Biblical Liberty & Terrified Baptists

I find it both frustrating and hysterical that after a landslide victory on the alcohol resolution we have a couple of unthinkable things happening.  To use the words of a very recent SBC President, it's one of the most unthinkable things imaginable.

1. Those who champion the alcohol resolution are quick to admit the resolution and biblical teaching on alcohol don't match. I'm sure they wouldn't like the way I've worded that.  Whatever.  It's true and they seem to feel a great motivation to admit it.

Jim Smith (Florida Baptist Witness): "As noted in the debate on the resolution, it’s clear from Scripture that wine was consumed during biblical times — and that it is even encouraged in moderation in select passages of the Bible."

Danny Akin (SEBTS): "Does the Bible by direct command condemn the use of alcohol in every instance? The honest answer is no it does not. Jesus clearly turned water into wine (John 2)."

No matter what else these guys say, it's clear that they are supporting what they consider to be an extra-biblical resolution.  How hilarious is that?  And the bigger problem is that these ideas are not just extra-biblical, they are anti-biblical. 

For example, Danny Akin also says, "I have observed for some time a growing emphasis on our 'liberty in Christ' that I fear neglect of our 'responsibility in Christ.'"  Sure, we get his point on responsibility.  Let's not try to trump responsibility with our liberty.  There are certainly times to abstain for the sake of others, and any faithful Christian of any stripe will strive to live that way. 

But both responsibility AND liberty are Jesus things.  We cannot act like responsibility nullifies our liberty, or why have liberty? They both have their place, and anyone who interprets our responsibility as totally abstaining from a liberty has misinterpreted responsibility. That's why when these guys say that all should abstain all the time we have moved into the realm of absurdity. 

Of course there is one, clear biblical warrant for this kind of thinking: the Pharisees.  Yes, those "strong conservatives" knew how to take seriously all the "contextual and principle considerations" behind their extra-biblical rules.  I'm sure their intentions were often good, desiring Scriptural fidelity and a "holy life."  But they were condemned because they missed the grace that sets us free, opting rather for their own interpretations and additions to the Law.

Now, let me be clear. (Unfortunately, I have to spend time on this because so many of our leaders not only have a poor understanding of liberty and responsibility, but they also have a poor understanding of biblical conservatism and liberalism.) I’m an inerrantist & Calvinist. I’m an expository preacher who regularly has people leaving our services telling me that they are feeling terribly convicted over some sin. And I submit that our so-called “strong conservatives” are actually less conservative than me on this issue. The most conservative conservatives (biblically speaking) are sola scriptura-ists, and anyone who pushes extra-biblical rules that disqualify Jesus for SBC service is less conservative because they are NOT sola-scriptura-ists.

Let me move on.

2. Those who champion the alcohol resolution seem to be speaking as if they lost the vote, yet they had like 85-90% of the vote!  This is remarkably queer.  Their massive "win" on this resolution is strangely only a small comfort.

Do you believe it?  They propose a resolution that has no biblical backing and are surprised that some want to debate it.  Then they win by a landslide and feel the need to keep pushing the issue as if they lost.   Why is this happening? I think for at least two reasons, though probably more.  First, they need something to celebrate after getting pummeled at the poles on nominations. Some will now put me in the ranks of some who pushed hard for other nominations, but if you read my blogs you know I’m in disagreement with them on this issue. 

Second, they are disturbed that there was even a conversation to be had on alcohol!  From Jim Smith's article...

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Paige Patterson…nicely summarized the alcohol resolution debate when he told me, “Sadly, I would never have believed that I would see a 45 minute debate at the Southern Baptist Convention on a resolution on abstinence from beverage alcohol. When one considers that the alcohol industry devastates more lives and homes today than any industry other than the pornography industry, such a question is doubly unthinkable. Positively, the resolution was adopted by 90 percent of the messengers, a critically important resolution in light of some pastors who now openly boast of imbibing alcohol.”

This much is clear: the Southern Baptist establishment is terrified of more than just abused liberty. They are terrified of even responsibly exercising biblical liberty.  Why else would they push for extra-biblical rules?  Liberty allows churches to be autonomous, and Christians to be responsible to God for their use of liberties, and even *gulp* allows some people to blog.  So some have been making new rules and resolutions on baptism and tongues and blogging trustees and alcohol and who is able to serve as a convention leader and who is not. Fear causes people to do very strange things, like make rules that would disqualify Jesus and the Apostles and Old Testament saints from SBC service.

The sad thing is, fear is what led the Pharisees to seek the death of our Savior.  Fear of a political takeover.  Fear of losing power and authority and privilege.  It seems the SBC "strong conservative" leaders have, like the Pharisees, turned a blind eye to the Scriptures they say they love so dearly. In that stance they continue to vilify and isolate brothers who enjoy the things Jesus enjoyed, even in a responsible and thoughtful way.

I strongly disagree with Dr. Akin, Jim Smith, and their lot. I think their position is hurting our convention, our witness, our mission work, the outworkings of the conservative resurgence, and more. I think they are pushing away from our convention our best and brightest young pastors because of extra-biblical resolutions like this. I think they are showing the world that the SBC and Jesus aren’t as close as we hoped.

And at the same time I would NEVER, EVER say these men are unregenerate. I love them both and spoke briefly with Smith and Akin at the convention. I have great respect for the work they do and the many wise things they say. But in this case they are both working against the Savior they love.

Comments

[Joe Thorn]

Good words Steve. You know I agree with you here, and I appreciate how you've handled it.

I would like to add that total abstinence is not the religion of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus, but it is the religion of Joseph Smith and Muhammad. And consider what we look like in international contexts as missionaries who abstain from the normal cultural beverages (wine). We look like Mormons (minus the bikes and white shirts), not like the followers of Christ.

[Steve McCoy]

Joe, that's a fantastic point. Well said.

[Michael Foster]

Steve,

You Calvinist and your beer!;)

Its too bad things are going this way in the SBC. But, at least the SBC isn't waivering on the Trinity like the PCUSA.

[josh]

and now . . . here comes the whirlwind. good luck. thanks for being honest.

[Aaron]

The resolution was bad enough, but the amendment has clearly limited service within the SBC. As you have so clearly stated many times, why add limitations that would eliminate Jesus from service. I would love Jesus to be the president of the SBC, but now He can't.

I believe Ben Cole stated on baptist blogger that what is happening is the equating of abstinence with holiness. When it comes to the seminaries and any schools they have the ability to choose policies and the students have the ability to choose to attend or go somewhere else, but the resolution is placing requirements upon the daily lives of people.

Whether you drink or abstain, do it for the glory of God. I don't plan to drink alcohol, but I can't tell anyone else not to because the Bible does not. Please don't add more to holiness, it's hard enough. Holiness is conforming to Christ, and alcoholic beverages in and of themselves do not limit or hinder that progress.

I agree that alcohol abuse has lead to many terrible problems in our society. So does eating. So does living. If we would stop living then maybe no one would ever get cancer or diabetes or dimentia or cataracts.

[Brent]

Thank you for your concern and your words. I recently wrote on this as well (http://www.colossiansthreesixteen.com/archives/573) that what we are actually encountering is a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. Sobering stuff (pun intended).

[Rick Penney]

Steve,
Thanks for keeping all the other reformissionaries out here up to speed on this issue. You provided me with good fodder for my sermon on sunday about waging the good warfare according to 1 Timothy 1:18-20. I used the resolution as an example of making extra-biblical restrictions and as an example of how not to fight. Keep up the good work.
Rick

[Steve Lewis]

Good points Steve. You said

"I think they are pushing away from our convention our best and brightest young pastors because of extra-biblical resolutions like this."

In the past three years, I've met no less than three dozen SBC church planters who are planting non-SBC churches, because they were unwilling to sign a legalistic, extra-biblical NAMB funding contract. These are super insightful, godly, talented guys who are unwilling to strangle their faith and mission with a rope made of dollar bills.

[Gregory Pittman]

Thanks for your post, Steve. I was pleased with much of what happened last week and deeply frustrated by much of what went on. The inconsistencies are striking. I don't think our folks will make a big deal about the fact that our Lead Pastor and I voted against the alcohol resolution (fortunately, we enjoy a pretty strong trust within our fellowship), but I am readying an answer just in case. Some may not understand at first, but they will be gracious.

I grew up in an independent fundamental Baptist church. Women didn't (don't) wear pants, no cards, no movies, no shopping in grocery stores or restaurants that offer alcohol. Last week's resolution reminds me of that church and I shudder to think we as Southern Baptists have replaced the authority of Scripture with what we think God accidentally left out.

