Wine, The Bible & The Believer: Tying Up Loose Ends

I began a series of posts on Wine, The Bible & The Believer in January of this year.  For a period of approximately a month and a half, I published nineteen short essays dealing specifically with this issue, mostly because I desired to inject another view that not only dissented from many of the high profile Baptist blogs (so many of which are vocally moderationists), but also represented what I believe to be the majority of grassroots Southern Baptists   >>>

Admittedly, Nathan Finn nudged me toward cranking out the remainder of the posts I'd like to do.  His recent post entitled "Unplugged:  On Alcohol" drew me in like a magnet to comment on his site.  I read Dr. Finn but I rarely comment there.  On this post, however, I could not resist.  I suppose it's that weak believerism to which I'm cursed. Dr. Finn offers about as sober--no pun intended--a view as one can, given the perspective he embraces. 

And, as far as  knowing where Dr. Finn stands on the believer and alcohol issue, he is perfectly clear:

• Every time someone argues that alcohol consumption is unbiblical, they have rejected the sufficiency of Scripture and become a closet Roman Catholic…
• Every time someone imposes their private practices concerning alcohol on others, they have become a closet Pharisee...
• I can think of zero good reasons to replace Scripture with tradition...making alcohol consumption a practice that disqualifies someone from denominational service
• Southern Baptists who drink alcohol…[should recognize]...that the convention is filled with weaker brothers who don’t yet get it.
• the integrity of Scripture...is at stake.

Now to be perfectly fair to Dr. Finn, he humbly and with a gracious spirit conceded on the comment thread that his descriptive language concerning abstentionists such as myself and millions of other Southern Baptists was not what one would call winsome.  And we thank him for such and hope under our Lord all of us may speak--even if we necessarily must speak tough--with salt and light.

In further spirit of fairness, however, I must note that only recently on another post I recall Dr. Finn throwing a passing slap to abstentionists.  In pondering the question "Does the SBC Have a Future?" he writes of the "tortured exegesis" of those who argue that drinking alcohol is inherently sinful.

Please understand:  I am definitively not arguing for dumbed-down language, stripped naked of any critical pizazz whatsoever.  How boring could we possibly want to be!  Besides.  Bad ideas should not be dressed up in bow tie and tux. I am saying that it's approaches like Dr. Finn's that potentially increase the flame of the very fire he'd rightly like to quench. 

Let me show you what I mean.

In the quotes above, one draws the conclusion that abstentionists reject flat out the sufficiency of Scripture and every time they open their mouth about abstention, they strangely morph into either a closet Roman Catholic or a Pharisee who cares nothing for Scripture, but bases all upon tradition.  But if Scripture happens to be utilized, it is tortured exegesis at work since obviously abstentionists constitute the weak believers to which Paul referred.

To be sure, I have noted that, if I am correct about what Scripture teaches about the usage of alcoholic beverages for pleasurable purposes, to go ahead and drink up pleasurably is sin.  To my recall, however, I have not evoked a personified image that remains more the epitome of utter lostness, moral blindness and religious depravity than is available in the New Testament.  No more blistery language does Jesus offer than to the Pharisees who were white-washed sepulchers, children of hell and hypocritically moral buffoons.  Pharisees are just not nice people and that abstentionists are lumped with them I do not and cannot accept.

Nor is this charge of Pharisee unique to Dr. Finn, I must add.  Indeed being "Pharisaical" may be the favorite tarbaby that abstentionists receive from our moderationist brothers' hands.  The irony inevitably is, not one microshred of Scripture was argued for or alluded toward in Dr. Finn's exhortation for us all to tone down our rhetoric about the alcohol issue. 

Rather, throughout the presentation, moderation and its trusty sidekick--Scripture condemns the abuse of alcohol, not the use of alcohol--galloped freely throughout the entire pasture. That is to say, moderation was everywhere the assumed biblical position. I think my plan here will be to post at least two more times on alcohol--but not beyond three. 

For one post, I will summarize and put together an annotated bibliography for resources in the future.  Another will deal specifically with Jesus and His view/usage.  Finally, we'll tie down the flaps with the Apostle Paul's words.

Grace to all. 

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Bill]

Peter: My only point was that I've read pretty much all of your last series on alcohol and it seemed to me you were arguing for abstinence for all Christians, not just denominational employees. Plus you posted your reasons for the series in a comment to me just today, and there wasn't anything about SBC employees in it.

[peter]

Bill,

If you can show me precisely how the quote is supposed to contradict anything else I've suggested, be my guest and I'll be glad to address it. If not, I have no idea what your point is.

I will mention similarly to you what I did to Timotheos--I hope, for those who choose to participate in exchange, we can get well beyond this mundane focus to items more germane to the ideas presented. If we can't, no offense, but I'll probably just post and go read a good book.

I trust your evening well. With that, I am...

Peter

[Bill]

OK. I must have missed it. In fact, I offer this response from Peter, to me, today:

Rather, my main purpose is a) to assist those unsure of either position b) to assist those who are sure of abstentionism but cannot articulate a case precisely why c) to demonstrate that "tortured exegesis" is an unfitting description of serious Biblical abstentionism d) to offer a viable voice for millions of Southern Baptists who tire of being accused by a handful of internet blogging pastors of placing tradition over Scripture.

[peter lumpkins]

Bill,

James is correct. I've said more times than I can recall I would never have gotten into this dialog at all apart from loud-mouth bloggers who continued to insist that the SBC is pushing "tradition over Scripture" down people's throats.

Beginning in Greensboro, the Florida Baptist Convention, the Missouri Baptist Convention and etc, the endless side-swiping of our policies by moderationists bent on letting "fundamentalists" know that their view of the subject annihilated the sufficiency of Scripture, a side-swiping which, by the way, Dr. Finn gave great summary toward.

Now that I am in it, I shall stay the course.

With that, I am...

Peter

[James]

Bill,

Peter is responding to Dr Finn here, whose core complaint is "I can think of zero good reasons to replace Scripture with tradition...making alcohol consumption a practice that disqualifies someone from denominational service"

Without the restrictions on [paid] "denominational service", no one would care what some preacher in Georgia or Oklahoma thinks about drinking wine.

[Bill]

James: When did Peter's posts become about SBC employees? I think if you'll read Peter's own reasons for this series of posts you will find (I think) that it isn't about SBC employees. I'm not sure where you got that.

[James]

[Bill] The problem is not you deciding that something lawful for you to do is not wise for you to do. It's you deciding that for everyone else.

Bill,

I'm sorry but this is an almost childish application of Christian liberty to the SBC. The issue *for Southern Baptists* has to do with whether SBC EMPLOYEES ought to be required to abstain...not EVERYONE.

Let's make a list of recreational drugs that aren't prohibited to Christians under grace:
alcohol, marijuana, oxycotin, methamphetamine, cocaine.

For the SBC to prohibit employees from using any of these for pleasure, does not in any way open it to the charge of legalism.

[Bill] God demands abstention?

One should avoid defending positions that are not under attack. Many Christians believe drinking alcohol is a sin. So what? You have conceded that abstintion is good and wise (Proverbs 31). Why is that not enough to end whining about the SBC requiring employees to abstain?

And why wouldn't the fact that many Baptists have valid Biblical reasons for believing that imbibing is a sin (even if you and I don't agree with them) be enough to end the grousing about SBC employees (who depend on funding from those people) having to choose between their evening wine and SBC service. If a *beverage* is that important to one, perhaps he has already reached the point of "abuse".

[peter lumpkins]

Bill,

You write:

"That is the root problem of the abstentionist argument. Abstentionists have (real) cultural concerns about alcohol and a handful of out of context prooftexts as the heart of their argument."

It's statements like these that become so disheartening, I sometimes feel like shutting the comment threads down permanently.

You've had plenty of rope here to hang the abstentionist position by the neck until it's dead, Bill. I don't recall any devastating points you've offered to anything I've written on this topic since I started it 6 mos. ago.

Oh, sure, you've disagreed. Fine. But the victorious assertion you make about abstentionism seems to suggest so much more. My points have been based on "cultural concerns" and a "few texts" ripped from their context? Nor do I recall you demonstrating such, my brother.

May I suggest you take a break and read a few of the scholarly resources on the abstentionist position that are available. At least then you will be armed with real argument instead of empty assertions.

Have a great afternoon. With that, I am...

Peter

[Bill]

James: The problem is not you deciding that something lawful for you to do is not wise for you to do. It's you deciding that for everyone else. That is the root problem of the abstentionist argument. Abstentionists have (real) cultural concerns about alcohol and a handful of out of context prooftexts as the heart of their argument.

Good to abstain? OK

Wisest to abstain? Arguable

God demands abstention? At this point you have left the realm of what you can support biblically and have to resort to statistics and a laundry list of cultural ills.

[James]

Scripture condemns the abuse of alcohol, not the use of alcohol

This is fine, but it begs the question of "what is abuse?" Is drinking until buzzed "abuse"? Is drinking without a meal abuse? Is drinking for entertainment rather than food or medicine abuse? What if instead of having a wine with a meal each night, I had half a Vicadin instead? Should this preclude denominational leadership? What if it were learned that an SBC board member went to Amsterdam and had a marijuana cigararette in a legal setting? Would only "Pharisees" have a problem with this?

