SBC 2006: Wednesday & Happy Hour

Joe and I attended the voting on some resolutions this morning.  What a pile of waste.  If anyone thought we had great changes happening in the SBC, I'm afraid they aren't as great as they might have appeared. 

This first post is on a resolution against the "use" of alcohol.  Shocking, I know.  (UPDATE: Sorry I wasn't clearer.  Yes, it passed with an overwhelming majority.  A few spoke against it, all but one eloquently.  A handful spoke for it.)  Here it is thanks to Dorcas, and my very brief responses are in italics.

Whereas, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that alcohol use leads to physical, mental, and emotional damages (e.g., Proverbs 23:29-35); and

This passage is about the abuse, not the use, of alcohol.  And this is dishonest by not facing the whole council of God in the Scriptures.  There are many positive passages on alcohol, but Pharisees always miss them for their extra-biblical rules and desire to control the consciences of others.

Whereas, Alcohol use has led to countless injuries and deaths on our nation's highways; and

Not use, abuse.

Whereas, The breakup of families and homes can be directly and indirectly attributed to alcohol use by one or more members of a family; and

Not use, abuse.

Whereas, The use of alcohol as a recreational beverage has been shown to lead individuals down a path of addiction to alcohol and toward the use of other kinds of drugs, both legal and illegal; and

What?  Yeah, and the use of Q-Tips has led to hearing loss in some too.  And the use of cheeseburgers has led to the creation of widows and orphans.  And the use of blogs has led to the accountability of SBC leaders (oh wait, that's different).  PULEEZE!  It's not use, but abuse that is the problem.

Whereas, There are some religious leaders who are now advocating consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of "our freedom in Christ";

Oh, right.  I'm sure "freedom in Christ" actually means to pass resolutions that would eliminate Christ from service in SBC churches.  I'm sure that's what it means.  Have we no clue?

now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-24, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it further

Jesus manufactured, advertised and distributed wine in John 2!

Resolved, [insert amendment from floor urging that potential Trustees and Entity Heads who don't adhere to this resolution not be chosen for service]; and be it further

"And the results for SBC President are in....Jesus receives 0% of the vote,and Johnny Hunt receives 100% of the vote."

Resolved, That we urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in supporting legislation that is intended to curb alcohol use in our commuities and nation; and be it further

Cool.  Now Jesus gets SBC'rs actually encouraging Caesar to stop him from making wine, instituting the Lord's Supper, and so on.

Resolved, That we urge Southern Baptists to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages; and be it finally

"Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matthew 19:14 

Resolved, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churces to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries."

Yes, let's help those who are alcohol abusers.  We must help.  And there are certainly times some
need to abstain (as I did for many years after abusing in college).  But let's promote the Bible and not our abstinence rules.

Comments

[josh]

excellent. i raise a pint of gatorade and chase it with a shot of grape juice to your post.

[Alex F]

Sigh. It would actually be funny if it wasn't so (insert one of many adjectives that come to mind... I'll go with) lame.

[james]

regarding the first line, it's also nice to see that we're letting the world's research (what research exactly?) confirm what the Bible says. Mighty fine interpretation. Mighty fine.

[Anikisan]

Steve, sorry to hear you have to deal with such infantile exegesis over in the SBC. While them ol' Baptists are trying to stop the pouring of adult libations I'll be presiding over bread and wine every Sunday so...I'll drink to that!

[stephen shields]

did it pass?

[Cyle Clayton]

I didn't go to the convention, but maybe I should have. The primary reason I should have is that I could have picked up a flavor of the convention. This is one resolution, but was the whole thing like this? Has the leadership really become this pharisaical?

[jason allen]

This is my favorite line Steve:

"Jesus manufactured, advertised and distributed wine in John 2!"

What a shame. I assume it passed. If I could I would toast a nice black and tan to the passing of such a profound resolution. Three cheers for legalism!

[Drew Caperton]

It's good to see some young SBCers having a big problem with this. While I'm not SBC, my church did seek affiliation with the local association [Evangeline in South LA] and the state convention.

They liked everything about us, and the partnership was set to go [although we were still working through some issues], but someone put a call in to the associational director and told him that we "recreationally consume alcohol". Everything was immediately shot down and the partnership dissolved before it even started.

Growing up SBC, "new laws" like this one on alcohol make me sad and angry.

