I am Joe Thorn, the Lead Pastor of 
Akin on Alcohol
July 1st, 2006Dr. Daniel Akin, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary has written an article in favor of the famous Resolution #5 (Resolution calling for total opposition to alcohol). Here is his article, with my own thoughts scattered throughout.
WAKE FOREST, N.C. (BP)–I readily confess to a personal bias when it comes to the issue of alcohol.
My wife Charlotte grew up in the Georgia Baptist Children’s Home because her parents were alcoholics. Her father died a lost alcoholic. Her mother, by God’s grace, was saved on her deathbed; the twin killers of alcohol and tobacco had ravaged her body. Today, Charlotte’s sister and brother are lost alcoholics and so are most of
the rest of her family.My sister Joy and her husband Kevin King adopted a daughter born with fetal alcohol syndrome. She began life with this strike against her through no fault of her own.
– There are more than 40 million problem drinkers in America.
– Alcohol is the number one drug problem among teenagers.
– One in three American families suspects that one or more family members have a drinking problem.
– Misuse of alcohol costs our nation $100 billion a year in
quantifiable cost.Because of these experiences and many more, I often have said that even if I were not a Christian I would have nothing to do with alcohol. There is simply too much sorrow and heartache connected to it. Avoiding this devastating drug is simply the wise thing to do.
There has been a lot of talk about “wisdom” in the middle of this discussion. I agree we must pursue, and pray for wisdom. But “wisdom” is not law, and it is often subjective. What is wise for one man, may not be wise for another. I will agree in saying that abstaining from alcohol may be “the wise thing” for some people, but to suggest that it should be the behavior of all people is not only unwise, it is unbiblical.
This year at our convention we again passed a resolution calling for abstinence from alcohol. The resolution passed overwhelmingly, but it did generate significant debate both during and after the annual meeting. Some have accused those supporting the resolution of being pharisaical and legalistic, traditionalist and anti-biblical, that we fail to understand Christian liberty and freedom, and that we even stand against Jesus.
These are strong accusations from fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. However, are they correct? Are those like myself who believe abstinence to be the best lifestyle choice actually guilty of these charges?
Some who have been speaking to this issue are rightly charged with legalism, pharisaism, and inventive theology based on something other than the Bible. Not all, but some of the more vocal advocates of the resolution have argued that to drink is to sin, and to argue for moderation is “liberal.” Even Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, suggested that “Calvinists” who believe drinking in moderation is good are “antinomian.”
Let me respond as graciously and kindly as I possibly can, explaining why I hold the position I do. I share my heart with no malice or ill will toward anyone, but from a desire to honor the Lord Jesus, and to protect others from the evils alcohol has visited on so many.
Cool. I would not have expected anything less from Dr. Akin. He’s a good guy.
We should remember from a Baptist perspective that there are historical precedents for affirming abstinence.
In 1886, Southern Baptists issued their first resolution on alcohol. Since then, at least 61 additional corporate statements have addressed the risk of alcohol and the wisdom of abstinence. For 120 years, Southern Baptists have made clear their stand on this issue.
We have many precedents. As Baptists we actually have a longer, more historic heritage of enjoying alcohol in moderation than that of teetotalism. And some precedents are not good. Arguing for precedent is a more winsome way of saying, “We’ve always done it this way.” It is not a biblical argument. It may be what we have practiced, but it may be something we must repent of. Some precedents are bad. In 1971 we passed a resolution encouraging Southern Baptists to work for legislation to allow abortion in the case of “damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”
Individual Baptists no doubt continue to drink as some had before 1886, but the Southern Baptist Convention as a consensus whole has been crystal clear on where it stands for a long time. I am confident that our forefathers understood the issue of Christian liberty as they passed these resolutions. I am grateful for this tradition. I believe we should continue it.
There are moral reasons for affirming abstinence. John Piper teaches the wisdom of abstinence because alcohol can be a mind-altering drug, and it can be addictive; it does not help one in doing the will of God and can genuinely be a hindrance. He points to “the carnage of alcohol abuse” to support his choice to boycott such a product. He also reasons, “Is it really so prudish, or narrow to renounce a highway killer, a home destroyer, and a business wrecker?”
Look, no one is debating that alcohol cannot be addictive, or cannot be abused. We agree there. But suggesting that alcohol does not help one carry out the will of God is like saying eating a grilled cheese sandwich, or drinking a Coke, does not help us accomplish the will of God. Some will argue that homes are not destroyed by grilled cheese or Coke. Let me be clear. Lives are not destroyed by wine, but by its abuse. Lives are not destroyed by food, but by its abuse.
