Alcohol, Abstention and Redemption

Let's keep thinking through alcohol and abstention.

Generally speaking, both sides of the issue of alcohol agree that there is no way to prove biblically that Christians should abstain from alcohol.  I know there are exceptions (some of them in my inbox this week), but let's start with the premise that we can't build an air tight case for abstinence from the Bible.

The case is then often pushed to two areas (surely there are more). First, sometimes the case is made for a less fermented wine in the Bible or Welch's flowing at weddings.  Some people (I've become a magnet for some of them) will go to great lengths to explain how wine in the Bible had much lower alcohol content.  I've read long, rambling posts, discussion board threads, etc on this. 

I'm not convinced, but I don't think it really matters that much.  People in biblical times were getting drunk and so are people today, so who cares how much alcohol content there is in a drink?  There are abusers looking to abuse.  The biblical point doesn't change.  It's abuse that is the problem, not the alcohol content.  You can sip whiskey, mix the Captain with Coke, or whatever.  As long as you don't get drunk and drink for the glory of God, you are cool, biblically speaking.

So the argument for alcohol content, in my opinion, is a bit of a red herring.  It is off topic.  The biblical command remains, and is sufficient.  Isn't that great?!  It's sufficient whether we buy and drink a Smithwick's or a Seagrams 7.

The second thing the lack of biblical evidence for total abstinence does to the alcohol conversation is drive some to say that we live in a culture of abuse and therefore abstinence is a must in THIS culture.  But that's almost never really the point of those who argue this.  If it were, they would allow for alcohol consumption for our missionaries in other cultures where things are different.  But they don't allow that, which shows they really want to make an extra-biblical rule (legalism) for all of us. 

But let's give the benefit of the doubt, at least for the sake of the argument.  Let's say people with this position really believe it's about an abusing culture, and their inconsistency in application is out of their hands (denominational monetary pressures at work).  I get that.  And I understand this position and argued for it until a couple of years ago. In fact, I remember being at a Founder's Conference while in seminary and spending a couple of hours one night arguing my guts out with a Presbyterian guy about how everyone should abstain.  This guy *gasp* made his own beer!

I completely disagree with this argument for abstention now.  I could take the easy route and say I'd rather follow biblical rules than extra-biblical ones.  But even more, my reasoning is found in the Cross that created the Church.  The church is a redemptive community.  We live not only the experience of redemption (I'm redeemed/being redeemed) but also the works of redemption (I'm redeeming).  That's why our mission is both words and works, speaking and doing redemption.

And if we are working out our salvation through being redeemed and redeeming, then our response to cultural abuses is not to abstain but to redeem. That not only pushes us to maturity by teaching us how to eat, drink, and have sex to the glory of God (though it won't come easy), but it is also a witness to the world that God redeems.  The pervert throws away the pornography (abuse) and learns to love sex with his wife (redemption).  The glutton refuses to order a 5 piece fried chicken and fries meal (abuse) and learns to order a salad with light dressing instead (redemption).  The alcohol abuser stops drinking until drunk (abuse) and learns to stop after a beer or two (redemption). 

As long as we make the issue "abstaining," we will miss expressing and embodying redemption.  And I'm afraid the message we will send is that good things can be perverted beyond redemption.

Comments

[Steve Galloway]

Great post Pastor Steve. I have experienced similar frustrations over the years and you have provided some great fodder for discussion on this issue. My dad and i, (both pastors), have had it out on a number of issues. This one has cropped up recently in regards to membership in a local church. I have challenged him regarding the practice of 'rejecting his brother for whom Christ died'... it is also troubling how most of those operating from the 'cultural sin' camp are readily ignoring the HUGE 'cultural sins' that are actually sin... when was the last time we saw a church membership application that asked questions about pornography?

[James Paul]

The new Reformissionary website: www.sexsaladandsipping.org!

[Trevin Wax]

Steve,
I like how you're putting this in terms of abuse and redemption. I don't for the life of me though understand why you make abstinence something less than redemption. Why is only drinking in moderation redemptive and abstinence not? Could it not be that God leads people to different standards, depending on their weaknesses and background? Is a former drunk less redemptive for choosing to give up the stuff altogether and avoid any temptation?
Trevin

[Bob Robinson]

Excellent post, Steve. It seems to me that the biblical evidence is actually the exact opposite of what the legalists are attempting to make it:
Deuteronomy 14:26 reads, “You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.” This verse suggests that when we drink wine or other strong alcoholic drink, we drink not in hiding from God, but in the presence of the Great Supplier of the great things he has given us (our hearts’ desires), and God expects us to enjoy his gifts to us.
The New Testament also speaks favorably of wine (John 2:1-11; Matt 9:17, Mark 2:22, Luke 5:37-39; 1 Tim 5:23)

The issue is not whether or not to drink alcohol, but whether or not to get drunk. Among the requirements for elders, deacons and women leaders are to “not [be] given to drunkenness” (1 Tim 3:3), to “not indulge in much wine” (1 Tim 3:8), and to not be “addicted to much wine” (Titus 2:3). The text does not say they had to be teetotalers (which we might have expected), but that they should be able to control their drinking. Old Testament warns of the dangers of alcohol: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler; and whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (Proverbs 20:1).