All this ignores why Baptists began abstaining in the first place. In the S.E. US, alcohol was a blight. De Toqueville (1832) said that alcohol was at the root of every social ill in America. It is still true except that the problem is compounded with other entertainment drugs.

Most people don't seem to understand the context in which the Apostle James said "Faith without works is dead". This was a man who turned himself into the "Jew of all Jews" for the furtherance of the Gospel. When Paul said "All things are lawful but not all things are [good for us]", he meant it.

[Byron]

I agree with Timotheos. Having said that, I would never knowingly drink in front of brothers in the Lord such as Peter Lumpkins and David R. Brumbelow, with whom I would be honored to count as friends. But, personally, I have to remain unconvinced of the abstentionist argument for now.

David R. Brumbelow:

The Galatians 5:13 passage context mainly concerns the keeping of the Law in the flesh. As such, it is not referring to any sort of substance abuse. And it had to do with the origin and meaning of righteousness. So, I'm sorry, I do not see your point.

I really believe that all these special case scenarios/what-if questions that are constantly thrown our way are for the most part not the insurmountable barriers they first appear. Those who can't handle alcohol, shouldn't. Those who can, avoid the sin of drunkenness. Obey Romans 13. Parents, teach your children to be obey the Word. Honor Christ and provide a good example. Not all Christians are meant by God to partake. Not all unbelievers have problems with alcohol (and no Christian should!). Sure, society is going bananas with alcohol and drug abuse. Interject worshipers of Christ who refuse to follow the ways of the world, but worship and live in Christian self-control and discipline, even to the point of moderation for those who hold that view, and you have something to thank Christ for.

[David R. Brumbelow]

Timotheos,
And I thought I was going to convert you on the alcohol issue with one fell swoop! :-). Well, anyway I tried. And I am convinced Peter will continue to do so. Your days are numbered :-).
David R. Brumbelow

[Timotheos]

Of course you know, David, that Peter has been calling the "good wine/bad wine" tune for quite some time in an effort to wear down his poor linguistically and exegetically challenged moderationist brethren. For my part, the effort - though surely interesting - is mostly irrelevant, as it does not adequately address the breadth and variation of all the scriptural testimony, nor does it give any reliable way to discern when so-called "good" wine or "bad" wine is indicated - except the particular theological predilections of the interpreter. Others have already dealt decisively with such ingenious parsing, so I shan't take up that dance again.

Furthermore, I don't know that I would agree that sex is "immoral" per se, anymore than I would say that wine is inherently "moral" or "immoral." The context in which "sex" occurs denominates it as moral or immoral, but the act itself is not so characterized apart from context. And so it is, I think, with wine (notwithstanding all of those fine attempts to sunder wine into opposing "good wine/bad wine" categories).

But someone has already noted what will probably prevail in the end of this discussion - both moderationists and abstentionists will no doubt remain such after all the dust has settled. Ephraim is joined to his idols...I guess we'll just have to leave him alone. *grin*

Peace.

[David R. Brumbelow]

Timotheos,
Your name reminds me of a fellow in the Bible who apparently had such conviction he would not drink wine whether it was fermented or unfermented (1 Timothy 5:23).

As you correctly point out, there is sex that is clean and righteous and there is immoral sex. I agree and much more importantly, God agrees (Hebrews 13:4). We are free to do one. We are not free to do the other, even in moderation.

The same is apparently true of wine. There is good wine. It is clean and pure and made by God each year in every vineyard. Just like He did in John 2, except then He did it miraculously fast. Even today, the process is a miracle, don’t you think?

The good, unfermented wine (aka grape juice; the fruit of the vine, the cup) is pure, healthy and to be enjoyed by adults and youth. It is the wine God made that makes glad the heart of man (Psalm 104:15). In it you have nothing to fear.

The bad, poisonous, rotted, fermented, alcoholic wine is to be feared like a serpent (Proverbs 23:29-35). You shouldn’t even look at it. This wine is not clean, pure, righteous. It will make a man do stupid things that he would never do in his right mind. Fool around with this stuff and you are not wise (Proverbs 20:1).
David R. Brumbelow
June 4, 2008

PS - Everyone - if you haven't already, click on SBC Files here on Peter Lumpkins’ site and you can read much more about all this. It’s been a big help to me.

[Timotheos]

So David,

We would be correct to conclude from your analogy that just as it is wise to avoid "a world of trouble and heartache" by abstaining completely from "beverage alcohol," so it is equally wise, in order to avoid sexual immorality, to abstain completely from sexual activity.

I know you will protest such a conclusion (at least I hope you will), as well you should. We rightly teach and warn our children about the "world of trouble and heartache" which sexual immorality brings about. We teach them the biblical difference between sexual purity and joy on the one hand, and sexual deviancy and misery on the other. Nobody supposes nor suggests we forbid all sexual activity on the basis of its abuses and dangers.

Scripture does not command such with regard to our lawful enjoyment of sex, and neither does it command such with regard to our lawful enjoyment of wine. So-called moderationists (we might rather be called "biblicists," but that term's already employed elsewhere :^) are simply trying to hold to the principle that we should not go beyond what is written - no more and no less.

Grace and peace,

Timotheos

[David R. Brumbelow]

Byron and Jason,
I too enjoy Christian liberty in Jesus Christ. But I do not believe that liberty extends to harmful, recreational, mind altering drugs (Galatians 5:13).

We should teach people to love God. Part of loving God is that Jesus said “if you love Me, keep My commandments“ (John 14:15).

Maybe I should say that when it is practiced, abstinence works every time. That is true of sexual immorality and it is true of drinking and drugs. (I am not meaning to accuse anyone who is for moderate drinking, with sexual immorality.) It’s when you decide to try it that you get in trouble. Will everyone abstain? Of course not. But those who do, will miss out on a world of trouble and heartache. In such a case we have taught the kids the right way, it is up to them to follow it.

I’m against drinking in moderation for other reasons. But one is that so many kids and adults can’t handle it. For many, that first drink ultimately destroys their life.

And if beverage alcohol (remember that biblical “wine” is a generic term that can mean fermented or unfermented) is forbidden by God (I believe it is: Proverbs 23:31; 1 Peter 5:8; etc.) and if it is harmful, it should not be taken even in moderation.

I came across an interesting quote. “Temperance may be defined as: moderation in all things healthful; total abstinence from all things harmful.” -Xenophon, Greek philosopher, 400 BC. And hey, temperance (self control) is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:23).

David R. Brumbelow

[Byron]

Peter, I subscribed to the comments RSS feed, and it no longer works (well, I'm using Thunderbird). Do you have any idea what's wrong, or if any other RSS feeder works?

[jason]

I too like the format with the newest comments first. It makes it a lot easier to get to the newest stuff.

All I am saying, Peter, is that we spend so much time trying to tell people what is right and wrong, and it doesn't really work. I spent many summers at Falls Creek teaching kids not to do this and that, and I can tell you that the kids still did it anyway. I think that if we follow the admonitions of Christ and the Apostle Paul, beginning with loving God and loving people, as well as the fruits of the Spirit, we will no longer be known for what we are against, rather than what we are for.
Paul himself, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said that against these things, there is no law.

[Byron]

Peter, that's a great idea to reverse the comment thread. I hate that Previous/Next thing. If they want that as default, then at least make it a per user setting that the user can change. Then again, I haven't commented as my Typepad user login for some time now, since it always seems to lose my information even after it tells me I am logged in (perhaps this is a Firefox issue; not sure). So it wouldn't help me anyway.

[peter lumpkins]

All,

Typepad made a few changes that I cannot change. For example, no more than 50 comments can be on one page. This makes it horrible if we have over 50, since one has to continually go to next/previous, etc.

My solution was to reverse the comment thread, allowing the latest comment on top rather than bottom. It may feel weird at first. I think it will be better overall.

Thanks.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

JasonK,

Your rejoinder to David may be the quote of the entire series. You write:

""It works every time." Are you serious? If it works every time, then why are so many teenagers getting drunk and using drugs?"

Perhaps if they'd said "Thanks but No Thanks" that about which David speaks would have worked--at least every time they actually meant what they said.

Even more confusing is your indictment:

"Perhaps by making such an issue of it, while ignoring the more important teachings to love God and love people, we are doing more harm than good."

First, to separate loving God and loving people by making a disconnect with teaching people what God says is surely mistaken.

In fact, I would argue we are loving God and loving people through precisely that very act. It is not all we are to do in demonstrating our love for God and people. Nonetheless, it remains a significant part.

Secondly, let me get this straight: we are "doing more harm than good" by warning teens of the perils of drink & drug? For some reason, JasonK, that just doesn't square with my plumb line.

Grace for this evening. With that, I am...

