Alcohol Today, Alcohol Tomorrow: Are Southern Baptists any closer to agreement?

Six weeks ago, Nicole Kalil wrote an article for the Florida Baptist Witness entitled "Tallahassee pastor tolerant when it comes to alcohol." Kalil profiled Tallahassee's City Church lead pastor, Dean Inserra, concerning his views on alcohol consumption. Kalil framed Inserra's view as him deciding to not make "moderate consumption of alcohol a big deal" leading him to reportedly affirm the Convention's position as unnecessary. "We lose credibility when we force culture issues as absolutes," Inserra reportedly concluded. Since moderately imbibing intoxicating beverages constitutes a "gray area of Scripture," Inserra desires "Southern Baptists to take a breath and not make alcohol an issue." For Inserra, apparently Southern Baptist abstentionists are "making a lesser-tiered issue a first-tier issue" which, according to the City Church pastor, is "bordering on legalism."

Consequently, while Inserra rightly preaches "firmly and clearly against drunkenness and under-age drinking," City Church leaders, including other pastors, are allowed to drink moderately (in public no more than one drink). Accordingly, Inserra insists he and his wife are not "big drinkers." And because drinking alcohol is not contrary to what the Bible teaches, "making alcohol abstinence a criteria for serving in leadership in the Convention is unacceptable."

According to Kalil, Inserra's vocal position on moderately imbibing intoxicating beverages hasn't been easy for him. In fact, upon learning of his moderation position on intoxicating drink, one Florida Baptist college rescinded Inserra's invitation as a chapel speaker. He believes he's lost opportunities to serve the convention because of his views on alcohol. Nonetheless, Inserra insists evangelicals across the globe would surely agree with him. "We are not the fringe."

Evidently, Florida Baptist Witness's social media became red hot concerning Inserra's candid view on imbibing alcohol not to mention the private emails, texting, and phone calls the state office received. The overwhelming public response to Inserra's moderation view precipitated an explanation about the article from Florida Baptist Witness Executive Editor, Kevin Bumgarner two weeks later.

We published the story as a way to generate conversation on the topic. To a large degree, we were successful. To a very large degree.

Since the July 31 issue came out, I have spent a lot of time talking, tweeting and emailing many of you on both sides of the issue. Inserra says he has received comments from around the state and across the country. Nicole Kalil, who wrote the story, also has had ample opportunity to interact with readers on the topic.

After rehearsing his personal faith experience in Jesus Christ, Bumgarner goes on not only to affirm his theological allegiance to The Baptist Faith and Message, but also to settle anyone's suspicion that he might also practice moderately consuming intoxicating beverages. Bumgarner was clear. "I have abided by a covenant I signed with the board of the Florida Baptist Witness when I was hired that said, among other things, I would refrain from the use of alcohol." For him, however, "that did not require a lifestyle adjustment because I did not drink prior to taking this job." Bumgarner's core point was simple: as with all news agencies, just because the Witness reports the views of others by no means implies the reported views necessarily reflect the views of the Witness. Apparently, some had jumped to those unnecessary conclusions.

A day later, the Florida Baptist Convention's Executive Director-Treasurer, Dr. John Sullivan, cast his vote on the matter with a powerful point of view article "I believe there's no place for use of alcohol for followers of Christ."¹ Not only does Dr. Sullivan deny the moral liberty of moderately imbibing alcoholic beverages to church leaders, he extends total abstinence to all followers of Christ.

My conviction is there is no place in the Christian growth and walk that includes the use of wine or any other alcoholic beverage. In fact, after 59 years of ministry, there is not one time I recall the positive value of alcohol use.

Not one.

For Sullivan, the world wants Christians to think imbibing alcoholic beverages even in a moderate sense is a sign of liberation. We're supposed to believe drinking is "sophisticated and cool" regardless of all the pain and destruction it causes. Even so, while Sullivan concedes it's not his responsibility to "straighten you out on moral values," because of his leadership position in the convention, he found it necessary to respond to such a candid view of moderation as the City Church lead pastor had expressed.

