Reasons Why I Hate Us 4

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch...

The Missouri Baptist Convention has toughened its alcohol policy for people who receive money from the organization to start new churches.

Individuals who help found new churches were already required to sign a statement agreeing to abide by the organization's policy on alcohol consumption. Some of the new language requires those who receive money from the convention to go a step further and "teach the strong Biblical warnings of the consumption of alcohol for all Christians."

[...]

Missouri Baptist Convention interim executive director, the Rev. David Tolliver, said he did not know what precipitated the need for a policy change, saying only that the new policy "reflects the position of most Missouri Baptists."

He said the Journey was not affected by the toughened policy, because its leaders simply borrowed money from the convention to buy a new church building. "This new policy has nothing to do with them," he said. "It won't affect them."

Comments

[Chris Wilson]

I know this whole alcohol thing is getting under your skin, and I certainly don't intend to sound more pious than anyone else, but I think you are starting to sound as bad as "them." I mean is drinking the occasional beer that important to you? Granted "their" attitude toward alcohol is very legalistic (and I am not defending "their" position). However, your now frequent rants about it make it sound like you are unable to lay drinking aside.

I mean that alcohol is not like sex or food; the first of which is definitely intended for marriage and the second which is required for life. Alcohol is something that we should be able to let go the same way we abandon other things that can be bad for us like some movies, music, etc.

Yes, the SBC is legalistic. It needs to change. I just don't think alcohol should be the marquee issue to attack that legalism.

By the way. I love your blog!

Fire away...

[Rae Whitlock]

Some of the new language requires those who receive money from the convention to go a step further and "teach the strong Biblical warnings of the consumption of alcohol for all Christians."

Ugh.

Derek Webb has a song called "Nothing is Ever Enough". Seems that such a sentiment would apply here.

[Travis]

I hope you drank a beer while posting this ;)

[Micah]

A beer at 6:30 in the morning? We all know beer, like orange juice, doesn't go down well right after you brush your teeth.

[Rae Whitlock]

A beer at 6:30 AM is par for the course for Presbies like Travis and myself. ;-)

[Travis]

I thought everyone had beer and eggs for breakfast....

Or beer over your cheerios....

[Steve McCoy]

Chris, I was just updating people with the newest story on the ongoing issues in Missouri. I didn't even give my opinion on this post. I did not "rant." I just quoted.

And alcohol is the marquee issue in the SBC concerning legalism (at least on my blog) because the SBC in general has chosen this issue to push so hard and hurt our cooperative mission. Go back and find my early posts on the issue. They are in response to SBC pushing (Jack Graham article, SBTS Alcohol and Ministry forum, etc), not the other way around.

[brad brisco]

well said, I hear the voices on both sides of this issue and you certainly DON'T sound like "them."

[vandorsten]

"teach the strong Biblical warnings of the consumption of alcohol for all Christians"??

Boo.

The Shins' Wincing the Night Away in your Audiophile column?>

Hooray!

"Sea Legs" is the new "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots"...

[Mike Brown]

But, If you look carefully it doesnt mention abstinance. Strong biblical warnings are about being drunk, not drinking

just really read it

[Danny Slavich]

I agree that the SBC is legalistic about alcohol. I wasn't a Baptist until about a year and a half ago, and was surprised to find out how many SBC churches have abstention from alcohol in their church covenants. This is something we must fight against, to preserve the true Gospel.

But I wonder if we're missing Paul's advice when he calls upon us to love our brothers more than our freedom. I see so many "Christian liberty" types (here at SBTS and within the younger Calvinist movement at large) who flaunt their freedom without regard for brothers who do not hold their opinion. I'm NOT saying that we shouldn't fight for our liberty. I'm saying that it seems many are going about it in an immature way. I just don't see many in my camp who are willing to forsake their rights because they love their brothers more than their beer.

Maybe we would gain more of an ear, if we demonstrated overwhelming love and maturity on this issue. Or maybe not. I'm still working through it all...

[Steve McCoy]

Hey Danny. Thanks for the comment. I guess I don't really get your point. Are you saying that you think Christians should forsake their rights for their brothers in the faith? For what reason? Just because we love our brothers more than our freedom doesn't mean we don't live out our freedom. Help me see where you are going here.

And I'm all for helping the immature grow up a bit. I personally don't think I've experienced any of this kind of immaturity among those I hang with, though I'm sure it exists.

