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]

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.

[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

[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".

[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,

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.

[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

[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]

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]

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.