Letters to the editor continued to pour in. The obvious impression is far more were submitted than posted in the letters section (three representative letters to the editor on the alcohol issue by Florida Baptists are Brian Gilliland, Ralph Cole, Clifford L. Halford).

What is more, City Church lead pastor, Dean Inserra, felt he needed to clarify his moderation position on alcohol presented by Nicole Kalil and did so by a lengthy letter to the editor on September 13. Inserra suggests the issue of moderately imbibing intoxicating drink is particularly a cultural and regional controversy in the "Bible Belt among Southern Baptists" confessing he did not know it was "considered wrong for a Christian to drink an adult beverage until I became a Southern Baptist." His parents drank both wine and beer but they, like he, practiced moderation. 'By God's grace I have never been drunk or "tipsy," and I had my first drink after my 21st birthday.' For Inserra, he insists he is both intense and direct in his preaching about drunkenness and under-aged drinking, but nonetheless does not "speak against drinking in moderation, and do not require our staff and leaders to abstain."

Hence, while Inserra claims he's well aware of every argument for teetotalism, respecting and affirming each one, still, for him, "it is a cultural vestige of the geographic South, ahistorical to Christian tradition, and an unbiblical position to promote abstinence as the final position."

Unfortunately, Inserra represents a fundamental ignorance toward a well-rounded historical, biblical, and ethical position on the personal consumption of intoxicating substances for pleasurable purposes, an ignorance widely disseminated among the young, restless, and reformed today. The stark irony resulting from their ceaseless appeal to the theology of "old dead guys" to energize their strict Calvinism while, without the slightest blush, ridiculing total abstinence from intoxicating beverages as a sad relic of a thinly veiled traditionalism remains stunning. The truth is, vast numbers of pre-prohibition Calvinists were champions of total abstinence, including the overwhelming majority of Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention. Beginning with the very first resolution on drink in 1886 at Montgomery, Alabama, Southern Baptists logged their social, moral, and religious objection to both sale and use of alcoholic beverages for pleasurable purposes. What is more, virtually every Christian denomination—evangelical and mainline found in all geographic regions of the United States—stood then on alcohol where Southern Baptists stood on alcohol—total abstinence.

To then read Inserra's claim that total abstinence is nothing more than a cultural vestige of the geographic South that is entrenched in unbiblical tradition nicely demonstrates the vast divide—and perhaps, if we continue in the same direction, the insurmountable divide--we have between those whom Inserra suggests are, like him, young pastors leading churches in more urban settings or in towns with large numbers of college students and young professionals and those like me who are total abstainers. Inserra insists he will not make intoxicating drink divisive. 'If we are going to be a church "for the city," I refuse to make alcohol a dividing wall between our church and Tallahassee culture. In my context, it matters.'

Granted my brother Dean.

But you must realize that while you refuse to make alcohol a dividing wall between you and your culture, your refusal may very well create a dividing wall between you and your convention.

To therefore suggest as does Inserra the unacceptability of making alcohol abstinence a criteria for serving in convention leadership makes a very good start toward a sturdy wall between us. And please remember. It's moderationists like Inserra who are challenging the rich historic moral precedent among Southern Baptists, a precedent that categorically prohibits the pleasurable use of intoxicating beverage by its public figures. Hence, it's definitively not traditionalists who are setting the woods on fire on the alcohol issue. Rather it's those who are challenging the precedent. Incidentally, I'm not sure how such an incorrigible working principle fits Inserra's repeated assurance he views alcohol a nonissue. I think this only shows how moderationists are many times blinded to their own views being every bit as rigid and inflexible as claim for the views of the abstentionists they criticize.

