The SBC and the Alcohol Resolution
Growing up in a dry county (a county that doesn’t allow alcohol) the issue of alcohol consumption really never came up. It was “the devil.” You didn’t do it because you weren’t supposed to. I personally believe it just made people quite good at hiding it, but that’s another topic. Never did I hear a thorough Biblical examination of the subject. While teaching a college class at age 22 the question “where in the bible does it say we can’t drink alcohol” was posed to me. I confidently turned to Proverbs 20:1 then foolishly made a mess of the passage.
I have to be honest. I am a little tired of this discussion. For one the tee-totalers have put on their legalism glasses and can’t see past that long lost alcoholic Uncle that threw up on your new couch last 4th of July. While the “moderation” crowd has had so many wackos jump on the bandwagon their real argument doesn’t stand a chance.
I want to take a moment and point out what the actual argument is about, but let’s first look at what it is not about. First, it is not about drinking alcohol. If you think it is about drinking you have missed the point. No respected person I have read on this issue is trying to find a loophole to drink alcohol, and thankfully the BHT guys have stayed out of it. In fact most SBC guys I have read who oppose this resolution are tee-totalers themselves.
Second, it is not about American culture versus say, European culture. European Christians drink. European Christians don’t drink. Who cares what Europeans do on this issue? They may be right and we are wrong, but that is not the point.
I have seen arguments made against and for separation, stupidity, worldliness or loose morals as reasons for abstaining from alcohol. However, some of these are anecdotal and some don’t even apply. I find it interesting that those arguing for abstinence very seldom argue about alcohol itself. I hear the same arguments against alcohol that I hear against smoking, yet the Bible actually addresses alcohol.
The argument is about the Bible, and it is an argument. Don’t naively call it a discussion. The abstinence side will die on this hill. The big guns have now been pulled giving fresh legs to the discussion, and some are worried that while firing from both barrels these guns have not caused certian ones to retreat. I don’t see a retreat in this discussion because it is not about drinking. If it was then the moderationist would shut up and go have a beer. It is about being accurate to scripture, instead of taking inherited theology at face value.
It has been and needs to be about the scriptures. What do they say concerning alcohol? We can argue all we want how strong the wine was, but regardless if it was 2 proof or 200 proof if you drank enough of it you would get drunk. Don’t say it was grape juice because scripture clearly separates the two. It is not about personal stories of winos on the streets of New Orleans. We have all seen what drunkenness can do to a person. If I was going to go there then I would argue sex is wrong, because I see what it does to prostitutes.
The original dissent against this resolution was Biblical dissent. No one who stood on the floor of the SBC in June against this resolution was making an alcohol argument. They were actually making a Sola Scriptura argument. I believe Nathan White of Strangebaptistfire.com summed it up perfectly when he replied to Dr. Vines statement that some are advocating moderation.
“Advocating moderation? Certainly not. Rather, there are some who are advocating holiness through means other than man-made rules. Instead of ‘advocating moderation’, they would prefer not to use a political process to force a rule on others that scripture fails to set. Nobody is ‘advocating’ anyone to take a drink of anything.”
The call was to make sure we are not making a personal conviction a universal principle. I have an opinion on this issue that I have not shared, and probably won’t. It is really irrelevant, but my challenge to both sides, is to remember the point and keep it on topic.
On a side note to those commenters –>here that are proposing that someone with a moderationist view simply cannot affirm the BFM2K I suggest you seriously rethink that assertion. If we are going to start making policy and accusing people of sin over things that are not actually in that document, then you have gone too far.
Tweet
36 year old husband, father, pastor, singer, musician, reader, eater, rider, watcher,
You’re absolutely right. This is an argument for sola Scriptura, and nothing less.
Good post. You actually said what I have been trying to put my finger on concerning this issue. It is about being true to Scripture.
On a totally unrelated note, I am soooo renting the next round of the Open Grand Prix…gotta scout out Silva.
