| Author | Message | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1771 Registered: 3-2005 |
We have discussed this topic extensively in the past, but I just couldn't resist posting this blog article from Justin Taylor regarding the current Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) voting on a resolution for total abstinence from alcohol. I could not help but thinking about the Temperance pledges I took while SDA--they didn't do any good for me. I was interested in what Mr. Taylor said about the damage that alcohol does in our society, but he in my mind hit a home run when he asked 'how much more damage does legalism do to Christianity?' This is interesting reading. I am convinced that because groups like Adventism and SBC have rules against alcohol, that therefore the use and abuse as a result is more rampant.Here is the link: www.theologica.blogspot.com/2006/06/sbc-resolution-on-alcohol.html This topic is difficult for me in a way, since most of my professional life is spent treating diseases caused by alcohol. But, spritually speaking, is legalism a worse disease? Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1772 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here is the actual post in case some have trouble linking to the article: The SBC Resolution on Alcohol A few days ago the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution on alcohol that expressed, in part, their "total opposition to the . . . consuming of alcoholic beverages." (The whole resolution can be read here.) I'm not sure how wise it is to pass resolutions that functionally condemn the actions of Jesus (John 2; Luke 7:33-34; ) and Paul (1 Tim. 5:23). I'm also not sure it's very wise to prohibit that which God has given as a gift (Deut. 14:26; Ps. 104:15). Many people don't know that John Piper--himself a teetotaler and one who recommends teetotaling--put his ministry at Bethlehem Baptist Church on the line in 1982, having been at Bethlehem for just a year and a half. The church constitution required that teetotaling be a requirement for members. Piper sought to change this biblically indefensible position. (It's interesting to note that he waited years before explicitly speaking of Calvinism, but sought to make this change right away.) Again, remembering that he himself is a teetotaler and wishes that all would be teetotalers, he offered these powerful words from a sermon delivered nearly 25 years ago: * * * I want to hate what God hates and love what God loves. And this I know beyond the shadow of a doubt: God hates legalism as much as he hates alcoholism. If any of you still wonders why I go on supporting this amendment, after hearing all the tragic stories about lives ruined through alcohol, the reason is that when I go home at night and close my eyes and let eternity rise in my mind I see ten million more people in hell because of legalism than because of alcoholism. And I think that is a literal understatement. Satan is so sly. "He disguises himself as an angel of light," the apostle says in 2 Corinthians 11:14. He keeps his deadliest diseases most sanitary. He clothes his captains in religious garments and houses his weapons in temples. O don't you want to see his plots uncovered? I want Bethlehem to be a place Satan fears. I want him to be like the emperor in "The Emperor's New Clothes." And we will be the babes (not in thinking! 1 Cor. 14:20) who say, "Look, he thinks he is clothed in white, but he is naked and ugly." Listen as I uncover one of his plots. Legalism is a more dangerous disease than alcoholism because it doesn't look like one. Alcoholism makes men fail; legalism helps them succeed in the world. Alcoholism makes men depend on the bottle; legalism makes them self-sufficient, depending on no one. Alcoholism destroys moral resolve; legalism gives it strength. Alcoholics don't feel welcome in church; legalists love to hear their morality extolled in church. Therefore, what we need in this church is not front end regulations to try to keep ourselves pure. We need to preach and pray and believe that "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, neither teetotalism nor social drinking, neither legalism nor alcoholism is of any avail with God, but only a new creation (a new heart)" (Gal. 6:15; 5:6). The enemy is sending against us every day the Sherman tank of the flesh with its cannons of self-reliance and self-sufficiency. If we try to defend ourselves or our church with peashooter regulations we will be defeated even in our apparent success. The only defense is to "be rooted and built up in Christ and established in faith" (Col. 2:6); "Strengthened with all power according to his glorious might for all endurance and patience with joy" (Col. 1:11); "holding fast to the Head from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together Ö grows with a growth that is from God" (Col. 2:19). From God! From God! And not from ourselves. posted by JT @ Thursday, June 15, 2006 11 comments To read the other links and comments you will have to link to the article. Stan | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 400 Registered: 2-2001 |
Stan, This is just another example of someone wanting to feel superior to another at the expense of the Gospel. V | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 439 Registered: 10-2005 |
In my experience, once a person starts making a big deal about it being wrong for a pastor or Christian to have a glass of wine, or the greater sins in our society that they are above, they ALWAYS have something to hide. Luke 6:41 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? And I know legalism only gives way to more legalism. I am not saying drinking alcohol is wrong. Nor am I saying alcohol abuse is okay. But I do believe it is wrong for a denomination to make "no alcohol" a rule. Galatians 5:16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. Hebrews 7 18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. Lynne | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 404 Registered: 2-2001 |