For Southern Baptists, the use or nonuse of intoxicating substances for pleasurable purposes is going to be around for a good long while. Increasingly, the arguments will become more complex not less. And, with marijuana consumption for pleasurable purposes on the threshold of not only being culturally accepted but legally permissible all over the United States, including the Bible-belt south Inserra cites, I'm afraid moderationists like Inserra have their moral work cut out for them. As I argued in Alcohol Today in 2009:

For example, since, for the moderationist, the intoxicating substance in wine is morally acceptable and socially approved —in moderate amounts, of course—would the recreational smoking of marijuana, in moderate amounts, not also be morally acceptable and socially approved? And even though cocaine is highly toxic to the central nervous system, theoretically at least small enough amounts possibly could be consumed so as to fit the criteria "moderation." If so, what moral reservation does the moderationist raise against recreational cocaine use, since the only intoxicant about which we know in Scripture has been happily validated on the moderationist's own terms? Countless other intoxicating substances could be mentioned but would only serve redundancy.

[…]

Therefore, if we are correct, we may sum up and rightly draw this conclusion about the "drink but don't get drunk" position: if the case can be made that consuming moderate amounts of intoxicating substances in beverage drinks for recreational use is morally and biblically acceptable, we can presume that the case for consuming moderate amounts of intoxicating substances in non-beverage means for recreational use also is morally and biblically acceptable. The moderationist cannot have it both ways. Either intoxicating substances in moderate amounts are morally acceptable in both wine and non-wine means or else intoxicating substances in moderate amounts are morally acceptable in neither. (Kindle, location 1045).

¹for the record, I greatly sympathize with Dr. Sullivan's article because he and I hold very similar views on imbibing intoxicating substances. Know also Dr. Sullivan warmly recommended my book Alcohol Today: Abstinence in an Age of Indulgence in his article, a recommendation for which I am humbly grateful.

Comments

[pam knight]

Thanks for the article. Stay on them Peter.....Theo & I totally agree with you and we agree with the Bible on total abstinence
In Christ
Pam Knight

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Pam. I intend to continue speaking out against what was a subtle move toward acceptance of the moderate consumption of intoxicating drink but has now shifted to a very vocal push toward dropping our institutional precedents of expecting our elected, appointed, and employed leadership to embrace total abstinence. Inserra's reported statement is telling: "Making alcohol abstinence a criteria for serving in leadership in the Convention is unacceptable."

With that, I am...
Peter

[Max]

Inserra's views on alcohol are common among lead pastors in the New Calvinist movement. While you and I believe that these "pastors" should not be taking a "lead" in this direction, they feel they must for their churches to be culturally relevant. If you are going to get 20s-40s back to church in the 21st century, they say the church must be open-minded about this issue and point to "gray areas in Scripture" to defend their position. If Southern Baptists don't stand on this we will fall for anything; we need to hold on to black and white as long as we can and not retreat to gray. In a nation which professes very few moral absolutes these days, the Church of the Living God should not be so open-minded that our spiritual brains fall out! This is not simply an old guy vs. young guy thing. The nightly news paints a picture of a rotting society - the church doesn't need to help it along.

Rightfully so, you point out that "pre-prohibition Calvinists were champions of total abstinence." The "Old" Calvinists within SBC ranks have long made this stand. Unfortunately, some of the old boys are now allowing wiggle room on this issue because they need growing numbers of young, restless and reformed "New" Calvinists to accomplish what they couldn't ... Calvinization of the Southern Baptist Convention.

There is no doubt in my mind that these folks have taken their "lead" from the Acts 29 movement and other New Calvinist networks. Tell-us-what-you-want-and-we-will-get-out-in-front-to-lead is not a good leadership model. The YRR are on a mission to change SBC parts they don't like (e.g., alcohol abstinence, sinner's prayer) while embracing the parts that meet their needs (e.g., church planting funds).

The YRR movement reminds me of the story of Rehoboam recorded in 1 Kings 12. A particular verse comes to mind right now: "But Rehoboam rejected the advice the elders gave him and consulted the young men who had grown up with him ..." I guarantee you that these folks will keep coming back until they get their way; they will rally sentiments and votes to assure that. It is not enough to note that former SBC leaders and SBC convention messengers have already made decisions and settled on resolutions pertaining to alcohol consumption ... period. Rehoboam's actions did not turn out well for Israel ... how will it turn out for SBC if such attitudes among our young leaders prevail?