Scripture allows for Christians to make different conscience-driven decisions on “disputable matters” (Romans 14), and the consumption of alcohol is one such matter.

Martin Luther’s response to those who would eliminate alcohol was interesting: “Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object abused? Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we prohibit and abolish women? The sun, the moon, and the stars have been worshipped. Shall we pluck them out of the sky?”

Some churches go over a line when they make abstaining from alcohol a requirement for membership or leadership. This kind of legalism robs the individual Christian of the gift from God to exercise educated discernment of conscience in his or her life. I for one do not want to be dependent on church leaders who are not trusted enough to make wise, free choices on matters of conscience. To make leaders sign a leadership agreement that they will abstain from alcohol robs them of the very thing that we depend on them for: to make wise, prudent decisions of applying the Scriptures to specific situations.

John Piper is a teetotaler. However, there came a point is his ministry that he realized that he could not thrust that matter of his own conscience onto others. Bethlehem Baptist once an abstinence policy for membership. Even though he personally abstained from alcohol, he convinced his congregation to change the policy. He wrote, “Should total abstinence be a requirement for church membership? My answer is, No. The reason is this: the New Testament allows for a difference of conviction and practice on this issue in the church and therefore it is wrong not to allow for that same difference in the church today.”

[Rich]

Trevin,

I could be wrong, but I think he is saying that teetotalers who want to force abstention on others as an extra-biblical law for things such as membership in a local body is NOT redemptive. I do not see the inference that abstention itself is not redeeming. Even if that is what Steve means, I would still put it out there as an idea I stand behind.

Rich

[Adam L. Feldman]

while there is no biblical prohibition for complete abstaining from alcohol, there is the biblical principal of limiting ones freedom for the sake of others. since i have been of legal age to partake of alcohol, i've abstained and also not abstained at times for the greater good of someone else's spiritual journey. i think the crux of all this is approaching [not just] this issue with humility and putting others before myself.

a blanket statement of abstaining negates the powerful opportunity to humble oneself before god and man. likewise, so does a blanket statement to consume in moderation.

steve, this is a sticky issue and i'm glad you're exploring it with us together...

[Steve McCoy]

Trevin, let's say you have an old, antique chair. Redeeming it would not mean throwing it away because it's broken and has four coats of ugly paint on it. That's the opposite of redemption. That's "judgment." Redemption would be to carefully strip away the paint, add a nice stain, fix the broken pieces and put it on The Antique Roadshow because you want to understand its value. This shows the chair is a good, valuable, but broken thing that should be redeemed lest we throw it away and lose its value and the enjoyment of it.

The ONLY way I can think of that makes total abstinence in the realm of being redemptive is in the rare circumstances of alcohol addiction. I'm not discussing that issue right now, but I have no problem with addicts abstaining. I know abstaining temporarily can be important too (same with sex, food, etc), but that's redemptive in a different way.

But I don't believe most abusers are addicts. They just like to get drunk. That was me and my wife in college. Lot's of drinking, plenty of drunkenness, but we weren't/aren't alcoholics.

So generally speaking, to redeem alcohol is to learn to enjoy the gift, not avoid it. I'm afraid gnosticism is leaning into the church, and making us believe that food is NECESSARY so we HAVE to eat. So we do. It's almost a necessary evil for some. But wine is not NECESSARY for survival, so we avoid it because it can ensnare us and kill us. So we run, run fast, run far from even the hint that we might drink. Don't even talk to lost people in bars because what they do is evil and you might get their evil cooties.

I think part of being a Christian is to show that matter matters. We don't just eat because we must, but we enjoy it because God made it. We avoid the abuse, and redeem it.

John Piper (speaking metaphorically about God) has said that you glorify a spring of living water by getting on your face next to the spring and drinking. You take the gift to show its worth. To abstain (for most of us) is to refuse to see alcohol for what it is, God's gift.

[Steve McCoy]

Adam, you said, "while there is no biblical prohibition for complete abstaining from alcohol, there is the biblical principal of limiting ones freedom for the sake of others."

I understand what you mean. Biblically speaking, and it looks like we agree on this, abstaining is a temporary thing depending on circumstances. When someone totally abstains as a Christian, I think most do it because of pharisaical pressures that usually work out into misinterpetations of Scripture on meat/idols (and other passages). Then we see people backfill their legalism with other things, like off-topic arguments for alcohol content differences in history, or ad hom attacks on these "immature" people who dare to mention that they favor stouts.

**Let me just add this to the whole dealio. If we truly live in a time where alcohol is more abused, where alcoholism is more often found, where teen abuse is more common, and so on...then it's even MORE imperative that we give the culture examples of drinking for the glory of God and not for escape or abuse. And as I've said before, maybe teens and adults are abusing more in our culture because Christians haven't led the way in talking about and enjoying alcohol in healthy, God-glorifying ways.

[kyle]

I like to think of this in terms of freedom and grace.

Abuse of anything is an infringement on the grace that we have through the blood of Christ - read: wrong. I don't really think anyone would disagree here.