Some questions are in order and deserve an answer. Does alcohol make me a better person? Does alcohol draw me closer to God? Does alcohol help me run the race faithfully to the end (Heb. 12:1-2)?
There are many things that men do recreationally that do not inherently draw one closer to God, but may yet be an aide in things spiritual.
Some respond by saying the issue is not abstinence but moderation, arguing that the equivalent would be to abstain from eating and from marital sex to eliminate, respectively, gluttony and sexual abuse.
There is however a significant difference. We must eat to live. We must engage in sex to procreate. Alcohol is not a necessity for life or good living.
I am in total agreement with my spiritual hero Adrian Rogers who said, “Moderation is not the cure for the liquor problem. Moderation is the cause of the liquor problem. Becoming an alcoholic does not begin with the last drink, it always begins with the first. Just leave it alone.”
Hold the phone… er, blog. Whatever. Moderation is the cause of the alcohol problem?! By definition moderation cannot produce drunkenness. It means not over-indulging. For the record, I do not think moderation is the cure either. The Gospel is, and I have already made the point here.
I am in total agreement with my spiritual hero, Jesus, who said, “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” I am not trying to be a jerk, but am pointing out that the words of our earthly heroes must be tested by the words of Jesus.
My friend James Merritt wisely says, “It is impossible to be bitten by a snake that you never play with.”
Alcoholism cannot strike unless given the opportunity. That potential becomes real with the first drink one takes.
I think this is very important. This is the argument the Pharisees made. They sought to honor God’s law by making additional laws that will (in theory) keep them from transgressing God’s laws. Their motives are great, but this is a form of legalism that falsely binds men’s consciences and produces something other than godliness while placing something other than the yoke of Christ on the necks of brothers and sisters.
There are biblical reasons for practicing abstinence:
– It is consistent with the principle of edification (1 Cor. 6:12). Alcohol does not build you up or make you better for Jesus. Avoiding it ensures you will not harm yourself with it.
This is not consistent with the principle of edification. Abstaining does not build one up, nor make us better for Jesus.
– It is consistent with the principle of refusing that which enslaves (1 Cor. 6:12). Alcohol is a drug that can impair the senses and has a potential addictive element. Like addictive pornography, it should be avoided at all cost.
Lust is sinful. Beer is not. Pornogaphy is the abuse of God’s gift of sex, drunkenness is the abuse of God’s gift of wine. We seemed to agree early on that drinking alcohol is not necessarily sinful, but then the wheels fall of this line of thought and we go careening back into legalism by equating something God says is lawful with sin.
– It is consistent with the ethic of love for believers and unbelievers alike (1 Cor. 8:13; 9:19-22; 10:32-33). Because I am an example to others, I will make certain no one ever walks the road of sorrow called alcoholism because they saw me take a drink and assumed, “if it is alright for Danny Akin, it is alright for me.” No, I will choose to set an uncompromising example of abstinence because I love them.
They will also never see the example of self-control or moderation related to a huge issue in our culture. In the example of others who do drink “unto the Lord” the fruit of the spirit is on display, the power of the Gospel is seen, and the world sees what it looks like when men righteously enjoy one of God’s gifts. The ethic of love does not rely on a one size fits all man made law. It assesses every situation one is in and allows Scripture to determine the course of action. There are times to abstain for the welfare of a weaker brother, and times to drink to the glory of God.
– I will seek my joy and filling in the Spirit not in alcohol. I love the Phillips translation of Ephesians 5:18 which reads, “Don’t get your stimulus from wine (for there is always the danger of excessive drinking), but let the Spirit stimulate your souls.” Psalm 4:7-8 adds, “You [O Lord] have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound. In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.”
No Christian argues that we should find our ultimately satisfaction in alcohol. I could argue that Chritsians in Texas should find joy in Jesus and not in high school and college football. But such temporal forms of joy are gifts of God, meant to be enjoyed in their proper place. In fact God himself says he gives wine to gladden the heart!
– It is true Jesus drank wine. However, there is no evidence that he ever partook of “strong drink.” As Bob Stein has carefully documented, “The term “wine” or oinos in the ancient world, then, did not mean wine as we understand it today but wine mixed with water. To consume the amount of alcohol that is in two martinis by drinking wine containing three parts water to one part wine [a common ancient ratio], one would have to drink over twenty-two glasses. In other words, it is possible to become intoxicated from wine mixed with three parts water, but one’s drinking would probably affect the bladder long before it affected the mind.” It is important to note also that children would have drunk this diluted mixture of water and wine. It seems clear that there is no one-to-one correspondence with first century wine and twenty first century distilled liquor. Concerning the latter, I believe the Lord Jesus would have no part.