On one level (and I’m somewhat surprised that I am saying this), I agree with you–the issue is about what the Scriptures say. As the Scriptures seem to indicate that alchohol in excess is a bad thing (which, really, is not that profound of a statement) and that it can also be a source of comfort, joy and celebration, we should also be reasonable and level-headed about our discussions concerning the same. This would probably be best accomplished over a stout ounce or two of JD.
Scott,
It may be true that those who were speaking against the resolution on the Convention floor were teetotalers themselves, but that isn’t true for many who are advocating moderation while attacking the position of those of us who would make a case for abstinence. It goes beyond whether or not you agree with that particular resolution.
This issue, as you know, has a lot of neuanced areas. There are those who would say that to even practice abstinence in this area is to deny ourselves “God’s gift.” Do you agree? There are those who would like to have theology pubs and “beer and a Bible” get-togethers to enjoy their Christian liberty. I find that approach irresponsible. But that is the kind of thing that gets justified.
Is it not reasonable to advocate a position on abstinence on the grounds that our conscience may convict us because of our own past behavior or the “stumbling block” our consumption may be to others who are weak?
I had a post on my blog about this (I’m not pimping, btw). The discussion(debate) got so heated I had to temporarily cut off the comments.
Hold on…THIRSTYdavid?!? Does your screen name have anything to do with this issue?
Dear Brother Scott,
Thank you for acknowledging that those of us who spoke against the resolution at the convention are not drinkers ourselves. You are absolutely right that it is a sola scriptura issue. Not inspiration of the scriptures, but sufficiency of the scriptures.
What you have added to the discussion here is the reason why those of us who oppose the abstinence from alcohol mantra will not be backing down, even in the face of withering fire from such impressive persons as Dr. Vines and Dr. Patterson. When they interpret and apply the scriptures in a way that actually does violence to the very Bible that they fought so hard to prove inerrant, I must resist.
Dear Travis,
What is irresponsible about having an alcoholic drink in a Bible study group? DISCLAIMER: I have never done so and don’t intend to do so. But what about that do you consider irresponsible?
Also, would everyone please find a better term than “pimping”? Don’t you realize how horrible that sounds? I know it’s hip, but because of the origin of that term, it really offends.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Travis, the second group you mentioned are the ones I called wackos and said have hijacked the argument. The theological pub crowd have already said their peace and left for the bar.
As far as the stumbling block argument or weaker brother argument goes, those are biblical arguments, but niether of those can be applied universally to anyone and everyone concerning this issue. I do not believe we have the authority to do so. Those Romans and 1 Corinthians are very misunderstood in the first place. But I have already written numerous posts on that.
“There are those who would like to have theology pubs and “beer and a Bible” get-togethers to enjoy their Christian liberty.”
I have never, while in SBC church’s or non-SBC church’s, heard this position promoted. Nor have I even heard this position mentioned. Am I in the dark as it relates to this? Is there a significant number of “Theology Pubs” cropping up?
It would be funny to see something like that advertised in the Sunday bulletin:
“Hey Folks, don’t miss the the ‘Kegger’ at Pastor Ricky’s house this Saturday. Supplies still needed: paper cups, jello shots, margarita mix, ice and a trash can for the keg.”
I agree with Scott concerning the right position on this issue. The sad thing is that Travis is right also. This issue is a good example of how our liberty can become foolishness. Our liberty and God’s grace demands that live wisely.
And btw, isn’t it interesting that this substance is uniquely highlighted in Scripture. The abuse of this substance is emphasized much like sinful sexual practices are emphasized.
For example, why is this the only substance mentioned in repeatedly in wisdom teachings of Proverbs? Why is this the only substance mentioned in the qualifications of pastors and deacons, as Paul gives examples of a life that is blameless?
Sure the Bible teaches that gluttony is a sin, and science teaches us that nicotine causes cancer, but why is the abuses of alcohol and sex given so much prominence in the Bible?
Mr. Robertson asks the following interesting question:
“Sure the Bible teaches that gluttony is a sin, and science teaches us that nicotine causes cancer, but why is the abuses of alcohol and sex given so much prominence in the Bible?”