[Gary Fox]

amen Steve.

wow, thank God for blogosphere, honestly. How long have so many of us had these exact same thoughts but have had so little ability to network and brainstorm and take comfort in knowing that we are not the only screwballs out there that think like this!

What would it take to get this article in Baptist Press?

great job and amen!

now...back to my beer...

[Brad Williams]

Steve,

You wrote,

No matter what else these guys say, it's clear that they are supporting what they consider to be an extra-biblical resolution. How hilarious is that?

I know what you meant, I think. But I do not find it hilarious. Rather, I am grieved. Not trying to be a wet blanket or too overly serious, but this really saddens me.

I am afraid that this is being trumpeted so loudly because they see this issue as one they can push successfully to silence certain people from the SBC. They can't win on theology. They've been called on the cult of pragmatism. And the old guard man did not win the Presidency. However, they can still whip the crowd into a frenzy over drinking booze, and so they do it. Don't misunderstand me, if we find out that we have a drunken sot for a missionary, we need to get that person help. But if he drinks real wine in an overseas communion service, I think he can stay.

[Jon]

good post Steve.

Steve Lewis - I can echo your experience with similar numbers and reasons.

[Chris Walls]

Steve,

You have hit the nail on the head as so many other bloggers have. Common sense biblical ethic did not win the day at the SBC, even though I voted against the resolution. I am now advocating a resolution on gluttony (over eating) for next year. Please, if anyone wants to give input please let me know.

[Steve McCoy]

Chris, if you want to be consistent with the eating/alcohol link, your resolution needs to be on eating, not gluttony. :)

[Joe Thorn]

Chris,

Here is what I put together as an example last year. Resolution on Gluttony: LINK

[Alan Cross]

I don't have a problem with a resolution speaking against the dangers of alcohol abuse. We would all agree with that. It just seems that we have to run straight to an extra biblical law, because we cannot trust anyone to follow the Lord. We talk so much about baptisms, but we obviously have no clue as to how to make disciples who are led by the Spirit and follow Christ, thus making us less than Great Commission Christians. Your points are right on and this is why I felt the need to start speaking out last December after the IMB issues hit the table. Not for political reasons, but for biblical ones.

[Gabriel Snyder]

Steve,
I have posted here once before about a month ago and I introduced myself at the convention in the Patterson/Mohler debate... But Bro I think you are way off base to suggest that Dr. Akin is working against Christ by making a stand against something that is destroying lives every day.
What your comments tell me is that you have never really felt the effects of what alcohol can do to someone. I have seen it rip apart families and destroy lives. It actually almost destroyed my life, if it wasn't for God's Grace.
I understand your complaints, but what I am afraid of is that you guys are not taking serious the effects alcohol can have on ones life.
I am not accusing you of doing this but what seems to be happening with a lot of guys today in our convention is they are seeing how close they can get to sin, instead of fleeing from every appearance of evil.
Gabe Snyder

[Pat A.]

Good thoughts Steve! Thanks for saying what needs to be said.

[Jim]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people (sometimes with guns).

Alcohol doesn't destroy families and lives. People who abuse it do.

[brett]

I'm going to go have a Newcastle and read my Bible...

[brett]

ah yes, and I never feel this topic is complete without the words of our ol' buddy Luther:

"Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?”

[Stuart]

Gabriel--

Nothing is ripping more families apart and destroying more promising ministries than internet pornography. So in 2001, we passed a resolution on internet pornography. Not computers. Not their manufacturers. Not the internet. Not webhosts or web-page designers. Not public libraries.

Last year, the resolutions committee presented a resolution on TEEN smoking. Why do you think they did that, and not ALL smoking in general?

[Steve McCoy]

Gabe, good to have your comment here.

First, you are not making biblical argument. You are making an emotional one. And as much as I resonate with you on the problems of alcohol abuse, to then leap to the need for total abstinence for everyone is just anti-biblical. Would you really encourage your church to follow your emotions rather than Scripture?

I think your response to my statement on Akin working against Christ is an emotional one as well. If the Bible says one thing and our leaders say something else, I go with the Bible. God help us all to do so.

Second, you suppose too much. I've stated my experiences before, but since people continue to try to make a point they are clueless about, I'll say it again. I spent my first year of college drunk & passed out (there are pictures of me passed out somewhere in the world), doing things I would not state here publicly. My best friend (at the time) at college dropped out with a 0.0 gpa the first semester because he was a drunk. We called him "Drunken Larry." I have a small group in my church with three guys who are all currently struggling with alcoholism. That's 3 out of 8 people. I've worked with and known several alcoholics and alcohol abusers. And my wife used to work in two different bars. Is that good enough for you?

Third, you said we should flee every appearance of evil. The better translation is "avoid every form of evil." Alcohol abuse is a form of evil, drinking alcohol is not. It's a gift that can be enjoyed or abused.

Fourth, maybe you and I and the many people who have been devastated by alcoholism would have a better chance at using alcohol properly if we would have had godly examples of people who knew how to use alcohol as a gift. On the other hand, people are sinners and sinners abuse things. It's sad, but should be expected.

Gabe, please build your argument on Scripture and real knowledge. You built it on emotion and false assumptions about my life. Thanks.

[Justin Sok]

Steve-
I like both your treatments of the issue. I did not go to the Annual Meeting this year, I had enough in Nashville. I am growing tired of SBC life. Maybe that is just this resolution, is the straw that broke the camel's back, but I think in my experiences with SBC churches over the past several months broke it long before then. I am one of those guys who grew up Southern Baptist, and now before I have even begun seminary I am planning on leaving. The SBC does good things, but I think the bad terribly outway the good. I may be wrong, Lord willing that I am.

Thanks again Steve you are always honest and biblical.

[Freddy T. Wyatt]

Gabe,
I'll let Steve speak as to whether or not he has felt the effects of what alcohol can do to someone, but my guess is that he knows just as well as any of us. If we flat out say alcohol destroys lives, we must be willing to say sexuality destroys lives, food destroys lives etc. Rather, as it has been said many times from this blog and in the comments thread, it is the abuse of alcohol, the perversion and abuse of sexuality and over-eating that destroys lives.
I am all for fleeing every appearance of evil but I do not see Jesus running away from the wedding at Cana where He actually turned water into wine.
Freddy T.

[Freddy T. Wyatt]

Gabe and others,
As I was typing, two or three of you posted responses to Gabe before I could post. You guys are fast on the keypad. Didn't mean to beat up Gabe too bad.
Freddy T.

[Steve McCoy]

Justin, sorry for your struggles bro. If you need to talk about it, feel free to send me an email. Going to pray for you now.

[Paul]

Aiken says that the analogy with eating is not logical. I wonder what brand of logic he's using. He implies that the only way a senseless death from abuse can take place is when the person is behind the wheel of an automobile.

I remember years ago reading Lloyd-Jones' book Healing And The Scriptures where he says that the overwhelming majority of his patients (as a doctor) were suffering from one of three problems: eats too much, drinks too much, smokes too much. When you factor in all of the heart disease, unexpected (and expected) heart-attacks, strokes and clogged arteries from overeating the analogy makes perfect sense. More people die of heart disease in America than any other cause. Overeating is one of the leading contributors to heart disease.

[john chandler]

Steve said: "Fourth, maybe you and I and the many people who have been devastated by alcoholism would have a better chance at using alcohol properly if we would have had godly examples of people who knew how to use alcohol as a gift. On the other hand, people are sinners and sinners abuse things. It's sad, but should be expected."

Steve,
Thanks for these comments. I saw moderation modeled in my home growing up, and have never struggled with alcohol, or really even enjoyed it. However, after my first daughter was born a few years ago, I made a conscious decision to start modeling moderation for her as well, so I now regularly have wine on hand. For me, anyway, seeing moderation modeled removed the taboo and mystique of alcohol, and I hope I can do the same for my children.

[JCCVI]

Gary and Brett-

It's waay to early to start drinking.

That said, I've found that one of the disadvantages of growing up in a more or less teetotaling environment is that I never learned how to drink from a respected authority figure. My parents and their friends, also growing up in abstinent homes, treated alcohol, even when taken in moderation, as something to be done on the sly and never in certain company (ie non-alcoholic baptist family members). As a result, the virtue of moderation is often lost on us.

At the risk of painting with too broad a brush, I've found that many of my former SBC friends who've ended up in the PCA or other doctrinally orthodox, yet permissive on alcohol churches, tend to get go a little overboard at times, at least in comparison to others who've grown up in the non-SBC denominations.

It's one thing to read scriptural arguments for the moderate use of alcohol. Far more annoying is hearing them from an ex-teetotalers two beers on...

