I enjoy beer. There, I said it. But more than beer, I love Jesus and believe that the final authority in my life is the infallible Word of God. To some, I’ve already undermined my love for Jesus and Scripture because I do not have a personal vendetta against alcohol. In this here blog post I shall attempt to challenge that assertion and provide my thoughts on alcoholic beverages. I do not believe that enjoying beer, wine, or liquor in moderation damages one’s Christian witness.
I should probably add, importantly, that in my thirty-four years of life I have never been a stumbling drunk. More importantly, however, my perspective on alcohol is not simply based on my own experience with alcoholic beverages.
While everyone’s opinions are susceptible to the influence of our lives, I believe it’s important as a Christian to do my best to allow Scripture to help me form my opinion on the subject more so than my experience. So the fact that I was raised in an alcoholic environment as a child and have had many friends and family members abuse alcohol does not cause me to determine that all alcohol should be avoided. Nor does the fact that I have seen former alcoholics reach the point where they can enjoy a glass of wine without falling off the wagon.
My primary influence, I believe, is Scripture. In addition to exegesis, I think we must be wise in how we reflect on this subject, especially as a pastor. I see two issues of concern:
- Legalism. There is not a single verse in the Bible that tells us drinking alcohol is a sin. Seriously. Read that again: there is not a single verse in the BIble that tells us drinking alcohol is a sin. That doesn’t mean that drinking alcohol can’t be a sin, but that it’s not as simple as saying, “All beer drinking is sinful.” To suggest otherwise is to fall into the same category as many of the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. This is a gospel issue. To suggest that one is saved by more than trusting in the atoning work of Christ is to add to the gospel.
- Lawlessness. The reformed part of me wanted to write antinomianism there, just so you know. At any rate, I have a real concern that many evangelicals have swung away from legalism right into the trap of licentiousness. Yes, we aren’t saved by works, but we are saved to and for good works (Eph. 2: 10). Our response to the grace of the gospel is worship, which is regularly communicated in the OT (and NT) as obedience. Or, as Samuel said, “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22).
Simply stated, these are the two extremes (variations exist, obviously). One side mistakenly equates holiness with a prohibition that does not exist in Scripture. The other allows for a freedom that ignores guidance that Scripture provides. Perhaps we should search for a radical middle? I think so.
Addressing the Arguments of Legalists
I don’t want to suggest that all legalists have sinful intentions. Many (most?) seriously want to see God glorified and people loved. They mean well. And I respect them and their right to have an opinion on the matter. Not all teetotalers are legalists either. Some abstain for personal reasons and they are certainly welcome and appreciated! My concern is in regards to teetotalers who believe their personal convictions on alcohol should be the personal convictions of all Christians. I have serious reservations about their perspective, for a number of reasons:
First, I do not believe they can sustain their view if they read all of the Bible. How can someone state that Christians should never drink alcohol when Scripture clearly indicates that God sovereignly provided wine to make people happy? Oh, you didn’t know that verse was in the Bible? The psalmist writes:
“You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.” (Psalm 104:14-15)
Yep, you read that right. God causes creation towards providentially providing for people to enjoy food and wine. You can’t do exegetical gymnastics with this verse. The word for “wine” means…. wine (Heb. yayin). This, of course, is simply one verse. Brad Whittington has determined that after surveying all that Scripture says about alcohol, “59 percent of the references were positive.”
Taking a legalistic approach simply does not work. It’s completely foreign to the world of the NT and goes against what we read in the Old Testament, ministry of Jesus, and the teachings of the apostles.
Remember, Jesus turned water into wine, and that wine was most assuredly alcoholic. Yet there are still plenty of pastors who state that the wine that Jesus made was essentially grape juice. I beg to differ. As Doug Wilson has said…
“If your pastor says that the wine in the Bible was grape juice, then how can you trust anything he says?”
Second, I do not believe that legalists are consistent in how they interpret and apply Scripture. For example, legalists will quote Proverbs 23:20’s “be not among drunkards…” and rest their case. While it seems obvious to point out that there’s a radical difference between someone enjoying a beer versus someone who is an alcoholic, what’s more questionable to me is that they don’t quote all of the verse! If you read all of Proverbs 23:20, you’ll read:
“Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat,” (Prov. 23:20)
Apparently gluttony is a sin too. Yet I’ve never had someone send me a Facebook message informing me that I was a disappointment or had damaged my Christian witness because I have eaten too much. In fact, it would seem that many of the people who fall into the legalist camp are often actually overweight themselves! That seems rather inconsistent and highly selective on their part.
On top of this obvious inconsistency, here’s another related issue. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that “there are approximately 80,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States.” That’s a lot of deaths… the third leading cause in the United States. We’re also informed that forty percent of assaults are the related to alcohol abuse. The abuse of alcohol has serious consequences. These statistics are probably making my legalist friends excited.
Guess what’s significantly more responsible for death in the United States? You guessed it: poor diet and physical inactivity. In fact, this cause blows the abuse of alcohol completely out of the water.
Third, I believe legalists ignore two important qualities of being a follower of Jesus: discernment and moderation. The Christian life is much more than a simple black and white checklist. Life is complex and we should, I think, seek to be discerning at all times as we seek to walk in the Spirit and follow the Lord’s guidance. Rather than a “yes” or “no” with alcohol, we should teach (and model) a deeper theology of discernment. Instead of a legalistic approach, I think we should model the same type of discernment we find in the NT, where the apostles discerned together whether certain foods would be a barrier to the gospel or not (Acts 15:28).
Legalism has nothing to offer byway of moderation. Yet that’s a key to Christian discipleship. We do not tell people that sex or food are evil, even though both are abused. Instead, we tell people that both sex and food are to be enjoyed in moderation. The same, I believe, should be true with beer, wine, or liquor.
As I’ve stated, I’ve never met someone tell another Christian they shouldn’t eat food or that they should stop having sex with their spouse. Instead we talk about the idea of moderation. Don’t eat seventeen plates of food or eleven candy bars. Take care of your body because it is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19).
My wife and I have prayerfully reflected on this in regards to our own children. Because I don’t want my children to believe lies and because I want them to grow up knowing that their father, who is a pastor, didn’t abuse Scripture or selectively use it to further my own agenda, we’ve decided to help them think about the things that God’s given to use through the lens of moderation.
That means that our children see me and other followers of Jesus, from time to time, enjoying a beer or a glass of wine. They hear from us that alcoholic beverages can be enjoyed, but that it’s like most things in life, you have to enjoy it in moderation. In the same way that you shouldn’t eat fifty candy bars because it’s bad for your health and hurts your Christian witness (notice that consistency), abusing alcohol isn’t good for your health and hurts your Christian witness.
For the person who struggles with alcohol, I want them to also see that alcohol can be moderately enjoyed and not control you. Moderation is a much more holistic and effective model to follow, in my opinion.
Teetotalism (the complete abstinence of drinking alcohol) is a breeding ground for legalism. In my experience, it has more in connection with a pharisaic approach to Christian living than I care to be associated with. After all, when one can selectively cherry pick verses in the Bible, don’t they have a lot more in common with the Pharisees than with Jesus, who encompassed all of Scripture?
It may not mean much to you, but I find it curious that many of our churches and denominations have regulations concerning alcohol that would keep Jesus and the apostles from being able to function in leadership or be church members! Jesus clearly drank alcohol, and he did it in a missional manner. That’s why people called him a glutton and a drunkard, because he was “a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 7:34).
If Jesus was judged a glutton and drunkard because he drank wine/beer and hung out with sinners, I’m glad to be counted among his company.
Addressing the Arguments of the Lawless
Listen, the Scriptures explicitly state that drunkenness is a sin:
“And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery…” (Eph. 5:18)
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-10)
These passages make it abundantly clear that being drunk isn’t condoned by Scripture. On top of that, drunkenness is often a metaphor for spiritual apathy (cf. 1 Thess. 5:7-8; Rev. 17:2). Because God is holy, his people are called to holiness (1 Pet. 1:15-16). We are most certainly free from the Law; we are not free from what is explicitly stated in the NT as being a continuing prohibition (i.e., drunkenness). Furthermore, if something is causing you to sin, Jesus is pretty clear about how serious you need to get in order to overcome that sin (cf. Matt. 5:29-30).
What about these “weaker” brothers/sisters?
This is a classic and standard argument for those who are legalists. The essentially suggest that because people may have been alcoholics or struggled with drunkenness, we shouldn’t drink around them because we might cause them to fall back into sin. Advocates for this perspective primarily point us to the following two passages:
“Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” (1 Cor. 8:12-13)
“Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.” (Rom. 14:20-21)
I don’t want to diminish the missional concern that the apostle Paul provides here. After all, he writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If we think something may hinder the work of God, we should pause and reflect. My issue is with what I’d call a shallow reading of these texts. I don’t think applying these texts in a way that reaches teetotalism is Paul’s point.
So when I receive a private Facebook message that tells me I’m a disappointment and have diminished my Christian witness because of my stance on beer, I’m going to remind myself of other Pauline texts, including the previous context of Romans:
“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.” (Rom. 14:1-3)
” Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” (Col. 2:16).
The primary concern about abstaining from food and drink in the texts in question has everything to do with eating food that was either (1) deemed unclean according the Mosaic Law or (2) food or drink that was previously offered to idols that was then sold later in the marketplace. These texts are not primarily addressing whether or not a Christian can have a beer. That’s a secondary application that may or may not be best.
But that raises an important question for me: who are these weaker brethren? I am only thirty-four years old, so by some standards I’m young and by others I’m old. Nonetheless, I have thirty-four years of experience and the vast majority of that has been as a Christian (i.e., for as long as I can remember I was involved in a church). I have yet to actually meat a real and true “weaker” Christian. By “weaker,” I mean someone who saw another Christian drink a beer or a glass of wine and then fall of the wagon and go back to drinking. I have, however, met a lot of legalists who function in a way that sure sounds like a “weaker” brother/sister.
A few years ago I read an excellent blog post by Michael Patton about “professional weaker brethren.” Concerning balancing the two concepts in Romans 14, he wrote”
“However, we can take this too far. I don’t think we are obligated to bow our liberty to everyone who has a problem with our actions. A “weaker brother” is one who is truly weaker, not just one who has a misguided interpretation of things. He is weaker because he has not been educated in these issues. You must understand, he is not supposed to or expected to stay “weaker.” Eventually, he is suppose to become stronger. Unfortunately, far too often these weaker brethren realize their power and become “professional weaker brethren.””
So I want to encourage readers to really think a lot deeper on this issue of “weaker” Christians. After all, we don’t stop eating food in public simply because there are unhealthy obese people around us (who may or may not be gluttons). If we consistently read Scripture and consistently apply Scripture, I’d like to know why legalists don’t stop eating in public (people abuse food), having children (people will know you had sex and sex is abused), watch tv (lots of bad stuff on the tv), or drive cars (people ignore laws and speed). The food one is most interesting to me, since beer falls into the broad category and, if you remember, eating habits and health are significantly more responsible for death in the U.S. than alcohol.
Finally, I want to make clear that I’m not suggesting that all Christians need to drink in order to be “cool” or “orthodox.” I’m simply saying that if another Christian, nay, if I am drinking a beer, don’t judge me. And if you are someone who drinks beer or enjoys a glass of wine, be thoughtful. Don’t be afraid to interact over the subject and talk to people about your views, but don’t be an idiot either. There’s no need to insist that someone needs to drink a beer simply because you consider all teetotalers to be legalists (they aren’t).
At the end of the day, this is an issue that we can agree to disagree on. I do hope that you’ll reflect deeper on the issue. I’ve been pastoring for eight years now and have enjoyed a delicious dark beer or glass of wine throughout that time and have been very open about my views about alcohol. So this is the answer I give to people when they ask me my “position” on alcohol. This is how we’re raising our children and how I push back against both “legalism” and “lawlessness” as I see them.
What do you think? How have I overstated my case (as I’m sure I have)? I am really just trying to get the fundies posting on our blog, so take that for what it’s worth! 🙂
Now read what Kenny and Able have contributed to the wider discussion, and be sure to add your voice to the comments below. We invite you to think about this with us.
Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
Hey, Luke! Are you familiar with Dr. Norman Geisler’s approach to alcohol? He references the Scriptures that condemn “strong drink,” then shows that most of our modern alcoholic beverages would be considered “strong drink” by the Bible’s standards. I’m an abstentionist; my usual complaint is that in our rush to not be legalists we fail to properly warn folks about the terrible dangers involved with alcohol.
What up, Gene! I hope you are doing well and want to say “thanks” for your comments and thoughts… hugely important for our community here. I noticed you are a Calvary Chapel pastor, which is great. My uncle is a Calvary Chapel pastor…. love him and his wife (and kids) dearly!
Anyway, yes, I’m familiar with Geisler’s approach. I have both read his PowerPoint and listened to a mp3 of him speaking on the subject… although it’s been awhile.
In my recollection, it seems as if Geisler he confuses “drunkenness” or “drunkards” with “alcoholic beverage” quite often, especially on a biblical level. To drink a glass of Scotch is not the same thing as to get drunk on four glasses of Scotch. To drink a beer is not the same as drinking a 24 pack (at least I sure hope it isn’t!). It seemed that Geisler wanted to equate those things.
Second, it’s very difficult to buy into his suggestion that there are radical differences between the alcoholic beverages of the 1st century and that of today, as well as his suggestion of the watered down wine. His arguments have been largely disproved by scholars as well as being somewhat easy to challenge by just some casual observations (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/11/did-jesus-turn-water-into-fermented-wine/ has a good summary of the problems with Geisler’s argument).
Anyway, I’ve never heard of an abstentionist in relation to alcohol, but it sounds like a cool term. What do you mean by it?