Arguments from silence are often meaningless. There is no record that Jesus drank strong drink, but that does not mean he didn’t. Saying he didn’t is building your theology on speculation, not Scripture. Of course, saying he did would create the same problem. Besides, the argument/resolution is not about percentage of alcohol or moderation, but total opposition and complete abstinence.
Let me conclude with some practical considerations:
– Should those who practice abstinence look down on those who do not? The answer is an unqualified no. That is pride and therefore is sin. It is true that alcohol has contributed to many going to hell, but pride, no doubt, has done so in even greater numbers. A smug, prideful abstainer without Jesus is just as lost as the poor drunkard who is always in search of another drink. Those who believe in abstinence should be gracious and humble, kind and caring, loving and patient.
– As a pastor or church leader, would I demand abstinence for church membership? No, I would not. Would I demand it for leadership? Absolutely! The principle of Proverbs 31:4-5 is appropriately applied here, “It is not for Kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to take strong drink, lest they drink and forget what has been decreed and pervert the rights of all the afflicted.”
A friend of mine responded to this by saying, “Why not? Why would you allow church members to participate in an activity that you have expressed your ‘total opposition’ to unqualified language? What other activities would fit into that category? This is an interesting use of Prov. 31 by a Baptist. We who take the royal priesthood of all believers so seriously must be careful in applying texts regarding kings to leaders rather than members of our churches. Should leadership be held to a higher moral standard than membership? No. They should be held to a higher attainment of the one moral standard for all believers–the standard of God’s law. There can be no higher standard than that because no one can be more righteous than God.”
– I agree with John MacArthur. Can I say it is always a sin to take a drink? No. Can I say it is almost always ill-advised? Yes, because it violates the biblical principles of wisdom and witness. One of America’s leading pastors is Andy Stanley. He wrote a book titled, The Best Question Ever. That question is this, “What is the wise thing for me to do?”
I challenge anyone to show me the superior wisdom of drinking “in moderation,” as opposed to not drinking at all. This is not legalism but love. This is not being anti-biblical but pro-brother and sister. This is not working for evil but for good. Given the world in which we live, I believe such a lifestyle honors the Lord Jesus. I believe it pleases Him. Without question, it is the wise thing to do.
No one is saying abstinence is a bad choice for an individual. But arguing, as Dr. Akin has, that the wisest choice, the best way to follow Jesus, is to reject the example of Jesus and what God has given us because of potential abuse disregards the history of the church, as well as the other bible-believing evangelicals in other countries and denominations who chose to drink in moderation. If you spend some time in Germany, Canada, or England you will find godly, evangelical, pastor/theologians enjoying the gift of alcohol without abuse. There is an elitism common among Southern Baptists; a triumphalism that says God’s greatest work in the history of redemption has been carried out through the SBC. I have to disagree. I love the SBC, but believe we are still in need of a lot of repentance, reformation and revival.
My hope for the SBC is the glory of God in the gospel of Christ, the power of his Spirit bringing about change through his word, and the sufficiency of Scripture to govern us in all faith and practice. I am hopeful a few will take Dr. Akin up on his challenge and submit their response in writing to BP.
Related Posts: Drinking with Jesus, The Sword and Spirits
July 1st, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Well said, Joe.
Sadly many of these godly men simply don’t see their inconsistency and legalistic bent.
The irony is that by me making that statement, I will be accused of disrespect and ingratitude for those men.
I just want us all to think as biblically as possible on this. This is not a Baptist issue, this is a Bible issue.
Where are all the screming “biblicists” on this one?
It comes back to the same issue on everything in SBC life, we’ve made our tradition authoritative instead of the Bible. I just wish people would believe the Bible the fought so hard for actually IS all that they said it is.
GRAY
PS - Check out the discussion on this issue on: http://guardian-ministries.blogspot.com/
July 1st, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Joe, we both agree that Danny Akin is a great guy and one worthy of tremendous respect. And it’s sad that even a discussion on alcohol and the SBC is so feared, but your well-reasoned, biblical response is excellent and needed.
You know, some think we are focusing too much on this issue, but I think alcohol is one of those issues that will lead us to actually have a stronger view of Scripture. Truthfully, this isn’t really about liberty. It’s about Scripture and it’s sufficiency for us.