Lynne, From the searching I have done in the Bible there is the middle of the road. Drink if you desire but do not be excessive. It is certainly not an issue to divide about. V | ||
| Dennisrainwater Registered user Username: Dennisrainwater Post Number: 127 Registered: 8-2000  |
Another example of why we are, at this moment, struggling to strip voting from the practices of church governance and policy in our individual SBC church -- ironically in Greensboro, NC! Question: If every "Messenger" -- indeed, if every MEMBER -- of the SBC (or ANY church group) votes in a certain manner, but God feels differently; who holds the majority? This question strikes at the heart of the enormous problem with treating the Church of Jesus Christ as a democracy! Show me one example of anyone in the New Testament church VOTING on ANYTHING!?! The word "vote" only appears once in the entire Bible. (Acts 26:10) And it's not a laudatory passage! The idea of voting in church seems to have come about in the Congregational churches in early America. We grew so infatuated with our newly established ideas about civil government that we believed we could play an advisory role to God, and improve upon the example He gave us in the first century church. So far, what we call "Democracy" (a misnomer) is the best form of civil government we've discovered -- but it's a horrible way to run God's church! Jesus Christ is our King, and we've found a way to make him merely a President! My wife and I are pleased to have been given a place to serve and fellowship in our Southern Baptist church. We feel God has put us here, and we find ourselves in agreement with perhaps 95% of the doctrines we hear taught. But it is tragedies like the passage of this resolution that reminds me that we haven't made it to the Kingdom yet. And of just how much I loathe denominationalism! There are those in my church (I am a deacon) who would faint if they knew we enjoy an occasional glass of wine (I lived in the Napa Valley for years -- how could I not like wine?? ;-) over dinner, or how good a bottle of beer tastes to me when taking a break from yardwork in the hot sun once in a while. Yet, I would be the last to encourage overdoing it because my grandfather was a profound alcoholic, resulting in many deep-seated emotional problems in all of his children -- a result I still struggle with the effects of, to this day! I know the tortuous possibilities arising from the ABUSE of Alcohol! But to ban the use of alcohol for EVERYONE in the denomination because some folks abuse it is exactly the same thing as universally banning sex because some people abuse that, in my opinion. As someone pointed out on the above link... It is clear from Scripture that beyond there being no basis for generally 'commanding' teetotalling to God's children, there are numerous passages demonstrating a favorable view of a moderate consumption of various forms of alcoholic beverages. And an attempt to argue that biblical references to alcohol are actually referring to "Grape Juice", or perhaps a weak form of Wine merely because they lacked refrigeration in those days is intellectually dishonest, as far as I can tell from my limited ability to study into the original languages. I believe it signals personal insecurities in those so declaring... How about the passage in Deuteronomy 14 where the Bible declares: 24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, WINE or other FERMENTED DRINK, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice." The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) (Dt 14:24). Emphasis supplied. God commanded the Jews to use their TITHE to buy (among other things) WINE and BEER to PARTY ("Celebrate." "Feast." Are these not terms we would equate with "Party" in our modern culture??) with each other, and before Him??? As a matter of morbid curiosity, has anyone seen how the SDA Bible Commentary exposits THIS particular passage??? Glad to be free from Adventism -- now Please God, deliver me from Denominationalism! Den <>< | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4169 Registered: 12-2003  |
Thanks for the "insider" look, Den. It's good to hear from you again! Colleen | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 441 Registered: 10-2005 |
Den, I'll take democracy in a church any day over dictatorship. It is either a democracy or a dictatorship. Without voting, you will have church superpowers (or little gods) and no power struggles with members. And if one wants to define a church that is not a democratic church, there is a thread that Stan started called "Churches that Abuse" that I think would be fitting. If Christ is alive in the church body, and if the Holy Spirit is present, then problems within the church body will not be overbearing. I think church voting and democracy within the structure gives people the opportunity to have relationships and to work things out with each other. The NT and Jesus talk a lot about relationships. If my husband doesn't give me an opportunity to share in our relationship or I don't give him an opportunity to share, then we are not really having a relationship. And without a relationship with each other, our marriage would have some serious problems. We need to be accountable to each other and try to understand each other and to work things out. Power struggles arise in churches. As the body of Christ, I think it is sometimes good that people punch it out, or I mean work things out, that is what happens in relationships. That is how we grow and learn. It strengthens us and enriches us. It gives people in relationships and people in the churches character. Lynne | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1773 Registered: 3-2005 |