[Scot McKnight]

JCCVI,
Come to my house some night and I'll show you how to drink one-half of a glass of red wine with dinner.

I'll give you one, too.

[JCCVI]

I hope you invite a bunch of people.

Moderate drinking vastly increases the chance of the wine getting cork in it later on.

Let's see...if you and I both have a half glass, then that's 6 more half glasses, or half of the trustees from the IMB.

[Gabriel Snyder]

Steve - I apologize for making an assumption on your personal experience with Alcohol. It was not my intent to cause any ill will toward you. I guess it was a fair comment by you to accuse me of not having any "real knowledge" since I made a false assumption about you.
First, just because I fall on the other side of some issues than many of you, I do not view you as enemies, so I hope no one will look at me as an enemey b/c of a diff. of opinion.
Second, Steve you are right, I did not give a specific Biblical argument, so I wanted to throw a few thoughts out there. Since Dr. Akin's name has been used, I thought it would be fitting to quote him; Dr. Akin made a statement about this subject yesterday, "Paul’s guidelines for the gray areas of life are helpful at this point. Does this action help me? (1 Cor. 6:12) Can this action enslave me? (1 Cor. 6:12) Could this action be a stumbling block to a fellow believer (1 Cor. 8:13) or an unbeliever (1 Cor. 9:19-22; 10:32-33)? These principles could be summarized in the maxim: “love for others regulates my liberty.”"
I think one of the real issues of this discussion is can drinking alcohol cause another brother to stumble. If I can be completely honest here, after reading many of your blogs about alcohol, I began to try and justify drinking in my own mind and that is just what Satan wants me to do. Because with my history with alcohol there is no way I could only have one beer or one drink, you see it would be nothing but a downward spiral for me if I was to drink. So you could argue on the basis that someone like myself could see Godly men like yourself drinking "a" beer and think they could get away with drinking a beer even though they have a very vivid history with alcohol, and seeing this, this person could go and drink, and the rest is history.
Guys I am not going to sit here and tell you that the Bible specifically says to not take a drink, but I think as men of God and ministers of the Gospel we need to consider the consequences of these actions and realize how it could cause another brother in Christ to stumble. I think Dr. Akin was correct when he said it is very unwise.
I love you all as we partner together in reaching this world for Christ.

B/c of His Grace,
Gabe Snyder

[Jason B]

This whole alcohol issue is quite nearly laughable. Why? The Bible seems to have some pretty strong warnings about people who heap burdens on other people's backs. Thanks Steve for not letting this one slide like 99% of the Baptists in my area just because "that's the way it has always been."

[hutch]

"(20) If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations - (21) 'Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch.' (22) (referring to things that all perish as they are used) - according to human precepts and teachings? (23) These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh." (Colossians 2:20-23)

[hutch]

http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/6060.article

This editorial contains some really terrible reasoning:

"The ERLC tract concludes: 'Alcohol is treated in the Bible somewhat like
slavery and polygamy, which, though not universally condemned, were
undermined and ultimately doomed by the high moral principles set forth in
the Scriptures.'"

So abstinence from alcohol is a creation ordinance like marriage? I think
not. In Psalm 104:15, we read that God "made wine to gladden the heart of
man." In the final consummation at the end of history God will "make for
all peoples a fest of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food
full or marrow, of aged wine well refined" (Isaiah 25:6). At very best,
abstinence from alcohol is a concession to the hardness of men's hearts, not
a higher phase in progressive revelation. This editorial inspires very little confidence in either the Florida Baptist Witness or the ERLC.

The comment by "epaphroditus" right above mine needs to be deleted by the moderator. It is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

[Scott M]

Gabe (and any others reading in similar circumstances), I'll go beyond 'abuse'. I don't normally speak or post about it, but in this instance and in this context I will. Both my parents are 'alcoholic'. My Mom has been recovering for many years. My Dad less so. Last year my uncle (Mom's younger brother) died a painful and messy death from alcoholism. I'm cautious about alcohol (for good reason), even though it appears I (very fortunately!) did not inherit the predisposition to alcoholism. I am intimately familiar with the damage alcohol can do.

And I will also say this SBC resolution goes beyond the pale. The damage alcohol can do is nothing new. Read the scripture. Even so, God describes it as a blessing he has provided for our good. No stricture that would prohibit Jesus from serving in any capacity can ever be justified. That's my bottom line. And that's exactly what this resolution does.

[Jesse Perry]

It's sad, but having heard some recent conversations among some pastor friends of mine, I think that we should expect more of this "ecclesiastical combat" (as Joe Thorn put it). The (not-so) established elite are trying desperately to regain control and "thin the herd".

[Steve McCoy]

Gabe, apology accepted. And I know we are on the same team and hear your desire. But you need to realize your position and the position of those who support this alcohol resolution work against what you intend. SBC'rs at this year's convention have not only worked to hurt the reputation of those who enjoy God's gift of wine, but also to isolate them away from leadership. This is not an individually held belief I'm blogging against, it's a public statement that tells me I'm wrong for letting Scripture define what I do and don't do.

As to the Scriptures you gave, you need to beware what you call wise and unwise. It's wise to let God make the rules and unwise to add to His rules. True?

So if the Bible says to not cause a brother to stumble in one place but does not require total abstinence there or somewhere else, then don't you think that you must have misinterpreted the stumbling thing? That's the only explanation that makes sense of this.

Seriously, how could Paul have been so stupid to miss that? How could the Psalmist get the alcohol thing wrong, thinking it's a gift to make the heart glad? How could Jesus possibly miss the fact that the Supper he was instituting would in fact lead His people to stumble???

Your explanation of total abstinence as the wise thing is saying that our Lord wasn't wise.

Your unwillingness to accept the whole council of God in Scripture is exactly the problem. As someone said above, this is really a sufficiency of Scripture issue.

[Ken]

Steve,

Wow! I must admit that I am somewhat surprised that this alcohol resolution has generated so much intensity and passion. takes me back to earlier days when I had the same discussion with my dad on the Bible's position on the use of alcohol.

Anyway, I want to respond to a point that you keep coming back to in your original post and in your responses to comments. This is the position of being careful of "extra-biblical rules". I wholeheartedly agree with this position, but would like to humbly add of word of caution that if we truly want to apply this printciple to our practices, then we all need to be prepared to be challenged to what we practice and say is based upon Scripture. You and I discussed the "who is a missionary" question earlier on my blog, but here are just a couple of other quick examples:

1. One we face a lot on the mission field with well-meaning volunteers is the position that you cannot be a church without a church building. Where is the biblical basis for the enormous amount of resources, time, and energy put into church facilities? A man was quoted in the Christian Index last year as saying that he went around the country and the world building church buildings because Jesus was a carpenter and was the first church contractor. Somebody please help me with the bibical basis for this position!

2. One of the reasons given on many blogs and in media outlets for the outcome of the SBC presidential election is that the apparent frontrunner only gave .27% to CP. By what biblical criteria did this information disqulaify him from serving? If this was the reason for his losing, althought extremely valid on a lot of levels, was still extra-biblical. Was he biblically unqualified to run and or to serve is my only question here? No other agenda!

1. Expository preaching is being tauted by many as an essential and biblical element for a healthy church. Expository preaching as taught in our SBC colleges and seminaries is a highly literate and analytical process. If the position is true that this is an "essential" element to have a healthy church, then 2/3s of the world will never experience a healthy church since they nor their leaders can read or write. Or what about the people groups who do not yet have Scripture in their language? Matthew 13:34 states that Jesus "did not seak" to the multitudes without telling a parable, or in today's vernacular, stories. Verse 35 goes on to say that Jesus was fulfilling prophesy by telling stories. So, can a preacher who can only preach through Storying lead a healthy church? Sure he can because he wants what I believe the majority of us want and that is the Word of God to be proclaimed to be the focus of the message. However, to assume that unless you have been educationally prepared to preach expositionally you cannot lead a healthy church, then we are in a world of trouble. My point is not to disparage expository preaching, it's just that we need to be careful in how explain it's place and use.

It is my opionion based upon many years of living and serving in a variety of cultures, that most extra-biblical positions are primarily the result of biblical teaching and understanding being filtered through our own cultural worldview, which often makes it difficult to identify. I agree that our arguments for or against a position need to be biblically based. This is why we train new believers to ask this question from day one: What does the Bible say?

[johnMark]

One of the main arguments from those supporting the resolution is that we may cause a brother to stumble. My observation is that this position as applied to making abstinence binding on the church has not been shown exegetically. I do not mean to make light of causing another to stumble. We need to speak in actuallities here rather than potentials. There are so many things that might cause another to stumble that if we applied this universally there is not much we'd do.

