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)
frank, i tend to type fast sometimes...sorry for not editing as closely as i could. i try not to drink before 5 PM...:)
i am sure we will likely spin our wheels here on this. it always seems to happen when i discuss this with persons of the other persuasion....but...
tucking tail and running...i did not mean to imply anything beyond this argument, frank. you have more guts than me being a missionary. but we are not discussing missionary work. we are discussing an issue. and i stand by my sentiment (according to knowledge): i usually find those (not all) of your persuasion to fall back on mere sentiment (lack of knowledge). it goes like this: "hey, let's not get too far into a discussion and just concentrate on winning souls." well, what does that tell souls? that the mind and good argument are for the egg heads, so just turn it off and be a good doobie and don't touch that bottle. why? because good christians don't do that sort of thing, that's why.
it's good that you are reformed. but i would ask that you live up to it and not be dismissive. winning souls to Christ is a very full-orbed concept.
those of us on the "liberty side" are more than aware of the ill affects of alcohol. but what was interesting on friday was piece in Time magazine stated that those who consume 4 or more cups of coffee a day have the same effects on their liver as alcoholics. i don't drink coffee because i hate it, but not because it causes ill effects. the "it's bad for you" argument is always weak because there are plenty of things that are bad for you.
i commend your abstanace in your present situation. it makes a lot of sense to take that route. it's not hard to understand. i could say, "why don't you display what responsible consumption looks like to these people instead of perpatuating another extreme?" but that seems unconducive. the problem is i don't live with strung out folks all around me. i don't come from addiction, etc. so why should i take the sentimental approach and abstain because it helps "win others to Christ."
" 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." i don't get this. why do you plunge such a sharp contrast between these two concepts? i guess you mean to say that we can't have the best of both worlds. that's too bad.
"Also, the tv and internet aren't bad. It is what you do with them that can be bad." um, i think you make my point here. see, when you put 2 and 2 together you really do get 4! slip in alcohol for tv/internet and we are on the same page.
here is another thought i have but unrelated directly to frank...the therapeutic of our time comes through from those that abstain. usually the fear is that one might become "alcoholic." this term comes right from therapy culture. the old forms of censure (sin, punishment, etc.) are replaced by the therapeutic. drink and you'll become...gasp...*addicted* VS under judgment. teetotalers perpetuate the fear of addiction for this taboo.
also, i liked what someone else said about even Piper's responses. he recommends to abstain. why would he recommend against something Jesus Himself partook of? very interesting point and worth chewing on. (i know, i know, it is negated by the "their wine wasn't our wine" argument.)
also, i do not have a "ministry." my pastors do. i have a witness, of course, but not a ministry.
"Excuse me, I did not say that drinking alcohol is necessarily bad. What I am saying is that that you ought to consider the influence that you have. Also, don't make assumptions about me concerning things you know nothing about." excellent point, and i think i concurred right above. again, though, i am not persuaded that another extreme is a good witness. and i think you are beginning to take this personally. you came here and got your hands dirty in the discussion on your own volition, so i would advise against that last sort of sentence about me not knowing you. of course i don't. and you don't know me. but i do believe people can make assumptions of others based upon what they say. i am sure i am a "type" in your mind and perhaps much of that is actually true. in fact, yes, i am confident that your assumptions about me are a mixed bag of truth and falsehood. same for me of you...but that's the sort of real, dirty world we live in, frank. don't get too worked up about it.
I believe that we probably do agree much more than we disagree. I am in the presence of those who drink alcohol quite often.
The problem often times is that people turn their liberty into license and cause others to stumble. I only desire to see more responsibility in our practices.
I appreciate your debate and your point.
Isn't the SBC denying the real essence of the problem and only addressing a sympton of something much deeper?
Will their new laws solve anything or just make for more sin now?
Why would Jesus say that even to look at a women lustfully is the same as committing adultery with her? Maybe we should make women illegal.
Maybe if rocks were outlawed in Cain's time then Able would not have been killed.
Why weren't there any rock control laws?
Something is indeed wicked and evil, but I think not the alcohol. It is the way of man to blame something or someone else, rather than confess we are sinful and need a savior.
You said, "Let us presume for a moment that your statements about the potency of alcohol is correct: How then do you explain the issues of drunkeness in scripture and secondly why would the bible even speak about it if it were not a timely issue?"
I'm not implying that wine in earlier times had no alcohol. What I am saying is that it has less alcohol than it does today. Can a person get drunk from something that has less alcohol than today's 11-18% wine? Yes. Just as a person can get drunk today by drinking beer. It has less alcohol. My point is that the Bible condemns the consumption of strong drink. Strong drink is today's wine and liquer. Today, I don't think you can find wine with 2-3% alcohol. It's not the same, my friend. Therefore, we can only believe that its okay to drink wine ONLY IF the wine was the same today as it was then, and it is certainly not. By the way, I drink only beer with minimal alcohol. I do not drink strong drink. And why would the Bible speak on it if it was not a timely issue? Are you kidding? Why does the Bible speak about headcoverings, etc...
"frank, i think i have said all i can on this evil blog site! ....."
i make this clarification because i have been misinterpreted around here before...
In our efforts to stamp out legalism/phariseeism, we must take care not to become like the very thing we wish to eradicate and confess that we probably already are.
By the way, when is the next meeting of Pharisees anonymous?
I'm also on the committee to help stamp out and eradicate superfluos redundancy.
Just enough to fit into those thimble-size communion cups - is that it?