I would still want to push back on the idea of “terrible dangers” in relation to other things that get abused, especially food! Food is, according to the CDC, a more “terrible danger” to people in the United States than alcohol. What are your thoughts about that?
Thanks again for your thoughts… it’s helpful in how pastors can reflect on different approaches as we seek to glorify God and love people!
Blessings!
By “abstentionist” I mean that I abstain from alcohol for reasons of conscience, and I recommend others do, too, but I recognize that the Bible allows drinking so long as it is not drunkenness. I have to disagree with the comparison with eating. While gluttony is indeed sin, you won’t find Mothers Against Gluttonous Driving. All I’m saying is that we warn folks of the devastating dangers that are associated with alcohol. Physically. Emotionally. Spiritually. It’s a plague on society. Then, if a person can drink responsibly, and not stumble others, they have the freedom to do so.
Gene,
Thanks for the definition! That makes sense. Are there any differences between being an “abstentionist” versus holding to Teetotalism?
I am not sure my comparison about eating was as clear. I’m asking how you can determine that alcohol is “worse” than gluttony when the facts (again, see the CDC stats) suggest that overeating and poor health are far more “dangerous” than drinking. Do you not see why someone like myself sees that as rather inconsistent?
And again, I’d want to push back on your assessment that alcohol is a “plague on society.” That seems to be quite an overstatement. I’d want to word it like this: “the abuse of alcohol is a plague on society” because that’s a more biblically defendable view. I want to caution people to have a more robust position on distinguishing between drinking a beer and being a drunkard, especially since that’s exactly where Scripture takes us.
At any rate, I appreciate when you write: “I recognize that the Bible allows drinking so long as it is not drunkenness.” Thanks for that!
Totally unrelated to this discussion but how are things in the Calvary Chapel now that Chuck Smith has passed away? I was very sorry to hear of his passing, though rejoice that he’s with the Lord! His influence on the evangelical church is amazing… sooooooo many blessed by him, including the movement that I’m a part of!
I abstain for reasons of conscience. I recommend others abstain but recognize that the Bible allows drinking that is not to excess. I don’t see how it denies biblical liberty to warn people about the potential dangers of alcohol. In all the talk I hear from advocates of drinking in moderation cause we can, I never hear any warnings. Alcohol is dangerous in ways food is not. Cars are soon going to come equipped with breathalyzers to prevent drunk driving, not scales to prevent fat driving. You’re putting your head in the sand if you don’t see the effects of alcohol on our society. Just because a believer can drink in moderation doesn’t mean he or she should. The weaker brother isn’t always the former drunk; he might be the potential drunk who is taught he has liberty to drink. As for Geisler, while I do not agree entirely with his analysis, he’s not so easily dismissed.
Just to clarify, I do not think that abstaining makes anyone more spiritual. Neither does it make them less spiritual.
We will certainly miss Pastor Chuck but his influence will continue. It’ll be interesting to see where God leads our movement.
Gene,
I can see your point about how advocates for drinking in moderation may not discuss the dangers of abusing alcohol. Perhaps that is because it seems obvious (in a similar way that you have implied in your question about why Paul would have to tell Timothy that elders shouldn’t be violent alcoholics). However, I’m inclined to think that it’s really more of a hyperbolic push back on the legalistic approach that soooooo many have taken for the past hundred and fifty years.
I’m still not sure you are understanding my point about gluttony. I would hope that you acknowledge that the Bible condemns gluttony. In other words, the one who abuses food is hurting his own body and damaging his witness to the world. Whether or not our civil authorities respond to this problem (again, note the CDC stats) and requires cars to be outfitted with a scale matters little. The fact remains that Scripture states that gluttony is a sin. I’m simply saying it’s inconsistent for someone to address Christian drinking without addressing Christian eating.
Anyway, just to be clear on my part, I completely respect your opinion and accept it in the spirit in which you are giving it (non-judgmental). So I think we probably have more in agreement about what Scripture says and are mostly disagreeing on how it is applied. So thanks for your comments!
I like what Scot McKnight says…
“It seems every year someone brings up the Bible and alcohol (the drinking kind). My first response, kept to myself but now made public, is this “Yo, have you ever tasted Brunello or a South African wine or a good pint of Boddington’s?” But that doesn’t seem to be the approach
needed here.
What I find every year in this conversation is a serious, but
repeated mistake. The tack is this: If I take a stand more “biblical than the Bible,” then I can’t be wrong. That is, if I choose not to drink at all, I will keep myself from sin and all appearance of evil and will be safe. This is what I call the sin of “zealotry” — the belief that if we are more extreme than the Bible, then we can’t be wrong. Wrong. If God is God, and if God speaks to us in the Bible, then God spoke words that show that wine drinking is fine. One may choose not to drink, but that view is more extreme than what the Bible says. Drinking too much is contrary to the Bible, but not drinking at all is not what the Bible teaches (except for ascetic strands at time). But, let’s not fall for the idea that being more biblical than the Bible is safe ground. Extremism is not righteousness; extremism is zealotry. Trust that what God says is what God wants.”
Gene I don’t know you and I am not saying you are personally guilty of zealotry. But you SOUND like a closet zealot. When you say something like… “Spiritually. It’s a plague on society. Then, if a person can drink responsibly, and not stumble others, they have the freedom to do so.”
Hey, Abel! I thought I sounded pretty balanced. I don’t drink, and while my opinion is that others are better off abstaining, I recognize the same truth you do – that the Bible allows drinking alcohol in moderation. Where’s the zealotry in that?
As to alcohol in general, why can’t we warn people of its potential dangers? The Bible does! It warns us to not sit too long at the wine, for example, and to not be drunk. Alcohol has a potential to destroy lives – to kill – that many other things do not. I don’t see why we can’t be honest about it while preserving liberty.
As far as zealotry, let me say this, gently. The tone of most things I read from advocates of drinking in moderation is that they are more interested in drinking than in defending biblical liberty. It seems important to advocates of drinking to revisit Paul’s concerns about stumbling weaker brothers and having liberties to themselves and to God, so that it doesn’t in any way interfere with their microbreweries! I come along with a moderate, biblical position, only asking that we recognize the historic dangers of alcohol, and it’s zealotry?
Let me ask you this. Since we all seem to agree that being drunk is prohibited biblically, can you define for me when a person who is drinking is drunk? Before I was a believer, being drunk meant I passed out. The California Highway Patrol rolled out a campaign that says, “buzzed drinking is drunk driving.” Is the first sign of a buzz being drunk? If the truth is somewhere in between those extremes, where is it?
It’s an important question for an advocate of drinking in moderation because, when you tell folks it’s ok to drink as long as you don’t get drunk, I don’t think they know what that means. Or it can mean different things to different people. So, what does it mean to be drunk?
Gene, thanks for the dialogue! I think choosing to not drink is fine. It is the best choice for some people for sure. I think recognizing the same truth (as we both do) is a good thing but I would say HOW we recognize it is important.
You said… “I don’t drink, and while my opinion is that others are better off
abstaining, I recognize the same truth you do – that the Bible allows
drinking alcohol in moderation. Where’s the zealotry in that?”
There is no Zealotry in that. But that is not a good representation of what you said earlier. “Physically. Emotionally. Spiritually. It’s a plague on society. Then, if
a person can drink responsibly, and not stumble others, they have the
freedom to do so”
That sounds like and pretty extreme statement. I am not sure Alcohol is the plague here from a Biblical sense I think it’s the human condition that’s the plague.
I would argue that a person who has a problem with drinking responsibly is going to be much more inclined to see their problem if a person with them knows when to stop. The only concern I have with the position you espouse is that it is anything but moderate it is actually extreme. It’s extreme in the same way that a person might go to a beach in a Burka for the sake of modesty. The Burka wearer might justify their idea of modesty by thinking to themselves
“Sure a person at the beach has a right to wear a two piece bikini but physically. emotionally. spiritually. It’s a plague on society. Then, if
a person can bikini responsibly, and not stumble others, they have the
freedom to do so”
The problem is that the tiny two piece Bikini and the Burka are two sides of the same immodest coin. There is the majority in the middle who try to find the balance. I think that tension is really the cure for extremism and immodesty because it sees liberty and responsibility as co dependent qualities. I think Luke is throwing the curtains open here on extreme and immodest conclusions that people can come to concerning alcohol. Alcohol has a people problem not the other way around.
The bible continually marries liberty with responsibility.
When it comes to dangerous pleasures like sex it says get married. When it comes to the dangerous pleasures of drinking something that contains alcohol it say be careful.
As a pastor I have found myself calling something bad that God has called good. Now I try to be careful with my position of influence though I have the right, I don’t have the authority.
Abel – Neither the Burka nor the bikini have the potential to destroy lives the way alcohol has… And all of us have seen it. As an argument strictly about my liberties in Christ as opposed to legalism, I see what you’re saying. But I’m not arguing the liberty to drink. I’m being practical and seeing the effects of our liberty – especially if we are ‘encouraging’ others it is OK to drink.
Even the distilleries warn us to “drink responsibly.” I think it’s up to us – abstainers as well as partakers – to warn folks to not sit too long at the wine; to not be drunk with wine, wherein is excess.
Where, then, does “drunkenness” begin? How long CAN I sit at the wine; how much alcohol IS excess? It is not at all legalistic to ask & answer those questions. The Bible suggests them when, in its liberty to drink, it tells me to not be drunk or under the influence of wine.
Do you get a little buzz when you drink? Is that the moment you have reached your limit – or are you already drunk (as the CHP would say)?
You mentioned the situation, if I understood you correctly, of a more mature believer helping another believer to drink responsibly. That’s great – so what, exactly, is the example? Drink without getting a buzz? Drink until you get the buzz? Drink until you are at the legally defined limit, but have a designated driver?
I don’t find it extreme at all to warn someone of something – anything – that could potentially be dangerous. It seems irresponsible to not warn them.
You said… “Neither the Burka nor the bikini have the potential to destroy lives the way alcohol has… And all of us have seen it”
Alcohol actually has no ability to destroy. It is an inanimate object like a gun, Burka and like a Bikini. Adultery destroys lives! I am a pastor believe me I know this. How many lives in the bible have been destroyed by Alcohol? When compared to lust, greed, etc very few. What destroys lives is being irresponsible, immature, murderous pretty much being human. We make Alcohol a problem. Government has made good rules and laws for us to observe and obey. Because Alcohol has a human problem. It is up to us to be responsible. One of the greatest dangers of allowing the public to have liberty is the reality of immaturity and the risk of mistakes.
You said… “I don’t find it extreme at all to warn someone of something – anything –
that could potentially be dangerous. It seems irresponsible to not warn
them.”
I don’t find “warning” the extreme we agree there! I just want to push back a little with a warning for you… In your labeling of Alcohol as a “scourge” Just be careful not to become more biblical than the bible. I respect your opinion! But when it is tied to biblical eisegesis as justification that’s where I have a problem. An honest exegetical work of Scripture does not justify this statement.
“Physically. Emotionally. Spiritually. It’s a plague on society. Then, if a person can drink responsibly, and not stumble others, they have the freedom to do so”
It’s like telling my son to clean his room and trying to find a proof text from the bible to make it hit harder. Ultimately I would just be diluting scripture which is dangerous… like non diluted wine.
Anyways we will probably just go round and round here. Practically speaking I think we both respect Alcohol as a dangerous pleasure.
Abel – The writer of Proverbs goes so far as to personify alcohol. “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (20:1 ESV). I realize it’s a literary device, and that folks must themselves be responsible, but this proverb speaks of alcohol as the culprit; or at least something so dangerous it can lead us astray.
Noteable Bible characters who probably wish they’d abstained: Noah & Lot!
Still wondering how we teach or model moderation… What it means to drink to excess, to be drunk.
Though I’m not Able, I’d suggest that we don’t teach or model moderation by teaching teetotalism. We can, however, teach and model moderation by moderately enjoying these types of beverages. There are quite a few websites and resources that give general guidelines as to how many beers, glasses of wine, or shots of hard liquor can be consumed before one is “legally drunk.”
According to the dictionary, being drunk is being “being in a temporary state in which one’s physical and mental faculties are impaired by an excess of alcoholic drink.” That’s a mighty fine definition and one that I don’t think Scripture would really challenge.
When our physical bodies and mental abilities are unable to function they way they do without alcohol, we are entering into what Kenny Loggins’ “danger zone.”
An equally consistent question is when have we gone from “enjoying a steak” to being a glutton? And I mean that seriously… being that last night I had two steaks and almost wondered if I was doing exactly what Paul indicates shouldn’t be happening.
Kenny Loggins! That’s clever – but not really helpful. And is “legally drunk” what Paul meant when he said be not drunk? Should we let the state determine that?
Eating two steaks may be sin for you, but it probably didn’t put you or anyone else in jeopardy if you drove home.
Once again I’m not against drinking. Just think you guys aren’t thinking it through all the way.
BTW – keep calling me a teetotaler & I’ll start calling you guys lushes!!!
Gene,
I’m not opposed to civil governments who utilize people in the medical field to help me understand how alcohol affects human beings. Common grace has it’s purposes in theological thinking and this is one such example.
You continue to ignore the issue of gluttony so I’ll just assume you don’t see how inconsistent that is. Until you can actually interact with that issue, it’s probably safe to assume we don’t see eye to eye on that one. You have yet to actually deal with that issue and the issues raised by the CDC and many health insurance groups who either deny or charge significantly higher fees from those who have been deemed unhealthy due to their eating habits.
