Florida/Texas Baptists Disqualify Jesus

Yep.  Florida and Texas.  Oh, and Florida also basically called Jesus a recreational drug user...

Messengers at the 146th Florida Baptist State Convention annual meeting overwhelmingly approved a bylaw revision requiring all trustee nominees to "agree to abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages and using any other recreational drugs."

Thank God they stopped short of the more severe charge of "recreational drug Dealer" evidenced in John 2.

Comments

[pastortim]

did they ban coffee as well? I see no way ban beer on these grounds (no pun intended) w/o including coffee?

[Sam DeSocio]

do I have to rub it in that most Presbyterians have no such laws.

[cavman]

and so continues the war on alcohol.... guess they got tired of pickin' on Disney.

[Jonathan Dodson]

makes me really glad i went BGCT

[erik raymond]

The Sam Adams rip is outstanding. Very nicely done Steve.

[Mark Goodyear]

That label is great.

The problem is that this kind of language forces the rest of us into a position of hypocrisy.

I drink a beer nearly every day. Or a glass of wine. I don't advertise this at my church, but neither do I hide it. And I'll be honest, I feel judged by the community when we pass pronouncements like this.

[chris conley]

This is so bewildering to me.
Here in Missouri we've been having this stick-out-your-chest anti-alcohol anti-acts29 thing in our convention as well. (Including in the annual meeting a couple weeks ago... passing another {snore} resolution concerning consumption of 'spirits'.

I wish they'd someday pass a resolution dealing with the consumer attitude of many church attenders today. This attitude has a choke hold on the passion of most churches.

This consumption needs the resolution.... because those resolutions really do sooo much.

[Steve McCoy]

Full disclosure: the Sam Adams graphic isn't mine. I Googled "jesus beer" for images and found it. :)

[Mike Leake]

As one other user has commented--you can add Missouri to that list as well. The resolution we passed says that Jesus cannot be a trustee or a leader in the Convention. Unless you totally abstain then you cannot be in those positions. I understand being concerned about alcohol use and even decrying alcoholism. Some of the discussion after the motion was filled with heartwarming tear-jerking stories. Sad, and alcoholism stinks. But--not the issue. I just hope this doesn't become divisive from either side

[johnMark]

Great beer label. I don't think fight will ever be over. I was just at the GA Baptist Convention as a messenger and thankfully this issue didn't come up. Though blogging did come up.

I posted about this and Rod Albert a MO pastor who I quoted from the St. Louis Dispatch article actually responded. He didn't respond with much, but.. yeah.

Mark

[bob]

"I just hope this doesn't become divisive from either side"

"Become"?

:)

I would say the intent here is specifically to be divisive. To draw lines and force what might be a disagreement between brothers into the category of denominational (!) policy, thus giving one side of the disagreement the right to exclude from positions of influence those on the other side.

It's divisive by nature and by design.

[Greg Alford]

JohnMark is correct...

These actions are divisive by nature and by design.

The ONLY purpose for these acts is to exclude other Southern Baptist from positions of service and influence...

You can be sure... it ant over yet! Them Good Old Baptist Boys have a long list of those they will exclude before they are through... if ever they will be through with their "Purge of the SBC"…

Grace Always,

[Jonathon]

I don't think they would exclude Jesus today because they see alcohol in a different light today than in Jesus' day. It isn't a secret the damage that the "abuse of alcohol" has had on millions and millions of people throughout the world. So the question is would Jesus find the need to partake of alcohol today with so many other viable choices for drink on the market.

I know I sound like one that is defending the resolution, I am not. I believe that alcohol is not prohibited in Scripture and it is outside of our authority to ban it from our brothers and sisters in Christ. At the same time I believe the logic we follow when we say that they wouldn't allow Jesus to be a trustee or officer in the convention is misleading.

Good conversation. I hope no one wants to fight over this.

[Steve McCoy]

Jonathon, you are making an argument contrary to biblical facts. Jesus made wine, drank wine, instituted wine in the Lord's Supper, and said He wouldn't drink it again until the messianic banquet (which means he, and we, will drink it in the fully consummated Kingdom together! Luke 22:17-18). So to make the argument He would drink something else if He were alive today has the weight of Scripture against it.

And then to say, "I hope no one wants to fight over this" is silly. Who started the fight? Who says people who drink are disqualified from leadership? Who is drawing extra-biblical lines to keep people out of leadership who are doing what is acceptable in Scripture? And just so you know, I'm not engaging in a fight with anyone. Their fight is with Scripture.

By the way, note in the articles linked above the executive director of the FBSC said "he was 'embarrassed' by the protracted discussion [at the 2006 annual] and wanted to clarify Florida Baptists' position on the issue." He said he was embarrassed by guys who think this issue is even worth discussing!

Jonathon, can you see my point?

[Jonathon]

Steve,

To clarify, which I didn't do previously, I didn't mean "I hope no one wants to fight over the issue" of alcohol and ministry, but I hope no one wanted to fight with me over my post! :)

Anyway, I personally agree that it is extra-biblical to say that what one drinks should be disqualified from leadership. I do not think any convention or denominational structure has the grounds to say that. All I was saying is that THIER argument would be that Jesus would not partake of alcohol today!

I also have to say that the passage in Luke does not affirm that Jesus WILL certainely drink wine at the great feast. When He says He will not drink of the "vine" until that heavenly feast the point is to say that there would be no more Passover on the calendar, the next feast would be when He returned to establish His rule on earth. To say that passage confirms that Jesus was making a claim to have wine there is silly in my view.