On Baptists and Booze
Friday, June 23, 2006 at 09:38AM 
At the annual meeting of the Southern Baptists, the following resolution was approved. The spirit of prohibition lives on!
________________
Resolution No. 5
ON ALCOHOL USE IN AMERICA
WHEREAS, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that alcohol use leads to physical, mental, and emotional damage (e.g., Proverbs 23:29-35); and
WHEREAS, Alcohol use has led to countless injuries and deaths on our nation's highways; and
WHEREAS, The breakup of families and homes can be directly and indirectly attributed to alcohol use by one or more members of a family; and
WHEREAS, The use of alcohol as a recreational beverage has been shown to lead individuals down a path of addiction to alcohol and toward the use of other kinds of drugs, both legal and illegal; and
WHEREAS, There are some religious leaders who are now advocating the consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of "our freedom in Christ"; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages.
RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in supporting legislation that is intended to curb alcohol use in our communities and nation; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.
_________________________
For a thoughtful and pastoral response from Justin Taylor, Click here: Between Two Worlds: The SBC Resolution on Alcohol
_______________________________________________
Meanwhile, I went shopping for a new refrigerator. I think I found the one I want.
Any thoughts?
Reader Comments (115)
I am sorry, but I'll not post an extended defense of why wine has always been what it is, even in the first century. What Homer says in the 8th century BC does not define the widespread practices of the ancient near east then or later, in the fist century. In all centuries, in all cultures, before and after the first century, wine could be mixed or not. This becomes simply irrelevant for any discussion of abstinence, because if wine did not intoxicate, or if people did not get intoxicated, then there would be no such concern in Scripture about drunkennes.
Suffice it to say that all the warnings in the New Testament pressupose that people could and did get drunk from wine. Historically, whatever water that was mixed (and that was often not the case) did not keep people from drinking enought to get drunk. If drinking wine was not such a big deal because it was so dillutted that it did not cause intoxication, then all those warnings would have been almost superfluous. Moreover, it would be puzzling that Jesus would say something like
Matthew 11:18-19
18 “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’ 19 “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”
It would also be puzzling why people were getting drunk at the Lord's Supper. It would also be puzzling why the requirements for an "overseer" in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 included not being "addicted to wine" and not drinking "too much wine."
All these are there because wine was not some sort of inocuous 20/1 dilluted thing that would take 5 gallons to cause one to be drunk.
If you have a problem in your conscience about drinking wine, that is ok. That is something you'll need to think for yourself and study for yourself. What is not ok is for you or anybody else to impose laws upon God's people that God has not imposed - in fact laws about things God has been pleased to give as a gift. It is particularly unacceptable if it is based not only on bad exegesis, but on historical misinformation.
Ok, I'm done with this issue.
You posted two passages condemning drunkenness. Did you miss the part of my previous post where I wrote,
"There are multiple passages in Scripture that warn against and condemn drunkenness – as there are as many for adultery, immorality, etc. But there are also numerous passages that speak of wine as a *gift* from God"
I could add about 100 passages to your 2 condemning drunkenness. You miss the point. Again, as I mentioned before, you confuse wine with drunkenness. I hope you do not confuse sex with immorality or adultery, or eating with gluttony, etc.
Ok, now I'm really done. Excluding Anthony, I'm preaching to the choir here in this blog.
"Add all the scripture if that make you feel better, but the point that you're missing is that the wine today is highly toxic and makes people drunk. The wine thousands of years ago had just enough alcohol to make the heart glad, not drunk"
What in the world are you drinking? This isn't worth refuting. Wine in biblical times didn't have enough alcohol to make you drunk? You proved Turretin's very point. Wine was abused just as much in biblical times as today. This is ridiculous.
this latter topic seems perhaps helpful here as this always comes up in this discussion.
his contention was that the weaker brother was not, as populalry held, the one who did not participate in any behavior in question. for our present and contemporary discussion, the consumption of alcohol. the one who abstains usually is one who has made his mind up without question. and in what i read here from those that abstain, which dovetails with my personal experience with "live" persons who abstain, this certainly seems true. that is, those who abstain are not in fact weak at all...they are very resolute in their conclusions. they are just as resolute as those who consume (like myself). so those of us who are on rather clear sides of the issue are "strong," not weak. furthermore, it is not a little flagrant of those of us that consume to consider those that don't "weak"; and those that don't consume it is not a little pathetic to consider yourselves "weak." to abstain from a practice that is in question is not weakness.