Here is a thought. Maybe this gets back to proper church discipline and brotherly confrontation. I'll explain. If brother A is seen drinking a beer by brother B who believes it is wrong I would bet brother B would not approach brother A in private first. Rather, the "problem" would most likely be gossiped about. Now I may be wrong and I am just thinking out loud as Tom Ascol's proposal on church discipline was shot down. Maybe I am thinking too much.

I can't believe someone would say the abstinence can't be scripturally supported then rather than apply Romans 14 and not hold it against others they want to make it universally binding. That would be a proper scriptural teaching. I don't get it.

Mark

[Jeff Holder]

I have said this elsewhere, but I will say it again. The alcohol resolution was a setup. Patterson in his "discussion" on election, which turned out to be a rant against Calvinism, said that some Calvinists "imbibe alcohol." He knew full well what resolutions were coming down the pipe. He knew that some of the "Calvinist bloggers" would not be able to resist speaking to this absurd resolution. He painted us on Monday and had his result on Wednesday morning when Ben Cole stepped to Mic #1. It was no accident that the Pastor of FBC Ft. Worth made the motion to ammend the resolution. I am convinced that this was planned (I grew up in NC, and I saw him handle the liberal establishment here just like that.).

Furthermore, do we really believe that in some of these megachurches there is no one who owns a restaurant or chain of restaurants that serves alcohol. Do you think that these pastors accept their offerings and allow them to have roles in their churches? If so, this is the heighth of hypocrisy.

[Tom Bryant]

Beware of a melancholy post...
I wish this discussion was about anything other than alcohol. Maybe if we had presented the resolution on gluttony, we would be talking about specific Biblical principles rather than acting as if anyone who speaks for moderation is a liberal - excuse me, not a strong conservative - and anyone who speaks against alcohol is a closet fundamentalist.

I understand both sides. I was against the resolution. I thought, as others have said, that it came dangerously close to equating not doing certain sins to real holiness.

I am against alcohol. It destroyed much of my pre-Christian life and I hate to think of how man brain cells. So, yes, my arguement is emotional rather than scriptural.

The principles being discussed are vital. I just wish it wasn't about alcohol.

[Aaron]

Surprising that those who faithfully fought for the integrity and authority of Scripture for Southern Baptists would be the ones who are abusing the Scriptures by adding to it. The state of the SBC is a shame considering we are one of the few truly "conservative" denominations remaining.

Great comments and discussion. This closet teetotaling fundamentalist is learning a lot.

[Stephanie]

Very well said and a very nice discussion.

I agree that this is an extra-biblical issue without a biblical leg to stand on. It screams legalism and contol.

Instead of passing mandates that require certain behavior(s) to be part of the "approved" and "accepted" crowd, I think it would be better stewardship of our time to actually reach out to those whose lives have been affected by alcoholism and other addictions. Most churches seem to shy away from programs that might actually reach people in their community who are ensnared in alcoholism and other addictions. I hazard to guess it's because we'd be bringing "those people" into our churches and they're "dirty"...not clean like us. There lives are messy and we, as Christians, just can't identify with them. However, when I read my Bible, I see that these are precisely the people that Jesus came to save.

It's a sad day when we're more focused on dictating the behaviors of a few when there are many around us who are totally clueless about Jesus and the power He has to radically transform lives. So I say we need to quit majoring on the minors and reach out to those whose lives are in shambles and who so desperately need our Savior.

[Andy Lutz]

I am going to refrain from my own comments, but I found it interesting that the Heart Association aggrees with you, Steve.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060619/ap_on_sc/diet_guidelines

The American Heart Association has become the first big health group to urge a specific limit on trans fats in the diet — less than 1 percent of total calories — in new guidelines released Monday.

Among the panel's other recommendations:

_Limiting saturated fats to no more than 7 percent of daily calories, down from the 10 percent formerly recommended and the 11 percent most Americans consume. Saturated fats are in meat and dairy products, and in coconut and palm oil.

_Getting at least half an hour of exercise a day.

_Eating fruits and vegetables (not fruit juices) that are deep in color, such as spinach, carrots, peaches and berries.

_Choosing whole-grain, high-fiber foods.

_Eating fish, especially oily fish like salmon and trout, at least twice a week. (Children and pregnant women should follow federal guidelines for avoiding mercury in fish.)

_Choosing lean meats and trying vegetable alternatives.

_Consuming fat-free and 1 percent fat milk and other dairy products.

_Minimizing calories from beverages and avoiding ones with added sugars.

_Adding little or no salt to foods.

_Drinking alcohol in moderation.

[Liz Austen]

Just want to note that it was Paul who told Timothy, "take a little wine for thy stomach's sake." Total prohibition is totally non-biblical.

I would like to see them ban gluttony or greed. That would be more like it.

[Alex]

Interesting thought about it all being a setup. ..

Part of me just wants the issue to go away. I mean, with everything else its kind of embarassing too. But I also realize that it speaks to deeper issues of biblical interpretation, narrowing the boundaries of cooperation, and that kind of stuff.

I still fail to see the point of the resolution to begin with.

[jason allen]

Great post Steve, you are right on so many levels. What is so sad is how far behind the times we are. We are addressing old, tired issues in our resolutions as the world around us moves into the future at breakneck speed. We can't seem to get our head out of the sand long enough to take it seriously.

I think your suggestion that this will drive away our best and brightest is poignant. May we change that scenario.

[Sean]

Thanks Steve for your post and I will also say like a previous poster thanks for your honesty. I agree partly that it is sad that the SBC had to bring about a resolution regarding alcohol consumption but I look at this from a different perspective. I am not baptist but I am a Christian who does abstain from alcohol. I believe in the practice of every person working out their own salvation with fear and trembling. I also believe that we as Christian are called to not live as the world lives, we are in this world but not of this world. I also think there are standards that each Christian should live by that are higher than those standards/morals the world lives by. I think those standards should reflect to sinners that as a Christian it should be a life changing experience and you don't do those things that you used to do when you were in darkness since you have now been brought into the marvelous light of Jesus. One of the things that I have personally noticed about sinners is that alcohol consumption is very high on their lists of things to do on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. Now I would almost believe that most alcohol consumption is for the purpose of getting the "high" or getting drunk to lose mostly you inhibitions. Obviously to me and you that isn't the trait a Christian should have. So the question can arise what exactly are the traits we should follow? What limits are there to our liberties in Christ? In fact do we really have fleshy/carnal liberties with Christ (referring to the spirit warring against the flesh)? According to Paul, we are not our own but were bought with a price.
I have often wondered if in fact the fruit of the vine in bible times is comparable, as far as alcohol content, to the fruit of the vine of today. If someone enjoys the taste, then why not choose the non alcoholic alternative? Then if we have the question of consumption versus abuse what about the person who uses not abuses drugs? Is that to say that a person is ok to use drugs? Some may say that is taking it to the extreme but alcohol has been considered a drug.
Again I think it is sad this resolution had to made but it is also sad to me when a small compromise is made on ones walk with God.
Steve, sorry post was so long, not really trying to upset anyone and I apologize if I have, but just adding some food for thought....as an added note you have some great looking kids from one father to another good job!!

[Jason Tockey]

Timely issue as we begin preaching through 1 Cor 8-10 this week at my church. The issue of limiting Christian liberty is certainly at the forefront as Paul deals with the issue of meat offered to idols. I think you can make good parallels between food offered to idols and the dreaded alcohol "demon water". In the passage Paul chooses to abstain it isn't something that is legalistically compelled on him or he compelling on others for the priority of the gospel, which is his priority. You see abstaining set in this light of furthering the gospel in all three chapters. The food itself isn't bad, it can be eaten without harm to your soul but it might be that for the sake of gospel and to the glory of God that you choose to abstain.

A big part of the problem with this resolution is that it treats alcohol which God provides as evil and lays down legalistic, though in theory not binding, rules preventing use not abuse on free men in Christ instead of encouraging us to live life in light of the priority of the gospel.

I might be willing to support a resolution that said we encourage our brothers and sisters in Christ to recognize that many abuse God's good gift of alcohol at its abuse destroys many lives and because of that we ought to consider abstaining for the sake of the gospel, the good of our struggling brothers and for the glory of God. That resolution was not offered and probably wouldn't be necessary if we would lose the extrabiblical pietist tendencies we cling to and as Christ transforms us seek to live gospel centered lives in light of our new creation identity .

I also would defineitly get behind a resolution that challenged us to do embrace all of life in light of the priority of the gospel but guess that isn't necessary because all God wants from us is less blogging and no fermented drinks. I'm sure that will ensure that the lost get baptized into our churches. Until the sake of the gospel requires I abstain from alcohol I will lift a glass of Guinness praising God for one of his bountiful and pleasing gifts.