[Steven]

Peter:

First let me say that I personally have a strict policy of abstinence. Furthermore, I think that it is wise for the denomination to have a policy of strict abstinence for its leaders. I think that alcohol consumption is a slippery slope both at the macro and micro levels. If a person needs alcohol to have a good time, or let down, or take the edge off a hard day, then what happens when things are really bad? How much is too much? Is "feeling it [the alcohol]" drinking to excess? I just don't know. At the macro level, as you point out, what about legalized marijuana? I just see too many practical reasons in support of both a personal and institutional policy in favor of abstinence.

That being said, I tend to agree with some of our more liberated brethren with regard to a strict Biblical prohibition: I just don't see alcohol consumption as expressly forbidden. I suspect you disagree with me on this point. If you are so willing, will you please share you Biblical bases for abstinence?

I am ready to be convinced and will be purchasing your book.

Best,

Steven

[Mary]

I think people like Inserra who is so proud of himself and what he considers his bold stand to go along with the current culture should also stand bravely and boldly proclaim their views on marijuana. Where is Acts 29's official words on marijuana use in those areas where it's been legalized. Alcohol is soooo yesterday.

[peter lumpkins]

Steven,

Thanks for your contribution. I think the difficulty lies particularly in what we demand the Scriptures to yield to us as we seek to be faithful in formulating a moral position on intoxicating substances (or on ethical positions in general for that matter). You're somewhat correct, Steven, when you say "I just don't see alcohol consumption as expressly forbidden." Granted. But like so many other ethical issues we might name, issues about which not only both of us would agree are morally suspect but also the overwhelming majority of SBs would cast their vote with us, there exists abundant biblical evidences which both reasonably imply and, in some cases, explicitly demand abstinence.

If I am correct--and I argue extensively in my book from both biblical exegesis and sound moral reasoning the case for abstinence from intoxicating substances for pleasurable purposes--then to suggest as is so common among those who're arguing against abstinence (not referring to you, Steven, since you openly concede you're among the unconvinced seeking to understand abstentionism) that alcohol consumption is just not expressly forbidden in the Bible, remains no real challenge to abstinence, at least no more challenging to Baptists than baptism being expressly commanded in Scriptures as baptism by immersion only for believing adults. After all, Presbyterians have classically argued, where in Scriptures is infant baptism expressly forbidden?

Hence, for my part, the objection to the absence of an explicit command--"you shall never take up an alcoholic beverage and consume it"--remains paper-thin morally and borders on reckless abandon of responsible interpretation exegetically. Even more, if intoxicating beverages are morally acceptable for pleasurable purposes among moderating adults, why are not un-beveraged intoxicating substances for pleasurable purposes not also morally acceptable amongst moderating adults (i.e. marijuana for example)? And, why just moderating adults? Where is the biblical prohibition against children moderately partaking of intoxicating substances? If moderation exists in Scripture as the guiding moral principle of consuming intoxicating substances as moderation advocates maintain, then surely children who could moderately consume alcohol would not be morally forbidden would they?

It's again a smooth sheet of moral veneer to retort, "Our legal age of consuming alcohol forbids minors from consuming. Therefore, since it's against the governmental authorities, it would be sinful (Rom.13)." If nothing else, time is running out for those who appeal to Rom.13 to solve that dilemma in the same way it's virtually run out for those who suggest marijuana is illegal.

So, Steven, if you're looking for the proverbial "thou shalt not" you may not find it--at least in the form moderationists insist.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. For those who think I may have been giving an advertisement for my book, drop me a line via email, Steven, and I'll send you a complimentary copy on me.

[Max]

Mary - Surprisingly, Driscoll (the former champion of Acts 29) does not appear to be a fan of marijuana use. In a Christian Post article after legalization of the drug in Washington State, he stated that "some things are neither illegal nor sinful, but they are unwise." http://www.christianpost.com/news/mark-driscoll-puff-or-pass-should-christians-smoke-pot-or-not-86225/

Interesting that he and Acts 29 don't have the same view about alcohol consumption given the steady stream of reports on the consequences of unwise alcohol use. Alcoholics always begin drinking in moderation. Unfortunately, some corners of the "church" are now setting that example for our children. I once overheard a conversation between the teenage son of a recovering alcoholic and an SBC-YRR church elder. The elder was defending his own alcohol use with the "no Scripture against it" argument, even though the young man's father had already used his life story to warn against it. In the absence of "thou shalt not" verses, perhaps church leaders should apply some common sense and preach "when in doubt, don't." But, how are you going to attract the Millennials to cool church with that kind of preaching?!