Here’s my “rough draft” answer:
Regarding alcohol:
When a person is drunk – has consumed alcohol in excess, if you prefer – that person loses his rational, logical, reasoning, disciplining, and controlling capabilities. Given the importance that Scripture places on a person’s mind and will, loss of these capabilities – even if only temporary until the effects of the alcohol wears off – should be avoided.
In contrast, excessive consumption of food or consumption of tobacco products does not generally lead to a similar loss of these capabilities.
In general, the effects of drinking too much are of a different magnitude than the effects of eating too much pumpkin pie.
Regarding sex:
Starting with the creation accounts in Genesis the special quality of the union between a husband and his wife is made clear. Sexual relations are reserved exclusively for this union.
Then, throughout Scripture the special nature of this union is used to help us understand other special unions.
In the Old Testament God expected fidelity from His people, the Israelites, the same kind of fidelity that one spouse rightfully expects from another. When the Israelites were unfaithful to God, they were compared with an unfaithful wife.
In the New Testament union between Christ and the Church is also understood from the perspective of the union between a husband and his wife.
For example, why is this the only substance mentioned in repeatedly in wisdom teachings of Proverbs? Why is this the only substance mentioned in the qualifications of pastors and deacons, as Paul gives examples of a life that is blameless?
Because of their abuse at that time. Those who appeal to the wisdom literature, however, do not find support for abstinence. Proverbs 31 is a classic text, but that very text is not supporting abstinence as such. It is about the numbing effects of alcohol. For the dying one, it numbs his pain. For the poor, it gives them something to appreciate, perhaps a festival to take their minds off their plight for a season. For the civil ruler, he becomes numb to dispensing justice, because he is drunk with wine, a symbol of his own pride and self aggrandizement…which I would add is equally true of the legalist who demands that all persons conform to his extrabiblical behavior standards. In short, the legalist who demands abstinence and the drunkard stand as different applications of the same principle and thus are ultimately guilty of the same sin, because both fail to dispense righteousness and justice and become puffed up with their own pride and selfishness.
Oh, and pay very close attention in that thread’s comments…
The connection is being made like this:
Moderationist = paedobaptist sympathizer = sinner = separation
Unable to dodge the bullet with respect to Reformed theology by way of reasoned argument from the Scriptures and theological debate, this is being joined to the “Reformed Baptists in the SBC are closet Presby’s” argument from the anti-Calvinist side of the aisle. Let’s not forget, the recovery of the Bible has led directly to the recovery of the doctrines of grace in the SBC, as well as SBC members who have simply done what was asked of them (you know, read the Bible and take it seriously). The Calvinist group has been outspoken on this particular issue; heck Tom Ascol spoke against it, and Wade Burleson at the IMB is a supporter of Founders too. Make no mistake, Dr. Reynolds at SEBTS is no friend of Reformed theology, the Founders, or Calvinism in general. He has even stated that he can agree to the Abstract of Principles at SEBTS as long as he gets to define their meaning (not Manly Jr. or Boyce, one presumes), and he is a huge supporter of Dr. Patterson and the crowd @ the IMB right now. All of this is part of the same pie.
Just wanted to say thanks for nailing the nail on the nail…head. I’ve been saying this for a while, that the biggest problem isn’t that they don’t want people to drink, it’s that they’re binding others with rules God Himself never gave, as though He did.
I think that the argument against the “wacko moderationists” who wax lyrical about “going to the pub to chat about theology” is a straw-man, plain and simple.
I know of no alcohol-imbibing Christian or Christians or Christian blog community that fits this decription.
Moreover, even if they did exist, what is the actual problem with their actions? Are they getting drunk? If they are moderationists then they would know that drunkeness is a sin. Are they overly concerned about the taste and consistency of the alcoholic beverages they consume? And if so is there anything wrong with doing that? After all, we all do the same thing over food (Burger King vs McDonalds for example).
I have been to the pub many times with Christian friends. At no point did my friends and I imbibe too much to get drunk, or even enough to go over the legal driving limit.
I have also gone wine-tasting with Christian friends (we live in a wine producing area). Again, the spittoons on the counter are there for a reason, but even then a limit was reached that my friends and I chose not to pass.