Lynne and Dennis R., You both make excellent points about denominationalism and church government. I agree that the hierarchical model of SDA denominationalism is abusive and doesn't serve its members well. However, that should not rule out going to healthy denominational churches. On leaving SDA I thought all denominations were bad, and we attended off and on a non-denominational church. In that particular structure, all the doctrines and rules were made up by the senior pastor using the "Moses" model of church government. The senior pastor was accountable only to God. Well, the history of that model hasn't been very good either. I do like healthy denominational structures such as the Presbyterian Church in America, where the senior pastor answers to a board of elders as an authority for church government, plus, the Westminster Confession ensures doctrinal stability (Even though I don't agree with all of it.) Other healthy denominational structures include the EV free church, the AOG, the Lutheran church--Missouri synod, and probably the SBC (despite the above ruling on a matter of freedom as Rom. 14 states). I would question what the SBC is doing in voting on an issue such as abstinence from alcohol. That does raise serious questions, as the majority binds the consciences of all. It seems like in Reformation oriented churches, the use of alcohol isn't even an issue. It seems like in fundamentalist evangelical churches, as in Adventism, issues such as alcohol use, dancing, playing cards etc. is still a big deal. Stan | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 406 Registered: 2-2001 |
Dennis, Several years ago I purchased a little book at the campmeeting on dificult text in the Bible. If I recall correctly the emphasis was on the "whatever you like" portion of the text. They explained that a good Christian would not desire to buy wine or strong drink. They can twist their way out of anything! | ||
| Cw Registered user Username: Cw Post Number: 90 Registered: 4-2006  |
Stan, on reading your initial post on this subject I thought of all kinds of things I could say on the subject. But as I read the posts of others they pretty much covered my thoughts. Especially you Den. I had not seen your name appear here before but you have obviously been around this forum much longer than I. I came out of 12 years in Church of God which had a very strict no alcohol teaching. And I faithfully followed it the whole 12 years because much of that time I was a member of the Pastor's Council. But Assembly of God, at least ours, requires total abstinence only of our deacons and pastoral staff, which I can live with since I'm not one. But, like you Den, I live near the Napa Valley wine country-Yolo County-and we do enjoy our local Merlots with dinner. I am also known for even making a great margarita and my wife and I try to enjoy one of those a week. But 37 years in law enforcement has also shown me the evils of excess. At the risk of sounding morbid, I long ago lost count of the number of dead and broken bodies I have helped pull out of twisted cars as a direct result of alcohol abuse. There are some things that are inherently harmful such as porn and must be avoided. But mature, intelligent and moderate use of alcolol is a man-made restriction that should not be dictated by the church. CW | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1777 Registered: 3-2005 |
Yes Cw, I know what you mean. I went to An SDA school called PUC, right in the heart of the Napa Valley, and it was our Sabbath afternoon entertainment to go tour the wineries, as in those days they let you taste for free, and didn't check IDs carefully, then the challenge would be to come back and not get caught--I was lucky not to get caught, because it could have cost me my entrance into an SDA medical school. I somehow knew in those days, that a great gift from God such as wine was not in itself evil. It was only evil if it was misused, and in the case of American fundamentalism and Adventism, it was evil only because someone declared it to be evil. I understand that the roots of the temperance movement in America was not even Christian. The WCTU, the temperance organization who started it all was really pagan, even though "Christian" appears in the name of the" Women's Christian Temperance Union" (WCTU) Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1344 Registered: 10-2004  |
Well, Stan, I guess that explains why EGW did not mind joining up with the WCTU, then--if it was not Christian and thus not part of Babylon!  Violet, that is hilarious considering the fact that the SDA Biblical Research Institute's argument is based on totally ignoring the part of the text that says "whatever you like"! You can see how they deal with that passage at the following link: http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Beer%20&%20Wine.htm In short, they claim that the Israelites who lived too far away to bring their tithe with them, were "penalized" for being "late" and thus had to consume "mature" food/drink to symbolize that they were "late." In other words, God punished them by making them sin and drink beer! Jeremy | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 444 Registered: 10-2005 |