One last thing. Your points on wisdom are crucial. As long as one person can reason out what “wisdom” is for all of us, it’s not wisdom. It’s law. Wisdom comes situationally, not universally. That’s why we ask God for it and He supplies, because it isn’t the same for all people at all times.
Well done. Linked on both my blogs.
July 1st, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Great post.
> ‘I challenge anyone to show me the superior wisdom of drinking “in moderation,” as opposed to not drinking at all.’
Redemption of a gift God has given His children instead of rejecting a gift God has given His children merely because others abuse it seems like some pretty good reasoning.
July 1st, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Joe:
Good words. The real issue here is not alcohol but the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. Thanks for your insights.
July 1st, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Thanks Joe, for this post. This is just another area where those who fought for the conservative resurgance need to be held to the biblical standard they fought for. The argument is about alcohol, but the issue is still the authority of scripture, isn’t it?
Last night, we watched “Goodnight and Good Luck,” George Clooney’s movie about journalist Ed Murrow who challenged Joe McCarthy’s hunt for “Communists.” I couldn’t help but think of the SBC and the use of the “liberalism” label. I’m waiting for someone to start accusing people of being “liberal sympathizers.”
I’m sure there’s a list. If there is, you’re certainly on it.
July 1st, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Nice knowing you, Joe.
July 1st, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Thanks guys - and yes I think the issue is clearly centering on the sufficiency of Scripture. I really do believe, in time, the SBC will get this right.
July 1st, 2006 at 3:44 pm
[...] Joe Thorn writes a solid, detailed response to Dr. Danny Akin’s BP column saying teetotalism is the response of “Biblical Wisdom.” How hard would it be to agree to the following? [...]
July 1st, 2006 at 3:52 pm
iMonk, LOL!
July 1st, 2006 at 4:20 pm
“But arguing, as Dr. Akin has, that the wisest choice, the best way to follow Jesus, is to reject the example of Jesus”
Don’t we do this enough as it is?
July 1st, 2006 at 4:46 pm
It may be good to watch “Thank you for Smoking.” An interresting, comedic look at the art of “spin.” You will have to abide some adult scenes, but in the end, we just might learn something in a very provocative way.
July 1st, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Joe, I think you’re spot on and I appreciate your comments to Dr. Akin’s essay. Too bad many on the other side of this issue will never interact with your comments because…well…it’s a blog…and we all know blogs are evil and take us away from evangelism ;).
July 1st, 2006 at 7:39 pm
I wonder, will we now see a resolution opposed to the manufacture, sale and use of firearms?
July 1st, 2006 at 8:18 pm
iMonk-
ROFL.
Matkin-
You must be drunk.
July 1st, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Joe: Great post. This has become an issue in one of my classes (Missiology) on the online forum. Besides the most important issue of scriptural sufficiency, it also presents a significant problem in the area of contextualization. I’ve been to 17 countries and can say that in most, alcohol abuse is really not a noticable problem at all.
July 1st, 2006 at 10:07 pm
What a great response. You have responded clearly and precisely to the arguments that so many will find to be “strong.”
I agree, why are those who fought for the Bible not resting on it in this issue?
July 1st, 2006 at 10:28 pm
One could easily argue as Mr. Akin has and forbid the eating of food. Mr. Akin begins his emotional appeal by calling forth numerous heart-wrenching examples of where the abuse of alcohol has hurt lives and even killed people. One could then call forth just as numerous examples of where the problem of gluttony has done likewise. Would we then use this as support for an argument against the eating of food?
Mr. Akin’s then pitiful attempt to call the historical precedence as argument is just as wanting. It is a good thing Martin Luther never looked to the history of endulgences and church corruption and leave it as is. I had assumed that we based our lifestyles upon the Scripture, NOT upon what our forefather’s did (weren’t they the ones who wanted slaves afterall?)
You then point out correctly, Joe, that his plea towards the argument that drinking alcohol helps in no way the maturation process of the Christian is quite ridiculous. As you stated, football doesn’t necessarily help us become better disciples. But the enjoyment of God’s gifts can help by creating better people who find more enjoyment in the things created by God and therefore better enjoyment in the Creator of those things.