[Mary]

Max, I have a gimpy heart valve so I've frequently had opportunity to speak with cardiac specialists about the wisdom of drinking. The doctors have always been on the same page when I tell them "no I don't drink anything" (I've even had to give up caffeine) When I've asked about whether they ever advise patients who don't drink to drink wine in moderation since study's say blah blah ... their reply is often something like "we would never recommend that an alcoholic take that first drink and since there's no 'test' to tell us who the alcoholics will be we don't recommend those who are abstinent begin drinking for what is now disputed evidence of helping a heart" Alcoholics don't set out to be alcoholics.

My father was an alcoholic so I know first hand the effects of alcohol on families. Alcohol destroys lives. Mark Driscoll and Co do not get a pass on declaring marijuana somehow different from alcohol. It's not. Some "study's" show that marijuana is less dangerous and will be less damaging to society than alcohol. So if Driscoll now believes he can advise against marijuana then he must now admit he's been an idiot regarding alcohol. Of course we know Driscoll ain't about to change his attitude about anything. He may be learning to play a role, but he is still that same cussing, misogynistic, sex obsessed, pastor he's always been.

[Steven]

Peter:

Thanks for the offer but I'm not going to muzzle the ox when he treads out the grain (not that I am implying that you are an ox). I am going to gladly purchase the book and more gladly read the same. Thanks for the interaction here.

Best.

Steven

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Steven. If you're into Kindle, it's only 2.99. a great savings over hard copy...

http://goo.gl/veyMqg

Lord bless...

[Chris Gilliam]

Steven, I appreciate your desire to learn more. I'll also recommend http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Wine-Bible-Case-Abstinence/dp/0982656122/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y . Peter knows this book too.

Peter, I was buried and missed this in my back yard. thanks for bring it to attention. I have been making it an issue of sanctification and spiritual growth and God convicts those whom are being saved out of the culture. I find interesting is that when I share the my abstinence position with some YRR, they mock. I then ask them if they are willing to do a deep historical and linguistic study on the issue and if either of us is convicted by the Holy spirit of need to change would they go with me. I get declined. Perhaps they are like Augustine when he said, " I want chastity but not yet."

Thanks for your diligence in the fight.

[Mary]

This link may be of interest. Within the body of this article is another link to an article at the Economist about the dangers of marijuana vs the dangers of alcohol. This site is an extreme left site so beware if you wander around reading other articles.

http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2014/09/18/young-people-know-marijuana-is-less-harmful-to-society-than-alcohol/

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks for the reminder, Chris. In fact, if one can only purchase one book on total abstinence, I suggest considering David's book over mine.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Max]

"Perhaps they are like Augustine when he said, " I want chastity but not yet.""

Chris, I had a discussion with an SBC-YRR church elder about using his favorite verse (Romans 8:1) to blur the boundaries of Christian liberty. In his ESV (the YRR sword of choice), that passage reads "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." I pointed out that my trusty old KJV presents that passage as "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." He looked back in his ESV and said "No, it's not there!" After walking him through the context of verse 1 in Romans 8:1-8 in his own ESV, he looked perplexed ... for that passage warns about walking in the flesh vs. the spirit. Verse 8 seemed to particularly hit him "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." But, he shook off my counsel choosing to adhere to his original interpretation of his "life verse" ... preferring to stretch Christian liberty to fit the desires of his flesh.

P.S. I am not a KJV-only guy. One can read most contemporary versions of the Bible, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and still get revelation ;^)

[Max]

Coming to a church near you? Calvinus beer: http://www.calvinus.ch/flash2/calvinus_site.html