Your conclusion about us (not sure who that is exactly directed towards) is similar to my opinion on your responses. I think your previous statement that you can’t use the Bible to support your final position is telling. So I’ll except that! 🙂
Being a teetotaler isn’t a slanderous term. I have plenty of family and friends who identify with that view. Teetotalism is defined as the practice and promotion of abstaining from alcohol. Have you not said that is the very position you hold to? You’ve said you yourself abstain from drinking and counsel others to do the same. That, my friend, is teetotalism. Someone who is a lush is someone who is an alcoholic or drunkard. So that doesn’t quite equate. Just consult any dictionary 🙂 It’s hard to except that you are not a teetotaler when you’ve said that alcohol is a plague on society with no qualifications.
Anyway, no one in this thread has yet to suggest that drinking shouldn’t be done in wisdom and moderation. No one in this thread has suggested people should use alcohol as way of coping. What we have said is that a position that suggests that the biblical position is abstaining or teetotalism or whatever term you’d like to use is, in fact, unsupported by Scripture.
Furthermore, I think it’s important to note that you have also not read anyone suggest that leaders aren’t held to a higher standard. What you have read is that your “higher standard” is different than the Bibles.
At any rate, thanks for interacting and providing helpful questions that give me an opportunity to clarify myself! I appreciate that!
Luke – You said, “What we have said is that a position that suggests that the biblical position is abstaining or teetotalism or whatever term you’d like to use is, in fact, unsupported by Scripture.” I never said the biblical position was abstention. I’ve consistently said it’s ok to drink. If you want to emphasize liberty, the Bible gives us liberty to choose within guidelines. It’s just as “biblical” to abstain as it is to drink. I didn’t say my standard was higher; I suggested the Bible might hold leaders to a higher standard.
I’ll quit calling alcohol a plague and instead I’ll call it a mocker! (I’m attempting humor again).
Hahaha! I DID laugh!
Awesome. Fair enough… I can handle that. Haha
You said… “Once again I’m not against drinking. Just think you guys aren’t thinking it through all the way. ”
So you think drinking is a physical, emotional and spiritual scourge on society but your not against it. That’s odd.
“Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler.” It’s not dissimilar to my statement regarding alcohol, yet the Bible gives us liberty to drink. It’s not odd at all.
BTW – the Bible gives us liberty to drink, but Jesus currently has chosen to abstain from the fruit of the vine. It cannot, therefore, be an inconsistent position.
You don’t participate in the Lord’s Supper? Wow. That’s something I’ve never heard an evangelical say. I guess the weight of church history rests squarely in opposition to that position.
I’m not sure how you can follow Jesus’ pattern on that when he instructed his followers to do the exact opposite (do this in remembrance of me) and Paul picked up on that later after Jesus had been resurrected for quite some time (cf. 1 Cor. 11).
I always thought we partake because we are looking forward to the day when Jesus DOES return and we celebrate the Marriage Supper of the Lamb!
I have a feeling that a lot of teetotalers are going to be like, “Jesus…. there’s wine on the table… that’s not very Christian.”
😉
Maybe meaning is more important than method.
Agreed.
The Bible also says that wine is a gift from God. I like to say wine can be enjoyed to the glory of God or could be abused. That’s far more robustly biblical than taking one and ignoring the other.
Luke – I would disagree that a Christian can only participate in the Lord’s Supper if we drink wine & not grape juice. That seems to immediately alienate a huge segment of the church. If you want to be that precise, rather than symbolic, I think we’d need to know the actual mixture of water in the wine Jesus drank. One thing Geisler does establish is that the watered-down wine of the Bible isn’t what we commonly drink today.
Yes, there are positive AND negative statements about alcohol in the Bible. That tells me we should share both! I don’t really see that approach with most advocates of liberty with regard to alcohol.
I have liberty to enjoy alcohol. I have liberty to abstain from alcohol. I won’t force my position on others, but I can share my concerns about alcohol’s potentially deleterious effects. If food can have equally deleterious effects, then let’s share that, too.
Jesus, my Bridegroom, is currently abstaining from the fruit of the vine, so I know my decision can’t be wrong. I don’t think my abstaining makes me more or less spiritual; nor does your partaking make you more or less spiritual.
I do not favor prohibition, but I do see how it could be argued and defended biblically.
I think I will sign-out. I appreciate your letting me comment & your responses. I’ll let you have the last word.
Gene you are only showing one half of what the bible says about alcohol. You do understand that right? If you ignore that you are being intellectually dishonest to say the least.
I bring some of these things up in my article… http://thinktheology.org/alcohol-mirror-or-monster/
You said… “Still wondering how we teach or model moderation… What it means to drink to excess, to be drunk.”
Pretty simple… experience. I have been drunk. I know how to drink. I know that if I don’t eat in proportion to what I drink I can get in trouble. I think accountability is important. I don’t drink in the shower or the closet. I understand how far is to far.
You cannot model moderation well through abstinence that’s like showing someone gun safety with a toy gun it can only go so far.
Abel – Hmm. Intellectually dishonest? Remember I don’t disagree with drinking. I’m not the legalist; I’m not a prohibitionist. I simply have strong concerns – as did the writer of proverbs.
“To say the least” seems to indicate I’m really a lot worse!!!
Anyway – your analogy of the gun. Doesn’t work for me. Or maybe it does. If guns are ok for a Christian, does that mean I MUST own a gun? Of course not.
Alcohol is ok but it doesn’t mean I’m intellectually dishonest to abstain. Or to encourage others to. More like an opinion.
What I meant by “intellectually dishonest” was that you are willfully representing only one side of what the bible has to say about Alcohol. Its called spin. I understand that you don’t disagree with drinking and that you are not a legalist. But you are elevating your opinion that alcohol is physically, emotionally and spiritually a plague on society to one that Scripture agrees with. It does not. Because of the human element involved with alcohol consumption there is a problem.
Please don’t take what I am saying personal. I think your intentions are good. The “to say the least part” is in regard to how you are representing Scripture as well. As I said before In your labeling of Alcohol as a “scourge” Just be careful not to become more biblical than the bible. Or those good people who drink it responsibly might think you are saying that they are contributers to a physical, emotional and spiritual societal plague. Just like how a women in a Burka makes a modest women feel immodest.
You said… “Anyway – your analogy of the gun. Doesn’t work for me. Or maybe it does.
If guns are ok for a Christian, does that mean I MUST own a gun? Of
course not.”
My analogy was trying to point to the fact that experience is the best way to learn responsibility when it comes to dangerous pleasures like beer, wine, guns, etc.
One might ask… should we ere on the side of caution? Even more in eternal matters?
Hello Craig thanks for commenting.
Where is the line and who draws it? I would assume there is some line drawn if there is an ere?
The Bible is the line.
With all due respect it has been my experience that those who use the bible as their sole source of revelation and spiritual nourishment could benefit from a more diversified diet. We Catholics have the writings of the doctors and the fathers of the church to thank for myriad insights into the mysteries of our faith. This despite excoriation from our fundamentalist bretheren who wave the bible around like a loaf of bread claiming to be the only belief system that aligns itself with the Word of God. Hence their position on alcohol which is that Jesus never drank the stuff and will surely judge us harshly if we ever use it for anything but relief of excruciating pain.
Richard,
Thanks for your comments! Just a quick note…
Not all evangelicals are fundamentalists and many evangelicals also have the doctors and fathers of the church! Your comments are extremely relevant to evangelical discussions about the nature of Scripture because, as you so importantly noted, there’s a huge problem with solo scriptura. In fact, I find that type of approach to Scripture impossible to hold to as well as historically problematic. Luther and Calvin certainly didn’t hold to it! The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is radically different in nature.
So I appreciate your observation about the problem with a “me and my Bible” approach that is an epistemological time bomb!
Craig – I’d say caution was the approach Paul recommended in his writings regarding liberty.
Gene, it is like those who lump all sin the same, when scripture states that sexual sin can have greater ramifications. All sin is bad, it separates and affects our relationship with God and our Fellowship with others, yet God’s Word differentiates. Thanks for your insight!
Well put! Thanks.
Hey, Luke! Are you familiar with Dr. Norman Geisler’s approach to alcohol? He references the Scriptures that condemn “strong drink,” then shows that most of our modern alcoholic beverages would be considered “strong drink” by the Bible’s standards. I’m an abstentionist; my usual complaint is that in our rush to not be legalists we fail to properly warn folks about the terrible dangers involved with alcohol.
What up, Gene! I hope you are doing well and want to say “thanks” for your comments and thoughts… hugely important for our community here. I noticed you are a Calvary Chapel pastor, which is great. My uncle is a Calvary Chapel pastor…. love him and his wife (and kids) dearly!
Anyway, yes, I’m familiar with Geisler’s approach. I have both read his PowerPoint and listened to a mp3 of him speaking on the subject… although it’s been awhile.
In my recollection, it seems as if Geisler he confuses “drunkenness” or “drunkards” with “alcoholic beverage” quite often, especially on a biblical level. To drink a glass of Scotch is not the same thing as to get drunk on four glasses of Scotch. To drink a beer is not the same as drinking a 24 pack (at least I sure hope it isn’t!). It seemed that Geisler wanted to equate those things.
Second, it’s very difficult to buy into his suggestion that there are radical differences between the alcoholic beverages of the 1st century and that of today, as well as his suggestion of the watered down wine. His arguments have been largely disproved by scholars as well as being somewhat easy to challenge by just some casual observations (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/11/did-jesus-turn-water-into-fermented-wine/ has a good summary of the problems with Geisler’s argument).
Anyway, I’ve never heard of an abstentionist in relation to alcohol, but it sounds like a cool term. What do you mean by it?
I would still want to push back on the idea of “terrible dangers” in relation to other things that get abused, especially food! Food is, according to the CDC, a more “terrible danger” to people in the United States than alcohol. What are your thoughts about that?
Thanks again for your thoughts… it’s helpful in how pastors can reflect on different approaches as we seek to glorify God and love people!
Blessings!
By “abstentionist” I mean that I abstain from alcohol for reasons of conscience, and I recommend others do, too, but I recognize that the Bible allows drinking so long as it is not drunkenness. I have to disagree with the comparison with eating. While gluttony is indeed sin, you won’t find Mothers Against Gluttonous Driving. All I’m saying is that we warn folks of the devastating dangers that are associated with alcohol. Physically. Emotionally. Spiritually. It’s a plague on society. Then, if a person can drink responsibly, and not stumble others, they have the freedom to do so.
Gene,
Thanks for the definition! That makes sense. Are there any differences between being an “abstentionist” versus holding to Teetotalism?
I am not sure my comparison about eating was as clear. I’m asking how you can determine that alcohol is “worse” than gluttony when the facts (again, see the CDC stats) suggest that overeating and poor health are far more “dangerous” than drinking. Do you not see why someone like myself sees that as rather inconsistent?
And again, I’d want to push back on your assessment that alcohol is a “plague on society.” That seems to be quite an overstatement. I’d want to word it like this: “the abuse of alcohol is a plague on society” because that’s a more biblically defendable view. I want to caution people to have a more robust position on distinguishing between drinking a beer and being a drunkard, especially since that’s exactly where Scripture takes us.
At any rate, I appreciate when you write: “I recognize that the Bible allows drinking so long as it is not drunkenness.” Thanks for that!
Totally unrelated to this discussion but how are things in the Calvary Chapel now that Chuck Smith has passed away? I was very sorry to hear of his passing, though rejoice that he’s with the Lord! His influence on the evangelical church is amazing… sooooooo many blessed by him, including the movement that I’m a part of!
I abstain for reasons of conscience. I recommend others abstain but recognize that the Bible allows drinking that is not to excess. I don’t see how it denies biblical liberty to warn people about the potential dangers of alcohol. In all the talk I hear from advocates of drinking in moderation cause we can, I never hear any warnings. Alcohol is dangerous in ways food is not. Cars are soon going to come equipped with breathalyzers to prevent drunk driving, not scales to prevent fat driving. You’re putting your head in the sand if you don’t see the effects of alcohol on our society. Just because a believer can drink in moderation doesn’t mean he or she should. The weaker brother isn’t always the former drunk; he might be the potential drunk who is taught he has liberty to drink. As for Geisler, while I do not agree entirely with his analysis, he’s not so easily dismissed.
Just to clarify, I do not think that abstaining makes anyone more spiritual. Neither does it make them less spiritual.
We will certainly miss Pastor Chuck but his influence will continue. It’ll be interesting to see where God leads our movement.
Gene,
I can see your point about how advocates for drinking in moderation may not discuss the dangers of abusing alcohol. Perhaps that is because it seems obvious (in a similar way that you have implied in your question about why Paul would have to tell Timothy that elders shouldn’t be violent alcoholics). However, I’m inclined to think that it’s really more of a hyperbolic push back on the legalistic approach that soooooo many have taken for the past hundred and fifty years.
I’m still not sure you are understanding my point about gluttony. I would hope that you acknowledge that the Bible condemns gluttony. In other words, the one who abuses food is hurting his own body and damaging his witness to the world. Whether or not our civil authorities respond to this problem (again, note the CDC stats) and requires cars to be outfitted with a scale matters little. The fact remains that Scripture states that gluttony is a sin. I’m simply saying it’s inconsistent for someone to address Christian drinking without addressing Christian eating.
Anyway, just to be clear on my part, I completely respect your opinion and accept it in the spirit in which you are giving it (non-judgmental). So I think we probably have more in agreement about what Scripture says and are mostly disagreeing on how it is applied. So thanks for your comments!
I like what Scot McKnight says…
“It seems every year someone brings up the Bible and alcohol (the drinking kind). My first response, kept to myself but now made public, is this “Yo, have you ever tasted Brunello or a South African wine or a good pint of Boddington’s?” But that doesn’t seem to be the approach
needed here.