Peter

[jason]

I agree with Byron. If what BroJokie and David Brumbelow are right in what they are saying, then I think Jesus would have had a whole lot more to say when the Pharisees asked him which commandment was the most important. But He didn't. He summed it all up by saying that you have to love God, and love people. If you do that, everything else that is right and good makes sense, even to a child. If you are focusing on loving God and loving people, you're not going to get wasted. You are going to do right.
But then you say, "It works every time." Are you serious? If it works every time, then why are so many teenagers getting drunk and using drugs? Even those who go to Falls Creek do. Perhaps by making such an issue of it, while ignoring the more important teachings to love God and love people, we are doing more harm than good.

[Byron]

David R. Brumbelow, please understand something: Christian liberty was never designed by God to lead to excess. The abstentionist mindset to me seems to be that one cannot function without rules in place to govern behavior. And there is some truth to this, because the believer functions by the rules of Scripture and guidance of the Holy Spirit. The moderationist viewpoint is not lawlessness or excess, but following what we believe the Scriptures to teach. We claim no compulsion to drink, and we understand conscientious abstention, even of many moderationists in the SBC. In my opinion, the problem here does not lie within moderationist teaching, but with not having the Word of God taught in fullness, which is the only ground for Christian liberty.

[David R. Brumbelow]

BroJOkie,
As you point out, moderationists have a real problem in giving a clear word about alcohol. Imagine trying to explain to those kids that sometimes it’s wrong to drink and take drugs and sometimes it’s not. It depends on the situation. It depends on the person. It depends on the drug. It depends on the laws at the time. It depends on your age, etc., etc., etc.

What is the correct answer? What is the answer that kids can understand and that they can easily carry out in their lives? What is the answer that is guaranteed to keep their lives from untold heartache and ruin? The answer is easy. When it comes to alcohol and other drugs - Just say no! It works every time. Or, as God said in Proverbs, don’t even look at it. And as God said in 1 Peter, be sober. (Proverbs 23:31; 1 Peter 5:8).

One last thing, BroJOkie. I’m sure glad you were the one teaching those kids.

David R. Brumbelow

[jason]

BroJOkie,
Here's an idea. Teach them that the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control, and that up against these things, there is no law. I would teach that that if there is anything that is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, they should let their mind dwell on those things. I would teach them that Jesus said the most important things in life are loving God and loving people.
When you teach them these things, you don't have to tell them that drugs are bad, or that it is wrong to drink to excess. They will know.

[BroJOkie]

To the moderationists:

I just finished three days at Children's Falls Creek. I did the moral issues Bible Study in our cabin in front of 102 fourth, fifth and sixth graders. I'm curious first if you would have had a Bible study on drugs and alcohol and if you did, what would have been your message to them? Just say NO to drugs and drink in moderation when it comes to beer, wine and other alcoholic drinks? Please enlighten me!

[R. L. Vaughn]

Peter, concerning your syllogism:
A syllogism can be valid (in form as a syllogism) and yet be built on faulty premises. For example: All Caucasians are racists. RL & PL are Caucasians. RL & PL are racists. Now that is a valid syllogism. If A & B are true, then the conclusion is true. But since A is not true, the conclusion fails.

You ask what is wrong with your syllogism. Well, I suppose in form there is nothing wrong with it. Nor am I charging that you intend to define "recreational, pleasure-filled purposes" in two different ways. If one admits your presuppositions, then one is bound to come to your conclusion. It seems the only two possible conclusions are, either (1) it is wrong to use both alcoholic beverages and mind-altering drugs for recreational, pleasure-filled purposes, or (2) both alcoholic beverages and mind-altering drugs can be used for recreational, pleasure-filled purposes. Certainly most Baptists would run from the second possibility, thereby driving them to the first. But the success of your syllogism depends on several factors not in evidence. For example, a definition of "recreational, pleasure-filled purposes"; that, Biblically speaking, the use of alcoholic beverages is for recreational, pleasure-filled purposes; that, Biblically speaking, mind-altering drugs are the equivalent of alcoholic beverages.

Perhaps you will still consider defining "recreational, pleasure-filled purposes". Further, I wonder:
Is the use of wine for the stomach's sake a recreational, pleasure-filled purpose?
Is the use of wine in the Lord's Supper a recreational, pleasure-filled purpose?
Is the use of wine in cooking a recreational, pleasure-filled purpose?
Is the use of wine to get drunk a recreational, pleasure-filled purpose?

Another concern, or a least curiosity, that I have is that your syllogism implies that it is the intent of the use of alcoholic beverages that defines its moral acceptability. Other statements you make seem to indicate that you believe alcoholic is inherently immoral. Would you clarify?

Thanks.

[jasonk]

David,
I spent a week in the hospital 21 years ago, when I had my appendix taken out. Today that same surgery would not even require an overnight stay :>)
Keep in mind that 21 years ago, I was massively overweight, ate much like you described earlier, and served on a church staff.
I have weighed nearly 300 pounds in my adult life (I am 6'2" tall). My weight tends to go up and down with the seasons, since I am an avid cyclist, winters are bad for my body.
The fact is that we all struggle with different things. Some struggle with drinking too much. I do not. Neither do you. I struggle with gluttony. Its a sin, and the hardest part about it is knowing when I have crossed the line into sin. But I trust the Holy Spirit to guide me, and to lead me into the truth, and that He does.
When I was still quite overweight, a woman in my church asked me why I was always preaching about drinking and smoking, but never preached about gluttony. I was really shocked, but she was right. That's when I woke up and realized that I had a hypocrisy problem, in addition to a weight problem.
You asked if it is a sin to be overweight. I don't really know how to answer that, except that being overweight is like being hung over. It may not be a sin to have a headache, and be sick to your stomach, but it is a result of over indulging in something that the Bible tells us to exercise moderation in. Being overweight can be a result of slothfulness, which is a sin. It represents a lack of discipline, self-control (a fruit of the Spirit), and ultimately has its roots in pride.

[Jim Champion]

David,

No, I have not been in the hospital - except the emergency room for a few bouts with kidney stones. I like many also have a never ending battle of the bulge and was up to 260 about a year ago, blood pressure was creeping up. I cut out as many of the fats as I could, cut back on the volume of food that I ate and embarked on an excercise program and am now in the 220s (still high according to the life insurance charts for my height (6'4") but my clothes fit better and my blood pressure is back to acceptable with out having to take meds.

I work as an underwriter in the health insurance industry - when I talk about 10% of the individuals in a group plan being responsible for 90% of the claims I am telling the truth. Most of those 10% are due to lifestyle issues, the rest are cancers (which my theory is also due to lifestyle - smoking and overweight) and also environment - hormones in the processed foods that we eat.

My main point is alcohol and food are both bad to excess. It is very easy to be critical of alcohol when you dont have a problem with it, what you are doing to your body is just as evil. Praise the Lord that you overcame your addiction to alcohol and drugs, I will pray for you that you overcome your addiction to unhealthy foods.

by the way - one thing that helped me was to have one meal a week that was my cheat meal. If I wanted a hamburger or fries I would wait until that designated meal and just enjoy the heck out of it. If sweets are your issue - I keep a bag of dark chocolate around (you know the kind that gives you the same benefit as a glass of red wine a day!) and will have one small piece - it really satisfies the sweet tooth,

Jim

[Chris Johnson]

Brother Byron,

Thanks, I thought that may have been the argument. I am still trying to determine what the purpose would be for unfermented juices. I may go in that direction and see how scripture contextually treats unfermented juice. Maybe that is what Peter is trying to prove.... that unfermented juice was always the target.

Blessings,
Chris

[Camel Rider]

Byron...you said...
Apparently, there are multiple kinds of wine, which very well could be, perhaps.

Don't forget the kind in the box. :-)

[Byron]

Chris, I can almost remember Peter's response to that. It involved wine as the fruit of the vine, in its unfermented state (yayin? I think), as being the only kind of wine blessed by God. Apparently, there are multiple kinds of wine, which very well could be, perhaps.

[Chris Johnson]

Brother Peter,

I am glad you are returning to this topic. It has been a good bit of information to wade through.

Do you not think that there are any instances in scripture where wine is seen as a blessing or gift from God to His people?

How did you deal with the Psalm passage....

He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
And vegetation for the service of man,
That he may bring forth food from the earth,
And wine that makes glad the heart of man,
Oil to make his face shine,
And bread which strengthens man’s heart.
(Psalm 104:14-15).

Most seem to agree that this is not speaking to the amounts or effects of consumption so much, but to what God has provided as good.

Blessings,
Chris

[Byron]

I think there's more to it than simply, "My great-grandmother lived to be 96, and look how she lived and ate," or whatever. One of the factors that needs to be considered is that her generation (whoever, for the sake of argument) lived a lot closer to the land. Though they ate a lot of bad foods, such as fatty meat meals with lots of cholesterol and grease, their food did not have all the chemical preservatives in it we have today, and in agrarian/rural societies, just living off your own land was hard work, and usually involved more than one generation of a family at a time. So these people had plenty of exercise in their lives, growing up and into adulthood. So, to live a contemporary 21st century lifestyle of excessive caloric intake coupled with sedentary inactivity is not a recipe for health and long life, in other words.

[volfan007]

Jason,

I have altered my lifestyle, and I do try to take care of the temple which is my body. I'm still a big person. Is that a crime? or a sin?