I've consistently contended that if American Evangelicals in general (SBC'rs in specific) didn't have such a dumb view on alcohol then our younger folks wouldn't struggle so much with this sort of immaturity. Why? Because they would have had good examples of liberty and moderation. We've sent out young folks (that includes me) into the world with the gospel and they have to figure out how to live biblically without the benefit of example. It's a shame, but let's teach them maturity instead of acting like they should not use their liberty in moderation.

[Garrett]

Hi Guys,

Don't mean to poak my nose in another tradition's biz but someone earlier said: "I mean that alcohol is not like sex or food; the first of which is definitely intended for marriage and the second which is required for life."

Is that a true statement? Laying aside our uniquely American hang-ups (this has never been a big issue outside of the modern Evangelical American scene) I would say no. Scripture speaks of wine as the beverage of choice for just about everything, particularly religious festivals and weddings. Perhaps God is trying to tell us something through the use of what would have been a less filtered and red-colored beverage. A beverage that can taste harsh and then sweet but makes the heart glad. Abeverage that is spoken of as the "life giving" blood of Christ. Not to mention the fact that no one can make any honest exegetical case for anything being used in the Lord's Supper other than a fermented "fruit of the vine" (it was months from the grape harvest in the non-refrigerated ANE at Passover time). So...

...Why should the vast trajectory of God's Word be abrogated by such silly, American, and imperialistic scruples?

Garrett
A once recovering Fundamentalist

[Richard H.]

I think the weaker brother is one who might be tempted by my actions to sin. Most baptists in my life who are anti-beer just don't think people should drink, they are not in danger of falling themselves. So I think many Christian brothers are better categorized as pharisee than weaker brother.

The pharisees who gripped at the disciples who were "working" on the sabbath because they plucked some heads of grain were not weaker brothers. They were wrong on the issue, and Jesus called them on it. The case is the same with alchohol.

[Danny Slavich]

Steve,

I guess I was trying to make two points in one (unsucessful and ambiguous) swoop.

First, I'm thinking of a general attitude that conveys a lack of willingness to forsake one's freedom for any reason. I agree that the typical SBC/American Evangelical position on alcohol is spiritually immature. Basically, I feel a general attitude of "Screw what you think. I have liberty and I'm not giving it up for any reason" among those of us who agree that we have the liberty to drink. It just seems that, like Paul circumcising Timothy for the sake of gaining the Jews, maybe we would gain more of our brothers if we showed that we are willing to forsake our liberty.

Secondly, and more specifically, I'm thinking of SBTS students who consent by their word to a document (the student code of conduct), which forbids drinking. They then drink, and violate the covenant in the name of Christian liberty. I think this is just ridiculously immature, and only makes those who want to forbid drinking more determined. I think the SBTS requirement is over the top and I disagree with it. But I also think that we ought to submit to our authority, especially when we have freely placed ourself under it.

As far as the first point, though, I recognize that maybe I'm naive in thinking our willingness to forsake liberty would result in a reciprocal willingness to "grant" it...

[Steve McCoy]

Danny, in response to your two points.

1. Who has this general attitude? If you mean those handful who abuse and flaunt their liberties, I hear you. I think you are focusing on the minority there. There are clear biblical reasons to temporarily abstain from liberties and no one here would disagree on that point.

2. As for SBTS students, I have said here more than once and elsewhere numerous times that anyone who signs something should keep to it. I've encouraged several people in the last year to go to SBTS and I always tell them if the issue arises that they should abide by their rules if they choose to attend.

[Danny Slavich]

Steve,

I think I've overstated/misstated what I was trying to say. I was thinking more about my comment after I posted it this afternoon, and I think that what I should have said is that the SBTS students from point #2 exemplify the attitude I was talking about in point #1.

Basically, I know of quite a few people here at SBTS who don't abide by the covenant. It bothers me that many students here disregard authority for the sake of liberty. It seems like they care more about being able to drink than they do about keeping their word and submitting to the institution's rules. I think I was (unfairly, it seems) projecting this into a more general attitude among "liberty" proponents.

I don't personally drink (because of a family history of abuse of alcohol), but I believe strongly that it is within our freedom. My main point was more that immaturity/disregard for authority doesn't help the cause of those of us who want to undermine the culture of legalism in the SBC, etc.

[Steve McCoy]

Danny, I get where you are coming from. Thanks for clarifying.

Concerning SBTS students who break the school covenant and drink: shame on you. You are making the work of SBC reform harder for all of us. Are legalistic, extra-biblical rules stupid? You bet. But you signed on to them, so either keep 'em or leave. That is all.