I am then puzzled at one of Mr. Akin’s final remarks as it appears you are too. The qualifications that Paul gives for the elders of the church are not so that there are two classes of Christian, those that are elders and live a certain lifestyle and those that are laymen and live another. Paul gives those qualifications for elders so that the elders can serve as an example for how the laymen is to live. The elder is to be the husband of one wife so that the laymen can then look to him and attempt to follow in his integrety and fidelity. Paul does not say that the elder is to be the husband of one wife so that the laymen can commit bigotry (since he is not an elder). EVERYONE should look to the qualifications for elders and attempt to fulfill them, whether laymen, laywoman or elder…
I find this ‘argument’ truly wanting. This article truly unbecoming of a leader within our convention. And the stance for moderation and against legalistically impossed abstinence to be even more supported and attractive.
But what do I know? I am not a leader, I am but a laymen who enjoys the creation of God (yes, I do mean alcohol)…
July 1st, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Great response Joe! I would not expect a seminary president to respond any other way than what we have all read here. Sure, Akin may be well respected and a true scholar but this is just another sad nod to the establishment.
I am curious to know WHY the SBC leadership decided to do such a resolution in the first place?
Whatever response they may provide for that question the truth is this - the Enemy absolutely loves the idea that we are sitting around arguing over such a trivial issue. Satan and his emissaries are rejoicing that such a large community of believers are actually wasting so much energy and effort on such a minuscule reality.
If our hearts and lives are not sternly focused on the Kingdom work at hand then we will eventually end up in the muddy waters of legalism. Has the SBC leadership ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS by Lewis? This would be a perfect chapter to round out an almost perfect book.
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:08 am
The last time we had a resolution like #5 was back in 1988 (link). - 18 years ago. Why has it come up again? Theories abound.
I don’t think Akin’s use of precedents is “pitiful,” I simply think it is unconvincing.
On one hand I am weary of this conversation, but I am not the one who keeps bringing it up. Others want to make a big deal out of this, and I then feel the need to respond. On the other hand the issue is much bigger and more important than alcohol.
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:22 am
JOe, I was not intending for my last comments to be directed at your blog and this subject. It is solely dedicated to the “fat cats” in SBC leadership.
It is often said that if a movement doesn’t keep moving then it sits and becomes a monster. Maybe the SBC has gotten too large, has too much money and far too many leaders who have nothing better to do with their time than sit around and pontificate on the finer details of alcohol. Reminds me of the U.S. congress in many ways.
I wonder what role the Holy Spirit had in these discussions. Maybe we should hire Benny Hinn to come and oversee the next SBC convention. He could help them understand that God wants all Baptists healthy and wealthy - you getting my sarcasm?
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:23 am
Joe, I absolutely agree that the issue is much bigger than alcohol. It seems that those in favor of abstinence cannot see what ‘precendents’ (oh the irony) they are making. If the SBC has power to legalistically impose some standard upon the leaders of this convention, when the imposition hasn’t any biblical backing, then it doesn’t take a cospiracy-theorist or one overly paradnoid to see the direction that this convention will be headed…
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:59 am
Good one Joe.
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:01 am
Joe,
I guess the most disturbing aspect of the SBC leadeship (or lack thereof) is that they are taking many Baptist into even a deeper realm of inexpediency.
It is almost like we are so comfortable in our little Christian sub-culture that we would rather debate dribble while the Kingdom of our Lord marches onward into the world without us.
Not sure about you but I want to follow our Captain into the Great Battle and be a part of something very significant. The Day is drawing nigh…
July 2nd, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Thanks guys. Jeremy - I didn’t take anything you said as being directed at me. Besides, I am likely to miss anything directed at me that doesn’t contain the word “liberal.”
July 2nd, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Very good reasoning, Joe. Yes, the abuse of alcohol can damage lives, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. No question about it; but does that mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water? I was at Greensboro with our chairman of deacons, who was formerly a substance abuse counselor. His response to it all was (1) that the arguments were archaic, and (2) that alcohol is a chemical, and a chemical is neither evil nor good, but that is defined by how it is used. And plenty of people have used beverage alcohol without ever abusing it, becoming alcoholics, operating a motor vehicle under its influence, or anything else “bad.” Know what else? Unchurched folks are not listening to this and saying, “Wow! Those guys in the SBC are really holy, they are really in tune with God, and I want some of that.” They are saying, “What a bunch of clowns! Don’t they have anything better to do, anything more important to talk about, anything more life-changing to offer than to tell me that I shouldn’t have a beer while watching a game, or a glass of wine with a nice meal?” (In case you wonder, I don’t. I never drank much, though I did drink, & got drunk only once to see what it was like; I enjoyed the taste, but it was never a problem, and I stopped altogether about 23 or 24 years ago.) But if blogging keeps us from evangelizing, how much more does replaying arguments from the 19th Century?