Temperance is really a matter of the heart. All over the NT, and in Romans 6, I read that laws and rules don't work. We are all born into sin and by nature prone to some sort of addiction. Just because some people abuse sex doesn't make sex bad. Let the law makers make the rules, not the churches on such matters. Just because many people in America are unhealthy and obese, it doesn't mean certain foods with fat in them should be banned. It doesn't work. Stan - Something I'm getting used to now is the autonomous structure of some churches that I'm not used to. For instance, the Southern Baptists and AOG churches are autonomous, separate in ways that churches like the Adventist church isn't. I've been used to the consistency in the Adventist church that you see in many denomonations that aren't autonomous. Without certain connections in autonomous denomonations, I think autonomous churches have a tendency to be more individualistic and less inclined to be consistent with one another, sometimes they lack denominational accountability. I'm seeing the good and bad in this. Cw - You may want to be careful with those margaritas, they are very high in calories. A single margarita has more calories than the meals I eat. It has been a couple of years since I had one, but when I found out the calorie content, I decided that my next annual or semi-annual drink will likely be a glass of wine. Notice I did this while I was an Adventist. Sometimes I even wanted more because I was told I couldn't have it! Lynne | ||
| Cw Registered user Username: Cw Post Number: 92 Registered: 4-2006 |
Lynne, thanks for the calorie info. That's why we limit ourselves to no more than one per week-one of the reasons anyway. I think now I'll make sure not to read the lables. We don't put salt on the rim so that should be a plus right? CW | ||
| Cw Registered user Username: Cw Post Number: 93 Registered: 4-2006 |
Lynne, thanks for the calorie info. That's why we limit ourselves to no more than one per week-one of the reasons anyway. I think now I'll make sure not to read the lables. We don't put salt on the rim so that should be a plus right? Like the old joke goes-"I've read so much about the evils of alcohol that I've decided to give it up. So I've quit reading" CW | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 446 Registered: 10-2005 |
CW, Salt was my main reason for drinking Margaritas. I love salt. I read today that the AMA is trying to put labels on food with high salt content. Perhaps there are just too many labels, on our food, drinks, churches, denominations and cultures. Stereotyping too much only leads to self rightousness. Don't tell me I'm wrong - I'm right! Lynne | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 148 Registered: 2-2006 |
I agree with you, Dennis, about the democracy thing. In the Apostles' teachings and early Church's day, there was no such, exact thing, nor the Roman ideal of Republican government. Many Christians were slaves and as for 'Human Rights'...for women, especially, it's enough to make my cat laugh in that Greek and Roman society. (Jesus did give us the best freedoms and equalities, ever, for all, though) None of them would recognize our modern, Western, individualistic concepts. (I am not against voting in a church. My point is only that we are vastly different than their views and culture) Scripturally, there is a definite hierarchical structure, but it only works under Christ, through the Holy Spirit, Human Nature consistently being what it is. Someone has to lead, but be accountable and humble, too (at least, to God, but there is where much trouble begins, often.) I went through my phase of no denominations at all, but, now, I see things differently for the Body of Christ. Being a denomination, in/of itself, is nothing wrong; it's what happens within that particular group of people, regardless of #-- The Org. Many of the 'movements', today, whom say they are against denominations, "Organized Religion", institutions, are only starting their own and their own power base, I have observed. Many of the old denominations, who have outlasted many a new one, are the most Gospel based ones. As for alcohol; some, whom are prone to an addiction to it, should never touch it. With others and myself, I view it as 'balance in all things' with common sense, no more, no less than anything else. As a Type I Diabetic with neuropathy, I choose to not partake very often because it can worsen things, but I have no problem partaking on special occasions. I do not see it as a sin. I have former in-laws, who have alcoholism (and a great-grandpa, who was an alcoholic and abusive to his family); I see that as a vulnerable weakness (including genetically, they know, now); and they need help and compassion from the right people (including from recovering alcohlics), not condemnation, setting apart like lepers, and belittling. Alcohol can lower inhibitions and one can be prone to sinning more, being a danger to self or others or doing things they might not do otherwise, if one overdoes it, but most people do not. Right now, our society in the USA absues alcohol more than other countries. Kids, where it wasn't made such an issue (like in the British Isles), do not go and have drunken (and deadly) parties like in American colleges as much. 'Forbidden Fruit', sometimes, backfires quite to the extreme. The 19th Century Reform Movements brought in much of this anti-alcohol paradigm and many denominations joined that movement, not just Baptists and SDA's. The opinions and theories, from back then, are here to this day. Unfortuately, imho, they made binding theological doctrine out of it with very little scriptural support. To the point of grape juice for everyone at the Lord's One Table (Communion) and teaching children that at the wedding of Cana miracle, it was really grape juice Jesus worked and drank. And other things, as well. It is just another form of unecessary legalism, to me. We all understand that! I am sure not everyone will agree with me, but that's ok. You don't have to. I have not posted about any of these subjects exensively nor with links, but a little research on the history and alcholism never hurts. Lynne, I sure hear you about the calories! Even if drinking didn't make me hurt in neuropathy, I would not do it much because I'd get so fat! BTW, red wine has anti-biotic properties (The watered down wine they gave children at night, in the Middle Ages and beyond, probably helped keep them living, through those Centuries of disease), but don't throw out your meds for the wine! Just random thoughts~ Cathy choosier1@msn.com | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 407 Registered: 2-2001 |