What I find every year in this conversation is a serious, but
repeated mistake. The tack is this: If I take a stand more “biblical than the Bible,” then I can’t be wrong. That is, if I choose not to drink at all, I will keep myself from sin and all appearance of evil and will be safe. This is what I call the sin of “zealotry” — the belief that if we are more extreme than the Bible, then we can’t be wrong. Wrong. If God is God, and if God speaks to us in the Bible, then God spoke words that show that wine drinking is fine. One may choose not to drink, but that view is more extreme than what the Bible says. Drinking too much is contrary to the Bible, but not drinking at all is not what the Bible teaches (except for ascetic strands at time). But, let’s not fall for the idea that being more biblical than the Bible is safe ground. Extremism is not righteousness; extremism is zealotry. Trust that what God says is what God wants.”
Gene I don’t know you and I am not saying you are personally guilty of zealotry. But you SOUND like a closet zealot. When you say something like… “Spiritually. It’s a plague on society. Then, if a person can drink responsibly, and not stumble others, they have the freedom to do so.”
Hey, Abel! I thought I sounded pretty balanced. I don’t drink, and while my opinion is that others are better off abstaining, I recognize the same truth you do – that the Bible allows drinking alcohol in moderation. Where’s the zealotry in that?
As to alcohol in general, why can’t we warn people of its potential dangers? The Bible does! It warns us to not sit too long at the wine, for example, and to not be drunk. Alcohol has a potential to destroy lives – to kill – that many other things do not. I don’t see why we can’t be honest about it while preserving liberty.
As far as zealotry, let me say this, gently. The tone of most things I read from advocates of drinking in moderation is that they are more interested in drinking than in defending biblical liberty. It seems important to advocates of drinking to revisit Paul’s concerns about stumbling weaker brothers and having liberties to themselves and to God, so that it doesn’t in any way interfere with their microbreweries! I come along with a moderate, biblical position, only asking that we recognize the historic dangers of alcohol, and it’s zealotry?
Let me ask you this. Since we all seem to agree that being drunk is prohibited biblically, can you define for me when a person who is drinking is drunk? Before I was a believer, being drunk meant I passed out. The California Highway Patrol rolled out a campaign that says, “buzzed drinking is drunk driving.” Is the first sign of a buzz being drunk? If the truth is somewhere in between those extremes, where is it?
It’s an important question for an advocate of drinking in moderation because, when you tell folks it’s ok to drink as long as you don’t get drunk, I don’t think they know what that means. Or it can mean different things to different people. So, what does it mean to be drunk?
Gene, thanks for the dialogue! I think choosing to not drink is fine. It is the best choice for some people for sure. I think recognizing the same truth (as we both do) is a good thing but I would say HOW we recognize it is important.
You said… “I don’t drink, and while my opinion is that others are better off
abstaining, I recognize the same truth you do – that the Bible allows
drinking alcohol in moderation. Where’s the zealotry in that?”
There is no Zealotry in that. But that is not a good representation of what you said earlier. “Physically. Emotionally. Spiritually. It’s a plague on society. Then, if
a person can drink responsibly, and not stumble others, they have the
freedom to do so”
That sounds like and pretty extreme statement. I am not sure Alcohol is the plague here from a Biblical sense I think it’s the human condition that’s the plague.
I would argue that a person who has a problem with drinking responsibly is going to be much more inclined to see their problem if a person with them knows when to stop. The only concern I have with the position you espouse is that it is anything but moderate it is actually extreme. It’s extreme in the same way that a person might go to a beach in a Burka for the sake of modesty. The Burka wearer might justify their idea of modesty by thinking to themselves
“Sure a person at the beach has a right to wear a two piece bikini but physically. emotionally. spiritually. It’s a plague on society. Then, if
a person can bikini responsibly, and not stumble others, they have the
freedom to do so”
The problem is that the tiny two piece Bikini and the Burka are two sides of the same immodest coin. There is the majority in the middle who try to find the balance. I think that tension is really the cure for extremism and immodesty because it sees liberty and responsibility as co dependent qualities. I think Luke is throwing the curtains open here on extreme and immodest conclusions that people can come to concerning alcohol. Alcohol has a people problem not the other way around.
The bible continually marries liberty with responsibility.
When it comes to dangerous pleasures like sex it says get married. When it comes to the dangerous pleasures of drinking something that contains alcohol it say be careful.
As a pastor I have found myself calling something bad that God has called good. Now I try to be careful with my position of influence though I have the right, I don’t have the authority.
Abel – Neither the Burka nor the bikini have the potential to destroy lives the way alcohol has… And all of us have seen it. As an argument strictly about my liberties in Christ as opposed to legalism, I see what you’re saying. But I’m not arguing the liberty to drink. I’m being practical and seeing the effects of our liberty – especially if we are ‘encouraging’ others it is OK to drink.
Even the distilleries warn us to “drink responsibly.” I think it’s up to us – abstainers as well as partakers – to warn folks to not sit too long at the wine; to not be drunk with wine, wherein is excess.
Where, then, does “drunkenness” begin? How long CAN I sit at the wine; how much alcohol IS excess? It is not at all legalistic to ask & answer those questions. The Bible suggests them when, in its liberty to drink, it tells me to not be drunk or under the influence of wine.
Do you get a little buzz when you drink? Is that the moment you have reached your limit – or are you already drunk (as the CHP would say)?
You mentioned the situation, if I understood you correctly, of a more mature believer helping another believer to drink responsibly. That’s great – so what, exactly, is the example? Drink without getting a buzz? Drink until you get the buzz? Drink until you are at the legally defined limit, but have a designated driver?
I don’t find it extreme at all to warn someone of something – anything – that could potentially be dangerous. It seems irresponsible to not warn them.
You said… “Neither the Burka nor the bikini have the potential to destroy lives the way alcohol has… And all of us have seen it”
Alcohol actually has no ability to destroy. It is an inanimate object like a gun, Burka and like a Bikini. Adultery destroys lives! I am a pastor believe me I know this. How many lives in the bible have been destroyed by Alcohol? When compared to lust, greed, etc very few. What destroys lives is being irresponsible, immature, murderous pretty much being human. We make Alcohol a problem. Government has made good rules and laws for us to observe and obey. Because Alcohol has a human problem. It is up to us to be responsible. One of the greatest dangers of allowing the public to have liberty is the reality of immaturity and the risk of mistakes.
You said… “I don’t find it extreme at all to warn someone of something – anything –
that could potentially be dangerous. It seems irresponsible to not warn
them.”
I don’t find “warning” the extreme we agree there! I just want to push back a little with a warning for you… In your labeling of Alcohol as a “scourge” Just be careful not to become more biblical than the bible. I respect your opinion! But when it is tied to biblical eisegesis as justification that’s where I have a problem. An honest exegetical work of Scripture does not justify this statement.
“Physically. Emotionally. Spiritually. It’s a plague on society. Then, if a person can drink responsibly, and not stumble others, they have the freedom to do so”
It’s like telling my son to clean his room and trying to find a proof text from the bible to make it hit harder. Ultimately I would just be diluting scripture which is dangerous… like non diluted wine.
Anyways we will probably just go round and round here. Practically speaking I think we both respect Alcohol as a dangerous pleasure.
Abel – The writer of Proverbs goes so far as to personify alcohol. “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (20:1 ESV). I realize it’s a literary device, and that folks must themselves be responsible, but this proverb speaks of alcohol as the culprit; or at least something so dangerous it can lead us astray.
Noteable Bible characters who probably wish they’d abstained: Noah & Lot!
Still wondering how we teach or model moderation… What it means to drink to excess, to be drunk.
Though I’m not Able, I’d suggest that we don’t teach or model moderation by teaching teetotalism. We can, however, teach and model moderation by moderately enjoying these types of beverages. There are quite a few websites and resources that give general guidelines as to how many beers, glasses of wine, or shots of hard liquor can be consumed before one is “legally drunk.”
According to the dictionary, being drunk is being “being in a temporary state in which one’s physical and mental faculties are impaired by an excess of alcoholic drink.” That’s a mighty fine definition and one that I don’t think Scripture would really challenge.
When our physical bodies and mental abilities are unable to function they way they do without alcohol, we are entering into what Kenny Loggins’ “danger zone.”
An equally consistent question is when have we gone from “enjoying a steak” to being a glutton? And I mean that seriously… being that last night I had two steaks and almost wondered if I was doing exactly what Paul indicates shouldn’t be happening.
Kenny Loggins! That’s clever – but not really helpful. And is “legally drunk” what Paul meant when he said be not drunk? Should we let the state determine that?
Eating two steaks may be sin for you, but it probably didn’t put you or anyone else in jeopardy if you drove home.
Once again I’m not against drinking. Just think you guys aren’t thinking it through all the way.
BTW – keep calling me a teetotaler & I’ll start calling you guys lushes!!!
Gene,
I’m not opposed to civil governments who utilize people in the medical field to help me understand how alcohol affects human beings. Common grace has it’s purposes in theological thinking and this is one such example.
You continue to ignore the issue of gluttony so I’ll just assume you don’t see how inconsistent that is. Until you can actually interact with that issue, it’s probably safe to assume we don’t see eye to eye on that one. You have yet to actually deal with that issue and the issues raised by the CDC and many health insurance groups who either deny or charge significantly higher fees from those who have been deemed unhealthy due to their eating habits.
Your conclusion about us (not sure who that is exactly directed towards) is similar to my opinion on your responses. I think your previous statement that you can’t use the Bible to support your final position is telling. So I’ll except that! 🙂
Being a teetotaler isn’t a slanderous term. I have plenty of family and friends who identify with that view. Teetotalism is defined as the practice and promotion of abstaining from alcohol. Have you not said that is the very position you hold to? You’ve said you yourself abstain from drinking and counsel others to do the same. That, my friend, is teetotalism. Someone who is a lush is someone who is an alcoholic or drunkard. So that doesn’t quite equate. Just consult any dictionary 🙂 It’s hard to except that you are not a teetotaler when you’ve said that alcohol is a plague on society with no qualifications.
Anyway, no one in this thread has yet to suggest that drinking shouldn’t be done in wisdom and moderation. No one in this thread has suggested people should use alcohol as way of coping. What we have said is that a position that suggests that the biblical position is abstaining or teetotalism or whatever term you’d like to use is, in fact, unsupported by Scripture.
Furthermore, I think it’s important to note that you have also not read anyone suggest that leaders aren’t held to a higher standard. What you have read is that your “higher standard” is different than the Bibles.
At any rate, thanks for interacting and providing helpful questions that give me an opportunity to clarify myself! I appreciate that!
Luke – You said, “What we have said is that a position that suggests that the biblical position is abstaining or teetotalism or whatever term you’d like to use is, in fact, unsupported by Scripture.” I never said the biblical position was abstention. I’ve consistently said it’s ok to drink. If you want to emphasize liberty, the Bible gives us liberty to choose within guidelines. It’s just as “biblical” to abstain as it is to drink. I didn’t say my standard was higher; I suggested the Bible might hold leaders to a higher standard.
I’ll quit calling alcohol a plague and instead I’ll call it a mocker! (I’m attempting humor again).
Hahaha! I DID laugh!
Awesome. Fair enough… I can handle that. Haha
You said… “Once again I’m not against drinking. Just think you guys aren’t thinking it through all the way. ”
So you think drinking is a physical, emotional and spiritual scourge on society but your not against it. That’s odd.
“Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler.” It’s not dissimilar to my statement regarding alcohol, yet the Bible gives us liberty to drink. It’s not odd at all.
BTW – the Bible gives us liberty to drink, but Jesus currently has chosen to abstain from the fruit of the vine. It cannot, therefore, be an inconsistent position.
You don’t participate in the Lord’s Supper? Wow. That’s something I’ve never heard an evangelical say. I guess the weight of church history rests squarely in opposition to that position.
I’m not sure how you can follow Jesus’ pattern on that when he instructed his followers to do the exact opposite (do this in remembrance of me) and Paul picked up on that later after Jesus had been resurrected for quite some time (cf. 1 Cor. 11).
I always thought we partake because we are looking forward to the day when Jesus DOES return and we celebrate the Marriage Supper of the Lamb!
I have a feeling that a lot of teetotalers are going to be like, “Jesus…. there’s wine on the table… that’s not very Christian.”
😉
Maybe meaning is more important than method.
Agreed.
The Bible also says that wine is a gift from God. I like to say wine can be enjoyed to the glory of God or could be abused. That’s far more robustly biblical than taking one and ignoring the other.
Luke – I would disagree that a Christian can only participate in the Lord’s Supper if we drink wine & not grape juice. That seems to immediately alienate a huge segment of the church. If you want to be that precise, rather than symbolic, I think we’d need to know the actual mixture of water in the wine Jesus drank. One thing Geisler does establish is that the watered-down wine of the Bible isn’t what we commonly drink today.
Yes, there are positive AND negative statements about alcohol in the Bible. That tells me we should share both! I don’t really see that approach with most advocates of liberty with regard to alcohol.
I have liberty to enjoy alcohol. I have liberty to abstain from alcohol. I won’t force my position on others, but I can share my concerns about alcohol’s potentially deleterious effects. If food can have equally deleterious effects, then let’s share that, too.
Jesus, my Bridegroom, is currently abstaining from the fruit of the vine, so I know my decision can’t be wrong. I don’t think my abstaining makes me more or less spiritual; nor does your partaking make you more or less spiritual.
I do not favor prohibition, but I do see how it could be argued and defended biblically.
I think I will sign-out. I appreciate your letting me comment & your responses. I’ll let you have the last word.
Gene you are only showing one half of what the bible says about alcohol. You do understand that right? If you ignore that you are being intellectually dishonest to say the least.