Moderation, in my mind, is a stewardship of the freedom(s) we are granted through Christ. Abstinence, however is a limitation and maybe a degredation of that freedom. There are times that the limitation is warranted. For me, that has been the case for the past few years, due to the influence my actions had on my (then) underage sister. I have begun to rethink my stance on this with her coming of age, but now find myself under restrictions that I covenanted with my seminary. I'm not sure that it is Biblical to ask for such restriction, especially if just for appearance. It sends a message that the group is more worried about a certain image than they are about managing/enjoying the freedoms that they are given in Christ.

I don't have it all figured out on a personal level, though I make it clear to friends/acquaintances that I have no problem with their partaking.

[Steve McCoy]

Side bar with some new, raw thoughts...

I'm starting to not like the term "moderation," though I have used it. It makes the whole issue about abuse, and abuse isn't the key. Enjoyment is.

Sure there are "don'ts" in Scripture, but the don'ts of the law are summed up in "do's" >> loving God and neighbor. It's a heart in action issue essentially, not a moderation issue. Moderation is simply what should happen if we enjoy God and His gifts properly. It is NOT the essense of our partaking.

So with food, drink, sex, love, etc...it's about our heart. If our heart is right, we will do these things in ways that enjoys the gifts and not abuse.

[Ben Arment]

I think there's a difference between an abstentionist and a prohibitionist, of which I am the former.

[Trevin Wax]

I'm not so interested in seeing alcohol redeemed as I am seeing people redeemed. And for me, it seems that God's redemption of people plays out in different ways. For some, abstinence from alcohol is the way to go. For others, drinking in moderation is. I do not believe that the one giving up alcohol is any less redemptive than the one who stops getting drunk. To state your argument this way puts those who drink on a pedestal above those who don't, which is exactly the kind of legalism you are trying to avoid.

[Chris]

Disclaimer...I don't drink. I have, but now I don't, not because I believe it is a moral or legal issue. Now...

I personally think way to much time and brain energy is being spent on this issue. It only proves that as Christians we are still answering questions that the world is not asking. Those that need redemption are not wrestling with this whole "should I or shouldn't I" debate.

As far as I know in my experience, no one has approached me and said, "I see that you are enjoying an adult beverage. Let's talk about Christ, and see if the deepest needs of my heart can be met by Him." On the flip side, I haven't had anyone in the Church to say, "Oh, you are enjoying some brew. I'd like to mature to your level in my spiritual walk." It's not to say that this doesn't happen, I just think we are becoming too passionate about defending the rightness or wrongness of an issue that those whom we are trying to carry the message of redemption to could care less about.

It is not my liberation to drink that is the message of the Cross. I know that no one would agree that it is...but to link redemption with moderation seems to be a stretch. Jesus offers us a whole new way of life, a life of freedom and redemption, and a life free from being submerged in discussions that don't carry the message of redemption to those who are in despair. When Jesus showed up at a party in the Bible, His offer was not an invitation to imbibe, although that happened. His invitation was for a relationship. Some want to believe that Jesus would show up at their Monday Night football party with a six-pack under His arm. Some want to believe that Jesus would flee from the presence of alcohol, as if it was some sort of spiritual kryptonite. I just don't think He cares about all this as much as we do.

Now, does He care about the legalism stuff? Absolutely. But honestly, is that really our concern with all this talk? I think at some level we all sound rather pharisaical. And yet, there is a world next door to me, unredeemed.

[Joe Thorn]

Look guys! There it goes! Did you see it? Oh, I guess you missed it... the point.

[Richard A. Bailey]

Gosh, I wish I had gotten to know Joe better while we both lived in the shadow of the beeches.

[Steve McCoy]

Chris said, "but to link redemption with moderation seems to be a stretch."

Trevin said, "I'm not so interested in seeing alcohol redeemed as I am seeing people redeemed."

This is what our legalistic Christian subculture does to us, it causes us to divorce realms and not think in a more holistic way.

I tried to make the argument pretty clear, but Joe is right, you guys have missed the point. My former post I said it's not about alcohol, but legalism. This post I said it's about redemption. You guys are still hung up on alcohol.

[Scott]

Too many people use the "weaker brother" as a weapon against others - I can find someone w/ a problem with anything (how can we have dinner when there are people out there with eating disorders?). That should be used only with specific instances of weaker individuals, not as a hypothetical for a new law because one might be around.

As far as "weaker brothers" go - I've seen fundies drive people away from their churches and support networks over not accepting abstention (i.e. having a beer at a church social event is a crime worthy of excommunication). Wouldn't that argument apply _there_ also, to stop fundie abuses?

Cultures that lack evangelical alcohol hangups seem to have fewer problems w/ abuse - "our culture requires we abstain" doesn't fly. That, and since the Bible condemns drunkeness and Jesus was slandered as a 'drunkard', that's not a problem invented in the United States. They had alcohol problems back then, too.

[Scott M]

As I read and was composing thoughts, I see that Steve has already at least touched on every thought I had. Still, I guess I will go ahead and share my perspective.

Yes, this is just one issue. But it is one example of a deeper strain of legalism mixed with an apparent rejection of the flesh as inherently evil. (I thought I was the only one who detected echoes of gnostic views in this and other things, Steve.) It's not limited to this one item, but it is one that stands out glaringly in the SBC, especially if you haven't been raised within that culture. (My wife and I are both in our forties, so I don't think it's really an age thing.)