that begs the question: well, just who is the weaker brother? the weaker brother is the one who can't make his mind up and is tossed to and fro by both sides. and haven't we all been weak at one time or another over some issue? i know i have! thus it is the onous of those who are strong (i.e. those that have their minds made up to greater or lesser degrees) to not potentially tempt one who is weak and cause him to stumble, particularly on those of us that consume.
the false interpreatation of the weaker brother to be that one who abstains always leads to really silly arguments that go something like this: "i drink. if my weaker brother, the one who abstains and feels zipped up in his own mind about it, sees me drink i may cause him to stumble and he will drink." this is silly. who goes around violating his own well-set principles? how many SBC people who have been ensconced in the non-drinking subculture, for example, actually see me one day have a couple of beers and violate deeply held beliefs? this line of argument is a straw man because it never happens in the real world. i get it all the time from my teetotaling in-laws. this lin eof logic will force persons to simply abstain all the time without question, just don't do it and all problems will take care of themselves. the problem is that these problems are never even plausible.
the issue becomes that brother (or sister, of course) who is weak in his beliefs and cannot make his mind up. i may cause him to stumble by consuming. thus, i should refrain when in his company--not when in the company of devout teetotalers. usually the latter is done because we who consume don't want to be thought of in a bad way or because it just makes everyone feel awkward (real world reasons).
but then here is another question: how often are those of us who consume in the presence of the weaker brother as defined here? i personally cannot recall a time ever. i have always been around those whose minds are made up one way or another and i act accordingly. i think the weaker brother scripture assumes we are fairly close in relations with a potential weaker brother/sister. i mean, when at a local restuarant or pub i don't go around asking people i don't know, "how do you feel about christian consumption, because i am a christian--are you--and i don't want to cause you to stumble. let's have it out right now so i can either get on with my pint or refrain." silly, it doesn't happen.
in this line of logic one will also run across this weird notion that one should live one's life at the mercy of what others feel or think. it is usally what i call a very "noble-ized" line of thought: "I don't consume because some guy in the room may be a recovering alcohlic and my behavior may cause him to fall back." again, when does this happen? just be honest and say you don't like drink, you don't think it is proper christian behavior, and most of all, you don't want to be judged because you know the severity of the judgmentalism in teetotaling circles? don't offer up this "i am just watching out for someone else" stuff. those that abstain do it for mainly self-serving reasons. if we all really watched out for our neighbor in these ways we'd have to sit in a corner all day for fear of offending someone for something somewhere.
I think that in your argument we can see the difference between those who grew up in Christian homes and those who didn't. The Lord saved me out of the culture of drugs and alcohol nearly 30 years ago. (No I wasn't an alcoholic.) I know quite a few people who received Christ later in life. I also know some who were saved in rescue missions and later in life became missionaries. I think people in that situation ought to be given a little respect. Also, people don't make it a habit of commenting on their private battles in public. You often have no idea who has that problem.
Also, in my home town, a pastor at another church had to resign because of becoming an alcoholic.
I beleive that in many Christian circles t they are so detached from from non-Christians that they don't understand their struggles. Maybe you should consider how your actions affect others. Perhaps Christians should consider more their responsility to be a have a good testimony in the culture that we live in. After all it was Paul who stated in 1 Cor. 9:22 "to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
I think you should give more consideration to reaching those who don't know Christ than justifying an action that is questionable to many.
Plus drinking is much more enjoyable with your mates in a decent old pub while discussing the latest theorem/ controversy.
i can't say that i completely understand your post. but i think i get at leastthe thrust of your message. and i take that to be this: err on the side of caution; and that you presume that there is something inherently good to abstaining. you seem to assume that "reaching people for Christ" means we sort of leave good discussions alone for fear of...what exactly? i mean, what if i said that your watching television (i assume you do) or using th einternet (like i know you do) seems like dabbling in questionable behavior, so perhaps you should just stop it. i am willin gto bet that you would have some sort of argument for your continuing in said behavior. and we have the same situation: someone justyfing their actions instead of "winning souls for Christ," whatever that means exactly. there is plenty that is "questionable to many" and that was part of my point: where do you draw the line? when do you tuck your tail between your legs for the sake of others' idiosynchrasies (bad thing) and when do you refrian in order to keep others from legitimately stumbling (good thing)?
