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

[Chris]

Peter,

As I see what you have written it is an attempt at fairness with the languages and words and intent of passages. One might disagree with you but you indeed have pushed the argument to the text, disregarding social appeal. Likewise, I would argue that coming to your conclusions, even if some opine "forcefully", by no means makes you out to be a Pharisee, in action or intent. I agree that inflamed rhetoric that you quote by Dr. Finn, actually smacks of superiority which avoids attempts at teaching the weaker brothers. In essence, it more accurately portrays the attitude of the Pharisee, and this coming from the one who is proclaiming authoritatively to debunking Pharisees. I look forward to the continued conversation.

Chris

[Steve]

Peter, I was disturbed by a comment on the site. " but to legislate abstinence would be extra-biblical."
Living in a land where 33% of people "drink ot a dangerous level each week" (i.e. by WHO standards are "alcoholics") much of the carnage on the roads is still alcohol related. Even though it has been legislated that young drivers must have a 0% BCA limit or be charged with drink driving.
I guess that commentator believes we should remove all this terrible legislation and have perfect freedom.

Steve

[Tim G]

Peter,
You have once again correctly and very calmly hit the nail on the head. I too look forward to your future posts. Until then, I will sip on my Coke Zero!

Steve and Chris,
You are on target!

[Debbie Kaufman]

Steve: We are talking about drinking, not drunkeness. No matter what your personal feelings are you cannot legislate not to drink. History proves that? Prohibition was when liquor and drunkeness was even more of a problem. Al Capone made many dollars off of legislation not to drink. The Bible, from my understanding of it, doesn't prohibit it.

Now do I think you have a right to bring awareness? Yes. Do you have a right to hold your view and be Southern Baptist, even be vocal about it? Yes. Yes. Yes. But history alone would show that law prohibiting certain things just make the problem worse.

[Debbie Kaufman]

By the way I was typing with a 2 year old on my lap so forgive the miswording and misuse of verbs in the comment. :)

[volfan007]

Debbie,

I thought maybe you were drinking some moonshine when you were typing.

David

[Steve]

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

[peter lumpkins]

All,

Thanks for the encouragement. I think the rhetoric will get hotter before cooler unfortunately. But sometimes you just have to wipe the sweat and continue working...

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

david: :)

[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.

[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

[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

[Aaron]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[Debbie Kaufman]

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

[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

[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?

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[Chris]

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[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...