[cavman]

Steve and others,
a few thoughts... to those for abstainence: it is not always wrong to choose to abstain. For instance, a missionary to a people group with problems with alcohol may choose to abstain. But he shouldn't demand abstainence! This is merely an application of Paul's "becoming all things to all men". I guess if I were to return to the SBC, I'd have to abstain "that some might be saved".
From a larger perspective, I find Schwarz's concept of bipolarity helpful (found in Natural Church Development). When someone is one only one pole (either liberty or responsibility) and you try to advocate both (like you are- praise God) they will inevitably tune you out when you agree (yes, we need to be responsible) and hear only your thoughts on the other pole (liberty) and think you a misguided chump and in this case unbridled libertarian. Which is not much better than an unbridled librarian.
The majority of people (SBC and otherwise) won't get you because you are holding onto the 2 poles, living in the tension. But that would be the biblical norm here. Keep the faith!

[WillC]

Great Post.

I will keep this short because I think the majority of the people who have responded agree with your remarks. I found it interesting that my pastor, Jack Graham, gave a sermon on T-Totalling 2 weeks ago. I found the message was totally proof text. I love Jack, but he totally misused scripture and he also misrepresented what wine was in biblical times. The old timers need to realize what they are doing. We need to be honest about what scripture says, not what we want it to say, even if the principles presented are not anti-biblical.

[nick]

Echoing cavman, I think that describing alcohol abstinence as 'anti-biblical' way can be counterproductive if not carefully applied. As something we can do to help brothers and sisters who have difficulty with such things (ie 1Cor8), abstinence can be quite helpful and even necessary at times when the circumstances are right. As such, abstinence is not necessarily anti-biblical.

However, that seems to be a decision that should be made by individuals, not necessarily the church body (though I'll mention that more later). However, church bodies make tons of 'rules' or 'traditions' that are nonbiblical, but should still be taken seriously as they are considered to be ways of applying the principles described in the Bible toward modern day living. Since church traditions can have merit, then it's not necessarily a problem that churches try to implement Biblical principles in new ways.

As we are living in a different time/culture, the way in which the church provides for needs will be different. Saying that we are nonbiblical because, for example, we don't shake off our sandals when we leaving towns is missing the point.

Liberty is there to allow people to fulfill their responsibility in adjusting to the needs around them (I think this is what Paul was getting at). I wouldn't knowlingly offer a beer to an alcoholic, but, as I have no problem with it, I don't mind having one with my private dinner. If I was doing it for me, this would make me a hypocrite. But I'm not. Our responsibility is to the good of our brethren, and changing what we do to meet their needs is love, not hypocrisy.

The real question (and a much more difficult one to answer) is whether a church body as a whole can codify that particular way of adjusting-to-needs. I would tend towards the idea of an institution's responsibility being to point out problems and possible solutions, but letting the individual church-goers and congregations find ways to best apply themselves to those problems in their own community...but I'm still not sure.

[Amy B]

Fear and guilt are not good long term motivators. I personally grew up in a very legalistic and judgmental environment - you know the kind - the list of donts. As a result, I completely rebelled in my new found college freedom. What's worse is that I never realized my life was really about God, and not me, until I was well into adulthood. I wish I would have grown up in a God centered environment instead of a religious one. It was a difficult adjustment to make to realize I wasn't earning anything when I was "good" and I wasn't losing my salvation when I was "bad." We need to teach our kids (and a few adults) that service to God is about GOD!!! He doesn't NEED us to act perfect, he ALLOWS us to be used for His kingdom(broken and faulty ones too) and therefore it's not about religious rules to be kept or a false perception of holiness, but rather a God focused life. That brings freedom and somehow takes away the allure of alcohol and other things unnecessarily shunned. If I want a glass of Pinot Noir with my salmon salad for dinner, okay - but I'm no longer "naughty" or "rebellious" if I do. It's just a choice, like what to watch on TV. I don't want garbage in my home on TV just like I don't want drunkenness. But, can I have my glass of wine and watch "Everybody Loves Raymond" reruns and still be SBC?

[Rodney McCarty]

Well stated Steve. It continues to amaze me how much more discussion this topic receives than topics of greater importance (IMO). I wonder if we will ever get off secondary or tertiary issues and come to any agreement of substance on the primary ones.

[adam cruse]

As I read your blog, I have a hard time accepting the postion that certain folks are terrified of losing power over this issue. Its apparent that 4/5 of the convention disagreed with your views. Discussion on this resolution was a major part of this years meeting. It is only appropriate when one summarizes their expereince at the convention that this issue will come out. It's not that anyone is terrified. I am almost certain there has been a lot more written by those that oppose the resolution, than those that supported it.

Steve, personally, how many people have you been able to reach since pastoring GBC because of your position on alcohol? Has it helped you to better reach people with the gospel, baptize them, and begin teaching them to amture in their faith?

[adam cruse]

I'm sorry- "mature" in their faith?

[Chris W]

Adam -

You didn't ask me, but in response to your question to Steve "Steve, personally, how many people have you been able to reach since pastoring GBC because of your position on alcohol? Has it helped you to better reach people with the gospel, baptize them, and begin teaching them to amture in their faith?"

I must say, my church's position on alcohol - moderate enjoyment of God's blessings - was encouraging in my path to conversion. I saw deacons and elders who drank, and deacons and elders who didn't, and both illustrated a dedication to Christ that I admired and continue to admire. That church is pastored by Joe Thorn.

[adam cruse]

That's great, Chris. I take it you have just become a Christian recently.

Can you clarify for me just how it was "encouraging in [your] path to conversion"?

[Chris W]

Adam -
Whoops, I edited my post while typing it and cut out part of my answer. And I didn't state things very clearly. What I was trying to say was my church’s position on extra-biblical rules, including their position on alcohol – that moderate enjoyment of alcohol was not sinful – was encouraging. And the example offered by the deacons & elders, those who drank and those who didn't, was something that I respected and admired.

Previous to my conversion (that was 3 years ago), I saw Christians as a people who simply followed a bunch of rules that made little sense – no dancing, no drinking, no smoking, no rated ‘R’ movies, playing cards (gambling or not). My pastor introduced me to the concept of Sola Sciptura, probably one of the first things (apart from understanding that all that I have comes from God) that resonated with me and made me want to learn more about what was actually in the Scripture so that I could understand what God expects of me.

[adam cruse]

Chris, Thanks for sharing your testimony.

My question still stands for Steve though. I would like to know how many people have come to faith, been baptized, and are now in the process of learning to obey all that Christ has taught and commanded since his installment as Pastor at Calvary Baptist due to his position on alcohol?

[Steve McCoy]

Adam, if you read Smith and Akin it's obvious they are doing more than retelling their experiences of the convention. This didn't just "come out." They have put in extra effort on this issue and even have spoken against individual people in the process.

I don't pastor GBC, it's CBC. And I don't choose a position on alcohol to reach more people. I choose my position on alcohol because of what the Bible teaches and what Jesus has done for us. Choosing against the liberty Jesus offers will typically cause us to do and say things that hinder our ability to interact with our culture. And because I don't have hang-ups on alcohol I get to spend time and build relationships with a lot of people I wouldn't get to otherwise.

[Joe Thorn]

I'll just say it this way - Adam, your question is plain nutty.

[JTapp]

Steve,
Bureaucracies always justify their existence by passing regulations. They have meetings for the sake of meetings, and votes for the sake of voting. The SBC is a textbook bureaucracy (paige patterson's latest book uses such language).

If it didn't hold a convention and vote on things (oftentimes meaningless things) the meetings and chairmanships and various committees would simply cease to exist.
We can't have that now can we?

[adam cruse]

Steve, thanks for your response. I think I am just missing the obvious.

However, you did not answer my question. I don't think I stated that you chose your position on alcohol to reach more people. You did say though that it "hurts our witness" to have a abstinence resolution as a convention. My assumption is that you are saying at the same time that it helps your church's witness to have the moderation policy. So, I am asking an honest question - How many people out of the people you get to spend time with and build relationships with have you been able to see discipled, baptized, and taught? How has your liberality impacted your church's surrounding culture? Can you or can you not answer that question? This isn't intended to be mean spirited or ugly. I just want to know how your position has helped you fulfill the great commission.

[Jeff Richard Young]

Dear Steve and Friends,

Yes, it was a set-up. One sage observer was sitting near one of the setters-up and heard him say, during the debate, "They are hanging themselves right here." Dr. Ascol acknowledges that his opposition to the alcohol resolution may have cost him an honoest hearing on his integrity in reporting resolution.