And as I was thinking when I read Steve's comment, I'm not entirely comfortable with the manner in which the term moderation is being used. It seems to imply that we carefully watch and balance everything we do so we don't overindulge or underindulge -- that we find some perfect medium in every aspect of our lives. And that strikes me as an awful and unbiblical way to live.

We are to be filled with joy, overflowing with love, abundantly experiencing life, life beyond anything that those around us have. Maybe I'm odd, but I can't do that when I'm consumed, focused, and worried about finding just the right amount of everything I do -- which is what I sense behind the usage of the word moderation. We are not to be moderate. We are to enjoy God and all that he has given us to the full and to his glory. Now, if we are focused on him, we may consume moderate amounts of wine, food, conform sexual activities to God's glory and the mystery of God it reveals, but the focus is not on moderation. The focus is on God and enoying/redeeming his gifts. Moderate consumption is then simply one result.

I'm not sure that's entirely clear or exactly the point I'm going for, but it at least has some flavor of it.

[Scott]

Some people have noted that eating disorders are seen (accurately or not) as mostly effecting women, and so we can have church hangups on alcohol (to keep the men 'pure') and not on potluck dinners (since that doesn't hurt men as much as it 'only' hurts women).

[Alex]

Good and thoughtful stuff Steve.

[Chris]

My frustration is with the totality of the discussion, not just bits and pieces of it. I just don't think it is worth so much energy and time. And I'm not hung up on alcohol. But it seems that you may be...just look at the title of the post. And ever since Driscoll wrote chapter six, its like a new doctrine of liberation has arrived. We are finally free! But we were all along. Unfortunately in our church culture there is little room for middle ground. So we post and argue, defend, deny, rally, quote, belittle, etc. Nobody moves. And nobody listens.

I think you may have missed my point. We are the only ones concerned about this. My position on alcohol (which would be more in line with yours), is inconsequential. I just can't get passionate about this as others have. But I am convicted, and continue to struggle with how to carry this message of redemption through my life and words across my street. That is my concern.

[joel hunter]

...arguing my guts out with a Presbyterian guy ... [who] made his own beer!

I don't remember meeting you, Steve. Maybe I need to scale back my operation :-)

[Steve McCoy]

Chris,

You said, "It only proves that as Christians we are still answering questions that the world is not asking."

You also said, "We are the only ones concerned about this. My position on alcohol...is inconsequential. ...But I am convicted, and continue to struggle with how to carry this message of redemption through my life and words across my street. That is my concern."

1. Legalism is deadly and must be found and removed. If we kill ourselves with legalism, it doesn't matter what our mission is. Our message is grace, and legalism is not grace.

2. My whole post was about carrying the message of redemption. How could you miss the whole point of my post?

3. As the Church, our hope is to be redeemed and redeem. So we need to communicate redemption. We send messages through all I do and say, and so we need to discuss what we do and say and how we decide what we do and say. If you care about your neighbors, you will be in this discussion too.

[Adam L. Feldman]

well, this is what i get for going to the coffeehouse and gym... i'm 76,453 comments behind in this dialogue! LOL. anyway, steve, thanks for the illumination on the idea of providing examples of god-glorifying consumption of alcohol...

[Chris]

I'm with you on the legalism thing. And I agree completely. On some level we are all recovery legalists.

Apparently, lots of folks missed the point. Most of the comments in this thread are absent of the discussion of redemption. It seems that this is now the "hot" topic with Graham, Mohler, Miller, Driscoll, and others weighing in. There seems to me to be an unhealthy obsession among many to treat this dicussion as if scales have fallen from their eyes, and they now have seen the light, and can without guilt enjoy the beverages of their college days, no longer in secret but right along side their seminary buddies. In moderation, none the less, for the sake of the children. And the glory of God.

Steve, I know this is not where you are taking the discussion. But many people are, with arrogance none the less. My lost friends don't even think this way. And they don't care. This issue is becoming the Disney boycott all over again, or the public school resolution, because it is not about redemption, as you desire, but about consumption. Adam says as much when he says "thanks for the illumination on the idea of providing examples of god-glorifying consumption of alcohol..."

My point is this...the more you try to focus the attention on redemption, the more people thank you for your stand on consumption. And it's not just here...it's all over the blogs. We do mess up when we focus on abstaining, as you originally said. We miss the message of redemption. But I would say that we also cheapen redemption, when our hearts leap highest for joy at the thought of consumption.

[Darren Fox]

Congratulations... you guys have forced me to make my first ever post. I end my lurking today.

I find it very interesting to hear people say that this issue doesn't matter. Let me relate quickly how it has mattered to a generation of young people in a small SBC church in NC. Growing up we heard the same arguments about “good Baptists” not touching alcohol and about those wretched “social drinkers.” In fact I still hear about it in the indy fundy church of which I am now a member… (different story). As the years passed we all managed to learn to read and some of us actually managed to think for ourselves. Guess what we began to discover….? That what we were hearing from the preacher and what we read in the book he said was “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” were actually different. So which one did we determine to be the liar? For me, the preacher was. For others, the whole thing…church etc. became suspect. Others managed to survive the dishonesty and have accepted the lies (or maybe just ignore them). Anyway…some of my childhood friends lost their trust in ALL things related to Christianity and will never again be willingly subject to the hypocrisy. Legalism led to rebellion for me and several others…some very hard roads indeed. Did it have to be that way? Nope, not if the truth would have been clearly told. Thus, opportunities for redemption on every level were missed.