I don’t glory in going to the pub or wine tasting – they’re just things that have happened in my life that I am not ashamed of, and which I thank God for.
Hide the Beer, the Pastor’s Here!
from the album “Outdoor Elvis”
Words and Music by Camarillo Eddy
©1989 Broken Songs
“the straw runs down his arm and leg
under the carpet out to the keg
a secret party tonight at Point Loma
and the hate in your heart you’re hiding well
but the booze on your breath is easy to smell
there’s a six-pack to hide
on the Oral U side
let’s drive to oklahoma
hide the beer, the pastor’s here
hide the beer, think of your career
he might find out that we’re human beins’
and bring us all down to the rack and the ruin
she had a beer as an evening snack
when the ‘scripture man’ planned a sneak attack
suspension’s the buzz out at Wheaton
as she packed her bags and gathered her books
‘scripture man’ gave her that lustful look
yes lust is his brew but no one sees through
his minty fresh breath ain’t reekin’
when the coast is clear, you can kiss me, dear
together we’ll have hell to pay
so wear a beard, the pastor’s here
put the “R” rated movie away
yeah, hide the beer, the pastor’s here
hide the beer, think of your career
he might find out that we’re human beins’
and bring us all down to the rack and the ruin
hide the beer (biola!)
hide the beer (bethel!)
wear a beard (west mont!)
hide the beer (calvin college!)
hide the beer (azusa pacific!)
hide the beer (liberty baptist!)
hide the beer (san jose bible college!)
hide the beer (bob jones!)
hide the beer (taylor u!)
hide the beer (california baptist!)
hide the beer (gordon college!)
hide the beer (calvin klein!)
hide the beer!
george fox, moody bible institute,
seattle pacific, baylor, smu, pacific christian,
jimmy swaggart u, john brown,
anderson, eastern mennonite, fort wayne bible,
grand rapids baptist, greenville, grove city, nyack,
travecca nazarine, multnoma school of the bible,
inland empire school of the bible, philadelphia college of the bible,
whitworth spring arbor,
and south & north western. . .
northwestern!”
I think it was one of you Fide-o people who said that “In the 20th century, the battle was over inerrancy. In the 21st century, the battle will be over sufficiency.”
I think that’s dead right.
Jeff,
If I offended you by using that word, please recieve my appology (or anyone else that was offended). I really don’t like it either. I guess I’ve seen it used too much in the Baptist blogosphere lately to the point that it stuck. Oh and Jeff, why don’t you go and exercise some of that boldness and correct the language on some of the other blogs that I know you frequent. I predict they won’t be as nice as me. They use that word and many more coarse words that you may find offensive. On your question… If you don’t see how ridiculous promoting “Beer and a Bible” is, there is very little that I will say that will change your mind at this point.
Scott,
I wish you were right about the theology pub crowd (I don’t think they’ve left for the pub). I don’t know if you’re thinking about one specific group, but I see many individuals on Baptist blogs who are advocating what I’m talking about. They are the loudest voices pushing debate on this issue. (I’m not talking about Ben Cole, btw).
I think the scriptures you mentioned do have valid application to specific situations. I’m not saying they apply universally. I wish I would have seen your other posts on this subject. Read here frequently, I guess I didn’t notice it.
Jason,
That is the same question that I’ve been asking. Why is it so prominent a warning if its to be treated like any other beverage. It’s because it’s not. God knows that and doesn’t want it taken lightly. My concern is that’s the road we’re heading down with this. We must guard against legalism or misinterpreting the scriptures. But when I hear some of the arguments being made for this, I hear very little about the dangers of abuse. Sure, they will emphasize the danger is in abuse, not consumption. But that is as far as it goes. Anyone who has pastored long enough knows that’s not enough. The effects of casual consumption can be found everywhere.
Gene,
I can understand your suspicions of those who would attempt to use this issue to try to muddy the waters about Founders or Baptists who are calvinists in general. That is wrong. Not only because its the wrong way to stand on their position, but also because not all calvinsts agree on this issue, ie. Al Mohler, Russell Moore.
pimp, pimp, pimp, pimp, pimp.