And Jeremy: I think you have hit on the key, “WHY (did) the SBC leadership decide to do such a resolution in the first place?” As a fairly careful observer for the last 22 years (based on being a trained observer, police officer & detective, before that), I have concluded that a lot of the motions and resolutions and movements that have went on in and been passed by the SBC are more important for what they represent than for their substance. I suspect that the resolution was more about affirming the leadership’s authority to pass whatever they want to pass, playing to SBC traditions and traditionalists, giving those opposed to the power structure a rabbit to chase, and maybe, just maybe, a tiny slap at those courageous pastors who have come out & said that taking a drink was not itself a sin. All the while giving lip service to Scripture.
Our situation kind of reminds me of a Pogo comic that came out when I was a kid (anybody remember Pogo, the little ‘possum from the Okeefenokee Swamp in Georgia?). In a faulty quotation of one of Napoleon’s generals, Pogo said, “We has met the enemy. . . and he is us.”
July 2nd, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Thoughtful post, Joe. I like the absence of irritated invective as much as I enjoy the presence of solid biblical reasoning.
July 2nd, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Joe,
What a well reasoned and liberal, oops, biblical response. I think the problem is that Danny wants to speak against the abuse, but he can’t without championing abstinence. I mean we should all get rid of our computers and internet because of the billion dollar a year porn industry that does so much work through the internet.
Most things are not sinful…it is how we use them or don’t use them that make them sinful.
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Joe,
While I appreciate your response to this whole issue, I must disagree. I am Free Will Baptist and we are having a similar give and take on this issue on our online forum site for FWB ministers. The issue is being discussed among our ministers also despite the fact that abstinence from alcohol is a part of our treatise and church convenant that was passed in 1935.
So much is being said of Christian Liberty and specifically what it teaches that I wonder if anyone looks at cultural context anymore? Wine was a necessary staple in biblical times to help in purifying the water supply and also as a medicinal aid to clearing up ailments of the stomach as the apostle Paul teaches. It’s use in this area is no longer needed. Alcohol is a drug plain and simple and its use in beverages just makes it easier to abuse. Yes, I know the cries for moderation come but why not use other drugs in moderation then also as long as you’re not overusing them? Marijuana, Percocet, Cocaine, Speed, Acid, whatever??? Those can all be used in moderation and not abused but if you’re caught with them, it’s jail time! Why is alcohol so different? Because it’s something we don’t want to give up that’s why.
There are many cultural issues dealt with in the Bible that we don’t deal with anymore. What about God’s CLEAR teaching in Leviticus 15:19-24 on dealing with women on their periods. Do you still put your wife out for seven days and consider everything she touches “unclean”? If you base your arguments for alcohol on what scripture teaches than what do we do with this passage? Or for that matter other passages that are cultural in nature dealing with similar type issues. I mean “all scripture is God breathed” and worthy to teach us right?
I just see no good coming from alcohol consumption. Not even a little. Give me a list of people whose lives have been enhanced by drinking beverage alcohol and then list me those whose lives have been improved after they stopped using it. I can tell you which list will be longer by a country mile.
I say this in all Christian love. I’m not being condemning but there is some virtue in honoring the past edicts of your convention. I for one, pray that this issue is never debated in my own convention.
In Christ
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Scott,
Thanks for commenting and the good attitude. I have already interacted with some of your arguments in this post or in the other posts linked above. All I will say is that most of those arguing for radical abstinence (even you) are not making a convincing Biblical argument. At least not to me. If people, or even a group, desire to practice abstinence that is their business, and in many cases I respect such a decision (about half of our elders and deacons abstain). But declaring the moderate use of alcohol to be sinful, or universally unwise, is not derived from our Bible.
The “drug” argument does not work. The drugs you mention 1) are not celebrated by God in the Bible 2) immediately produce a state of inebriation, 3) are illegal. Wine can be used, not abused, in such a way that cheers the heart, honors God and does not lead to drunkenness.
BTW, it’s nice having a Free Will Baptist on this Reformed Baptist’s blog! God bless brother.
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Dr. Akin– It is consistent with the principle of edification (1 Cor. 6:12). Alcohol does not build you up or make you better for Jesus. Avoiding it ensures you will not harm yourself with it
a. I Corinthians 6 does not stand in isolation from I Cor. 8.
b. How does this principle does self select for abstinence? It doesn’t.
c. Ergo, this objection is irrational. It assumes what it needs to prove; it argues the premise; it is viciously circular.