[Steve McCoy]

Chris, some random responses.

I'm sick of blanket statements, so I don't care what "the blogs" say. I don't speak for them and they don't speak for me.

I can see how some will struggle with how to consume when all they've heard from our churches is ABSTAIN! Everyone is so quick to blast the "arrogant" young people who don't know how to talk about alcohol. I've said it before, we need good examples and so far don't have many. I love it when parent's screw up their kids and then spank their kids for the consequences of their parenting.

Though the post is on redemption through the alcohol issue, the outcome should have to do with consumption since redemption of alcohol would mean consuming it. :)

If this is like the Disney boycott, then it's the point of this blog to get SBC'rs to stop the boycott and enjoy. That's something the culture will respect and something Christians can hold with biblical integrity.

You said, "There seems to me to be an unhealthy obsession among many to treat this dicussion as if scales have fallen from their eyes, and they now have seen the light, and can without guilt enjoy the beverages of their college days, no longer in secret but right along side their seminary buddies. In moderation, none the less, for the sake of the children. And the glory of God."

How is that "unhealthy?"

Steve

[Steve McCoy]

Darren, thanks for peaking your head out for a first comment. Good to have you around.

[Michael]

Steve,

Good post. As you said in your post, most reasonable people will agree there isn't scriptural grounds for abstaining from responsible law abiding drinking but yet they still argue for abstaining. The weaker brethren is the most common plea I hear from teetotalers.I would like to hear how you deal with those who pull the "weaker brother" card from their sleeve in this debate.

[Bob Robinson]

Trevin says, "I'm not so interested in seeing alcohol redeemed as I am seeing people redeemed."

This neo-Platonic understanding of redemption is exactly what Steve is driving at. When God determined to redeem, he determined to redeem ALL OF CREATION, not just the people in the Creation. Sure, humanity is the pinnacle of Creation, but Redemption involves all of Creation being liberated from its bondage to decay (see Romans 8). When God created what is around us, he called it "very good." And included in that "very good" stuff is, yes, alcohol (see Deuteronomy 14:26). A Christian's mandate, then, is to redeem all of Creation from the ravages of The Fall.

I love Steve's illustration in the above comment (at 8:19 today) about the redemption of an old antique chair. That's it! We are supposed to be interested in ALL of Creation being redeemed (especially peoplet, but not only people)!

[Joel]

Steve,
Good discussion, and a great post.

I understand and largely agree with where you are coming from. Realizing that your point doesn't surround alcohol, but rather "redemption vs. abstention," I still feel compelled to look at this issue of alcohol, because I think it can be couched within other understandings as well.

I perceive that you would like to see our churches remove any requirement of abstinence from their covenants because it is "extra-biblical" and an example of "legalism." My understanding of "legalism," strictly speaking, was an extra-biblical requirement for salvation, and I know of no-one, including the "tee-totalers" in this discussion who would say that someone can't be a follower of Jesus because they drink. In short, I think the "legalism" term here is out of place, given the contexts in which it is normally used, and as a result a bit too strong.

Still, you think it is wrong for a church to require abstinence from its members (please correct me if I have misunderstood you, but that is my perception at present). What then, of the requirement for being present at all worship meetings of the church? I don't think it is a sin to decide to play a round of golf instead of going to a Sunday evening service. But if I am a member of a church whose covenant expects such attendance, I would by conscience honor that expectation. It's not a sin to omit church attendance on Sunday evenings. It is, however, a sin to commit to a covenant and then fail to live up to the requirements. Similarly, I am a member of a church that requires abstinence from alcohol (and also a NAMB missionary who willingly lives under the guidelines to which you earlier referred). Therefore, it would be wrong for me to partake of alcohol, not because it is a sin to drink, but because I would be in violation of a covenant to which I have agreed. Even if NAMB were to relax its policy, I am still bound by the membership covenant of my church.

THat being said, I think your case is rational (except for the references to "legalism") and well-thought-out. But there is more than one side to this discussion. And again, I would stress that change begins at the level of the local church. And the majority of local SBC churches go, so goes the SBC as a whole. The SC church I planted did not have an abstinence clause in its membership covenant (although we did practice discipline for drunkenness), and still does not. As more churches like this are planted/reformed/renewed, etc., the SBC will see change in this area (although probably not without a fight). It will take time, however. And it will be a local church pastor-led thing. And even if/when such change occurs, there will still need to be room for those who feel abstention is the right thing. If they were saying that drinking sends you to hell, it would be different (that is my understanding of legalism). But this isn't a salvation issue. So I'm failing to see how the heart of the Gospel is affected by such a position.

Sorry for the "rambling." Try to go easy when you respond. :) I'm not sure today is one of my best, mentally speaking.

[Paul]

Chris,

How many of the lost that you and the rest of us are concerned about don't want anything to do with Christianity because they view it as a restrictive religion of "do's" and "don'ts?" How many of them would agree that getting drunk is not a good thing, but aren't willing to give up beer when they're having pizza?