i am not sure where you think i "grew up" but it wasn't in a traditional christina home but a secular one. i am always considering how my actions affect others. i get the sense from your posts that you might adopt more idealistic models that sound pretty good, but in the end i really don't understand and when fleshed out more seem to betray some levels of self-contradiction (per my tv use example). your sentiments sound good, but they leave my mind in want and remind me of just why i left soemthing like the secular and mainline church: "why are we here?" "I don't know, quit asking questions and just get along." "But this whole environment is just telling me things i already know...what's the point?" "I said i don't know, now just learn about Noah's Ark and be good." "I am good and so are you...why do we need this place to tell us that?" "I said i don't know, we just do...now just live for Jesus and help people come to Christ." "that sounds good, but what's that supposed to mean?" "You think too much."
I don't consider my position confusing at all. Also, I think you get the point about winning others to Christ (that phrase still comes out occasionally because of my backgound). Also, I am reformed in doctrine and practice.
For your information, I do not tuck my tail and run. I am a missionary in a foreign country and see too much the effects of the abuse of alcohol. There are so many broken homes. There are also abused wives and children because of the abuse of alcohol. It seems a little strange that a person would be more concerned with their Christian liberty than our maintaining a good testimony and reaching others with the gospel.
Also, the tv and internet aren't bad. It is what you do with them that can be bad.
Again, our ability to preach effectively is influenced by what others think of our lifestyle. Don't let your selfish actions hinder your ministry.
Type slower, it appears that you either typed too quickly or that you have imbibed at an extremely early hour. :p
There are some things that are black and white in life. Not everything is that difficult to understand.
Read Zrim's posts to see what I was talking about.
"Also, the tv and internet aren't bad. It is what you do with them that can be bad."
Well, beer and wine aren't bad. It is what you do with them that can be bad (just like every other gift that God gives).
The problem with your arguments, Frank, is that you always go back to assuming that alcohol is inherently bad. This is what we are debating. Yet, you keep slipping this assumption in. This is what makes zrim's tv example so good. It reveals that at the foundation of all your arguments you beg the question of alcohol being in and of itself bad.
This seems so clear.
i can't say that i completely understand your post. but i think i get at leastthe thrust of your message. and i take that to be this: err on the side of caution; and that you presume that there is something inherently good to abstaining. you seem to assume that "reaching people for Christ" means we sort of leave good discussions alone for fear of...what exactly? i mean, what if i said that your watching television (i assume you do) or using th einternet (like i know you do) seems like dabbling in questionable behavior, so perhaps you should just stop it. i am willin gto bet that you would have some sort of argument for your continuing in said behavior. and we have the same situation: someone justyfing their actions instead of "winning souls for Christ," whatever that means exactly. there is plenty that is "questionable to many" and that was part of my point: where do you draw the line? when do you tuck your tail between your legs for the sake of others' idiosynchrasies (bad thing) and when do you refrian in order to keep others from legitimately stumbling (good thing)?
i am not sure where you think i "grew up" but it wasn't in a traditional christina home but a secular one. i am always considering how my actions affect others. i get the sense from your posts that you might adopt more idealistic models that sound pretty good, but in the end i really don't understand and when fleshed out more seem to betray some levels of self-contradiction (per my tv use example). your sentiments sound good, but they leave my mind in want and remind me of just why i left soemthing like the secular and mainline church: "why are we here?" "I don't know, quit asking questions and just get along." "But this whole environment is just telling me things i already know...what's the point?" "I said i don't know, now just learn about Noah's Ark and be good." "I am good and so are you...why do we need this place to tell us that?" "I said i don't know, we just do...now just live for Jesus and help people come to Christ." "that sounds good, but what's that supposed to mean?" "You think too much."
If you base all on the practices of the reformers and do not take into consideration the times and places that we live in you will have a poor ministry most likely.
I am not a legalist. I think that we should use the teaching of our Lord as our example and put the well being of others before our own desires.
What is so difficult to understand? We base our teaching first and foremost on the Word not on the reformers. I don't recall Jesus ever going to a pub to down a few brews.