Jim,

I know a lot of skinny preachers who have been to the hospital a lot more than I have. In fact, I have never had to stay overnight in a hospital. In fact, I have never had to stay in the hospital, period. Have you?

Have you, Jason? Have either of you ever been in the hospital?

David

[jasonk]

David,
I don't want to convince you to be a moderationist. I respect your stand, and appreciate that you have a personal conviction that leads you to abstain.
I would question your science, that one glass of wine can cause fetal alcohol syndrome. I'm not saying it has never happened, I just think it is the exception and not the rule.
I'm mostly concerned about your health, and the attitude you take toward it. You eat a double quarter pounder and fries and a shake, and it fills you up because your stomach has stretched to the point that it takes a lot of food to fill you up. But soon, what you're eating now will not fill you up. It will take more. Gluttony is not measured by how much it takes to fill you up.
It used to take at least half a pizza to fill me up, sometimes I could put away a whole pizza on my own. Then I was full. Tonight I had three slices, and am stuffed.
I'm glad for your grandmother and your parents, but they are the exception. I think if you took the time to alter your lifestyle, and honor the temple of God that is your body, you would feel better, and you would live longer.

[Jim Champion]

However David

The odds that you will contract either diabetes or have heart problems are MUCH greater at your size. And I will agree that your genetics play a role, BUT, genetics never counted on us eating these unbelieveably calorie laden fast food meals and then lead essentially sedentary lifestyles. Your medical costs will be much higher than average, and my pastor and staff will be paying higher premiums to support the higher risk omongst us

By the way, have you seen the movie Super Size Me? That movie should be a wake up call for our generation.

[volfan007]

For the record. I do not have diabetes, nor do I have heart troubles. I am 46 years old. My Dad is 73. He does not have diabetes, nor does he have heart troubles. He is also a big person.

David

[Chris]

Camel,

Thanks for clearing up "nothing" for me. I still don't see those quotes going as broad as you claim. For those state "mind altering drugs" not chocolate. I will concede, however, it was recently documented that chocolate has the same addictive qualities as cocaine! That stated, I fail to see how you position others as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

As for showing you where the bible states the case, I think Peter's 19+ post have shed considerable, beyond, well beyond, killing a fly with a jackhammer beyond, ground to biblically reject the moderationist position. I think Dr. Barber's quote at SBC Today perhaps drives in the final nail flush for me. (#22 Bart Barber Says: Did you ever notice that the word “sober” in the New Testament is almost universally applied metaphorically rather than literally? Yet the word has a long and well-attested history of meaning something along the lines of “not corrupted in the least by alcohol.” The verb form, nepho, is the opposite of methuo (”intoxication”), and means to be “completely unaffected by wine.”)

One final thought, if you suggest my problem being the sufficiency of Scripture, particularly the English translation sufficiency, I might let you know I grew up in south Florida as a pagan and watched a lot of Jacques Cousteau documentaries. When I got saved I attended a KJV only church. I was dreamy eyed many a time when I would venture out on the Atlantic ocean wondering if I might indeed “Count it [I mean really put the math to work] ALL joy when you (in this case me) fall into DIVERS temptations…” I just knew ol’ Jacque had left some undiscovered Spanish gold for me out there. Imagine my despair when sweat brothers helped me see the text a little closer and with more clarity, why the truth shattered my assumptions and left me counting sea shells to boot. (Hope the levity makes your day.)

[Camel Rider]

Chris,
Thanks for the questions...
Here are two quotes...

Bart said...
"The question at play is simply whether one ought to employ intoxicants recreationally. It is a question that applies to wine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and oxycontin alike."

Tim said …
Either we support the use of mind altering drugs for recreational purposes or we don't. We don't believe there is one approved mind altering drug and others that are not approved.

So I guess the question is "What is a mind altering drug?" Does the definition apply to anything that changes our mood? Does it create within us a difference in outlook or mood? If so, then this applies to many other items.

And lastly...can you show me in Scripture where it says not to drink alcohol for recreational purposes? When you show me...I'll stop asking questions.
Thanks!
::: Camel Rider

[Chris]

Camel,
You state that someone else stated:
"nothing is to be used for recreational pleasure"

From there you conclude the following.
"then we need to also take a stand on coffee, chocolate...anything that we use solely for pleasure.

The problem is that I did not see the word "nothing" as it related to pleasurable purposes anywhere. Alcohol, yes, anything? Did you simple add that to add weight to your argument? I might have missed it, but I feel confident based upon all that Peter has written on this subject that he never stated, "nothing...for pleasurable purposes." rather he stated in a variety of ways, alcohol... for pleasurable purposes. There is volumes of differences in these two and thus the weight of your argument fall apart based on "nothing".

[Byron]

To All:

I'm sorry for saying that whole bit about "flowers of tradition in the fields of history" and all that. I should not have said that. However, I still believe that moderation is the Biblical view, until I am convinced otherwise.

David:

Gluttony is not simply eating beyond fullness. I remember a TV show once (forgot the name, or the date it aired) that showed a huge man who, everyday, ate the equivalent of a banquet table's worth for supper. This is what it took for him to feel "full" and basically the show said as much, in not those exact words. Not surprisingly, he was so huge he could not move on his own, and his body had adapted to consuming (though not efficiently processing) untold thousands of calories in a single meal. His eating habits had continually adjusted upwards the definition of fullness for him. That is why, in my view, gluttony is eating beyond what is good and healthy for the individual, and I admit that there is no exact, universal standard for everyone. I sense a lot of resistance in your words to the truth people are telling you on this, and all I can tell you, brother, is that I sympathize, but one day you will have to face the music. And the sooner that is, the better.

[Camel Rider]

David and others....
I made comments about coffee and other things because the comment was made that alcohol is bad because drugs such as this should only be used for medicinal purposes...that nothing should be used for recreational pleasure. I was simply pointing out the inconsistencies in this thought process. If we're going to see "nothing is to be used for recreational pleasure" then we need to also take a stand on coffee, chocolate...anything that we use solely for pleasure.

I agree with you that drunkeness destroys families. But I just wish we would say "As Baptists we don't believe in drinking because of the possible effects on families, health and testimonies." Instead we say it's based in Scripture...which then makes everyone else look like liberals because they don't believe in Scripture. I personally it's a dangerous path to start drinking...but we need to clarify that the reason is because of the possible effects and not try to twist Scripture to source our beliefs. This is my point.
::: Camel Rider

[volfan007]

Camel and JasonK,

Was there anything wrong with me eating my 2,000 plus calories? No, of course not. That is not gluttony. Gluttony is eating past being full. It's eating more than you can hold. I ate only one double quarter pounder with cheese and fries...now, if I'd gone for another double quarter pounder with cheese...well...

The ancient Romans would gorge themselves, then go throw up, so that they could eat some more. That's gluttony. Eating so much fried chicken that your stomach hurts the rest of the day just because it tasted good....that's gluttony. I confess to doing this a few times. I have repented of it. But, eating til your full is not gluttony. Jesus fed the 5,000 until they were all full. Did Jesus cause them to sin that day? Of course not. Also, eating something that contains a lot of calories is not gluttony. C'mon.

JasonK, maybe you didnt read about my Great-Grandmother in my post above? 96 years old. She was chubby and ate fried foods her whole life...and lots of them!!!! And, the same could be said about many of my family members on both sides of my family. They still live as long or longer than the health food guys.

I can also tell you about all the health food joggers who have bad heart problems and who have died early..due to heart attack.

Also, I can tell you about many, many people who have been destroyed by alcohol. I know of a young child right now in the TN Baptist Childrens Homes who is there because of FAS. His mother drank, and because of that he only has half of a brain, cerebral palsey, is blind, has only 10% hearing, and has other health issues. And, did you know that a woman could give her child all of this trouble before she even knows that she's pregnant??? by doing something that the Bible calls foolish??? by drinking fermented wine???

So, go and peddle your moderationist view to someone else, because I dont imagine that the children with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome would want to hear it. And, may no children anywhere ever have to deal with FAS due to the teaching of some Christians that drinking just a little bit is ok.

David

[R. L. Vaughn]

Yes, I do want a definition. If you do not want to give one, that is also fine. But it can be hard to understand meaning with undefined terms. For example, I assume your term ""recreational, pleasure-filled purposes" does not address the use of alcoholic beverages for medicinal purposes. Would you agree?

We are probably talking around each other on the faulty syllogism thing. As a syllogism, perhaps yours may or may not be faulty. But that gets back to why I am asking you to define terms.

[peter lumpkins]

RL,

If you want a definition, that's fine. But the definition does not affect the syllogism in any way unless I employ the definition in two different ways in the syllogism. I do not.

So, while we could talk about definition later, you wrote: "It seems to me the syllogism is faulty or incomplete." My only question is "Where?"

With that, I am...

Peter

[Tim B]

Jason,

I can only find the word "glutton" used four time in the bible. I am sure that there are a few other references to overeating in the proverbs. That stands in contrast to 57 times that the words drunk, drunkard, and drunkenness are used. So in comparision, I do not think it a reach that biblically the Lord's greater emphasis between the two is on drunkenness.
My point above is that while both are sins most folks who have lived through the hell of having an alcoholic in the home would much rather live with a glutton.