When we turn following Christ into a list of legalisms it becomes an unnecessary barrier to the very people we desire to reach. I realize that many people are simply looking for excueses for their rejection and one will do as well as another, but that doesn't mean that we should supply them with the excuses. I also realize that removing the barrier of legalism doesn't remove the barrier to the gospel, but it does remove some unnecessary barriers so that we can get to the real issue - that if God is God then they are not.

Frankly, I think a huge part of this issue is why so many are turned off by Southern Baptists, but not nearly so turned off by Jesus. So I see this discussion as having relevance to your concerns.

[stuart]

I don't claim to have any definitive answers on this issue. I've imbibed in the past and teetotal at present. (But I do swear occasionally, if that helps.)

Using the creation/redemption line of argument, it would appear that the main thing that seperates alcohol from other drugs (I'm obviously not talking about lab drugs like crystal meth) is the U.S. legal system. Unless I'm mistaken, God created cannabis, opium, cocoa, etc. So, in the event that I should ever find myself in a country with more lax drug laws, is it okay for me to drag on the roach as long as I don't get "high"?

Some of you should either answer "yes," or maybe back off on Trevin a bit.

[Ryan DeBarr]

"So, in the event that I should ever find myself in a country with more lax drug laws, is it okay for me to drag on the roach as long as I don't get "high"?"

I think all the arguments for teetotalism have now been laid on the table.

It is simply not possible to smoke pot and not get high; you feel it after one good toke. But yeah, if it were possible to smoke weed and not get stoned, I guess it would be OK (if it were legal).

[Steve McCoy]

Stuart, Ryan gave my answer. Drunkenness of any type is sinful.

[Bob Robinson]

Alcohol and Redemption
Steve McCoy at Reformissionary has an excellent post (you MUST read the comments too!) on Alcohol, Abstention and Redemption.

[Read More]

[Doug]

(Now *I* get to de-lurk as well.)

Joel -

Firstly, I think that you are too narrowly defining "legalism". The Christian life is not only about "getting saved" - it is about the redemption of all facets of our life now, as well. And any *requirement* placed on a person that does not stem from biblical injunctions violates that principle. *That* too is legalism, and that is what Paul was addressing in Colossians 2:20-23.

As for your example of church attendance, that fits with my paragraph above. We are directly enjoined in Scripture to regularly gather with the saints (Hebrews 10:25). There is, as you admit, no such injunction about alcohol.

You are absolutely correct about change starting at the local level. Why not start at *your* church? Why not point out to them that their requirement goes beyond Scripture, and encourage them to remove it?

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Let me start by saying that I have never had an alcoholic beverage in my life. However, it has not had anything to do with moral or religious beliefs, covenants or convictions.

I think Steve presents an incredibly fair and insightful presentation of this issue. Additionally, he has shown great grace and humility in the ensuing comments. For that, Steve, thanks.

When freedom is removed to protect against the abuse of that freedom, legalism is born. It is interesting that very little discussion about the historical origin of this (North) American value has come up. Prohibition is a prime example of how freedom was restricted to guard against and respond to the abuse of that freedom with the result of greater and more pervasive abuse.

Additionally, in a culture of rampant individualism, people want a universal standard which can be applied to all. You cannot, by this standard, tell Joe he should NOT drink and then allow Bill to drink. This is dangerously flawed thinking. I am not suggesting that each person decides his/her own morality, but rather that freedom is not exercised in a vaccuum, where blanket "laws" can be easily or helpfully applied (in all situations).

I believe that we need to view this issue as a cultural idiosyncrasy that requires genuine discussion and grace (as I see Steve offering here), but intentionally avoiding making many of these questions and issues universal. Someone commented that they find the idea that the "scales have fallen" offering clarity to be arrogant. However, I find it ironic that this issue has only been central to a very small group of Christians, in one part of the world, for a tiny segment in history. Puts things in perspective...

Peace,
Jamie

[Scott L]

Good article, good comments, good discussion.

Off topic (perhaps) for a minute. You know, I was a member of a Southern Baptist Church for about 10 years and had no idea there were such things as Membership Covenants until this conversation. I knew they always talked about covenants and commitment cards (for everything under the sun), but I never realized what it grew out of. (And perhaps Membership Covenants are not a part of all SBC communities.)

I have since left the Southern Baptist Church, but I wonder if maybe the entire idea of a Membership Covenant is wrongheaded. It seems to be merely a means of control and an easy way down the path of legalism. Why are these covenants necessary for believers?

I know this is possibly off-topic, Steve, sorry. But if you could find a minute or two to pop an e-mail over to me about the rationale of such covenants, I would be appreciative.

[Steve McCoy]

No, good question Scott. There are others on this site who may have more experience with covenants than I do, and they can feel free to chime in.

Timothy George said, “Church covenants are deeply rooted in the Baptist heritage and can still be used to great effect as an instrument for good in cultivating responsible church membership and promoting a clearer witness to a culture which has lost its moral footing.”

Our church has a covenant, as do most SBC churches. It has less to do with control and more to do with commitment to biblical living. We need accountability with one another, and a covenant helps us have a list of essentials for that accountability. That said, you can obviously see how it can go too far.