I bring some of these things up in my article… http://thinktheology.org/alcohol-mirror-or-monster/
You said… “Still wondering how we teach or model moderation… What it means to drink to excess, to be drunk.”
Pretty simple… experience. I have been drunk. I know how to drink. I know that if I don’t eat in proportion to what I drink I can get in trouble. I think accountability is important. I don’t drink in the shower or the closet. I understand how far is to far.
You cannot model moderation well through abstinence that’s like showing someone gun safety with a toy gun it can only go so far.
Abel – Hmm. Intellectually dishonest? Remember I don’t disagree with drinking. I’m not the legalist; I’m not a prohibitionist. I simply have strong concerns – as did the writer of proverbs.
“To say the least” seems to indicate I’m really a lot worse!!!
Anyway – your analogy of the gun. Doesn’t work for me. Or maybe it does. If guns are ok for a Christian, does that mean I MUST own a gun? Of course not.
Alcohol is ok but it doesn’t mean I’m intellectually dishonest to abstain. Or to encourage others to. More like an opinion.
What I meant by “intellectually dishonest” was that you are willfully representing only one side of what the bible has to say about Alcohol. Its called spin. I understand that you don’t disagree with drinking and that you are not a legalist. But you are elevating your opinion that alcohol is physically, emotionally and spiritually a plague on society to one that Scripture agrees with. It does not. Because of the human element involved with alcohol consumption there is a problem.
Please don’t take what I am saying personal. I think your intentions are good. The “to say the least part” is in regard to how you are representing Scripture as well. As I said before In your labeling of Alcohol as a “scourge” Just be careful not to become more biblical than the bible. Or those good people who drink it responsibly might think you are saying that they are contributers to a physical, emotional and spiritual societal plague. Just like how a women in a Burka makes a modest women feel immodest.
You said… “Anyway – your analogy of the gun. Doesn’t work for me. Or maybe it does.
If guns are ok for a Christian, does that mean I MUST own a gun? Of
course not.”
My analogy was trying to point to the fact that experience is the best way to learn responsibility when it comes to dangerous pleasures like beer, wine, guns, etc.
One might ask… should we ere on the side of caution? Even more in eternal matters?
Hello Craig thanks for commenting.
Where is the line and who draws it? I would assume there is some line drawn if there is an ere?
The Bible is the line.
With all due respect it has been my experience that those who use the bible as their sole source of revelation and spiritual nourishment could benefit from a more diversified diet. We Catholics have the writings of the doctors and the fathers of the church to thank for myriad insights into the mysteries of our faith. This despite excoriation from our fundamentalist bretheren who wave the bible around like a loaf of bread claiming to be the only belief system that aligns itself with the Word of God. Hence their position on alcohol which is that Jesus never drank the stuff and will surely judge us harshly if we ever use it for anything but relief of excruciating pain.
Richard,
Thanks for your comments! Just a quick note…
Not all evangelicals are fundamentalists and many evangelicals also have the doctors and fathers of the church! Your comments are extremely relevant to evangelical discussions about the nature of Scripture because, as you so importantly noted, there’s a huge problem with solo scriptura. In fact, I find that type of approach to Scripture impossible to hold to as well as historically problematic. Luther and Calvin certainly didn’t hold to it! The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is radically different in nature.
So I appreciate your observation about the problem with a “me and my Bible” approach that is an epistemological time bomb!
Craig – I’d say caution was the approach Paul recommended in his writings regarding liberty.
Gene, it is like those who lump all sin the same, when scripture states that sexual sin can have greater ramifications. All sin is bad, it separates and affects our relationship with God and our Fellowship with others, yet God’s Word differentiates. Thanks for your insight!
Well put! Thanks.
Well said!
Great post Luke.
Thanks Grant. Having a brother-in-law who brews some of the fine and gloriously tasty beer that I’m talking about was a helpful reminder as to why I shall fight for my freedom to enjoy it.
Speaking of which… Christmas is coming soon. You know what I expect. 🙂 ha ha
Great post Luke.
What about I Timothy 3:3 (Qualifications of a pastor) “Not given to wine”. Vs. 8 is for deacons, “Not given to much wine”. It seems a pastor has a higher standard which is to abstain??
I’ll chime in here Anne — The way the text reads in 1 Tim. 3:1 is actually two Greek words (but more, wait!) – μὴ πάροινον, which is “Not a drunkard.” Some translations have it, “Not given to drunkenness” (NIV), “Must not be a heavy drinker” (NLT), “Not a drunkard” (ESV), “Not addicted to wine” (NASB). A paroinos is someone who is addicted to alcohol. This is different from a person that drinks alcoholic beverages just as glutton is different from a person who eats food, for instance. One uses it (enjoys it), and the other abuses it. Paul’s instructions for Elders was that they were not to be addicts. But in this text, as in Titus 1:7, the word is actually paired with the next word μὴ πλήκτην (playktayn) – which is not a violent person or in some translations is it “not pugnacious” or “not a brawler.” In this regard, Greek scholar Newport White writes: “μὴ πάροινον (no brawler, R.V., quarrelsome over wine, R.V. m.), and μὴ πλήκτην are similarly coupled together in Tit. 1:7. παροινία means violent temper, not specially excited by overindulgence in strong drink.”[1] In other words, the idea that Paul seems to be conveying to both Timothy and Titus is that church leaders are not to be addicted to wine, and are not to be violent in their temper, but you could also put the words together to convey the idea of “not a violent drunkard” — which would allow for the possibility that a church leader could enjoy a drink, and even get “happy” from it (cf. Ps. 104:15), but he is not to become addicted or intemperate when drinking alcohol. In other words, the high standard for pastors and elder is not abstinence, but rather self control, temperance, and moderation, which is exactly what Luke is advocating above. In many North American churches, there is an idea that drinking things that have alcohol in them is incompatible with Christianity and Christian leadership. That’s an impossible position to maintain biblically, and it is is much more cultural — and in many parts of the world, the idea that Christian leaders should abstain from drinks containing alcohol is more than peculiar and quite enigmatic considering the founder of Christianity (for more on that, you’ll have to read my contribution).
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
[1] White, N. J. D. (n.d.). The First and SecondEpistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus. The expositor’s Greek Testament: Commentary. New York: George H.Doran Company.
So what is the difference between “not given to wine” and “not given to much wine”?
Anne, from the perspective of the Greek New Testament, it’s the difference between moderately enjoying alcohol and abusing alcohol. It’s basically the same argument I’m making in this article.
Thanks for your questions, by the way! Very good!
Hey, Kenney! (Hi, neighbor). Great Greek analysis… But do we really need to be told that a leader should not be a violent drunk?
Gene, isn’t your question similar to asking: Do we really need to be told that a leader shouldn’t be a lover of money?
Evidently the apostle Paul, under inspiration of the Spirit, thought so!
Luke – I’d say one difference is that one behavior is obvious whereas the other might not be. “Lover of money” is a motive for ministry that could remain hidden for a long time. Another difference – some believers were used to showing preferential treatment to the rich & could easily think being a “lover of money” was OK. I think sanctified common sense is all we need to know that a violent drunkard shouldn’t be a leader… So I’d argue from the context that, at the very least, Paul holds leaders to a higher standard than believers gifted in other ways. That higher standard may not be abstinence, I’ll agree.
Gene!!! No way. Great to see you here and in the dialogue flow. Actually, I have asked that question about a lot of things Paul wrote. I think taking the whole list and applying the same question to all of the qualifications is insightful. Apparently, there were elders in the Ephesian church who were disqualified from serving in every capacity outlined here (e.g., – you don’t have to give instructions about things people already understand). Thus, it’s likely that there were some violent drunkards who were holding influence in the Ephesian church, and needed to be removed. The Corinthian church didn’t know that a man should not sleep with his father’s wife. Lots of problems in the early churches (especially among leaders). Your question, therefore, should be applied to every qualification, and if that’s done it’s an interesting window into the shabby condition of the elders in Ephesus (and the reason why Paul told Timothy there needed to be dramatic changes). I once meet a violent pastor who also had addiction problems. It affected me personally, and that man was allowed to keep his job. Did he (and the elders who allowed it) need to be told that a Christian leader should not be a violent addict. YEP!
Good answer – although I’d still argue that the passage is about holding leaders to a high or higher standard rather than pointing out the obvious.
Hey, Luke! I have a related question (or maybe it’s a comment). Why do you suppose that Timothy was concerned about drinking a little wine?
Gene, some commentators (e.g., Knight in the NIGNT) suggest that Timothy was holding to either teetotalism or some form of a Nazarite vow.
But this actually further supports my argument 🙂 Timothy may (this is somewhat speculative on the part of all commentators) have held to teetotalism, but Paul challenges that. In Liefeld’s NIVAC contribution, he writes,
Drinking wine, as an apostolic leader who is teaching Pastors not to abuse wine, is commanded by Paul. Interestingly, Lea and Griffin (NAC) suggest another important qualifier:
I think that many (not all) who hold to teetotalism may be guilty of the same ascetic ideas that were being promoted by these false teachers. In other words, the pastoral epistles, I’d argue, support the very perspective I’m suggesting.
Luke – Not so fast! Rather than speculate about Nazirite vows and such, it seems that the verses themselves indicate Timothy had stomach issues and “other infirmities.” Paul suggested mixing a little wine with water for medicinal purposes – not for social drinking. To me at least, the most viable interpretation is that Timothy was concerned about his witness and that Paul said it was OK to drink wine medicinally.
Gene,
That’s a possible interpretation, though just as speculative as Paul’s command being a response to asceticism. I’ll grant that. I’m not convinced it’s the best, though, as it seems to ignore other patterns and issues that are addressed in the context (purity, qualifications, false teachers, etc.). But it’s an option and not crazy… 🙂
So for “social drinking” (which I’d like to have defined), my example will be Jesus (Luke 7:34). There is a way, as I’ve experienced time and time again, to drink a beer or glass of wine and be on mission with God and see the Spirit work. Is it for everyone? Perhaps not. And I’m certainly not arguing that. I’m simply saying, “Stop judging Christians who differ on a matter that teetotalers can’t prove with Scripture!” (and no, I’m not yelling… just making my point)
🙂
Luke – It’s not at all speculative because Paul definitely says it’s for his stomach & other ailments. If our goal is to remain biblical, the most we can say from that text is that it’s OK to mingle wine & water for medicinal purposes. Other texts tell us other things… But this one is pretty clear. Maybe it’s speculating to ask the question, “Why would Timothy be concerned?” I’d answer that by saying he knew Paul held leaders to high or higher standards.
Since your example is Jesus, what do you think about this. The Lord told us we would “fast” once the Bridegroom was gone. Then He said, ““I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom.” He’s gone… He’s “fasting” from “this fruit of the vine.” Maybe we should, too?
Again let me emphasize I abstain but acknowledge a believer can drink alcohol. But my Lord has chosen abstinence until I see Him again!
Does this mean there is booze in Heaven?
So a pastor “not given to wine” cannot be drunk and a deacon “not given to much wine” cannot be very drunk?
AHHHHHH! Now I understand what you were saying. I guess I didn’t read your initial question well. You are talking about the difference in the qualifications of elders and deacons. Yeah, I totally missed that. I apologize.
I don’t think there’s much difference, to be honest. Paul’s statement to pastors and deacons is pointing in the same direction. Again, Knight is helpful:
I think we have to remember that Paul (and all of the other biblical authors) are writing under the inspiration of the Spirit while maintaining their personality and writing style. This could simply be an example of Paul being a creative writer. He’s talking essentially about the same thing though. Don’t abuse alcohol. Don’t be enslaved to it. Don’t set your mind on it. Able’s article is helpful in bringing this up when he talks about alcohol being a mirror.
The bottom line is that church leaders weren’t told to completely abstain and were told to not be drunkards. In other words, I think they’d advocate the position I’m arguing for here. 🙂
So pastors can “moderately enjoy alcohol” but deacons can “abuse alcohol” because pastors are “not given to wine” and deacons are “not given to much wine”?
Nope. That’s not at all what I or Paul are saying. I think you might have missed my last response!
Sorry. You not have to respond to this. I see your answer. I missed it earlier…
What about I Timothy 3:3 (Qualifications of a pastor) “Not given to wine”. Vs. 8 is for deacons, “Not given to much wine”. It seems a pastor has a higher standard which is to abstain??
I’ll chime in here Anne — The way the text reads in 1 Tim. 3:1 is actually two Greek words (but more, wait!) – μὴ πάροινον, which is “Not a drunkard.” Some translations have it, “Not given to drunkenness” (NIV), “Must not be a heavy drinker” (NLT), “Not a drunkard” (ESV), “Not addicted to wine” (NASB). A paroinos is someone who is addicted to alcohol. This is different from a person that drinks alcoholic beverages just as glutton is different from a person who eats food, for instance. One uses it (enjoys it), and the other abuses it. Paul’s instructions for Elders was that they were not to be addicts. But in this text, as in Titus 1:7, the word is actually paired with the next word μὴ πλήκτην (playktayn) – which is not a violent person or in some translations is it “not pugnacious” or “not a brawler.” In this regard, Greek scholar Newport White writes: “μὴ πάροινον (no brawler, R.V., quarrelsome over wine, R.V. m.), and μὴ πλήκτην are similarly coupled together in Tit. 1:7. παροινία means violent temper, not specially excited by overindulgence in strong drink.”[1] In other words, the idea that Paul seems to be conveying to both Timothy and Titus is that church leaders are not to be addicted to wine, and are not to be violent in their temper, but you could also put the words together to convey the idea of “not a violent drunkard” — which would allow for the possibility that a church leader could enjoy a drink, and even get “happy” from it (cf. Ps. 104:15), but he is not to become addicted or intemperate when drinking alcohol. In other words, the high standard for pastors and elder is not abstinence, but rather self control, temperance, and moderation, which is exactly what Luke is advocating above. In many North American churches, there is an idea that drinking things that have alcohol in them is incompatible with Christianity and Christian leadership. That’s an impossible position to maintain biblically, and it is is much more cultural — and in many parts of the world, the idea that Christian leaders should abstain from drinks containing alcohol is more than peculiar and quite enigmatic considering the founder of Christianity (for more on that, you’ll have to read my contribution).
