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 can't speak for anyone else, but i have never assumed this.
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.
-what does this mean? classic example of what...what should happen? are you saying that if an old lady tells her pastor what her opinion is on a questionable matter that he should comply? if so, i just don't understand. maybe she is the one who needs to examine herself and raise her eyes to grander themes like sin, grace, justification. also, this example is an interesting one to choose. goes to show that so much of american religion is feminized to the point that the image is a nagging old woman castigating a male authority figure about something so childish. no wonder men hate going to church. but maybe you didn't mean it this way?
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.
-granted. that point has been made and affirmed. but i repeat my point that it should be mindfully done and not with some sort of wholesale sense that one must please even the most banal of others' sensitivities. what's next after old ladies who don't like their pastors smoking? the shows he watches because they support politics she doesn't like, the shoes he wears because the company employs kids to make them?
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.
- again, almost the same point and for the most part i knwo what you are saying, but i just think we should equally steer clear of simplistic interpretations. and i consider my citizenship to be an eternal one as well; that's why i think a simplistic witness is a poor one, not a more pious one by some sort of default.
If you come back to this page I just want to say thank you for the debate. It is not often I get to talk to people from the U.S. I hope I didn't get you too worked up on this subject.
Frank
The reference to Spurgeon was first made (implied) by Chris. That is why I made the statements I did.
I am not implying that we be wimps. I am simply stating that we what we do and allow has a direct influence on our effectiveness in the work of our Lord.
If something hinders our ministry we should be willing to make some changes. That is as long as it in no way affects our doctrinal teachings.
I am in agreement with not being overly simplistic. I must admit that at times it is difficult. In this culture at times the only thing understood is that which is simplistic.
A discussion on the article I posted a link to would take a while to discuss. Suffice it to say that I don't believe his intention was to write an in depth analysis of modern day phariseeism, but to point out it's evidence in both secular and religious circles as well as in both "conservative" and "liberal" circles within the church. Pretty much includes everyone.
It's an interesting school. Check it out if you have the time. http://www.gutenberg.edu/
At least read the philosophy of education and the doctrinal statement.
oh and;
the students of age there are not fobidden to drink alcohol, only that they agree not to partake in illegal or irresonsible alcohol use.
I believe the story of Spurgeon giving up smoking is a rumour, at least if the info on this page is trustworthy; http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/cigars.htm
Amen to your scripture quotes!
Phi 2:3 Don't be jealous or proud, but be humble and consider others more important than yourselves.
Phi 2:4 Care about them as much as you care about yourselves
To which I add:Romans 15:1-7
1We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me." 4For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. 5May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 7Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.
Where in the world are you Frank?
yes, real dicussion is not bound to these sort of medium!
i am sure he wanted to include everyone, but my point simply was that i have grown pretty weary of using folks from certain political arenas to be the ones more prone to phariseeism than others. that was just my own take on his article. it just seems really convenient to use those who protest the war than those who protest abortion, and not a little predictable. i think most evangelicals might get the point if some of their own were used. but i get the feeling most of us assume something like abortion is off limits and those of us against it (myself included, yes) can act any way we want and be sure we are not guilty of phariseeism.
i fear we may be going down an off topic road, but...
it all looks good to me as far as a liberal arts education...but...
with regard to point 4 in the doctrinal statement:
"We believe that no creed, no orthodoxy, no consensus, no tradition, nor any other extra-biblical source of teaching that attempts to claim what the Bible teaches should ever dictate how we understand and interpret the Bible. We believe that our doctrines, beliefs, faith, practice, understanding, and knowledge should be brought into conformity to what the actual text of the Scriptures actually teach; but we do not believe that our doctrines, beliefs, faith, practice, understanding, and knowledge need be brought into conformity to any spiritual authority other than the Bible."
as a confessional protestant this doesn't work for me. it doesn't understand sola scriptura very well, even though i hear it ringing in the background. our confessions are binding, while at the same time understood to be subservient to scripture. i hear this osrt of thing from evangelicals all the time. it sounds good, but misses the mark. to be believe in the authority of scripture is not enough (the nature of scripture). what you confess scripture teaches is just as important. establishing its authority is the first step; what it then teaches is the next. sola scriptura is itself derived from scripture and is itself a teaching of WHAT scripture teaches. it is not enough to say one believes in the Bible, for so many do. WHAT it teaches is what separates and rightly divides.
my catechism lies on top of my Bible; not because it is superior but because it rests on and relies on scripture.
i know. boards like this get real confusing and frustrating!
uh, i would bet you want to know where frank is on the mission field...i am in grand rapids, MI, just in case.
are you in the 616 area code? :)
I don't think Gutenberg is making a statement of no creeds but Christ per se. Nor are they anti-confessional. I believe it is nearly impossible for any Christian to be truly anti or non cofessional. Just check out their doctrinal statement, if that's not confessional then I don't know what is.