Camel,

I have never seen someone stumble around after consuming caffeine but I have known a few kids who threw up after ingesting nicotine via tobacco. You and I both know that there is no comparison.

These kinds of arguments is where abstentionists believe the moderationists "don't get it."

Tim B

[Jim Champion]

David

What would be your guess as the to average cost of dialysis - one of the many results of type II diabetes. Secondly - assuming you are on the annuity boards health care plan - who do you think pays that cost. The answer to the first question is #250,000 per year, the answer to the second is each and every participant in the health care plan. The SBC I'm pretty sure self insures thier health care plan, but even if they dont I will give you a simple equation that insurance companies use to set the cost of premium. Premium equals claims plus administration.

The average cost of health care on overweight folks due to diabetes, heart issues etc far outstips the cost on the occassional jogger who has a heart attack.

for the sake of your family I would encourage you to drop the double cheesburgers, grab a low fat meal at subway and start walking 3-4 miles a day - at least six days a week.

Can you imagine what would happen to the cost of SBC sponsored health care if we were able to get our pastors and other staff members in shape. The old 80/20 rule not only works on who works in the church, or who gives - but also on health care. IN fact it is more like 10% of our population is responsible for 90% of the claims - and a large percentage of them are lifestyle related

[R. L. Vaughn]

Peter, thanks for the comments. You say I'm not dealing with the syllogism as it is, and I suppose that is a correct assessment. It seems to me the syllogism is faulty or incomplete. Before we go any further, let me direct you back to a question that it is kind of buried in the middle of my post. How would you define "recreational, pleasure-filled purposes?" Thanks.

[peter lumpkins]

RL,

Thanks for mentioning the syllogism. Actually, you're not dealing with the syllogism as it is, RL, but trying to substitute a comparison when there is no comparison in the syllogism. It's not an analogy.

It's the drug in the wine, RL, not the wine per se. How moderationists continue to miss that slips right by me. In addition, why one who insists on advocating wine, does not advocate drug-less wine is telling. For them, it seems to suggest that consuming wine is not the principle for which they contend; rather, it is consuming alcohol.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[R. L. Vaughn]

Peter, over on Nathan Finn's 'Fullness of Time' blog you posted the following ethical syllogism:

"If it can be shown that, Biblically speaking, it is a perfectly moral, acceptable practice to both advocate and use, even in a moderate sense, alcoholic beverages specifically for recreational, pleasure-filled purposes, and alcoholic beverages being the mind-altering drugs they are, it necessarily follows that it is also a perfectly moral, acceptable practice to both advocate and use, at least in a moderate sense, other mind-altering drugs specifically for recreational, pleasure-filled purposes."

Since Nathan closed his comments and went on vacation, I hope it is OK to bring it up here. You mention using alcoholic beverages for "recreational, pleasure-filled purposes." How would you define "recreational, pleasure-filled purposes?" For example, would one glass of tea or one glass of wine consumed with a meal be a recreational, pleasure-filled purpose?

My thinking is that the ethical syllogism may be comparing apples with a fruit that is very similar to apples (or perhaps two different kinds of apples). For example, it seems that a glass of wine could be taken with a meal for no more particularly "recreational" purpose than a glass of water or tea or milk is -- that is, quenching thirst, washing down the solid food, etc. On the other hand, while some other mind-altering drugs might have a medicinal purpose, there seems to be no "in-between" use as noted above for wine. If so, it seems like the parallel in your syllogism is not complete or exact.

I hope I have explained this in a clear manner. What are your thoughts on this possible "in-between" use of a drink substance such as wine that would be lacking among the reasons for using mind-altering drugs? Thanks.

[Byron]

BTW, Chris, technically the Romanians HAVE arrived at a different conclusion than the SBC, according to your words. I find that significant. But I'm not sure what to make of it.

[Byron]

Chris, you are right in that some moderationists do rely upon tradition for their main argument. As for Romanians, I do not know and I do not live there. Perhaps someone should go there and ask them? Until then, we will have to be content with the same reference book they have, the Bible. And who knows, but perhaps one of them could come here and have his or her Scriptural interpretation corrected? ;)

However, you do raise a good point. Both sides tend to lean heavily on tradition, while accusing the other side of that guilt. I admire Peter, though I disagree with him, for keeping the proper focus on the Scriptures themselves.

[Chris]

Byron,

You might be right. I wonder however, what you would say to those in Romania, who have a great translation and on occasion use fermented wine (it is all they can get at the time) for communion, but forbid it's use for pleasurable purposes. Where did they get their ideas? (FYI- The Christians trace their Christian heritage to the apostle Andrew.) I only ask, because much of the rhetorical argument against tradition lies in the hands of moderationist. Could it be that it is the moderationist who are truly addicted to tradition?
Chris

[Byron]

Oops. I meant to say, I'm still convinced that the non-abstentionist (non-drunkenness) position is the most biblically accurate.

[Byron]

I am not a prophet, but I am going to make a prediction.

I believe that most people here if not all will leave this alcohol series with their original opinions intact. So far that has been the case with me. I'm still not convinced that the non-abstentionist (non-drunkenness) position is the most biblically accurate one. My question is, if we didn't have the historical references to cultural antiquity and social mores, but we did have an accurately translated Bible (we do) to study, would we still come to the same conclusions? I think not. The strongest arguments I've read so far (not only here, mind you) have started with the Bible and ultimately left that, pausing to take a merry trip down memory and sniff the flowers of tradition in the fields of history. I'm not saying there's no merit to the abstentionist argument. Perhaps there is, and there is a lot of respect and admiration due for the scholarly work involved in defending it. Forgive me, I'm just not convinced yet.

David (W), may I seriously encourage you to consider a lifestyle change. I doubt you have become as overweight as I have, which has forced a lifestyle change for the purpose of mere survival. But I still encourage you to consider Nutrisystem (what I'm doing) or Weight Watchers, because obesity does have long-term deleterious effects. Your comments have shown me my own previous mindset: consume whatever you want, simply because you enjoy it, and everything so far is fine, so why stop a good thing? Brother, this is not a healthy mindset!

[Jim Champion]

Lets also not forget that cost of dialysis - after you get diabetes from being overweight is about $250,000 per year. This cost causes all of our medical insurance rates to rise (no complaining about the cost of SBC medical insurance if you are diabetic :) ), and is one of the leading costs of medicare insurance coverage. Medical costs related to being overweight ( diabetes and heart related alilments) are even greater than ailments directly related to drinking.

David, I know you like to make fun of your size, but for your families sake I would cut out those double and triple cheeseburgers. Grab a low fat meal at Subway and take a nice long walk, 3-4 miles every day.

Jim

[Dave Miller]

Peter,

Having read at your anti-alcohol series, I remain of the opinion that alcohol use in moderation is not a sin and that only strained exegesis based in tradition and not on the clear teachings of scripture can make it so.

[Dave Miller]

Jason, I find it telling about traditionalism in the SBC, that I can confess to several sins CLEARLY delineated as sins in scripture, and keep my job. I can confess gossip, lust, pride, greed materialism, even idolatry of the heart and not miss a paycheck. Of course, gluttony is another (from our conversations, David W may be the only person in blogdom bigger than me).

But there are activities that are NOT spelled out in scripture as sinful, that would immediately cost me my job (buying a lottery ticket or drinking a glass of wine).

Again, I do not do either, and don't want to, but it does say something interesting to me about our traditionalism as a denomination.

[peter lumpkins]

Camel,

I allow comments you think are ridiculous but I also allow you to make ridiculous comments about equating caffeine with alcohol, marijuana and other mind altering drugs.

We've been over these things endlessly, Camel. And had some very good conversations, by the way. I suggest you back and learn from your predecessors' mistakes.

With that, I am...

[jasonk]

David,
Congratulations! You managed to consume 2,410 calories in one meal! That's more than doctors recommend you have for an entire day. Also, you put away about 99 grams of fat, which doctors say is twice the amount of fat you are supposed to consume in a day. And you did it all in one lunch.

Last night, while working in the yard, I consumed a Bud Light, which, purchased a grocery store in Oklahoma, contains only 3.2% alcohol by volume. Far less than a dose of NyQuil.

I did not cross the line into drunkenness, in fact, I was no where near it. Does consuming an entire day's worth of calories and fat in one meal cross the line into gluttony? That's not for me to judge.

You're right, though. You won't have to worry about your eating habits causing you to crash your car into a family (although I have seen obese people who are a danger on the road, because their girth prevents them from being able to properly operate their vehicle). You will have to worry about having adequate life insurance though, so your family will be able to carry on without your income, if you continue on your current path, and lose your life to heart disease. I pray that doesn't happen.

Gluttony is about discipline, just like everything else. You have told me on blogs before that you were an alcoholic before you became a Christian. I'm glad you were able to gain victory over that. But is it possible that you have just swapped one dangerous habit for another? One that is more socially/ministerially acceptable? I ask that not in a mean-spirited way, but with care and concern for a brother.