So, then, the setters-up successfully executed a political maneuver, and we less-experienced SBC messengers fell right into it. Fine. What did they set us up to do? They set us up to speak the truth about a real problem in the SBC---a worldly, legalistic, extra-biblical position on alcohol that has cost the SBC dearly in lost members, hypocritical witness, distraction from essential issues, and other unintended consequences for several decades now. We spoke the truth at the 2006 annual meeting, were voted down, and will keep speaking the truth until this issue is corrected by the SBC (and even if it never is).

Steve, thanks for the good article, and the chance to chime in.

Love in Christ,

Jeff

[adam cruse]

Why is my question just plain nutty?

[adam cruse]

That's sad that you would say something like this to a brother in Christ who is just trying to take part in the conversation. I have no agenda. Just an honest question.

Perhaps you skirting the question is just plain nutty.

[Joe Thorn]

LOL. That's good man. Don't be so sensitive. ;)

Your more recent comment cleared things up a bit. I cannot answer for Steve, but I would say that any time the church decides God's word is not enough, and adds extra-biblical law as a yoke on brothers and sisters it blows our witness, not necessarily our "witnessing." It tells the world that God's word is not sufficient to guide us in all faith and practice. It tells the world that we choose not to believe God when he says such gifts are meant to be enjoyed, though not abused. It tells the world that there is no self control from the Spirit. It tells the world that we interact with culture by running away from things that have the potential to hurt (or bless). It tells the world that if they want to follow Jesus, they need to follow our rules, not his. It says much more than this, but I'll let Steve hit it.

[Scott Slayton]

What bothered me the most about the arguments that were made from the floor in favor of the resoution showed a poor understanding of Christian growth, Christian holiness, and Christian sanctification. In a lot of ways, we have chosen to define spiritual maturity and holiness by this and a couple of other secondary issues. You don't see us passing resolutions calling Christians to have a passion for following Jesus. You don't see us passing resolutions calling for believers to abadon their love of money. I could go on with this. What I am trying to say is that we need a total adjustment in the way that we view following Jesus. As long as it is about extra-biblical rules instead of a heart on fire, we are going to continue making very little forward progress in our Convention.

[Stuart]

Joe-

Thanks for once again saying so succinctly things that I'm thinking and could never say succinctly.

[Joshua Watson]

I just wanted to say that I love your site. I enjoy it so much that I added it to my links page, which gets quite a few daily hits. I hope it helps. I also blog about Progressive Christianity on my site TheZealotInMyCloset.com, which is also where your link is located.

Also, if you ever want to add your content and perhaps another link to your site through that content to my blog, feel free to let me know.

[adam cruse]

Steve, Thanks for letting me post on your blog. I realize that I probably will not get an answer. So, I'll just go to the ACP reports. Thanks.

[Shawn Beaty]

Now I do not drink at all but this subject is interesting to me. Concerning this quote:

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Paige Patterson…nicely summarized the alcohol resolution debate when he told me, “Sadly, I would never have believed that I would see a 45 minute debate at the Southern Baptist Convention on a resolution on abstinence from beverage alcohol. When one considers that the alcohol industry devastates more lives and homes today than any industry other than the pornography industry, such a question is doubly unthinkable. Positively, the resolution was adopted by 90 percent of the messengers, a critically important resolution in light of some pastors who now openly boast of imbibing alcohol.”

I suppose then we should have a resolution against the fried food industry? Tobacco Industry, Fast food ....... Just as most opponents of Jesus the zeal for piety blinds them to the actual point of the Gospel

[hutch]

"How many people out of the people you get to spend time with and build relationships with have you been able to see discipled, baptized, and taught? How has your liberality impacted your church's surrounding culture?"

"I'll just go to the ACP reports."

This is typical of how shallow and pragmatic the Southern Baptist culture has become - instead of arguing from Scripture, advocates of the abstinence from alcohol policy are basing their arguments on church growth numbers. They realize they can't win the argument from Scripture.

[Joe Thorn]

Adam,

Your early question was "nutty" to me - meaning out of place and curious. Your last comment was immature. Steve is offline for a while tonight, just as I am now going to one of our Home Groups. Your attitude does not even deserve an answer from Steve.

[Steve McCoy]

Adam, Joe is right. Your question is nutty and the fact that you didn't finally get your nuttiness after Joe's very helpful comment just adds to the nuttiness of it all. :)

Think of it this way. The alcohol issue isn't so much about helping our witness as it is hurting it. In the SBC our abstinence rules can cause the world to really that we are collectively nutty over the wrong things. What I mean is, we create things to stumble over that are not Jesus.

For example, when I became a Christian at a Southern Baptist Church my parents thought my wife and I joined a cult. NOT because of the SBC stance on the Bible or Jesus as God so much as our view of dancing, drinking, tobacco, etc. Majoring on the minors has hurt our collective SBC witness and made us about all the wrong things.

So your continued focus on my local church either shows you are trying to find something about me to attack or you just refuse to get the real point here. And I will not get into a public discussion on the specifics of my local church unless I bring it up or run for SBC president or something (cold day in hell).

By the way, it took me a while to respond because I was out discipling a recovering alcoholic who serves as a leader in my local church.

[Jeremy Weart]

Good stuff Steve! I haven't written in a LONG time but after hearing about this alcohol resolution I needed to vent for minute.

One reason I am quickly losing any and all interest in the SBC is due to resolutions like this one. Majoring on the minors is exactly what the world scoffs at. Legalism should be fought on every level of its existence.

It seems to me that the "old guard" of the SBC has moved our supertanker of a denomination right into the shallows and now we are just idling listlessly. We are so busy arguing amongst ourselves about asinine issues that we are losing our grip on our true calling.

I honestly do not want to even stoop down to the level of these paper tiger arguments on alcohol issues or any other issue that even smells like legalism. I remember my stint at Southwestern Seminary was riddled with such jocular nonsense. What I did then is what I do now - ignore the ignorant and get busy with the Lord's calling for His church in the world.

Maybe we would all do well to pay heed to the Apostle Paul's advice in 1 Tim 1:5 -

"The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith"

[hutch]

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/82/011782.html

Classic John Piper quote:

I want to hate what God hates and love what God loves. And this I know beyond the shadow of a doubt: God hates legalism as much as he hates alcoholism. If any of you still wonders why I go on supporting this amendment, after hearing all the tragic stories about lives ruined through alcohol, the reason is that when I go home at night and close my eyes and let eternity rise in my mind I see ten million more people in hell because of legalism than because of alcoholism....

....Legalism is a more dangerous disease than alcoholism because it doesn't look like one. Alcoholism makes men fail; legalism helps them succeed in the world. Alcoholism makes men depend on the bottle; legalism makes them self-sufficient, depending on no one. Alcoholism destroys moral resolve; legalism gives it strength. Alcoholics don't feel welcome in church; legalists love to hear their morality extolled in church. Therefore, what we need in this church is not front end regulations to try to keep ourselves pure. We need to preach and pray and believe that "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, neither teetotalism nor social drinking, neither legalism nor alcoholism is of any avail with God, but only a new creation (a new heart)" (Gal. 6:15; 5:6). The enemy is sending against us every day the Sherman tank of the flesh with its cannons of self-reliance and self-sufficiency. If we try to defend ourselves or our church with peashooter regulations we will be defeated even in our apparent success. The only defense is to "be rooted and built up in Christ and established in faith" (Col. 2:6); "Strengthened with all power according to his glorious might for all endurance and patience with joy" (Col. 1:11); "holding fast to the Head from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together … grows with a growth that is from God" (Col. 2:19). From God! From God! And not from ourselves.

[rodney albert]

Well, it's late in the day and most of this discussion is over. I've got to say this non-establishment Calvinist, 6 months left as a "younger leader" disagrees with you moderate drinkers. I vote for tee-totalling, and was disheartened the resolution got the response it did from the Calvinist sector. I get the "extra-biblical" argument (sort of), but I think the better part of wisdom is total abstinence.

[Tim Batchelor]

Steve,

Above you state that "Alcohol abuse is a form of evil, drinking alcohol is not. It's a gift that can be enjoyed or abused." Then you state, "if we would have had godly examples of people who knew how to use alcohol as a gift." Are you suggesting that the recreational use of a mind altering drug is God's plan? I can only conclude so because later you state, "How could the Psalmist get the alcohol thing wrong, thinking it's a gift to make the heart glad?" Do you really believe the Bible is suggesting that getting a little happy from alcohol is a good thing?