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
[1] White, N. J. D. (n.d.). The First and SecondEpistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus. The expositor’s Greek Testament: Commentary. New York: George H.Doran Company.
So what is the difference between “not given to wine” and “not given to much wine”?
Anne, from the perspective of the Greek New Testament, it’s the difference between moderately enjoying alcohol and abusing alcohol. It’s basically the same argument I’m making in this article.
Thanks for your questions, by the way! Very good!
Hey, Kenney! (Hi, neighbor). Great Greek analysis… But do we really need to be told that a leader should not be a violent drunk?
Gene, isn’t your question similar to asking: Do we really need to be told that a leader shouldn’t be a lover of money?
Evidently the apostle Paul, under inspiration of the Spirit, thought so!
Luke – I’d say one difference is that one behavior is obvious whereas the other might not be. “Lover of money” is a motive for ministry that could remain hidden for a long time. Another difference – some believers were used to showing preferential treatment to the rich & could easily think being a “lover of money” was OK. I think sanctified common sense is all we need to know that a violent drunkard shouldn’t be a leader… So I’d argue from the context that, at the very least, Paul holds leaders to a higher standard than believers gifted in other ways. That higher standard may not be abstinence, I’ll agree.
Gene!!! No way. Great to see you here and in the dialogue flow. Actually, I have asked that question about a lot of things Paul wrote. I think taking the whole list and applying the same question to all of the qualifications is insightful. Apparently, there were elders in the Ephesian church who were disqualified from serving in every capacity outlined here (e.g., – you don’t have to give instructions about things people already understand). Thus, it’s likely that there were some violent drunkards who were holding influence in the Ephesian church, and needed to be removed. The Corinthian church didn’t know that a man should not sleep with his father’s wife. Lots of problems in the early churches (especially among leaders). Your question, therefore, should be applied to every qualification, and if that’s done it’s an interesting window into the shabby condition of the elders in Ephesus (and the reason why Paul told Timothy there needed to be dramatic changes). I once meet a violent pastor who also had addiction problems. It affected me personally, and that man was allowed to keep his job. Did he (and the elders who allowed it) need to be told that a Christian leader should not be a violent addict. YEP!
Good answer – although I’d still argue that the passage is about holding leaders to a high or higher standard rather than pointing out the obvious.
Hey, Luke! I have a related question (or maybe it’s a comment). Why do you suppose that Timothy was concerned about drinking a little wine?
Gene, some commentators (e.g., Knight in the NIGNT) suggest that Timothy was holding to either teetotalism or some form of a Nazarite vow.
But this actually further supports my argument 🙂 Timothy may (this is somewhat speculative on the part of all commentators) have held to teetotalism, but Paul challenges that. In Liefeld’s NIVAC contribution, he writes,
Drinking wine, as an apostolic leader who is teaching Pastors not to abuse wine, is commanded by Paul. Interestingly, Lea and Griffin (NAC) suggest another important qualifier:
I think that many (not all) who hold to teetotalism may be guilty of the same ascetic ideas that were being promoted by these false teachers. In other words, the pastoral epistles, I’d argue, support the very perspective I’m suggesting.
Luke – Not so fast! Rather than speculate about Nazirite vows and such, it seems that the verses themselves indicate Timothy had stomach issues and “other infirmities.” Paul suggested mixing a little wine with water for medicinal purposes – not for social drinking. To me at least, the most viable interpretation is that Timothy was concerned about his witness and that Paul said it was OK to drink wine medicinally.
Gene,
That’s a possible interpretation, though just as speculative as Paul’s command being a response to asceticism. I’ll grant that. I’m not convinced it’s the best, though, as it seems to ignore other patterns and issues that are addressed in the context (purity, qualifications, false teachers, etc.). But it’s an option and not crazy… 🙂
So for “social drinking” (which I’d like to have defined), my example will be Jesus (Luke 7:34). There is a way, as I’ve experienced time and time again, to drink a beer or glass of wine and be on mission with God and see the Spirit work. Is it for everyone? Perhaps not. And I’m certainly not arguing that. I’m simply saying, “Stop judging Christians who differ on a matter that teetotalers can’t prove with Scripture!” (and no, I’m not yelling… just making my point)
🙂
Luke – It’s not at all speculative because Paul definitely says it’s for his stomach & other ailments. If our goal is to remain biblical, the most we can say from that text is that it’s OK to mingle wine & water for medicinal purposes. Other texts tell us other things… But this one is pretty clear. Maybe it’s speculating to ask the question, “Why would Timothy be concerned?” I’d answer that by saying he knew Paul held leaders to high or higher standards.
Since your example is Jesus, what do you think about this. The Lord told us we would “fast” once the Bridegroom was gone. Then He said, ““I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom.” He’s gone… He’s “fasting” from “this fruit of the vine.” Maybe we should, too?
Again let me emphasize I abstain but acknowledge a believer can drink alcohol. But my Lord has chosen abstinence until I see Him again!
Does this mean there is booze in Heaven?
So a pastor “not given to wine” cannot be drunk and a deacon “not given to much wine” cannot be very drunk?
AHHHHHH! Now I understand what you were saying. I guess I didn’t read your initial question well. You are talking about the difference in the qualifications of elders and deacons. Yeah, I totally missed that. I apologize.
I don’t think there’s much difference, to be honest. Paul’s statement to pastors and deacons is pointing in the same direction. Again, Knight is helpful:
I think we have to remember that Paul (and all of the other biblical authors) are writing under the inspiration of the Spirit while maintaining their personality and writing style. This could simply be an example of Paul being a creative writer. He’s talking essentially about the same thing though. Don’t abuse alcohol. Don’t be enslaved to it. Don’t set your mind on it. Able’s article is helpful in bringing this up when he talks about alcohol being a mirror.
The bottom line is that church leaders weren’t told to completely abstain and were told to not be drunkards. In other words, I think they’d advocate the position I’m arguing for here. 🙂
So pastors can “moderately enjoy alcohol” but deacons can “abuse alcohol” because pastors are “not given to wine” and deacons are “not given to much wine”?
Nope. That’s not at all what I or Paul are saying. I think you might have missed my last response!
Sorry. You not have to respond to this. I see your answer. I missed it earlier…
I was confused about your comment that we should only have sex in moderation? What do you mean by that? Where does it say that in the Bible other than to abstain if one spouse is fasting and praying for a period of time? Just want you to clarify. Like your thoughts – thought it was interesting blog.
Hey Richard! Thanks for joining the conversation!
When I wrote that part of my post, I knew some people would be confused by it. I decided to allow for it to be fleshed out in the comment section because I thought it’d be a fruitful side discussion.
I was speaking about sex from the perspective of pragmatic pastoral wisdom as well as a husband who is trying to love his wife.
Sex is a wonderful blessing given to us by God. It’s not dirty or shameful. It’s something that God has given as a gift to married people. Yet a healthy marriage cannot consist of 100% sex, right? Despite what many of us husbands may think would be a good marriage, there are other things that are vitally important to a healthy marriage. So when a couple comes to me who is having marriage issues and the husband is complaining about not having sex every second of the day and the wife is complaining about having to have sex at all, I like to talk about the importance of a healthy relationship that includes both sexual intimacy and quality time, communication, love, respect, etc.
My point is that even though a large part of society totally abuses sex, I’ve never heard a reputable evangelical leader suggest that we should abstain from sex. Yet all of the arguments are, if we really think about it, quite similar.
Does that make sense? What do you think?
Maybe it’s not a good analogy?
I was confused about your comment that we should only have sex in moderation? What do you mean by that? Where does it say that in the Bible other than to abstain if one spouse is fasting and praying for a period of time? Just want you to clarify. Like your thoughts – thought it was interesting blog.
Hey Richard! Thanks for joining the conversation!
When I wrote that part of my post, I knew some people would be confused by it. I decided to allow for it to be fleshed out in the comment section because I thought it’d be a fruitful side discussion.
I was speaking about sex from the perspective of pragmatic pastoral wisdom as well as a husband who is trying to love his wife.
Sex is a wonderful blessing given to us by God. It’s not dirty or shameful. It’s something that God has given as a gift to married people. Yet a healthy marriage cannot consist of 100% sex, right? Despite what many of us husbands may think would be a good marriage, there are other things that are vitally important to a healthy marriage. So when a couple comes to me who is having marriage issues and the husband is complaining about not having sex every second of the day and the wife is complaining about having to have sex at all, I like to talk about the importance of a healthy relationship that includes both sexual intimacy and quality time, communication, love, respect, etc.
My point is that even though a large part of society totally abuses sex, I’ve never heard a reputable evangelical leader suggest that we should abstain from sex. Yet all of the arguments are, if we really think about it, quite similar.
Does that make sense? What do you think?
Maybe it’s not a good analogy?
I would offer my own blog post, but to be honest, I think Luke NAILS IT.
As a Brit, I find the US Evangelical obsession with this slightly confusing/frustrating. But then maybe thats just me.
I’m grateful that my senior pastors put a bar in the back of church – it has been a brilliant way to invite all sorts of people to church, and to show how to live lives of moderation to our youth and students. Its also great for running low-entry level events to introduce people to church and to the Gospel.
Then again, we do have a pub culture in the UK that the US DOESN’T seem to have, and whilst we aren’t perfect as a culture, I believe Christians can model something good with alcohol.
FYI, I write this comment whilst working on some paper skeletons at the University Club, and am on my second pint of the afternoon. In this case a lovely swedish pear cider, as the beer I tried earlier with a friend was not to my liking.
like
Like
Admiral Creedy, that’s an interesting point. It is extremely curious that the US went this route whereas the UK hasn’t had nearly as much of a challenge with it. Yet both US and UK evangelicals were influenced by the same holiness background that ultimately led to it, though the US did so largely through the influence of the Methodists who transitioned into the Holiness Movement and the UK via Keswick.
Thanks for your comments!
I would offer my own blog post, but to be honest, I think Luke NAILS IT.
As a Brit, I find the US Evangelical obsession with this slightly confusing/frustrating. But then maybe thats just me.
I’m grateful that my senior pastors put a bar in the back of church – it has been a brilliant way to invite all sorts of people to church, and to show how to live lives of moderation to our youth and students. Its also great for running low-entry level events to introduce people to church and to the Gospel.
Then again, we do have a pub culture in the UK that the US DOESN’T seem to have, and whilst we aren’t perfect as a culture, I believe Christians can model something good with alcohol.
FYI, I write this comment whilst working on some paper skeletons at the University Club, and am on my second pint of the afternoon. In this case a lovely swedish pear cider, as the beer I tried earlier with a friend was not to my liking.
like
Like
Admiral Creedy, that’s an interesting point. It is extremely curious that the US went this route whereas the UK hasn’t had nearly as much of a challenge with it. Yet both US and UK evangelicals were influenced by the same holiness background that ultimately led to it, though the US did so largely through the influence of the Methodists who transitioned into the Holiness Movement and the UK via Keswick.
Thanks for your comments!
I found this article through a friend’s facebook post. I’m very grateful that I did. I grew up in church and was always taught any alcohol was sinful. However, when I moved outside my hometown and to a big city and meet other believers who enjoyed wine, beer, liqour etc. but also still had a strong relationship with Christ and lead by example, my feelings changed. I personally, enjoy red wine. I like to have a glass, sometimes two at night. I have family, who when I visit or go home still give me grief for enjoying wine (I’m 32 yrs old). I always have been looking for other Christians who had a similar beliefs. I’m also a CrossFit Kids trainer and have very strong beliefs on eating healthy and natural foods of the earth. However, when I bring up eating healthy, working out, taking care of our bodies to my family and other (non-drinking) believers, I just get arguments, looks, and references to being drunk is a sin.
So, please, thank you for posting this for us believers, like myself, who need to know we are not alone and not sinful for enjoying alcoholic beverages.
Thanks, Kathleen! I am glad this has helped you. Thinking about this subject from a biblical, theological, and practical perspective takes a lot of work but is totally worth it. I am glad you are thinking through it!
I am also sorry some people have treated you that way. That can be really tough…
So what exactly do you do to help kids stay fit?!? That sounds awesome!
Thank you Kathleen.
I found this article through a friend’s facebook post. I’m very grateful that I did. I grew up in church and was always taught any alcohol was sinful. However, when I moved outside my hometown and to a big city and meet other believers who enjoyed wine, beer, liqour etc. but also still had a strong relationship with Christ and lead by example, my feelings changed. I personally, enjoy red wine. I like to have a glass, sometimes two at night. I have family, who when I visit or go home still give me grief for enjoying wine (I’m 32 yrs old). I always have been looking for other Christians who had a similar beliefs. I’m also a CrossFit Kids trainer and have very strong beliefs on eating healthy and natural foods of the earth. However, when I bring up eating healthy, working out, taking care of our bodies to my family and other (non-drinking) believers, I just get arguments, looks, and references to being drunk is a sin.
So, please, thank you for posting this for us believers, like myself, who need to know we are not alone and not sinful for enjoying alcoholic beverages.