[Camel Rider]

Jason K.,
Well said. You said all that you did and all you got was a joke about partaking in gluttony. If I joked about having a beer while writing this post I would never hear the end of it. Scripture teaches us that the body is the temple of God and yet we joke around about gluttony and being out of shape. Why?

I'm not sure why the comments are turned on when anyone that suggests a different view is labeled as liberal.

Tim:::
You wrote "Either we support the use of mind altering drugs for recreational purposes or we don't." Why is coffee ok? It's mind altering. Why not other food and drinks which alter our moods? We're being culturally relevant by only taking a stand 100% against alcohol solely because it is often abused.

BTW, If I don't drink but don't think it's a sin to drink....am I still a Baptist?

[peter lumpkins]

Dave,

Perhaps I was not clear. I wouldn't give half a knat's breathe if it was merely about "being mean." It is definitively not about being mean. I'm confused you gained that from my rather lengthy comment, Dave.

Rather, it is about whether abstentionism is biblically rooted or not.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Anonymous]

Thanks Peter for a good series of articles. I do not drink. I have seen the destructive consequences of drinking. It is hard to draw the line between drinking and drunkeness. If you don't drink, you will never get drunk and try to define that line.

Now to my problem. How in the world can I vote for John McCain knowing that he and his wife have profitted so greatly from the alcohol industry? Can you give me a rationale for that one?

Thanks for your insights.

CR

[Dave Miller]

Peter, I would not quarrel that many moderationists have shown disdain for abstentionists. But I have witnessed as well the abstentionists extreme rhetoric toward those who either partake in a little wine, or even someone like me who does not, but thinks it is a matter of personal choice.

The "they have been mean" argument works both ways.

[volfan007]

JasonK,

I am eating a double quarter pounder with cheese and a large order of fries with a chocolate shake even as I type. Can you see the grease on the keyboard?

:)

BTW, it's good, and I thanked the Lord for it. And, no family will have to worry that I might run over them and kill them because I ate a fattening cheeseburger.

David

[jasonk]

To Dave Miller--great words. Perfect. Thank you.

To Tim B -- when I looked up the word "gluttony" in my online concordance, in nearly every instance, it was used in the same sentence as "drunkenness." Proverbs says that a glutton would just as well put a knife to his own throat, and that he is a disgrace to his father. You say equating gluttony and drinking is a "stupid analogy." You might want to reconsider that position, since the writer of Proverbs, the apostles Matthew, Luke, and Paul, all equated them.

To David (Volfan) -- I know dozens of people personally who drank to excess, and lived long lives. That doesn't make excessive drinking a good thing. It says no more to the point you are making than your family history, or all the people you have known who died young in spite of the fact that they were jogging healthy-eaters.

The fact is that according to the CDC, more people die in this country from obesity than anything else, including tobacco use, drug use, or alcohol consumption. Some at the CDC have even said that obesity has wreaked more destruction on this country than the bubonic plague did in Europe during the dark ages. To say that gluttony is not that big of a deal, but alcohol consumption is, well, it is just ignoring the facts.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: If the Bible was against moderation, that is what I would believe. So I personally wouldn't be hobbling along. I would simply change my view.

[peter lumpkins]

Dave,

Thanks for your words. I also appreciate your personal commitment to abstaining. My personal journey has taken me through lots of different valleys and hills, including being raised by an alcoholic dad and being an alcoholic myself in my younger years. I know upfront the devastation such brings to bear.

Yet for all that, my hesitation in accepting alcoholic beverages for pleasurable purposes is driven primarily by biblical conviction coupled with moral reasoning toward a comprehensive Christian ethic that is both consistent and true to its scriptural roots.

For me, then, I remain unconvinced that wine-bibbing belongs to what moral ethicists dub adiaphoria; that is, things morally indifferent.

There are reasons for this that I have explained elsewhere and perhaps will touch on once again over the next two or three posts. Suffice it to say, if I counted this as amoral adiaphoria, the discussion would have been over long ago as far as I am concerned.

I mentioned in January when I started this series that one of it's primary motivations was to be a viable expression of biblical abstentionism contra an absolute out of control rhetoric from moderationists that abstentionists continued to milk the cow of tradition on this wine gig and had absolutely no Biblical case whatsoever.

"Teetotalism" was continually satirized as the position of backwoods fundamentalists who wanted to keep others from going to movies, playing cards and other fun stuff like that.

Frankly, we had some outstanding discussions on a couple of OT passages which serve as strongholds for moderationists. One can read the threads. For my part, the abstentionist position fared far better than I think the critics imagined. Take away the moderationists' walking stick--abuse, not use is forbidden--and watch them hobble along :^)

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Dave: You are right. I agree. I realize I came off on my comments differently, but that was not right for me to do.

[Debbie Kaufman]

A fact I will share with you Peter. It may get me points. My grandchildren have the last name Williams. Yes, they are distantly related to the singer Hank Williams and Williams Jr. Verified through their great grandparents and the Williams family.

[Dave Miller]

Alcohol is one of the hardest things for me to argue. I am a lifelong teetotaller. I have often joked that I think my dad would rather me commit adultery than drink a beer. That was the home I was raised in.

I have never had a drink. Never intend to. But I have read the Bible. I don't think anyone who comes to the Bible without preconceptions will come to the idea that moderate consumption of alcohol is a sin.

I don't say this to justify drinking, because my emotional reaction to alcohol is the same as some of the abstentionists that have written here. But I try to let the scriptures speak.

I know that Peter and David see the scriptures differently than I do. I cannot see how they read the Bible and come to the position they come to, but they do. They have trouble understanding my view as well. Christians who love the Bible come to differing opinions on this and several other disputable matters.

So, first and foremost, we should not judge the faithfulness of Christians based on their beliefs and practices related to alcohol.

Paul addressed this, except in his day it was meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 10, Romans 14-15) instead of alcohol. He told those who partook not to "disdain" (look at them as silly, stupid or ridiculous) those who abstained. And he told the abstentionists not to "condemn" (treat as sinful) those who partook.

I think that is exactly what we need to do today. The partakers should not disdain those whose convictions prevent them from drinking wine. And the abstentionists should not condemn those who have a glass of wine now and again.

Paul makes it clear in Romans 14:9 that we all have a Lord to whom we will answer. The sin here is not partaking or abstaining, but imposing your convictions on this matter on others. That is usurping the right of Christ to be Lord of his church and the people in it.

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

You must understand something. The only possible way I can ever have an advantage over another--including you--is, of course, to twist their words. I thought I slipped right on by. But you nailed me really, really good. I'm just going to have to be more careful.

Now I'll have nothing but embarrassment to live down from all my rowdy friends. I feel like Hank Jr.

Have a great afternoon. With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Chris: It seems that there are too many that wish to twist my words. That is not honest discussion. That is twisting my words. We will simply have to agree to disagree.

[Chris]

Debbie, I'm delighted to see you admit that you hold your tradition over biblical, historical, grammatical, cultural, linquistic exegesis.

[Debbie Kaufman]

What we do get is that alcohol is a mind altering drug that even folks on these blogs admit that they use to "help them relax."

Where was this? I must have missed it.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: You know this is more about just baptism. Which I have said over and over. I do believe immersion Biblical. I believe baptism is not into the church, but into Christ. That would be another post however. This is about more than what you have mentioned(twisted my words again). This post being exhibit A.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Chris: I am just giving the facts of history. Period. Blackmarkets profited from Prohibition.

Bible believers should be just that Bible believers. Wine was not grape juice in scripture. It just wasn't. It was a fermented product. Despite what Welch's began. :)

I am saying that this is a personal conviction. To try and make the Bible say more than it does is to to do the one thing the Bible says not to do. Add to it. That is what Bible believers stand on.

[Tim B]

Peter,

The pro recreational alcohol folks insist that abstentionists "don't get it."

What we do get is that alcohol is a mind altering drug that even folks on these blogs admit that they use to "help them relax."

Either we support the use of mind altering drugs for recreational purposes or we don't. We don't believe there is one approved mind altering drug and others that are not approved.

We also get the carnage that is wreaked across this world by the mind altering drug we call alcohol and conclude that the world would be better off without it except that it is good for medicinal purposes.

We reject the argument that tries to equate gluttony with alcohol consumption. It's a stupid analogy. Maybe you could do a poll one day asking folks whether they'd prefer to be a drug addict (alcohol included) or overweight. Or if they'd prefer to live with an overweight person or a drug addict. 100% would prefer an eating problem to a drinking problem.

The idea that we're driving people away from church because of a stand on alcohol is also fallacious. I don't see denominations that support and have supported alcohol use exploding either. What we do have in those denominations are the jokes about Lutherans being drunk at the church social or the clergy pouring extra wine and then getting drunk on it after communion but their pro alcohol stance doesn't appear to be impressing the younger generation who is obsessed with preserving their right to drink.

I'll just unashamedly teach and preach what I believe and hope that our Seminary administrations will look for faculty who both believe and teach to a new generation of SBC preachers what Southern Baptists have historically believed and taught about alcohol.

Tim B

[peter lumpkins]

Dear CB & David,

You two are really something, aren't you. You've succeeded in rewriting Baptist history, insisting against the best dissenting scholars we know, that Baptism by immersion only stands at the core of who we are Believers' Church Christians.