You keep talking about extrabiblical requirements. If your church has bylaws then it has extra biblical requirements. We have baptists that require folks to go through new members classes before they can become members or even be baptized, we have folks who require members to be certain ages before they can vote in a business meeting and I could go on and on. I am sure your church has a few requirements that are "extra biblical" that I could shoot down. Are you for gambling in moderation? Maybe slavery? Are we not all somewhat arbitrary when it comes to "extrabiblical requirements?"

You want some verses to look at? Why not look at I Timothy 3:2-3 where the word nephalion (literally abstaining from alcohol) and paroinos (literally not beside alcohol) describe the requirements of the elder. Translators can translate them any way they want but they can't change the literal meaning. That's more than enough to bind my conscience.

Interestingly, inspite of all your insistence, the bible never depicts Jesus nor any of the disciples drinking oinos.
Could you show me chapter and verse where the word "oinos" or wine is used in relationship to the Lord's institution of Lord's supper since you are insisting on being true to Scripture? The Lord chose to use the term "cup" and "fruit of the vine" rather than the word "oinos". Are you aware that there was a line of rabinnical teaching in our Lord's day that forbade the use of fermented drink during the passover? Are you aware that not all oinos was intoxicating or do you still refuse to acknowedge that historical fact? The only time we see Jesus offered an intoxicating drink was on the cross when some women offered him the "gift" as you would put it of "wine mixed with myrrh" and he refused it yet later drank vinegar.

My mom was a godly person who knew how to used alcohol. She used it to clean my wounds. I find it truly amazing that folks here actually blame drinking problems on guilt because teetotal teaching as though there are no drinking problems in places where most folks don't even know what a teetotaler is. I for one with a clear conscience will model what I believe to be the right use of alcohol by not touching it. With a clear consience I will maintain our church covenant which is voluntarily entered by every member to abstain as well.

[hutch]

The historical background:

(1) In 17th and 18th century America, few evangelical Christians believed in abstinence from alcohol. Puritans made their own alcohol and enjoyed it in moderation.

(2) Throughout the 1800s, many men moved to the frontier. The loneliness and difficulties of the frontier lifestyle drove many men to make whiskey, hang out in saloons, etc. Later, women moved to the frontier and married these men. These women wanted to stop their men from drinking. The temperance movement actually began as a women's movement and later would give birth to feminism. During this era, the "feminization" of the church took place, as the church embraced the values of Victorian domesticity, and there began to be an imbalance in church attendance between men and women. Men who enjoyed a drink or two no longer wanted to attend churches controlled by the values of legalistic, scolding women.

(3) Evangelical Christians enjoyed tremendous success in the 2nd Great Awakening in the first half of the 1800s, with thousands upon thousands of decisions. Theology shifted from the God-centered Calvinism of Jonathan Edwards to the man-centered revivalism of Charles Finney. The increasingly man-centered Arminians believed that they could thoroughly Christianize America by passing laws that would supposedly change behavior. God-centered Calvinists opposed the new legalism.

(4) Huge numbers of Roman Catholic immigrants from Ireland moved to big cities like Boston and New York City. The pub was the center of Irish life. The Irish had a reputation of being rowdy and hard-drinking. The protestant establishment wanted new laws that would keep these immigrants under control. Racism strongly motivated the temperance movement.

(5) By the late 1800s, "temperance" became a fully-organized movement like the pro-life movement today, and the issue of the legality of alcohol became the most polarizing issue of the 1880-1940 era, as candidates identified themselves as either "wet" or "dry." Nation-wide Prohibition was finally passed in 1919, and met with disastrous results - almost single-handedly spawning an overwhelming wave of organized crime.

(6) Southern Baptists in 1800 fully appreciated Christian liberty and did not advocate abstinence from alcohol. The founder of Southern Baptist Seminary, J. P. Boyce, owned a wine cellar. During the 1800s, however, Southern Baptists were increasingly influenced by these trends in the culture that I talked about above. In 1886, Soutern Baptists issued their first resolution against alcohol, and have issued over 60 since then. As legalism increased in the SBC, Southern Baptists lost confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture, and liberalism began to emerge in the SBC. After the conservative resurgence, Southern Baptists are re-gaining their confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture, and younger leaders are starting to question all kinds of extra-biblical legalisms.

[hutch]

"Are you suggesting that the recreational use of a mind altering drug is God's plan?... Do you really believe the Bible is suggesting that getting a little happy from alcohol is a good thing?"

God gave "wine to gladden the heart of man" (Psalm 104:15).

In the final consummation at the end of history God will "make for all peoples a fest of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full or marrow, of aged wine well refined" (Isaiah 25:6).

"Interestingly, inspite of all your insistence, the bible never depicts Jesus nor any of the disciples drinking oinos."

"The Son of Man has come eating and drinking and you say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" (Luke 7:34).

"Could you show me chapter and verse where the word "oinos" or wine is used in relationship to the Lord's institution of Lord's supper since you are insisting on being true to Scripture? The Lord chose to use the term "cup" and "fruit of the vine" rather than the word "oinos"."

Grape juice didn't exist until the mid-1800's until Mr. Welches invented a refrigeration process to keep the grape juice from fermenting so he could invent non-alcoholic communion wine.

In 1 Corinthians 11:21, how were people getting drunk if there was no fermented alcohol present at the Lord's Supper?

[Jeremy Weart]

Dearest Tim B,

Do you know the history of grape juice? I assume that you are trying to make some sort of point along the lines that Jesus drank something other than WINE (and please remember that simple semantical arguments do not make for good hermeneutics). Here is just a little reminder about grape juice:

"The method of pasteurizing grape juice to halt the fermentation has been attributed to a American physician and dentist, Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch in 1869. A strong supporter of the temperance movement, he produced a non-alcoholic wine to be used for church services in his hometown of Vineland, New Jersey. His fellow parishioners continued to prefer and use regular wine.

His son Dr. Charles E. Welch, also a dentist, eventually gave up his practice to promote grape juice, founding Welch's Grape Juice Company. The product was given to visitors at international exhibitions. The company supplied 'grapelade' to the military during World War I and advertised aggressively. Development of new grape products and sponsorship of radio and television programs eventually made the company very successful."

Maybe Jesus and his disciples drank Kool-Aid?

[Steve McCoy]

Hutch, well said.

Tim,

1. On "extra-biblical." I'm speaking of an ethic, a determination of right and wrong. Not a membership class for crying out loud. Plus I made clear that this isn't just extra-biblical, it's anti-biblical.

2. George Knight in his NIGTC commentary says that "temperate" (nephalion) is not speaking of alcohol, but to be clear-headed, self-controlled. He also explains paroinos as "not addicted to wine." Verse 8 is also helpful as "the synonymous and more explicit expression" which he explains as "not being controlled by wine." Abstaining is not in that passage, and clearly the scope of biblical literature is full of warnings against drunkenness, not drinking.

3. If you have a clean conscience abstaining, go ahead and abstain. But if you insist others must abstain, you have become a Pharisee.

[adam cruse]

Steve, this will be my last post on this subject.

To Joe, It's unfortunate that you first called me nutty, then said I was immature. This coming from a man who doesn't grasp the spiritual significance of the shofar.

To Hutch, I don't think I made any kind of comment about scripture's teaching on alcohol. So where you were coming from on that is beyond me. Nor did I say anything about church growth. My question that I asked several times was based on the great commission.

To Steve, I promise you, I am not looking to attack you or your church in any way. It really was an honest question. I was just interested to know how it helped you church's witness and fulfillment of the great commission. You stated later a good thought that cleared this up for me. Thank you. Joe's thought on witness and witnessing was helpful as well. As I read these blogs though, IMO the alcohol thing is getting blown way out of proportion. Of course my church's evangelistic efforts isn't centered on sitting at a bar with someone and puttin a cold one down.

I hope your meeting tonight with you recovering alcholic church leader went well.

[Joe Thorn]

Adam Cruse ladies and gents.

Look Adam, I said your question was nutty, and one of your comments was immature. Wait, make that two now.

[adam cruse]

Talk about someone being sensitive. I was just attemopting to make a joke.

Thanks though for putting a link to our church's website. Just one correction though. My wife and I just celebrated anniversary number 4.

Is there a reason why you did that though? I know I am not the most handsome guy. Does that discredit me?

[Joe Thorn]

Nah, people just like to know who we're talking to. I did not know we are in the same Association (IBSA).

Seriously man, when you make comments like "Of course my church's evangelistic efforts isn't centered on sitting at a bar with someone and puttin a cold one down." it comes off like a dig. If you mean that as a joke, try adding a smiley. If not - it will provoke a response.

[adam cruse]

Thanks for the advice. I'm still learning my way around the blog world.