"In our efforts to stamp out legalism/phariseeism, we must take care not to become like the very thing we wish to eradicate and confess that we probably already are."
that's a good point. that's probably why i try to take care not to speak in terms of stamping stuff out, no matter what it is. "there is nothing new under the sun." we will always have many things with which to contend this side of redemption; we will always have pharisees and they will always be unable to see certain things. i know that sounds really pious and judgmental, but there it is. i have never, ever heard a persuasive argument from a pharisee, even though i understand him because i have one in me as well. yet another tension with which to live i suppose. anyway, my point is that "stamping out" phariseeism strikes me as that kind of conundrum you mention. pharisees like to stamp stuff out. if we seek to stamp them out we become like them. i consider it the "good tradition" of the reformers and their ilk to demonstrate better wisdom and discernment. i think you get me.
i wasn't aware of anyone named chris on "the committee to stamp out stamping out and superfluous redundancy and unnecessary wordiness as well as being repetitive, over and over." but i will see you tonight and 7:30, right? :)
http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/theology/articles/fiftyways.html
If you wish to drink a small amount, do it. But do not make those who are in disagreement out to be pharisees. To most of my denomination I would be considered a liberal.
The problem I have is the somewhat party attitude some have shown on this sight relating to this topic. Other than that I have no problem.
If as much of your love of Christ was shown as is seen in your love of alcohol it would be much better.
Also, it is wrong to refer to others who may disagree with you on this point as pharisees. Perhaps there are a few who are pharisees. Most of those who I have seen on this site have good reasons for their abstainence.
Disagree if you wish.
I was equating legalism with phariseeism which is also along the lines of self righteousness, then including myself in that definition.
I think pretty much everyone is a pharisee to some degree or another, only some can't admit it.
Yes, I agree that many here probably have good reasons for abstaining, so long as they aren't self righteous reasons. So long as they don't think they are doing something "good" by doing so.
So far as flaunting goes, I don't agree with it, but seems to me I remember something about a cigar smoking preacher...
.
i know, i know, i said i was done. but this is the way on blogs!!
part of the reason your posts have been cast as expressions of phariseeism is the underlying tone that you suggest to others what they ought to do:
"I think you should give more consideration to reaching those who don't know Christ than justifying an action that is questionable to many."
the suggestion always seems to heavily imply that abstaining "is just the best thing to do so why don't you just do that and all will be well."
like i said before, i appreciate your present situation (i.e. communities ruined by alcohol). yours is very distinct. and i recall saying that i could suggest to you that demonstrating another extreme could be construed as a sub-christian witness. but i stopped short of simplistically suggesting what you ought to do, and that very likely what you are doing in your situation has a lot of merit to it.
given what you have said i do think it's sort of overboard to cast you in the light of phariseeism. but you do flirt with it by suggesting what someone like me should do in my situation: i don't live and work as a missionary in your kind of situation. i live in american suburbia. and i find that in this sort of situation the suggestion to abstain is usually a reflection of mere legalism and almost always has no merit to it at all. it's just an expression of an opinion, one that is designed to make those who have it appear holier (ignoble) and not really to do with such altruistic motivations to watch out for others who may be struggling, etc. (noble). they use the noble reasons but it is always transparent that it's more the ignoble that is the motivator. sometimes it may be a mixed bag, but is still always dominated by ignoble reasons.
again, not you so much, frank, but it's always interesting to hear modern day pharisees deny they are such. i understand denying this--who wouldn't? but my question is always where do they think the pharisees are then? pharisees don't go away after the book of john! the impulse is always in us. if formalizing legalism (i.e. this sbc case) is not a form of phariseeism, what is?
the sbc has made what is clearly de jure rules in wider evangelicalism more formal and de facto. we all know the unspoken rule in evangelicalism is teetotalism. in the old days it was with a scowl (hellfire and brimstone, you're going to get zapped if you do), today it is with a smile (one of the plethora of "biblical priciples" to make everyone happy, healthy and whole--if you don't follow the rules you'll be sad, unfulfilled).
i found that article only so-so. he didn't emphasize the disticntion between works flowing from faith or the tendency toward antinomianism--what i call the 'just as i am' syndrome among evangelicals. the reformed have always been known to emphasize working out our salvation by works but always similtaneously emphasizing Law and Gospel, the solas of the reformation with regard to justification, etc. he flirts with an over emphasis on sola fide.
and it was not a little transparent where his personal political beliefs are, casting pharisees as those on particular sides of politics. his point is true enough, but pharisees certainly also exist within our so-called "conservative" circles as well. it is not until we blast our side with charges of phariseeism that such a concept becomes that much more relevant.
phariseeism has become synonymous with "the bad guys over there." so we work hard to find the -ism in those that protest the war, are pro-choice, for animal rights or whatever else scrapes against certain politics (that terribly distracting domain by which so many seem to identify these days in our way too politicized culture). but phariseeism is just as alive in the politically opposite camp. some of us would say more so, but that might be stretching it in the end.
I don't often and haven't read a great deal of Spurgeon. I may be wrong about this but I believe that when an ederly lady said she thought it was wrong for a pastor to smoke cigars that he quit. If true I believe that this would be a classic example.
Again, does what we allow effect our ministry. If the action in some way has a negative effect on our ministry we should be willing to give habits and things up.
I know that this doesn't apply to your situation but at times on the mission field we have to change our way of dress, what we eat, and some of our vocabulary in order to be accepted. I take the same position in the U.S. as well. We must remember that our citizenship is not on this earth.
Phi 2:4 Care about them as much as you care about yourselves