Like
Thanks, Kathleen! I am glad this has helped you. Thinking about this subject from a biblical, theological, and practical perspective takes a lot of work but is totally worth it. I am glad you are thinking through it!
I am also sorry some people have treated you that way. That can be really tough…
So what exactly do you do to help kids stay fit?!? That sounds awesome!
We encourage eating paleo-type eating which is basically eating whole foods like veggies, fruit, meat, nuts, potatoes, and watch added sugar. As far as staying fit, we teach them how to warm up their bodies by doing some dynamic warm-ups and then play a few games. Typically the workout is a game-style one. Kids love doing deadlifts with kettlebells, box jumps, tuck jumps, burpees, squats, push-ups etc. Then we finish with a relay game, tug-o-war, dogeball or something fun. They love it!
That sounds awesome!
Kathleen, what are some other topics you’d like the ThinkTheology.org team address?!?!
Thank you Kathleen.
It is a good article to justify a position if one does not want to consider others. But we should not have to put ourselves in a position to justify ourselves. As I was one who shared concerns with you in a private message about publicly displaying unbecoming images and statements, I have no issue letting God’s Word speak for itself. I am not legalistic or lawless, but maybe idealistic of the calling, role, example, and biblical teaching of a spiritual leader.
I never attacked or condemned you (see conversation below). As I stated I was challenging you to look at things if a different light, His light. I was, and am concerned as what message you were sending “by your picture” in light of your profession of Christianity. The question may be “what purpose does it serve?” Even the title of this blog “Drinking to the Glory of God” seems very out of place. I guess there may be Christian Shock Jocks, but then who would like to be in that category? But as you have stated… you are just trying to get the “fundies” to post.
You post several things above. I just want to address a few as I know you are set in your position, but the hope is that someone contemplating the same points may search scripture in light of His truth, and not just their position.
You state: “I don’t want to diminish the missional concern that the apostle Paul provides here. After all, he writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If we think something may hinder the work of God, we should pause and reflect. My issue is with what I’d call a shallow reading of these texts.”
As a “fundie” I think we STOP and NOT do it. Pausing is something we usually do before we continue on. And as to avoid the “shallow understanding of scripture” all we need to do is expand its context. You used Romans 14:20-21. If you look at that passage in its entire context from vs 14 through 23 it sheds an undeniable light on the topic. (my boldings in scripture).
“14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. 22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.”
This supports your statements, but not your actions. I desire His Word to support BOTH my statements and actions. It is true that gluttony, lying, and many other examples of stumbling exist in the world today. But that does not give us the right or justification in our present actions to continue just because there are other things out there besides. The Bible tells us that knowledge puffs us up, but Love edifies. That needs to be our goal. When people want to justify “their” stance, they are thinking only about themselves. But when we think of others with the Love of Christ, what I want will become less important.
John gives a principle in John Chapter 3:30-31 ” He must increase, but I must decrease. He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth.”
In all this discussion we speak about why “I” can or shouldn’t do these (earthly) things. As beer, wine, gluttony, etc is spoken of, why are we not speaking about things (of heaven) that draw people to Jesus instead if it does or does not hinder them?
Last point if you are still with me. See how scripture states “is made weak” They may have been OK, or stronger, but the actions Paul refers to states that they made a brother weak (or weaker). I also wonder if Jesus would have had the same attitude towards the weaker as you have had.
“However, we can take this too far. I don’t think we are obligated to bow our liberty to everyone who has a problem with our actions. A “weaker brother” is one who is truly weaker, not just one who has a misguided interpretation of things. He is weaker because he has not been educated in these issues. You must understand, he is not supposed to or expected to stay “weaker.” Eventually, he is suppose to become stronger. Unfortunately, far too often these weaker brethren realize their power and become “professional weaker brethren.””
I find NO support for this in scripture either. Just my opinion… again!
Conversation started November 2
11/2, 6:09pm
Pastor Craig Lindgren: Luke, I have to say I am disappointed with your picture of you drinking beer, and then your cartoon. I think it diminishes your testimony. Just my opinion.
11/2, 6:10pm
Luke Geraty: Thanks Craig. I appreciate your opinion. I am not one who holds to probably the same view on drinking alcohol as you but I respect your point of view and opinion. Sorry to disappoint you!
November 3
11/3, 8:40am
Pastor Craig Lindgren: Just a challenge from God’s Word. I believe my opinion does not really matter, but His Word does. I do not hold the view that drinking is always a sin, but for many it is, or leads people to sin, so I try to hold to His Word that deals with causing someone to stumble.
1 Cor 8:12-13 “But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.”
Rom 14:20-22 “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.”
I am not preaching at you, just saying that if you believe you need to have a drink, their may be a venue to do that without offending others or causing a weaker person to stumble. Just a thought. Have a good day!
November 4
11/4, 1:30pm
Luke Geraty: Craig, thank you for your thoughts. I too value as my final authority Scripture and do my best to apply that which is less clear in the most Christ glorifying way. Blessings!
Hey, thanks for your comments, Craig! You are more than welcome to join in the conversation 🙂 Couple things before I eat dinner:
(1) You write,
This, in my opinion, is a very shallow dismissal of the post. I guess that’s fine. You are welcome to it. Of course, the problem is that it very arrogantly assumes that I have not considered other views. However, that’s simply wrong. I would be willing to bet that I’ve read as much as most people and will likely do a long-form essay on the subject in the next year for my MA.
This is similar to when you write that I should look at this topic not from my light but from God’s. Again, that seems pretty arrogant because it appears to assume that I haven’t sought to do that and, from your response, suggests that you have. Are you sure your perspective is the perspective from God’s light? I find some significant holes in your exegesis and application. You camp out on a passage of Scripture and ignore the bulk of the NT… I find that odd for someone who states they want God’s truth. How about all of God’s truth? I think you are more consistent in this area in your life and ministry than in this here discussion (because I respect your ministry).
Furthermore, I find it odd that you would suggest that the title of this post is out of place. I’d simply point all fundies (your own admission) to look at all of the Bible! Paul wrote that whether we are eating or drinking to do it to God’s glory (1 Cor. 10:31). Fundamentalists have that in their Bibles too, right? 🙂 So I will either drink a beer or abstain from drinking a beer to the glory of God.
(2) I believe my exegesis actually DOES support my words and my actions. Writing a blog comment saying it doesn’t is like me writing a response saying “you are wrong” and thinking that proves it 🙂
What your position does is ignore a substantial amount of Scripture and a substantial amount of methodology that both Jesus and the apostles had… the prohibitionist teetotalism movement is rather new in the history of the church, which is why I find it odd.
Anyway…. dinner is calling. I don’t have the time right now to further press on your exegesis of Romans. There are some nuances that I think the Greek makes that would challenge some of your assertions about “to make week,” but I’ll either address that later or let my man Kenny the resident Greek scholar have at it.
Thanks again for your comments!
Blessings
Okay, seriously… I need to eat dinner.. but two quick clarifications:
(1) Craig, this article was NOT written in response to you! I judged from your inclusion of a private conversation we had that you thought it was. Able and Kenny will confirm that we’ve been discussing this blog series for awhile. In fact, Kenny wrote his a long time ago. Plus, you are not the only person who I have had conversations with via Facebook or text messages or email on this subject. I actually wondered if some of you were talking to each other and coordinating your “attacks” though because the language was always the same (disappointment and diminished testimonies). Of course, that’s probably just a coincidence and since one of those conversations was with a Facebook friend who lives in Milwaukee, highly unlikely. ha ha.
(2) Craig, speaking on behalf of the other bloggers here at ThinkTheology.org, I’d like to extend you an opportunity to write a blog post with the other perspective on the issue, if you’d like. I’m sure we’d love to give you, as a fellow evangelical, a chance to share your views. I’ve read other things you’ve written and enjoyed them, so perhaps that would help carry a conversation on this subject further along?
Just a couple thoughts!
Okay, seriously, I have to go eat my dinner… 🙂
Allow me to pull out my “fundamentalist Thesaurus” for those reading who are not personally familiar with this kind of language. Having lived and breathed this stuff awhile I can mediate so the reader will better understand how a conversation can be turned into a monologue.
Synonym 1: “It is a good article to justify a position if one does not want to consider others.”
The word Consider here means agree as in 100% agreement.
Synonym 2: “As I was one who shared concerns with you in a private message about
publicly displaying unbecoming images and statements, I have no issue
letting God’s Word speak for itself.”
The phrase “I was the one” actually means you (in this case Luke) don’t know what you were writing about as well as I do (In this case Craig). There is a common example of this is found in a fundamentalists hermeneutical approach to the book of Genesis for example where the author of Genesis needs to be constantly reminded by the interpreter that he is writing to refute Charles Darwin’s work “On the origin of species by means of natural selection” and not his original audience.
Synonym 3: “I never attacked or condemned you (see conversation below).” This is another way of saying I am going to attack you know by posting a private message between you and I after I have made the false assumption that you were attacking me and not my ideas.
Synonym 4: “As I stated I was challenging you to look at things if a different light, His light.”
“His Light” actually means I do not interpret scripture so what I say is pretty much “ex cathedra” in a final sense. The use of the word in this way ensures guilt. Guilt is a fundamentalists version of reason and logic.
Synonymn 5: “Pausing is something we usually do before we continue on.”
This actually means pausing.
Synonymn 6: “I desire His Word to support BOTH my statements and actions.”
This phrase often means. “So I can control and have power over you as a teacher does to a student.” But it can also mean “This bible verse should mean something else so it fits with this one”
Synonymn 7: “The Bible tells us that knowledge puffs us up, but Love edifies. That
needs to be our goal. When people want to justify “their” stance, they
are thinking only about themselves. But when we think of others with the
Love of Christ, what I want will become less important.”
Love here is often understood as “I see hope and potential in you to someday think and act like me & God” I love you for that… not what you are doing right now.
Synonym 8: “I also wonder if Jesus would have had the same attitude towards the weaker as you have had.”
In this instance the phrase “I also wonder if ” is synonymous with the phrase “I don’t wonder I know”.
You are a trip on your assumptions. Though you did assume correctly on #2 & #8.
It is a good article to justify a position if one does not want to consider others. But we should not have to put ourselves in a position to justify ourselves. As I was one who shared concerns with you in a private message about publicly displaying unbecoming images and statements, I have no issue letting God’s Word speak for itself. I am not legalistic or lawless, but maybe idealistic of the calling, role, example, and biblical teaching of a spiritual leader.
I never attacked or condemned you (see conversation below). As I stated I was challenging you to look at things if a different light, His light. I was, and am concerned as what message you were sending “by your picture” in light of your profession of Christianity. The question may be “what purpose does it serve?” Even the title of this blog “Drinking to the Glory of God” seems very out of place. I guess there may be Christian Shock Jocks, but then who would like to be in that category? But as you have stated… you are just trying to get the “fundies” to post.
You post several things above. I just want to address a few as I know you are set in your position, but the hope is that someone contemplating the same points may search scripture in light of His truth, and not just their position.
You state: “I don’t want to diminish the missional concern that the apostle Paul provides here. After all, he writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If we think something may hinder the work of God, we should pause and reflect. My issue is with what I’d call a shallow reading of these texts.”
As a “fundie” I think we STOP and NOT do it. Pausing is something we usually do before we continue on. And as to avoid the “shallow understanding of scripture” all we need to do is expand its context. You used Romans 14:20-21. If you look at that passage in its entire context from vs 14 through 23 it sheds an undeniable light on the topic. (my boldings in scripture).
“14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. 22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.”
This supports your statements, but not your actions. I desire His Word to support BOTH my statements and actions. It is true that gluttony, lying, and many other examples of stumbling exist in the world today. But that does not give us the right or justification in our present actions to continue just because there are other things out there besides. The Bible tells us that knowledge puffs us up, but Love edifies. That needs to be our goal. When people want to justify “their” stance, they are thinking only about themselves. But when we think of others with the Love of Christ, what I want will become less important.
John gives a principle in John Chapter 3:30-31 ” He must increase, but I must decrease. He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth.”
In all this discussion we speak about why “I” can or shouldn’t do these (earthly) things. As beer, wine, gluttony, etc is spoken of, why are we not speaking about things (of heaven) that draw people to Jesus instead if it does or does not hinder them?
Last point if you are still with me. See how scripture states “is made weak” They may have been OK, or stronger, but the actions Paul refers to states that they made a brother weak (or weaker). I also wonder if Jesus would have had the same attitude towards the weaker as you have had.
“However, we can take this too far. I don’t think we are obligated to bow our liberty to everyone who has a problem with our actions. A “weaker brother” is one who is truly weaker, not just one who has a misguided interpretation of things. He is weaker because he has not been educated in these issues. You must understand, he is not supposed to or expected to stay “weaker.” Eventually, he is suppose to become stronger. Unfortunately, far too often these weaker brethren realize their power and become “professional weaker brethren.””
I find NO support for this in scripture either. Just my opinion… again!
Conversation started November 2
11/2, 6:09pm
Pastor Craig Lindgren: Luke, I have to say I am disappointed with your picture of you drinking beer, and then your cartoon. I think it diminishes your testimony. Just my opinion.
11/2, 6:10pm
Luke Geraty: Thanks Craig. I appreciate your opinion. I am not one who holds to probably the same view on drinking alcohol as you but I respect your point of view and opinion. Sorry to disappoint you!
November 3
11/3, 8:40am
Pastor Craig Lindgren: Just a challenge from God’s Word. I believe my opinion does not really matter, but His Word does. I do not hold the view that drinking is always a sin, but for many it is, or leads people to sin, so I try to hold to His Word that deals with causing someone to stumble.
1 Cor 8:12-13 “But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.”
Rom 14:20-22 “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.”