I had to point out to my non-demon church that was critical of confessions that we have our own, it's in the songs we are singing. They stopped being critical (or even pharisitcal) about it after that. (I wish there was a reform church around here.) At least our pastor is very reform in his theology. Oh well, when you live in a rural area this.
Personally I embrace and uphold the protestant confessions and creeds. I believe we can attribute many or even all of the latest heretical techings going around to the fact that much of the church has put these confessions aside.
oh yeah. btw I live near Yosemite in CA
i have been in evangelical circles enough (first few years of faith) to know that a statement like that is simply just not conducive to confessional standards. you are correct that it is impossible to be anti-confessional, but that is my whole point above anyway. my old IFCA church (plagh-plagh) has its "statements of faith" yet looks very suspisciously at things like creeds, confessions and catechisms. this hands-off approach to forms is non-sensical, to say nothing of hypocritical.
there is nothing magical about being in a reformed church. i found that out after being in it for the last 12 years. i will never go back to evangelicalism. i'd almost sooner go to rome, as stupid as that sounds. a lot of evangelicals like to think they are reformed even though they have no sense of the confessional tradition, or the whole expanse of what it means to be truly reformed. i have found that usually all that means they know something about the 5 points! then they pick and choose what they like from that. one good test of this is to ask if they have real problems with sinner's prayers and so-called altar calls. most of them, in my experience, say, well, no. the word reformed becomes really relative. i have no idea about your church, but in my experience you have to jump in with both feet or not at all. my experience with non-denom sort of churches is that they just don't go nearly far enough. if you want to talk about reformation to them they have absolutely no real template from which to draw. they seem like more product of american consumerism.
but, like i said, there is nothing magic about being officially reformed! i am a deacon in a reformed church and essentailly feell like i have to pick my battles. evangelicalism has gone the way of rome and liberalism. reformed communities, like the one i am in, keep turning their backs on that age old tradition for the stuff of evangeliclaism. it's a weird place to be in anymore.
also, :)...it is not enough for individuals to uphold them, but must be done corporately. the rampant and intense individualism i found in evangelicalism was brutal. catholcity is crucial. the "pew and pulpit" must do more than nod in the general direction of forms. they must put their hands on it and confess it together. this is what i banged my head against in evangelical circles. we are a church, not a group of individuals who rendezvous around disparate and unconnected bits of information.
Amen to that!
What defines a reformed church?
For that matter, what is reform theology in a nutshell?
Is it the practice of the traditions of a reform church?
Is it a distinct set of doctrinal beliefs?
Even if we are "reform" it is not that which saves us anyway.
The truths that were rediscovered in the Reformation were just that, rediscovered, there were not new truths. Actually I think "reformed" is a mismoner. I would say more accurately that is was the Roman church that "reformed" the truth. The "Reformation" was a return to the biblical truths.... Whatever.
No altar calls or sinner's prayers at our church.
I would say that 99.9% of what I hear on WHI , what I have heard Pastor Riddlebarger preach when I have visited CRC and what I read in Modern Reformation Magazine is much the same as what is preached and taught at our church.
The form may differ, but the content is the same.
We are even amill.
and lastly, I may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot, but don;t let it fool you, I really am an idiot.
"...We believe that our doctrines, beliefs, faith, practice, understanding, and knowledge should be brought into conformity to what the actual text of the Scriptures actually teach; but we do not believe that our doctrines, beliefs, faith, practice, understanding, and knowledge need be brought into conformity to any spiritual authority other than the Bible."
Essentially that our creeds etc. should not go further than nor fall short of what the scriptures teach.
Am I misunderstanding what they are saying?
I'll let you know later what church I am with. If I told you, you probably wouldn't believe it. Too many people know me so I don't wish to disclose my identity publicly. I wish to remain anonymous on this site. If there were another way to contact you I would.
BTW, When I am in the states I do make it to MI occasionally. Perhaps you could give me the name of your church so I could visit if I am in the area.
Frank
By the way what does that mean in your post about the area code.
I am new to posting. If I seem confused at times it's because posting is new to me. I am still trying to get over the type writer and learn the computer.
Frank
A mystery then eh?
Well, there is certainly safety in annonimity. Or is there more to it than that?