Dr. Akin– It is consistent with the ethic of love for believers and unbelievers alike (1 Cor. 8:13; 9:19-22; 10:32-33). Because I am an example to others, I will make certain no one ever walks the road of sorrow called alcoholism because they saw me take a drink and assumed, “if it is alright for Danny Akin, it is alright for me.” No, I will choose to set an uncompromising example of abstinence because I love them.
This is an argument for not drinking in the presence of those of weaker conscience and making your reasons clearly known, not for abstinence in all cases. Again, Dr. Akin has assumed what he needs to prove.
Dr. Akin-As Bob Stein has carefully documented, “The term “wine” or oinos in the ancient world, then, did not mean wine as we understand it today but wine mixed with water.
Irrelevant: The resolution does not distinguish between wine and strong drink.
This is what Stein actually states: In the Talmud, which contains the oral traditions of Judaism from about 200 BC to AD 200, there are several tractates in which the mixture of water and wine is discussed. One tractate (Shabbath 77a) states that wine that does not carry three parts water is not wine. The normal mixture is said to consist of two parts water to one part wine. In a most important reference (Pesahim 108b) it is stated that the four cups every Jew was to drink during the Passover ritual were to be mixed in a ratio of three parts water to one part wine. From this we can conclude with a fair degree of certainty that the fruit of the vine used at the institution of the Lord’s Supper was a mixture of three parts water to one part wine. In another Jewish reference from around 60 BC, we read, “It is harmful to drink wine alone, or again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one’s enjoyment.” (II Macc.15:39).
Why is alcohol so different, Scott? This is a good question. I would say that because in many parts of the world, wine is still used because the water is bad. What exactly is the harm in a glass of wine with a meal? Europeans do not carry this cultural stigma either. The best you can say is that your argument from drug use is culturally specific, ergo, because of the way our society treats alchohol, we should abstain. However, that’s a cultural argument, not a biblical argument for a blanket policy, so we’re back to Christian liberty. The problem with SBC resolution is not the resolutions ends, as they are laudable ends, but the language that says that it adds to our holiness and makes us better Christians. Add to this the charge that Calvinists are antinomians if they believe in moderation, then we have what could, perhaps rightly, be stated to be a resolution that not only legalistic but motivated to poison the proverbial well against a segment of the SBC that is growing in its influence.
July 3rd, 2006 at 6:07 am
[...] In a recent post, it was stated this way by Joe Thorn: This is the argument the Pharisees made. They sought to honor God’s law by making additional laws that will (in theory) keep them from transgressing God’s laws. Their motives are great, but this is a form of legalism that falsely binds men’s consciences and produces something other than godliness while placing something other than the yoke of Christ on the necks of brothers and sisters. [...]
July 3rd, 2006 at 5:57 pm
I am not sure that people drank wine then because the water was so bad. Most people develop tolerances for the kind of bugs and diseases that are in the water. Anyone who’s taken a mission trip understands this. But those who are not used to the water get sick. I think people drank wine in Biblical times because it did gladden the heart.
Even today wine is used for medicine by doctors to lower the bad chloresterol. It’s not the only medicine. My wife suffers from migraines that will debilitate her because they come on at night and she wakes up and the meds are ineffective. The doctor prescribed wine before going to sleep.
As I’ve mentioned before I have personal issues with alcohol, so she refuses the doctors orders because she knows that wine might make me fall. She’s living the principle of watching out for a weaker brother- in this case, weaker husband
July 4th, 2006 at 10:23 am
Joe, there were some typos in the version you referenced. Heres the real version.
There are biblical reasons for practicing abstinence from steak eating:
– It is consistent with the principle of edification (1 Cor. 6:12). Cholesterol does not build you up or make you better for Jesus. Avoiding it ensures you will not harm yourself with it.
– It is consistent with the ethic of love for believers and unbelievers alike (1 Cor. 8:13; 9:19-22; 10:32-33). Because I am an example to others, I will make certain no one ever walks the road of sorrow called heart disease because they saw me eat a lot and assumed, “if it is alright for Danny Akin, it is alright for me.” No, I will choose to set an uncompromising example of abstinence because I love them.
– I will seek my joy and filling in the Spirit not in steaks. I love the Phillips translation of Ephesians 5:18 which reads, “Don’t get your stimulus from steaks (for there is always the danger of excessive eating), but let the Spirit stimulate your souls.” Psalm 4:7-8 adds, “You [O Lord] have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and steaks abound. In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.”