And, now, through a thoroughly devastating critique offered exclusively here, you have been shown as the hypocritical, historical reconstructionists you have become. I shall have nothing else to say about that.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Chris]

Debbie, are you saying that to make it legal perhaps makes it less tempting, and perhaps irrelevant? As for Capone getting rich and the government tapping into the keg of lucre, is this supposed to validate a biblical truth for believers?

[volfan007]

Camel,

Gluttony is a sin. I admit that I've done it a few times, and I've had to confess that to my Lord. If you saw me today, you'd probably call me one of those Baptist Preachers with a big waistline. But, would you call me a glutton? even though I've repented of the gluttonous occasions?

I'm not living in it, Bro. I have done it in the past, yes. But, I try not to do it anymore.

Now, let me ask you something else? Is there anything wrong with eating until you are full? Is there anything wrong with eating McDonald's double quarter pounder with cheese? And, do you understand that Southerners menus cater to fatness....and, that fatness is not always an indicator of gluttony? Everything we eat in the South is fattening.

Let me tell you, Camel, about my Great-Grandmother, Mama Smith. She was chubby her whole life. She cooked her veggies in animal fat. She ate fried foods, and she loved sweets. The first time that she ever was admitted to a hospital was when she was 94 years old. She died when she was 96. Now, I can tell you about 10 healthy joggers who died young with heart attacks. I can tell you about 10 more who not only jogged, but also ate "healthy" who died of heart attacks. I have had a lot of people in my family who were chubby their whole lives, and they fried everything. And, yes, they ate til they were full. And, many of them have lived into their 70's and 80's and even into their 90's. My parents are in their 70's right now, and they are in perfect health...even though they are both just a little bit chubby and eat fried, Southern cuisine. So, I guess if you want to really live a long time and not have heart trouble, then we need to follow the lead of Mama Smith. Eat fried food. Cook with meat grease. Eat lots of sweets. And, be chubby.

fat and happy,

David

[Debbie Kaufman]

Sorry that should be President Roosevelt signed an amendment to the Volstead act in 1933.

[Debbie Kaufman]

CB, David Brumbelow: Just as Baptist history is being changed more to the liking, now you are attempting to change US history. Prohibition was a failure. It didn't work. People found a way to get it. Al Capone became the richest during Prohibition. It's where he got most of his power.

It is why President Roosevelt signed the Volstead Act in 1933 which allowed the sale and distribution of certain kinds of alcohol.

[David R. Brumbelow]

Prohibition was not nearly the failure that many claim. The more difficult you make something to get, the fewer people will use it. And a law against most any practice does reduce that practice. Especially if that law is enforced. There are laws against murder and murder still occurs. But the murder rate would be much higher if the laws were not on the books. As the old saying goes, “Some people are alive simply because it is against the law to kill them.” (No, this quote not referring to anyone in the blog world. Sorry, I don’t have the biblical reference:)

The Bible does speak directly and indirectly against beverage alcohol. I’m thankful the SBC has recognized that fact for well over 100 years. But some chose to ignore those biblical admonitions.

People continue to ignore the fact that the biblical words for wine can refer to wine that is unfermented, fermented, fermented and greatly watered down, etc. To them the word can mean one thing and only one thing - the hard stuff. Even the biblical word for “God” had different meanings - referring to the one true God or false gods. You can figure it out through the context.

Peter, go for it. Countless young preachers have never heard a sermon on drinking. Or all they have heard is, “It’s up to you. Social drinking doesn’t really matter.” Many of them don’t know that there is solid, biblical, scholarly evidence that supports abstaining from alcohol. Sadly, they are seldom taught so in seminary.

Previously I and others encouraged you to put this material in a book. Now, I’m insisting that you do so. Not that I think you need my help, but if there is any way I can be of help, just let me know.
David R. Brumbelow

[Chris]

Camel Rider,

Have you taken a look at all Peter has posted as relates to the languanges and intent of the text thus far? It is easy to dismiss this and in turn become a person who is using the current culture to redefien words, meanings and intent. I might have agreed with you a few years ago based on my cultural, englich understanding of words, but when I dug deeper into the culture and intent when the book was writtne and appealed to what the orginal readers would have understood, then I have to reject the modern version of moderationist.

Chris

[selahV]

Camel Rider: I don't buy a lot of things. Doesn't mean they can be negated because I do not buy them. Just as a person like me doesn't buy or consume alcohol, doesn't mean that the abstentionist view is not worth the time it takes to read nor the principles upon which it is derived worth consuming. I find the scriptures give us multiple principles which we can follow that aren't necessarily spelled out. For example, Psalm 1:1 tells us not to sit, walk or stand in the way of sinners but it doesn't tell us what kind of sinners they are. Nor does it spell out word for word, letter for letter what we are to avoid. The whole of scripture helps us decipher that, don't you think? selahV

[peter lumpkins]

Camel,

The points about M Dew et al fit nicely into the category of the absurd, Camel. To equate the "buzz" of Dew with the buzz of beer cannot be taken seriously in any moral theory.

And, as far as Scripture is concerned, Dr. Barber offered you some options there from which to consider. Unhappily, you did not engage his hermeneutical choices in dealing with extra-biblical substances.

Rather, you conveniently pronounced his position wrong and your moderation position--which, of course, happens to be the biblical position--right.

This stands as the very approach that Dr. Finn & company took on his thread and serves as the fuel that drives a lot of this debate. If moderation--that is, the Bible condemns the abuse of alcohol not the use of alcohol--is the biblical position, then this discussion is no more than an empty hull and, consequently, abstentionists need to shut their foolish, legalistic mouths.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Camel Rider]

One more...
Bart you said...
"The question at play is simply whether one ought to employ intoxicants recreationally. It is a question that applies to wine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and oxycontin alike."

What about coffee? Mt. Dew....Red Bull...we use these recreationally to get a buzz or some extra non-natural energy. Why do we take stands on certain drugs and ignore others?

I know the usual argument....coffee doesn't kill people....neither does drinking....drunkenness does.

Could we maybe just admit that this is more a tradition that we hold and not so much from Scripture? I don't buy the whole "take Scripture at face value...word for word...except when God said wine he actually meant grape juice." I don't buy it...neither do alot of others.

I understand our stand on this but I wish we would stop trying to base it in Scripture instead of tradition.
::: Camel Rider

[Camel Rider]

Steve....you said and asked
i am sorry Debbie.. I missed it in your comment.. are you for or against the carnage?

What about the carnage produced as a result of being the fattest nation in the world? How many families lose family members to heart disease, diabetes and other illnesses related to being overweight? What about other issues related to body image?

I don't drink, I don't like the taste but we can't interpret scripture based on current cultural trends. I agree that drunkenness is horrible and produces a lot of carnage but so does other sin. Scripture is clear on being drunk but doesn't call drinking a sin. Gluttony, lying, lust, pride yes....drinking....no. When you're at the convention notice the waist lines....all the big dinners....why not take a stand on these? Maybe I should call for a boycott of Ryans and pot-lucks? Although I seriously doubt I would get much support....unless I provide food :-)

::: Camel Rider

BTW, it's our extrabiblical stances on issues such as this that drive people away...they smell the hypocrisy miles away.

[Bart Barber]

It is a canard to suggest that the abstentionist position regards the ingestion of alcohol as a sin. As far as I know, the vast preponderance of abstentionists concede the "medicinal use" of alcohol, as well as of opiates, etc.

The question at play is simply whether one ought to employ intoxicants recreationally. It is a question that applies to wine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and oxycontin alike.

Debbie's "Jesus didn't smoke marijuana" objection is entirely empty. Jesus never encountered marijuana. If we would say that it is morally wrong for a Christian to smoke a joint, then we must, as far as I can tell, do so upon one of the following grounds:

1. We can argue (as Debbie has) on the basis that we can find something morally wrong simply because Jesus did not commend it. Jesus did not CONDEMN marijuana; He merely didn't COMMEND it. If these are sufficient grounds to condemn marijuana, then we must pat on the back our Amish brethren for recognizing the evils of all of those other things not commended by Jesus in the Bible (telephones, automobiles, etc.).

2. We can argue (as I do) that the Bible condemns the recreational use of intoxicating drugs while allowing for the blessing of their rightful medicinal use.

3. We can argue that, even if something is not condemned in the Bible, we might have the obligation as believers to have the good sense to recognize something wreaking disastrous harm upon the people around us and to oppose it out of love for those affected. If that be the case, then we ought to acknowledge that alcohol exacts a far greater toll of human misery among our neighbors than does any other drug.

Is there any other rationale for condemning marijuana use where it might be legal? I can't think of one. And two out of the three would also set aside the recreational pursuit of an alcohol buzz, while the third would cause a revival of the buggy whip industry.

[cb scott]

Debbie,

A study of history will NOT reveal alcohol was a greater problem in this country during the days of prohibition than it is now.

To say that is to make a reconstructionistic statement about the history of this nation.

Alcohol problems are now greater in this country than at any time in its history.