[Adam L. Feldman]

un-stinkin'-believable.

doesn't militant islam promote teetotalism?

[David Leonard]

OK, so the "Pharisees" are making a slippery slope argument. But is it a fair argument? As far as it goes, they are right that the use/abuse of alcohol has led to numerous tragedies and ruined lives and the like. I think everyone would agree with that much.

So the argument would seem to be that because this is a risk for everyone who consumes alcohol, wisdom would say to stay away from it altogether, right? Not because it's bad in itself, but because of what it could lead to.

Now I don't necessarily agree with this argument, but it's not a totally ridiculous point of view. And it doesn't seem prima facie legalistic, since the focus is on the consequences of alcohol, not alcohol itself.

Of course, this conviction can always be taken to the extreme, and therein lies the risk for legalism. But as it's stated, I don't see any real problem--other than the fact that slippery slope arguments are intrinsically difficult to support.

I know this topic has already been discussed in detail on this site. So forgive me for trying to resurrect an old debate. But I just wanted to add my two cents to this post.

[Adam L. Feldman]

please forgive me, everyone, for my reference to militant islam in this important discussion. it was uncalled for and made out of heated emotion.

[Don Arndt.]

Proposed resolution of next years SBC:

Whereas, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that gluttony leads to physical, mental, and emotional damages (heart disease, diabetes, low self-esteem, too-small pants); and

Whereas, gluttony has led premature replacement of pews and chairs in our church buildings; and

Whereas, The overuse of food as a recreational activity has been shown to lead individuals down a path of obesity; and

Whereas, There are some pastors and leaders in our convention who are in obvious violation of the biblical commands to avoid gluttony based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of "our freedom in Christ";

Resolved, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in San Antonio, June, 2007, express our total opposition to the promotion of gluttony and be it further

Resolved, Potential trustees and entity heads should not be chosen for service if they fall outside the U.S. Government recommendations for height and weight; and be it further

Resolved, That we urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in supporting action that is intended to reduce the amount of gluttonous behavior in our churches, including potlucks, fellowship meals, and going to DQ on Sunday night after church; and be it finally

Resolved, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat gluttony related problems from a biblical perspective and promote eating only what you need to survive and encourage local churces to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.

Hey, don't laugh. It makes as much sense as the one we passed. We shoot ourselves in the foot again. We pass this and we don't even want to consider Tom Ascol's resolution on church membership. I believe we need to reexamine our priorities. I am a lifelong abstainer from alcoholic beverages, but this is clearly and improper understanding of the text of Scripture.

Well that wasn't so bad. I am no longer a blirgin.

[art rogers]

Steve,

Spot on analysis. You are much taller in person than on your blog.

Sorry about your family situation. I'll join the rest in praying for you and yours.

Don,

If you don't want to submit it to the committee next year, I'll be glad to do it.

Hilarious and excellent as well.

[Luke Britt]

Don, good point.

David, it is still ridiculous. It's like saying, stop having sex, it could lead to pornography, extramarital affairs, et cetera. Or stop eating food because it can cause gluttony.

I think it would be better to pass a 'resolution' that discusses church discipline for people who are gluttonous, drunkards, et cetera.

[Joel]

What about the NAMB and their Holy Water Baptisms, and their rules about prayer languages? Did they get shot down, or is it another year of prayer and "illegal baptisms" here at the Basilica Community?

[Steve McCoy]

David, this is no "argument." These are supposed to be "facts" leading to action or response in our resolutions.

As to whether the point is valid: No. It's in direct opposition to the revealed Word of God. It's an abuse of our liberty by working to restrict the liberty of others. It neglects and/or ignores many positive Scriptures on alcohol as well as the many uses by Jesus and others.

As to the risk: see Luke's comment. Abuses should be corrected, but requiring or recommending abstinence is overstepping Scripture and actually in defiance of it. We should realize gifts are gifts and enjoy them properly.

And no matter what anyone says on this, we have to be out of our minds to create (in whatever form, qualifications and resolutions and rules (etc) that would disqualify Jesus and the Apostles. How arrogant of us. Shame on us.

One last thing. How can you say you see no real problem except that the arguments are beyond support? Did you really say that? Here's the quote from you, "But as it's stated, I don't see any real problem--other than the fact that slippery slope arguments are intrinsically difficult to support."