[Steve McCoy]

Haha. All this is too funny, especially the pic. Uh, I don't mean the pic is funny, but the fact that Joe found a pic is funny. Whatever.

Thanks for the conversation Adam. Joe, down boy. Down.

[Tim Batchelor]

Brother Jeremy,

Your view of the history of grape Juice is a couple of thousand years too short. Any cursory study which can easily be done on the web on the history of "oinos" will reveal the following:

1. Fermentation can be prevented by boiling the must until the sugar concentration exceeds the maximum permitting fermentation. That this method of preserving grape juice was known to the ancients is attested by Pliny, Columella, and Virgil. Must reduced to a fraction (perhaps a half or a third) of its original volume was commonly known as defrutum.
2. Grape juice with enough sweetness to remain unfermented can be made just by pressing dried grapes. Pliny refers to a wine, called raisin-wine, that was made from grapes dried to half their weight. Polybius states that passum, a raisin-wine, was the staple drink of Roman women, who, at least in the early days of the Republic, were forbidden to drink ordinary wine.
3. Vinous fermentation occurs only within a certain temperature range, the lower limit being about 45°F. The ancients knew that if a cooled wine was allowed to sit undisturbed, the clear juice poured off from the sediment would remain unfermented for about a year. The benefit of keeping the wine still was that the yeast bodies responsible for fermentation settled to the bottom. This third method of making nonalcoholic wine is described by no less than three Latin writers—Cato, Columella, and Pliny.
4. Salt retards fermentation. According to Columella, "Some people—and indeed almost all the Greeks—preserve must with salt or sea-water".
5. The boiling point of alcohol is lower than the boiling point of water. Therefore, by bringing fermented wine to the boiling point of water, the alcohol is driven off. According to Pliny, the ancients made a drink called adynamon (weak wine) by adding water to wine and boiling the mixture until the quantity was considerably reduced. This drink was a favorite preparation for the sick and invalid.

6. The Mishnah itself indicates that the Jews were familiar with boiled (inspissated) wines.
(the above is gathered, copied, compiled from various sources)

In addition to conclusive evidence that oinos was not always alcohol bearing there is also conclusive evidence that it was customarily mixed with water. Secular sources point this out. The article "Wine and Rome" (google) states, "Wine almost always was mixed with water for drinking; undiluted wine (merum) was considered the habit of provincials and barbarians. The Romans usually mixed one part wine to two parts water (sometimes hot or even salted with sea water to cut some of the sweetness). The Greeks tended to dilute their wine with three or four parts water, which they always mixed by adding the wine."

In my opinion the New Testament does address the issue of drinking highly intoxicating beverges in its admonitions against drunkenness. One would not customarily drink the oinos preserved via fermentation without mixing. If one did not dilute it it would be because one intended to get intoxicated and would have been socially frowned upon or as one ancient writer put it "barbaric." The modern practice of drinking fortified undiluted alcohol as a social norm was not a greek/jewish social custom but a barbaric custom condemned under the admonitions against drunknenness.

By the way, I am still waiting for a direct (not an implied reference by his enemies) reference that Jesus or his disciples consumed oinos.

The practice of the Corinthians was far from exemplary in any fashion. Perhaps Paul intended to address the issue later stating "The remaining matters I will arrange when I come."

Commentators can say whatever they choose about the words nephalion and me paroinos.

The word “nepho’ is also used by Philo and Josephus, Jewish contemporaries of Paul. Josephus, in his Antiquities b. 3: 12, S. 2.
uses the term nephalion twice in reference to priests, “They are in all respects pure and abstinent” (nephalion). If you assume drinking is permissible then you go ahead interpret them to say what you want to say. Given that I timothy was written to support Timothy's ministry and given that Timothy clearly was an abstainer, it seems that the norm for elders was abstinance uless oinos (not necessarily alcoholic) was necessary for the stomach.

What saddens me is that we have preachers suggesting that a narcotic (alcohol) is god's gift for recreational use. Medical science defines ethyl alcohol as “One of the group of drugs classed as narcotics, whose
dominant action is a depression of function of all forms of living tissue”. (Haven Emerson, M.D., Columbia
University, U.S.A.) “Alcohol, from the pharmacological view point, is an anaesthetic and a narcotic,
potentially a habit-forming, craving-creating addiction-drug.” (Andrew C. Ivy, M.D., Vice-President,
University Illinois, U.S.A.)

Alcohol is indeed a gift for use as an antiseptic, sedative or water purifier but it is a curse to many who have sought to use it recreationally.

[hutch]

GREAT article in Associated Baptist Press. I never thought I would say this, but the Associated Baptist Press has covered the most recent debates in the SBC much better than Baptist Press, which has declined into the public relations mouthpiece of the older leaders.

http://www.abpnews.com/1107.article

Here is part of the article:

One member of the convention's Resolutions Committee, arguing in favor of the measure, declared that Southern Baptists "have always stood for total abstinence" from beverage alcohol.

But Baptist history -- including the fact that a well-known Baptist minister was the inventor of bourbon whiskey -- casts some doubt on that statement's veracity.

"It's not true," said Baptist historian Bill Leonard. "The temperance movement was late but very thorough among Baptists in the South and other Protestants as well. Early on, many Baptists used spirits; some even brewed beer." Leonard has studied the history of the temperance and Prohibition movements that sought to curb or ban alcohol consumption in 19th- and early 20th-century America.

Leonard, dean of Wake Forest Divinity School, pointed to Elijah Craig as an example. The minister, entrepreneur and founder of the Baptist-related Georgetown College in Kentucky is widely credited with creating the official spirit of the Bluegrass State around 1789. Today, Kentucky's Heaven Hill Distillery sells a high-end single-barrel bourbon named after Craig.

Leonard also said many Baptist churches served real wine when observing the Lord's Supper late into the 19th century. "I know for a fact that First Baptist Church [of] Savannah, Ga., in particular, used wine for communion until" the 18th Amendment, which instituted Prohibition nationwide, went into effect in 1920, he said.

[Steve McCoy]

Tim, no matter what you say, no matter how much internet-based "scholarship" you try to quote, there is no biblical argument for abstinence of alcohol.

It's hard to justify spending time refuting your arguments since you seem to shrug off recognized scholars because you can Google search something that makes you feel better than the Scriptures that clearly speak against your view. You spend more time on extra-biblical history done by people that I've never seen you footnote, yet when the Bible is clear on something you ask an emotional question rather than give a direct answer.

Examples, "Are you suggesting that the recreational use of a mind altering drug is God's plan?...Do you really believe the Bible is suggesting that getting a little happy from alcohol is a good thing?" You don't refute the Scriptures you question, just ask questions that you hope will be answered by emotion (Gosh, I wouldn't want to say God is giving us a "mind altering drug!") rather than Scripture and plain reason. By the way, the body is already full of mind altering chemicals that change over the simplist of things, like exercising or facing a public speaking engagement or thinking you heard someone gossip about you. How could God do such a thing!

It's clear you won't listen, and this is true in light of other conversations we have had on the subject. Your argument is with God, not me or Hutch.

[Tom Bryant]

:))
You see what that resolution has done???
We've spent all this time discussing this issue when we should have been out baptizing people?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. My other response would have been a scream that would have made Howard Dean envious,

[Stuart]

Tim,

From one teetotaler to another...please just post a link to the John MacArthur arguments, they take up less space.

[Tim Batchelor]

Steve,

Finding some commentator who agrees with you doesn't change the basic meaning of the words nephalion or me paroinos. It might make you feel better about your position but it does not take away the serious responsiblity the scripture places upon us. I have given a compelling support of my understanding of the word and somehow you discount that and continue to repeat your mantra "there is no biblical basis for abstinance" even though we have an example in I timothy 5. I agree, that we are at an impass. As I have said before, unless you will acknowledge historical fact we have no basis for further discussion. I write for those who are still searching not for those who have already made up their minds.

[Lance Roberts]

I'm blown away with the liberal arguments supporting one of the things most warned about in scripture, and that they, like the Pharisees would accuse Jesus of being a wine-bibber.

"Wine is a mocker"

Many people read this, and don't think it applies to them. A Christian Worldview means also taking the warnings of scriptures seriously, not just thinking because they don't have a "Thou shalt not", that they don't apply.

I'm also blown away about Steve's last comment, showing how little he cares about research. There's nothing that appalls me more than when someone has decided he know it all and has nothing more to learn.

[Steve McCoy]

All, I've closed the comments. I think the conversation needs to be killed anyway (especially considering the direction they have turned in the last several comments). But the real reason is that I just found out that my Grandma is probably going to die today. We are immediately leaving town and I won't be able to moderate the discussion. Thanks for understanding.