Cathy, You have made some of the same observations I have. When you have the forbidden fruit the kids will go straight for it. It always amazed me that some of the natural remedies were outlawed in favor of synthetic subsitutes. In America we have a tendacy to outlaw instead of regulate. A prime example was prohibition. When they forbade alchohol you had people dying of the illigally made stuff. Dollars were spent on trying to stop drinking all together only to put more money in the bootleggers pocket. We see the same thing to day with illegal drugs. The tighter the clamps government puts on drugs the higher the price and the more profit to be made. The Economist Magazine (British Econonmics) did an article several years ago about the effects of legalizing drugs.--stay with me on this one-- When you legalize, regulate and tax the drugs then several things happen. The profit motive is immediatly dropped for the drug dealer Why would someone over 21 buy and unknown substance off the street when he can get pure product from a pharmacist? The product is taxed and then the government has the money to police the enforcement of the distribution. Contrary to popular propaganda not everyone would rush out and get high. Does everyone rush out and get drunk because wine is legal? Yes, some people would abuse and there would be a cost associated with this but we already have that with fast foods and our sedentary lifestyle. Plus lack of sleep seems to be causing injuries similar to drunkeness (car accidents). Basically what legalizing and regulating does is gets rid of the pusher because there is no longer profit and without the pusher at the middle school we more than likley would not have the problems with kids being tempted that we do now. Just my ramblings V | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 152 Registered: 2-2006 |
I completely agree with you, Violet. I have seen addictions too close in family of my husband, not to understand what you are saying. I wonder what will happen, when they outlaw smoking? Of course, there will be a blackmarket. The latest craze of the fat police have really annoyed me. But I am one to not desire the Government in my pocket, especially, regulating what food we eat. Being an SDA was enough of that. (and I believe in good nutrition! Just allow me to choose it on my own, thank you very much) If they ever outlaw fast food Taco Bell, I'm moving to Spain. The rant is over. Cathy | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 410 Registered: 2-2001 |
I see the fat police as people not putting their trust in God and eternal life and scared to death this life is all there is so we better prolong it. If God told us not to worry that He clothed the Lilies of the field then why are we to worry about what we eat so much that sueing KFC for frying chicken in trans fats seems reasonable. Hello its FRIED chicken!! When I was talking about regulation I was referring to quality and not letting kids get to it. Making sure it is not laced with rat poision and selling it in a pharmacy to adults. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1784 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here is a great quote from Martin Luther on the topic above: Update: This quote from Martin Luther (known to drink [and brew!] a beer or two in his day) is helpful: We must not...reject [or] condemn anything because it is abused. This would result in utter confusion. God has commanded us in Deut. 4 not to lift up our eyes to the sun (and the moon and the stars), etc., that we may not worship them, for they are created to serve all nations. But there are many people who worship the sun and the stars. Therefore we propose to rush in and pull the sun and stars from the skies. No, we had better let it be. Again, wine and women bring many a man to misery and make a fool of him (Ecclus. 19:2; 31:30); so we kill all the women and pour out all the wine. Again, gold and silver cause much evil, so we condemn them. Indeed, if we want to drive away our worst enemy, the one who does us the most harm, we shall have to kill ourselves, for we have no greater enemy than our own heart, as the prophet, Jer. 17, says, "The heart of man is crooked," or, as I take the meaning, "always twisting to one side." And so on - what would we not do? Luther is always so profound. Stan | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 413 Registered: 2-2001 |
Stan, What a great quote! He is so right, the sin comes from within us not from what God has created around us. Why can we not accept that God created with purpose in everything He did. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1794 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here is another good quote by Mark Lauterbach on Christian liberty and legalism: "Christian liberty, by my definition, is very simple -- I may not add to the Word of God and create rules for life or behavior or doctrine that are not clearly taught in the Bible. I may not 'bind the conscience' of others with my derived principles or applications. That is a combined set of ideas from many sources, including the Westminster Confession." "Protecting Christian liberty does not mean I reach no conclusions about applying Scripture to the details of my life -- it means I do not impose my conclusions or others or judge them because they do not agree with my conclusions." Stan |
