« Time to Quit Blogging? by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Quiet Revolution or Open Celebration? Calvinizing the Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Dr. Mohler better watch out. With that kind of reasoning, he may have folks calling him a legalistic fundy...a dangerous man in the SBC whose kind of thinking will doom the SBC if he's allowed to continue sharing those views. selahV

Tim G

Your question posed from the reasoning of the prior statement is both logical and biblical. In fact, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Great post!


I think the only issue with drawing the analogy that you did is yoga is not spoken of in the Bible and it is explicitly tied to eastern religions whereas alcohol is not...

On another note, isn't the argument that you adapted from Dr. Mohler very similar to Dr. Akin's?

peter lumpkins


Thanks. You've made some great points. When all is said, moral reasoning reduces to precious few options consistent with biblical revelation.

In addition, nothing, in my view, seems to affect the structure between the way yoga is argued as sub-Christian behavior on one hand and substituting imbibing on the other. Both practices offer threats, both may be viewed as "risky". Luke pointed out at least one difference. However, as the panelists almost in unison agreed, Westernized yoga hardly connects with its "pagan" religious roots.

In addition, it could well be empirically documented that the risk of intoxicants far surpasses any risk meditative practices poses for either soul or body, especially if the meditative practices are "Christianized."

Please know this is an experiment in moral reasoning. I'm not arguing contra Mohler on yoga, nor am I even making a definitive argument for abstinence at this time. What one can conclude, it seems, may be precisely what SelahV stated concerning Mohler "better watch out"--when one simplistically charges another to be a "Fundamentalist" because he or she morally reasons to an ethical conclusion which may, by and large, be indicative of the 'Fundamentalist' community, it does not mean the charge is necessarily true. It does mean the charge is premature, and, at least in some cases, displays a foundational ignorance at best and an unfortunate recklessness at worst of how moral reasoning functions with biblical revelation.

With that, I am...


I tend to apply I Corinthians 10:23 to both alcohol AND yoga, and recognize that the point at which each ceases to be beneficial or constructive varies from person to person.

That said, I agree 100% with your evaluation of Mohler's reasoning. The same principle that he applies to yoga should (if true) logically apply to alcohol consumption, as well.

(By the way, I found the choice of panel responders rather telling. I had the dubious pleasure of spending and evening listening to/talking with Deal Hudson. He has some strange beliefs relating aesthetics and Christianity. I think I would tend to give points to any conservative he disagreed with. "crazy fundamentalist" can sometimes be a title of honor, depending on who is bestowing it upon you :)

The comments to this entry are closed.