David, please respond to my point. Any resolution on alcohol should speak only to the abuse and not the use of alcohol since at the least Scripture doesn't restrict it's use, just the abuse, Jesus made it, delivered it and used it, and Jesus instituted it in the Lord's Supper. How can any resolution be crafted to go against these truths?

[Stephen Shields]

Steve, thanks for the clarification and i'll be praying about your family situation.

[M.Hughes]

Just had to say that I'm waiting for the Resolution on Divorce, Gluttony, and shall I go on?

So is the line that blurred or have we already crossed the line of false teaching......?

we serve overseas and I'm just a bit frustrated with how something like this can pass.....when we all are online voicing our opinions. I think it is time we make our VOICES heard and everyone go to the next SB convention and be heard not with just a vote but a voice.

Something has to change and it is time we stand for what is TRUTH- Let's get back to dealing with the MAJOR issues and not the MINOR. We have people who have yet to hear who Christ is and so many who have believed and are just floundering.... There are important things to be accomplished so let's get to the TASK!

blessings and keep on blogging!

m.hughes

[Aaron]

The resolution is a problem, but it is not a problem for someone to hold this position personally. How can we condemn someone's use of alcohol when the Bible does not. The Bible demonstrates the problems with drunkenness. The problem with the resolution is that it is "making" everyone hold to that position.

I would love to see resolutions on gluttony, divorce, speeding (guilty), undertipping, any others?

[David Leonard]

Hi Steve,

My point about slippery slope arguments is that they can never lead to certain conclusions; that is, they are merely inductive--rather than deductive--in nature. The conclusions they point to are merely probable, rather than necessary (as is the case with this resolution by the SBC folks).

But I still don't think it counts as being "ridiculous", as some are claiming on this thread. As one outside of the SBC community, perhaps it is easier for me to be emotionally detached, and not get so upset over this decision. I did mention before that I don't necessarily agree with this resolution (afterall, I do drink alcohol from time to time), but I also wouldn't call it ridiculous. The argument has some merit, even if it ultimately is unconvincing.

And there really is an argument here, despite what you may think. Not only that, but the argument is perfectly valid as well:

1. If the use of alcohol increases the risk of lives being ruined, it should be avoided altogether.

2. The use of alcohol does increase this risk.

3. Therefore, alcohol should be avoided altogether.

Now, there is nothing wrong with the form of this argument. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. That's what makes it a valid argument. The only option you have, therefore, is to question one of the premises, which I suspect would be the first one. Nevertheless, this is an argument, and it's a perfectly valid one at that.

As for your statement about how this resolution would exclude Jesus from the SBC community, I think this issue is more complicated that simply pointing out, "Well Jesus drank wine, so what's the problem?" The problem, as I imagine the SBC folks would argue, is that today's world is much more complicated than first century Palestine.

For instance, drunk driving was not an issue in their culture; it's a big issue for us. Also, wine is more accessible in today's world, so it is easier to fall into addiction. I'm sure there are other important differences as well, but the point is that today's world provides more opportunities for the abuse of alcohol--and the SBC'ers would say that's why it should be avoided altogether, namely, because while we are free in Christ to consume it, the risk is not worth the enjoyment we may receive from it.

Finally, I don't think you can use this resolution to craft a reductio ad absurdum against it. One commentator wrote that if this resolution were sound, then the SBC should also pass similar measures against sex and eating food, and so on. But please, surely it doesn't take much creativity to recognize a profound distinction between these activities. We need to eat food to survive; and sex is a necessary act for reproduction. But the consumption of alcohol is not necessary in the same way that food and sex are--isn't that clear? It may be good and enjoyable, but certainly not necessary to human existence.

As for your distinction between the use and abuse of alcohol, well, of course they should take a stand against the abuse of it. But wouldn't that be saying something that is already perfectly obvious? Surely a resolution wouldn't be required to say that. No, the real solution to the abuse of alcohol (in the minds of these SBC folks) is not merely to condemn its abuse, but to curtail its abuse by making a strong statement against its use.

And again, I don't think this counts as legalism, since the focus is not on alcohol itself, but the negative effects of alcohol. So it is not a blind obedience that they are prescribing. In my mind, that is an important distinction, and I think others would do well to refrain from referring to this resolution as legalistic--because that is a very serious charge indeed.