know that the man is much less likely to be able to perform if he's drunk.
The nature of alcohol's affect on the mind may decrease inhibitions, but its effect on the body decreases sexual performance.
That reminds me of the argument someone put on my blog asking if people getting drunk and ------- each other at office parties really appeals to me. Evidently that person has had little experience with actual unsaved people and office parties.
Anyway…
fitz --
um, this ain't the BHT. You showed some restraint in your word choice, but I'd ask you show a little more next time. A truly brilliant mind can find really inventive ways to say things like you said above without resorting to the vocabulary of "Will and Grace".
Gummby: We have a site name reserved: afterdarknesslight.org
We are going to address worship and education. It is not even near ready for anything close to public view, but I will keep you posted.
I see myself as a Cent wanna be with less talent but a worser vocabulary.
al sends
I apologize. I was trying to get across the mood of what I was paraphrasing. I'll be more careful in the future.
Not sure what the BHT is, though, and I don't watch "Will and Grace".
Commenting by HaloScan