The only possible thing that is better about the alcohol problem in this country is that maybe there will less traffic deaths due to alcohol due to the fact that a gallon of gas now cost more than a gallon of cheap beer. So maybe, now, people will just stay at home and get drunk and stay off of the roads.

cb

[volfan007]

As one who has drunk alcohol and smoked maryjane, they both make you "high." Personally, I could function a lot better after smoking a joint, than I could after drinking a few beers.

Having said that, M, I'd say that there would be no difference between drinking fermented wine and lighting up a doobie. It's basically the same thing. And, it always makes me giggle a little when I hear someone condemn those pot smoking drug heads while they're holding a Bud Lite in their hand, or they're drinking a glass of champagne.

The whole point of drinking fermented wine or beer, etc is to get high on it...to feel better.

Also, my question was never answered by Dr. Finn, either. My question was this....how much is too much? I mean, if I accept the view that it's ok to drink in moderation, but it's sinful to get drunk...then, how much is too much. Because, I dont want to sin against the Lord, and being drunk is sin...no question about it. So, where in the Bible does it teach how much is too much? When does my wine sipping become sin....because, as a child of God I do not want to disobey my Lord and sin against Him. So, would someone please tell me the answer to this?

David

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I've written 20+ posts on the alcohol issue. I lost some readers along the way. It's provocative to say the least. Note this issue was not, to my knowledge, ever a questionable one in the pre-CR convention. Conservative, Moderate and Liberal never fought about it--at least not like we're doing now. Interesting.

If you'll follow the link in the post for this thread, you will find all the posts together in one place. Those serious about this issue can find a lot of good stuff there, the richest of which may be in the comment threads.

Indeed many of the questions brought up here for the next few posts on this subject will, I'd be willing to wager, find a precedent there. Do not be surprised, therefore, if I do not pursue every question. By the way, there may be a dangling question from those other posts that I failed to consider. If so, I'd be glad to give it a second consideration in this phase.

It was to our M's question on Dr. Finn's thread (and now pasted here) I gave the blue ribbon award for potentially being the most helpful in exposing the full ethical implications of the moderationist position (not that my blue ribbon is meaningful :^). And, since I answered the question on foreign soil, I won't repeat it here. I would, however, like to comment on M's introductory statement before he/she pasted the question.

M writes that the question presupposes,

"LEGAL substances, not illegal ones. In some places, alcohol is also illegal and none of us would, I hope, advocate breaking the law to consume either marijuana or beverage alcohol." I appreciate the insight concerning the "legality" and "illegality" of varying substances.

Nonetheless, I do not see the relevance to the moral question at hand. Not that Christians are unconcerned about legal matters. To the contrary, we're called upon to honor the state's authority. We must keep in mind though the distinction between the two--moral and legal.

Christians are not bound to consider that which is legal over that which is moral. Indeed just the opposite is the case. In other words, pursuing what is moral is the primary question, from which moral cue we gain from Scripture. To have it any other way would place society over Scripture.

That said, the legality of substances--including alcoholic and other truly mind-altering drugs--is a secondary matter to establishing both what the Bible in particular says about it and Christians in general morally reason about it.

I say this because so many times, those who attempt to speak in moral terms concerning all mind-altering substances, are faced with the rebuttal "but it's illegal so it doesn't matter for us" type of answer. We must keep first things first regardless of what humans agree their laws ought to be in their society. "Is it moral?" and then "Is what is moral, legal?"

M further states that his/her question could

"easily be applied to other foods/ substances that some people choose to partake of because they consider them "relaxing" but which are not absolutely necessary to our essential sustenance. Among these items would be such things as coffee (which I love), tea (which I love), tobacco (which I don't like), spicy peppers (which I love) etc. I don't mean to get silly, but different people have very different opinions about the supposed health risks/benefits of these things and many other things."

First, while it may be M's view that the question presumably about alcohol and marijuana can "easily be applied to other foods/ substances," it is a view I reject outright. To convolute mind-altering, mind-destroying drugs like alcohol, marijuana, crack cocaine, etc. into the category of coffee, tea and spicy peppers is morally absurd. It is to erase moral categories. It is to make all substances the same regardless of what level of mind control the substances yield. It is to place the person who is punctual for a 2 o'clock afternoon tea into the same moral dilemma as a person who smokes a joint across the hall or the punk who mainlines crystal on the street corner at the stroke of two.

For me, this is not only morally counterintuitive, it approaches, in M's words, "getting silly." When those who honestly believe in a neutrally flat surface where all substances are morally the same can point me to families broken apart because of an afternoon tea or a kid run down by a guy stoned on coffee, I'll reconsider this point. Until then, it stays in my file of the absurd.

Finally, and similarly to the above, M

"venture[s] a guess that some people would say they use it not just to get "high" but because it relaxes them or because they somehow otherwise enjoy it. Some people say the same thing concerning their wine, beer, and liquor consumption."

The question is not about personal preference of relaxation. What if an eligible young bachelor having his neighbor's wife over a swim while his neighbor was at work was a very relaxing moment for him? When did that which is relaxing morph to that which is moral?

Again, this seems to beg the question. If we're specifically speaking only of those things that are morally neutral, we're having a provocative party for nothing. We just as well could be arguing about my like of vanilla and your like of chocolate and who is right.

Consider M's question carefully.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Not to mention that I don't see in scripture Jesus turning water into drugs or Paul telling Timothy to take a bit of marijuana for his stomach.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Have you ever taken marijuana or recreational drugs M? I have, there is not in between. There is no "relaxation", there is no sound mind involved. It's straight to the high. It wrecks the body. No doubt about it. The same cannot be said of alcohol in moderation.

Although those with cancer and glaucoma, marijuana and drugs are a medicinal miracle. Having worked in a hospital, training for an RN degree, sometimes there is not much difference in the drugs given in the hospital and recreational drugs. I just don't think the two things can be compared. But if you think about it, how many prescribed drugs can be sold on the street for recreational drugs? Yet Christian people in the United States take them with no problem.No questions asked.

[Aaron]

"All day long they distort my words..."

[Steve]

Now I still am confused Debbie.. are you saying that we as christians should seel to repeal state laws that make drink driving illegal and punishable?
Steve

[EA IMB M]

Peter, would you please permit me to cut and paste a previous question I posted on Nathan Finn's blog? Dr. Finn has stopped comments so I thought your readers might have some thoughts over here. One of Dr. Finn's readers did mention a couple of things that I would like to address in the framing of the question. 1) Please note I am asking about LEGAL substances, not illegal ones. In some places, alcohol is also illegal and none of us would, I hope, advocate breaking the law to consume either marijuana or beverage alcohol (though I might be tempted to consume illegal coffee) :-). 2) My question was labeled by one reader as being an "emotional" inquiry. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But I don't see how that is either "here nor there". It is still a legitimate question, imo. 3) I would like to add that my question could also easily be applied to other foods/ substances that some people choose to partake of because they consider them "relaxing" but which are not absolutely necessary to our essential sustenance. Among these items would be such things as coffee (which I love), tea (which I love), tobacco (which I don't like), spicy peppers (which I love) etc. I don't mean to get silly, but different people have very different opinions about the supposed health risks/benefits of these things and many other things. 4) Since my question is specifically about marijuana (which I have never used) I would venture a guess that some people would say they use it not just to get "high" but because it relaxes them or because they somehow otherwise enjoy it. Some people say the same thing concerning their wine, beer, and liquor consumption. My question is what is the difference and what should conscientious Christians consider when arguing for/against using beverage alcohol over against using marijuana if both are legal where that believer lives?

I fear this is getting way too long to hold interest. Here is the original post: Peter, feel free to delete this if you feel it is too long or inappropriate.
==================

This is a question to those on both sides of this issue. I don’t mean this to sound divisive or as a “smart-aleck” (is that really a word?) question. But I live in a country where certain “recreational” drugs which are illegal in the States are legal in limited quantities. At least, that is my understanding of the situation. Just a few weeks ago, I was in a public market where I spoke with a local policeman and then turned to see a man selling marijuana seed within 5 feet of the policeman. Used in moderation, this drug is considered by some equal to alcohol consumed in moderation. Of course, the easy availability of both marijuana and alcohol in this area have resulted in the widespread abuse of both (as well as other “harder” and illegal drugs.)

My question (please take this as a sincere, searching question of everyone):

As a Christian is there any reason I couldn’t or shouldn’t feel the same freedom to legally purchase and use marijuana in moderation as Christians claim for the moderate use of alcohol?

I have read the health claims made for alcohol (both pro and con) as well as the health claims for marijuana (both pro and con). Are there any other compelling reasons why one would be acceptable for believers but the other wouldn’t, assuming both are legal.

Please know that I am a tee-totaler (both of alcohol and of marijuana :-)). As an IMB M, I signed a promise that I would not consume alcohol as a beverage. So far, I have found that an easy pledge to keep.

Thanks for your comments.

An EA IMB M

[Debbie Kaufman]

Steve: I agree with your stand against drunkenness. The Bible speaks of it. However, from my understanding of the scripture, and that is what I must base my convictions on, I honestly do not see a passage anywhere that condemns drinking in moderation.