[Bob Robinson]

When I was in the process of writing our church's "membership covenant" I found it to be an huge challenge.
How do you write such a thing in a way that unites a body of believers as to how we will live and what we will do to transform the world around us without making it a document of hoops through which one must agree to jump in order to join the church?
That question Steve asks is a hard one, leading to all sorts of issues: What indeed is covenental in a church body, and who gets to decide, and how maleable should the document be, and how will it be worded so that it give freedom instead of legalism in expression of faith?
In a previous church I associate pastored in, the Senior Pastor unilaterally decided that all leaders must sign a leadership covenant--in order to "promoting a clearer witness to a culture which has lost its moral footing." In the covenant was the agreement not to drink alcoholic beverages.

And so it comes around again to the purpose of Steve's post in the first place!!

[stuart]

Ryan and Steve,
Thanks for not taking my question as sarcasm, which it wasn't.

But Ryan, I wasn't laying an argument for teetotalism on the table as much as I was taking some of the arguments I've read here to their logical conclusions.

[kl]

Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who tarry long over wine; those who go to try mixed wine. DO NOT LOOK AT WINE when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. In the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart utter perverse things. You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, like one who lies on the top of a mast. "They struck me," you will say, "but I was not hurt; they beat me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake? I must have another drink."
(Proverbs 23:29-35) esv

I CANT EVEN LOOK AT IT...

[Steve McCoy]

kl, are you saying you are an alcoholic? Are you prescribing that no one should "look at wine?" The Scripture you quote is about the abuse of wine, not the use of wine. So your intentions of application are crucial to you quoting it.

To all, stop Scripture bombing my site. I love and teach Scripture, but I never just read it and expect everyone to understand a specific application. Explain yourself, or comment elsewhere please.

[Marcguyver]

I would have to agree with Mr. Robinson in his statements as he seems to be stressing that we cannot have 'dogmatic' requirements in a church covenant that simply takes the church back into the very areas of 'works' that Christ himself condemned the Scirbes and Pharisees about.
Clearly we should try to hold ourselves to a higher standard of purity, especially as people in positions of leadership, or those interested in becoming members of a local body of believers however, I think that we should follow the teachings of Paul and be more interested in the 'Spirit of the Law' and not the 'Letter of the Law' as Paul should that if we try and follow the law then we are guilty of the whole thing even if we only break one of its commands.

[Steve McCoy]

Joe Thorn has a very helpful post on whether leaders should have higher standards, arguing against it.

[Marcguyver]

Ya, that is a great post by Joe, thanks for the link.

Funny how we seem to have continued difficulty in dragging people back into the 'death' of the law through ritual and absolution; rather than the 'life' of the law by allowing the Spirit to change us from within and provide forgiveness and mercy when it's needed.

[Steve]

regarding legalism and joel's post, 09/30/2005 at 05:21 PM -
seems joel views salvation primarily in terms of getting into heaven, instead of entering the "here and now" kingdom of God, which obviously connects seemlessly with the everlasting kingdom. doesn't legalism hinder (perhaps even prevent) salvation in our here and now life? isn't paul's point in galatians, and elsewhere, that a legalist isn't really following Christ ("going to heaven" is not really synonymous with "following Christ" because following Christ speaks so much of the here and now)? isn't peter's behavior in the here and now what requires paul to confront him, and tell him his legalistic behavior is polluting the gospel?

steve, i think you should do a post on legalism in general, and get that discussion going, because legalism in the area of alcohol, or anything else, is very much connected to salvation. if i've missed that discussion, sorry. point me to it.

[Rob]

A few thoughts from the French-speaking world:

Though I haven't read every word of this discussion; from what I have read, it seems that a major component is being left out. How does this issues play out in other cultures? It seems that the discussion is taking place solely with an English/American context in mind. Kind of narrow considering we only make up 5% of the world's population.

My name is Rob and I am a church planter (American) near Montreal, QC. We speak French and all of my ministry is in French to French-speakers. I am a part of a fairly conservative association of churches up here. Doctrinally, we would line right up with the SBC. A SBC prof or pastor would feel right at home examining our doctrinal statements, taking our membership classes, or attending our ordinations.

With that in mind, I do not know a single person up here who is a teetotaler. That includes pastors, profs, church members, and even extreme legalists. Even for the most legalistic Quebeckers I know, alcohol is a non-issue.

The French mind-set on alcohol is that it is a gift from God. . . don't abuse it! Much like dessert, or sex.

When I mention to Quebeckers that many of my American friends believe that the consumption of alcohol is a sin, or even that many abstain, I receive quizzical looks and questions of "why?"

I would venture a guess that the majority of SBC missionaries in French-speaking lands do not hold to an abstinence position (though would never say so publically).

For us, we are with another (also conservative) missions organization in the U.S. We don't publicize our moderate alcohol consumption (maybe a bottle of wine every couple of months, and a beer ever few weeks), but we are open when people ask.

How does this issues play out with Chinese Christians? How about African Christians? South American Christians? I know that the wives of Luther and Calvin were both renowned for their expertise in the making of alcohol.