I am not preaching at you, just saying that if you believe you need to have a drink, their may be a venue to do that without offending others or causing a weaker person to stumble. Just a thought. Have a good day!
November 4
11/4, 1:30pm
Luke Geraty: Craig, thank you for your thoughts. I too value as my final authority Scripture and do my best to apply that which is less clear in the most Christ glorifying way. Blessings!
Hey, thanks for your comments, Craig! You are more than welcome to join in the conversation 🙂 Couple things before I eat dinner:
(1) You write,
This, in my opinion, is a very shallow dismissal of the post. I guess that’s fine. You are welcome to it. Of course, the problem is that it very arrogantly assumes that I have not considered other views. However, that’s simply wrong. I would be willing to bet that I’ve read as much as most people and will likely do a long-form essay on the subject in the next year for my MA.
This is similar to when you write that I should look at this topic not from my light but from God’s. Again, that seems pretty arrogant because it appears to assume that I haven’t sought to do that and, from your response, suggests that you have. Are you sure your perspective is the perspective from God’s light? I find some significant holes in your exegesis and application. You camp out on a passage of Scripture and ignore the bulk of the NT… I find that odd for someone who states they want God’s truth. How about all of God’s truth? I think you are more consistent in this area in your life and ministry than in this here discussion (because I respect your ministry).
Furthermore, I find it odd that you would suggest that the title of this post is out of place. I’d simply point all fundies (your own admission) to look at all of the Bible! Paul wrote that whether we are eating or drinking to do it to God’s glory (1 Cor. 10:31). Fundamentalists have that in their Bibles too, right? 🙂 So I will either drink a beer or abstain from drinking a beer to the glory of God.
(2) I believe my exegesis actually DOES support my words and my actions. Writing a blog comment saying it doesn’t is like me writing a response saying “you are wrong” and thinking that proves it 🙂
What your position does is ignore a substantial amount of Scripture and a substantial amount of methodology that both Jesus and the apostles had… the prohibitionist teetotalism movement is rather new in the history of the church, which is why I find it odd.
Anyway…. dinner is calling. I don’t have the time right now to further press on your exegesis of Romans. There are some nuances that I think the Greek makes that would challenge some of your assertions about “to make week,” but I’ll either address that later or let my man Kenny the resident Greek scholar have at it.
Thanks again for your comments!
Blessings
Okay, seriously… I need to eat dinner.. but two quick clarifications:
(1) Craig, this article was NOT written in response to you! I judged from your inclusion of a private conversation we had that you thought it was. Able and Kenny will confirm that we’ve been discussing this blog series for awhile. In fact, Kenny wrote his a long time ago. Plus, you are not the only person who I have had conversations with via Facebook or text messages or email on this subject. I actually wondered if some of you were talking to each other and coordinating your “attacks” though because the language was always the same (disappointment and diminished testimonies). Of course, that’s probably just a coincidence and since one of those conversations was with a Facebook friend who lives in Milwaukee, highly unlikely. ha ha.
(2) Craig, speaking on behalf of the other bloggers here at ThinkTheology.org, I’d like to extend you an opportunity to write a blog post with the other perspective on the issue, if you’d like. I’m sure we’d love to give you, as a fellow evangelical, a chance to share your views. I’ve read other things you’ve written and enjoyed them, so perhaps that would help carry a conversation on this subject further along?
Just a couple thoughts!
Okay, seriously, I have to go eat my dinner… 🙂
Allow me to pull out my “fundamentalist Thesaurus” for those reading who are not personally familiar with this kind of language. Having lived and breathed this stuff awhile I can mediate so the reader will better understand how a conversation can be turned into a monologue.
Synonym 1: “It is a good article to justify a position if one does not want to consider others.”
The word Consider here means agree as in 100% agreement.
Synonym 2: “As I was one who shared concerns with you in a private message about
publicly displaying unbecoming images and statements, I have no issue
letting God’s Word speak for itself.”
The phrase “I was the one” actually means you (in this case Luke) don’t know what you were writing about as well as I do (In this case Craig). There is a common example of this is found in a fundamentalists hermeneutical approach to the book of Genesis for example where the author of Genesis needs to be constantly reminded by the interpreter that he is writing to refute Charles Darwin’s work “On the origin of species by means of natural selection” and not his original audience.
Synonym 3: “I never attacked or condemned you (see conversation below).” This is another way of saying I am going to attack you know by posting a private message between you and I after I have made the false assumption that you were attacking me and not my ideas.
Synonym 4: “As I stated I was challenging you to look at things if a different light, His light.”
“His Light” actually means I do not interpret scripture so what I say is pretty much “ex cathedra” in a final sense. The use of the word in this way ensures guilt. Guilt is a fundamentalists version of reason and logic.
Synonymn 5: “Pausing is something we usually do before we continue on.”
This actually means pausing.
Synonymn 6: “I desire His Word to support BOTH my statements and actions.”
This phrase often means. “So I can control and have power over you as a teacher does to a student.” But it can also mean “This bible verse should mean something else so it fits with this one”
Synonymn 7: “The Bible tells us that knowledge puffs us up, but Love edifies. That
needs to be our goal. When people want to justify “their” stance, they
are thinking only about themselves. But when we think of others with the
Love of Christ, what I want will become less important.”
Love here is often understood as “I see hope and potential in you to someday think and act like me & God” I love you for that… not what you are doing right now.
Synonym 8: “I also wonder if Jesus would have had the same attitude towards the weaker as you have had.”
In this instance the phrase “I also wonder if ” is synonymous with the phrase “I don’t wonder I know”.
You are a trip on your assumptions. Though you did assume correctly on #2 & #8.
I appreciated the aspect of this article. While I don’t necessarily agree with his stance on alcohol, I totally get the point of what he’s getting at. I don’t drink. Not because I think it is wrong, but because that is my personal conviction before God. I actually appreciate the comparison of food and alcohol. I’ve told several people that we, as Christians, are usually far too quick to point the finger at things like drugs and alcohol, but overlook addictions like food, coffee, diet soda, prescription pain killers. It really doesn’t matter what the substance is, we are to be controlled by the Spirit of God. What it really comes down to is conviction and grace. I think the Bible is vague or silent on many issues. But, I truly believe that it is because God wants each one of us to personally seek HIM on issues. Not do or not do something just because somebody, or a church says I can or can’t. And if a Christian has come to a conviction for themselves before God, that is between him and God. The point being that we need to give grace to others in areas of our lives where our personal convictions don’t match up.
Becca – I so appreciate your participation here, and your perspective. Excellent. You are an example of using a “centered-set” approach to making ethical decisions. Your center is your personal walk with Jesus, and your convictions about what he is personally requiring of you. I wish more Christians thought in this way. You might enjoy my contribution to the dialogue:
http://thinktheology.org/you_should_ask_jesus_if_you_can_drink_alcohol/
Please feel free to join our dialogue here any time!! Keep following Jesus.
I appreciated the aspect of this article. While I don’t necessarily agree with his stance on alcohol, I totally get the point of what he’s getting at. I don’t drink. Not because I think it is wrong, but because that is my personal conviction before God. I actually appreciate the comparison of food and alcohol. I’ve told several people that we, as Christians, are usually far too quick to point the finger at things like drugs and alcohol, but overlook addictions like food, coffee, diet soda, prescription pain killers. It really doesn’t matter what the substance is, we are to be controlled by the Spirit of God. What it really comes down to is conviction and grace. I think the Bible is vague or silent on many issues. But, I truly believe that it is because God wants each one of us to personally seek HIM on issues. Not do or not do something just because somebody, or a church says I can or can’t. And if a Christian has come to a conviction for themselves before God, that is between him and God. The point being that we need to give grace to others in areas of our lives where our personal convictions don’t match up.
Becca – I so appreciate your participation here, and your perspective. Excellent. You are an example of using a “centered-set” approach to making ethical decisions. Your center is your personal walk with Jesus, and your convictions about what he is personally requiring of you. I wish more Christians thought in this way. You might enjoy my contribution to the dialogue:
http://thinktheology.org/you_should_ask_jesus_if_you_can_drink_alcohol/
Please feel free to join our dialogue here any time!! Keep following Jesus.
“There’s no need to insist that someone needs to drink a beer simply because you consider all teetotalers to be legalists (they aren’t).” This was my favorite sentence in the entire article. There are many reasons that I haven’t drank alcohol lately, and none of them have to do with scripture. For almost 10 years now, I have been either pregnant, nursing, had other health issues, or not had money in the budget for alcohol. (Some of you may be thinking I need to adjust the budget– maybe you are right!) Yes, it has affected me socially and maybe in ministry, too, but I have to be who I am. At least there are people that like the taste of beer and love following God’s word that can use alcohol as a tool to bond with and minister to other people.
“There’s no need to insist that someone needs to drink a beer simply because you consider all teetotalers to be legalists (they aren’t).” This was my favorite sentence in the entire article. There are many reasons that I haven’t drank alcohol lately, and none of them have to do with scripture. For almost 10 years now, I have been either pregnant, nursing, had other health issues, or not had money in the budget for alcohol. (Some of you may be thinking I need to adjust the budget– maybe you are right!) Yes, it has affected me socially and maybe in ministry, too, but I have to be who I am. At least there are people that like the taste of beer and love following God’s word that can use alcohol as a tool to bond with and minister to other people.
Drinking to the glory of God. I should reword that, having a drink to the glory of God… To many that sounds like an oxymoron, how can one drink and at the same time be glorifying God? I am a pastor, but I will skip the Greek, and all the different reference in the Bible and go to application to make the point.
I moved to a small community, and part of my role is to be involved in the community. I looked at what I am interested in, what type of people I can relate to and so I joined the Canadian Rangers, and also work with the Junior Ranger program. I am now the legion Chaplain, and I am involved in the volunteer Fire department.
When I joined the fire department, I spent a month going to practices and completing my basic training requirements. After practice the fire fighters would go upstairs to the lounge and some would enjoy a drink and some would enjoy a few more than that.
Every week I would also have a beer. And in that first month the question never came up what I did for a living, and I never volunteered it. I never brought up the church or my relationship with Jesus. That all changed when I filled out my application and on it the question is asked about profession and I put down Pastor. The application was passed around the room for everyone to read, and almost all of them said- “you’re a pastor?”
That week I also went upstairs after the practice and had a beer, and almost immediately the question was raised- ” if you’re a pastor why are drinking?”
And then I got to preach. I got to talk to almost 20 firefighters, none of who attend a church or profess Christ. I got to share my faith, I had the chance to share grace, and about Jesus and who he was and what he did.
Most weeks, I am able to talk about the church is doing that week, and sometimes even what the sermon was about. .
Since then, one firefighter gave her life to Christ, and has acknowledged her addiction to alcohol, and has now been sober just shy of a year.
Another firefighter has come to church many times and has heard the gospel each time he has come.
I married another one to his girlfriend of eight years, and is now open to talking about the church and God, when one of his first words to me is “I’m agnostic.”
A mother of two firefighter came to church at Christmas and afterward thanked me for my relationship with her sons.
On the way to a rescue call on some very hairy roads, one of the firefighters asked me to pray that we wouldn’t crash.
Last week after putting two children in body bags after their dad tried to pass a semi, who also died leaving his wife and other child in serious condition in the hospital, I had the opportunity to share how my faith enabled me to deal with the horrors that we saw.
All because I drank a beer to the glory of God. And Lord willing, I will enjoy a beer tonight at practice.
Drinking to the glory of God. I should reword that, having a drink to the glory of God… To many that sounds like an oxymoron, how can one drink and at the same time be glorifying God? I am a pastor, but I will skip the Greek, and all the different reference in the Bible and go to application to make the point.
I moved to a small community, and part of my role is to be involved in the community. I looked at what I am interested in, what type of people I can relate to and so I joined the Canadian Rangers, and also work with the Junior Ranger program. I am now the legion Chaplain, and I am involved in the volunteer Fire department.
When I joined the fire department, I spent a month going to practices and completing my basic training requirements. After practice the fire fighters would go upstairs to the lounge and some would enjoy a drink and some would enjoy a few more than that.
Every week I would also have a beer. And in that first month the question never came up what I did for a living, and I never volunteered it. I never brought up the church or my relationship with Jesus. That all changed when I filled out my application and on it the question is asked about profession and I put down Pastor. The application was passed around the room for everyone to read, and almost all of them said- “you’re a pastor?”
That week I also went upstairs after the practice and had a beer, and almost immediately the question was raised- ” if you’re a pastor why are drinking?”
And then I got to preach. I got to talk to almost 20 firefighters, none of who attend a church or profess Christ. I got to share my faith, I had the chance to share grace, and about Jesus and who he was and what he did.
Most weeks, I am able to talk about the church is doing that week, and sometimes even what the sermon was about. .
Since then, one firefighter gave her life to Christ, and has acknowledged her addiction to alcohol, and has now been sober just shy of a year.
Another firefighter has come to church many times and has heard the gospel each time he has come.
I married another one to his girlfriend of eight years, and is now open to talking about the church and God, when one of his first words to me is “I’m agnostic.”
A mother of two firefighter came to church at Christmas and afterward thanked me for my relationship with her sons.
On the way to a rescue call on some very hairy roads, one of the firefighters asked me to pray that we wouldn’t crash.
Last week after putting two children in body bags after their dad tried to pass a semi, who also died leaving his wife and other child in serious condition in the hospital, I had the opportunity to share how my faith enabled me to deal with the horrors that we saw.
All because I drank a beer to the glory of God. And Lord willing, I will enjoy a beer tonight at practice.
“[B]ind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the Lord your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.” Deut 14:26
“[B]ind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the Lord your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.” Deut 14:26