Excellent post! I agree this debate is over the sufficiency of scripture.
CR
Jeremy Green is a nut case intent on running folks off. He thinks that he is fighting radical heretics or liberals all over again. His statement that the BFM somehow addresses this subject is ridiculous. He is intent on making as many people leave over this issue as possible. But, I don’t think it will work. We are just as committed to the truth as he is to running for future president of the sbc.
CR
The danger of a conscience that comes under the additional instruction of something other than scripture (be it a mentor, a local church persuasion, or a cultural opinion, or whatever) is that one may become genuinely and thoroughly convicted about something that isn’t sinful, and mystically equate that conviction with “God’s voice.”
Surely, we ought not to violate our conscience, but it behooves us to instruct our conscience out of scripture.
I think Nathan White’s quote catches the heart of this debate squarely – those who advocate more than scripture prescribes are teaching as doctrine the commandments of men – plain and simple.
Do we pursue holiness as defined by man, or as defined by God? – When we clear the chaff away – this is the question we are left with; everything else is smoke and light.
Is the issue alcohol abuse or drinking alcohol at all?
If the issue is alcohol abuse, the Bible has plenty to say?
In fact, it says the same thing about alcohol abuse that is says about the abuse of anything, does it not?
So what if the SBC came out a united front against alcohol abuse in America? What if we resolved to equip our pastors and churches with the tools of Biblical counseling?
What if, instead of everyone buying the next Purpose-driven-Whatever Workbook, all of our pastors preached for 40 Sundays on the Sufficiency of Scripture followed by 40 Sundays on the Doctrine of Repentance?
In the final analysis, I agree, the issue of alcohol boils down to one of whether we should bind the consciences of others with rules not clearly taught in scripture. Neither more nor less.
By all means, Christians should model good behaviour, and around teetotalers or those who have had problems with alcohol abuse, we should not drink.
These ‘theology pubs’ seem to be an abuse, likely to cause men to stumble, but does that really mean no man may have a glass of wine with a meal?
In the end, there is a danger of mistaking following a set of man-made rules for holiness. In Britain, this ended with liberals being accepted because of their personal lives, with no account being paid to their teachings. Teetotalism was elevated to a higher level than repentance, and conversion placed below signing the pledge.
Absolutely, Nathan White is correct.
It’s not about Legalism or Sufficiency, It’s about Obedience. It’s about not just obeying the “Thou shalt nots..”, but also the clear truth of scripture.
“Wine is a mocker, strong dring is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise” Pr 20:1
If you think you can drink wine and not be affected, you have been mocked and decieved. Do you think you’re the special guy, that that verse doesn’t apply to?
“It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:” Pr 31:4
We are all children of the King, so it is not for us to drink wine.
——————–
People want to reject all the verses against alcohol, for the same reason that they want to reject other scriptural guidelines. They want to live however they want, without any rules, without authority.
As soon as you exempt one area of your life from God’s authority, then the other areas are easier to compromise on. We should be striving to live out the godly life as scripture has shown, not seek to get out of it (and not because it brings us salvation, perks, or spiritual position; only because we love God and want to glorify him).
Good post.
Lance,
Thank you for your comment about Obedience. Yes, it is about obeying Scripture. You clearly see the truth at the heart of the matter.
I have a question for you, though. You quote Proverbs 31:4, but what happened to obeying Proverbs 31:6-7?
In beautiful eisegetical form, you quote one verse that you like, but neglect to finish the passage. Two verses later you find something different.
Your Bible contains an imperative. “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.” Proverbs 31:6-7 (KJV)
Unless and until you start obeying Scripture’s direct commands, you might reconsider admonishing others on obedience. If you have never obeyed Scripture’s explicit command to give strong drink to him that is ready to perish and wine unto those of heavy hearts, you are violating God’s inerrant Word.
Repent. Don’t argue, just submit to God’s holy Word.
It’s the WHOLE counsel of God’s Word, not just the parts you like.