I will add though, (just to stir the pot), that French-speaking Quebeckers DO take exception to the fact that American churches have an American flag in the sanctuaries. While they encourage church members to vote and be active politically, they do not see the church as a political entity and feel that it is an inappropriate marriage of church and politics. Again, just to stir the pot.

[Steve McCoy]

Rob, no pot stirring here. The flag shouldn't be in our churches, IMHO. Problem is, so many of our churches are filled with patriotic vets and they see it as important. Much teaching needs to be done.

Thanks for the perspectives above.

[Jason Sampler]

Rob (and Steve),

I agree completely with you on the issue of the American flag (and patriotism in general) being explicitly (or implicitly) taught in churches. I raised a question to this in staff meeting after Memorial Day. We ended the service with the Pledge of Alliegance. I was appauled by it and, though i stood with the congregation (reflex) I refrained from saying the pledge. I find the interwoven nature of worship of Christ and devotion to state in a worship service to be completely out of line. Just my two cents.

Jason

[justin]

our community went through this dailogue about 3 years ago (some of it canstill be found on my old blogger account) and the results were very liberating. we required abstinance from all leaders and created a atmosphere of false superiority as a result.

i'm currently working on a series that deals with the enjoyment of "fine things" by us as Christ-followers called "Abbey Life and the Affirmation of Creation's Goodness." i'd be interested in your input.

also, we've actually begun a blog that explores the enjoyment of some of the gifts that this world has to offer at http://brewmonks.blogspot.com. if anyone is interested in contributing reviews, feel free to drop me a line.

thanks for your discussion. mature and insighful.

[mgreen]

Okay, so obviously I'm coming into this discussion WAY late (probably too late for some who wish this discussion would fizzle out), but please cut me some slack-I just found the site (very good, I might add). While I believe that an argument can be made from Scripture against the use of alcohol in most cases(I won't go into it unless someone wants to hear it), I think the best argument is to ask, "What is the WISE thing to do?"-plain and simple. My "tentmaking" job is in the insurance industry, so I'll use an analogy from there. While consumption of alcohol is not a sin in and of itself, it is a liability-especially for one who is charged with shepherding the flock. Any time you drink alcohol, you open the door to the possibility that you will become drunk-which is a sin. Now, personally, I have enough things in my life that give me occasion to excercise self-control, whether it's what I eat or what I watch. The question I ask is, "Why would I want to put one more thing in my life?" I can't honestly say that my life is less fulfilled since I do not drink. I simply see my decision to abstain from alcohol as a means of disciplining myself "for the purpose of Godliness." While we should always do all things to the glory of God, we sometimes bring greater glory to God by what we DON'T do.

[Leon]

"As long as you don't get drunk and drink for the glory of God, you are cool, biblically speaking."

Yet another example of where the Biblical Christian and the pagan agree.

We conclude all of our worship services with drinking to the glory of the God/dess.

[jerry]

i saw someone mentioned having self control. i think its funny how we all know that self control is one of the fruits of the spirit, and we all claim to have self control, by not allowing ourselves to be put into situations where we must practice self control. that is simply a false that we are telling ourselves. As for the topic of drinking, ive fought this battle about 8 years ago, and am pretty much at the point now where its something we shouldnt be spending so much energy on. If someone who calls themselves a christian drinks, who cares. Bythe way, i just read through this entire thing, and only saw one reference whatsoever about Jesus. What is the foundation of our faith, is it Jesus, or is it whether or not we drink alcohol. I hate to say it, but from what I see in people today, im starting to be convinced that it is the later when it should not be. I hope this doesnt make me judgemental, but im just calling it like i see it.

[Alex Chediak]

Steve,

Thanks for the great discussion. Though I didn't directly see it in your original post, I take it the SBC resolution was the occasion of your reflection. (?)

I grew up in an abstinence environment, and have come to your convictions as well. I now am employed at a college that requires all staff to never drink. Since I needed the job, and exceptions were not permissible, I signed on. The college's statement did not require that I agree with their doctrinal position, only that I abstain from alcohol at all times.

To what degree (if at all) do you think folks in my situation should make this an issue? Should we feel compelled to work for the advancement of Christian liberty in the institution, or simply give a good testimony by walking the line?

Blessings....you have a great blog!

[Jeremy Weart]

Steve,

How is this for linking drinking wine with redemption - I was studying for a bible study on John 2 (using D.A. Carson's commentary) and realized something huge!

The entire point of Jesus turning water into wine is this: the stone water jars were used for ceremonial cleansing at the wedding by the Jews. Jesus comes to the wedding and changes the very water in those jars into the best wine ever produced.

He is in essence saying that the old Jewish ceremonial laws and customs are now done. The Lord is ushering in a NEW AGE now. The wine he produced represented the BLOOD HE WAS TO SHED on our behalf. Wow! How amazing is that?

The next time you imbibe some merlot over a meal or at your next communion - remember John 2.

[Dan Brown]

Maybe the best question is not "is it right or wrong", since that is in debate, but rather, "Is it the wise thing to do?". That question should be answered in the context of your past history, your current circumstances and your future hopes and dreams. This question comes from Andy Stanley's series of sermons entitled "FOOL PROOF". Check it out.

[Steve McCoy]

I'm not allowing comments on this post. The discussion is long over.