– It is true Jesus ate steaks. However, there is no evidence that he ever partook of “cholesterol-ridden steak.” As Bob Stein has carefully documented, “The term “steak” in the ancient world, then, did not mean steak as we understand it today but steak mixed with water.”
July 4th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Warning: Pure Speculation ahead! Should be taken with a grain of salt.
I think a resolution like this gets brought up by the “powers that be” (Patterson, Hunt, Welch and those of their ilk) when they think their power may be slipping away. They bring it up to test the waters to make sure they still have sway in the convention. They don’t bring up a resolution on the authority of Scripture or something more basic to the faith because they don’t think that is in jeopardy, they are just worried about their flavor of fundamentalist traditionalism slipping away. I apologize if someone else has already posted this idea.
By the way, it was a great response Joe.
Jonathan Baird
July 4th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Anyone who reads Scripture knows that LOVE is the rule for a Christian. So, no matter what the issue may be they are to exercise love for both God and others BEFORE they enjoy their freedom. So in the case of alcohol they make sure that there is no one to cause to stumble and everyone with them is alright with drinking.
Lastly, there are many people in Christendom like Baptist Theologue who are simply legalist. There is no way around after you read their comments. And the failure of a legalist is this:
they take (a)moral realities like alcohol and point out their abuses to say that they are inherently “evil” and should be avoided at all cost.
Alcohol can used for GOOD and EVIL. If it is used in moderation and drank as a gift from God then it is good. If it is misused then it is evil.
The biblical position on alcohol is that if it used in moderation then it is up to the individual’s conscience. Therefore, it is an argument from opinion and one’s conscience whether they abstain or enjoy in moderation. OPINION’s cannot be argued - it is a choice the person makes. Just because you differ does not make their decision wrong.
July 4th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
I was busy studying my greek when i discovered that it doesn’t say that Jesus TURNED water into wine, but PUT water into wine. Its all becoming clear.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:01 am
Sofyst - It’s Dr. Akin, not Mr. Akin. I’m quite sure that he has earned that title and deserves that respect - especially from guys cut from the “ilk” on this blog.
Joe - Likewise, I think it’s extremely disrespectful and to be frank, quite immature, to write how your “hero” is Jesus after Dr. Akin writes about Adrian Rogers being a great spiritual mentor to him. It’s comical to read these references to Phariseeism, etc. and then read that.
Secondly, I think your response to Dr. Akin’s article is terrible. In his article, he cites historical precidence, Scripture, personal experience, and statistical facts to support what he’s saying. All you do is interject some little thoughts every few lines, with absolutely no evidence or proof to validate any of what you’re saying.
One thing I can say is that I’m extremely grateful that the percentage of Southern Baptists that subscribe to a lot of the ideas portrayed on these blogs is such a low number, that I don’t need to worry about the direction that the SBC is going.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:40 am
Can someone explain to me what “guest blogger” means? Some things are so confusing–like reading and interpreting words. At least I am not the only one with that problem.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:49 am
You know what’s sad to me? We spend so much time talking about this, that it’s apparent to the the entire non-Southern Baptist world that alcohol, or rather the prohibition of alcohol, is in fact an essential to our faith. There’s only two other religious sects in the world that care as much as we do about prohibiting alcohol: Mormons and Muslims. What a great group to be keeping company with.
You know what a stumbling block is? A stumbling block is making a dietary restriction so intrinsically linked to the Gospel we preach that it demands that new believers follow our little rules before they can join the club. “Get circumcised!” said the Judaizers. “Stop drinking!” say the Southern Baptists. What great company we keep.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:41 am
jtip,
First, in my comment about “heroes” I was simply trying to point out that the words and practices of one modern hero were in conflict with the words and actions of our Savior. I explained that no disrespect was intended.
Second, you are right, in my response to Dr. Akin I did not cite Scripture passages. This was because I had already written a short post setting up the Biblical perspective on alcohol before Dr. Akin wrote his article. In his article Dr. Akin used 8 passages of Scripture to support his case for abstinence from alcohol. Of those 8 passages only 3 of them mention alcohol/wine. Of those three, two warn against drunkenness - not use, and one refers to wine in a way that is neither positive or negative. In my previous post I (in God’s providence) also used 8 Scripture passages. All 8 references spoke directly about alcohol as the blessing of God, as something Jesus drank, that made men happy, and was used in a part of worship. I did not feel like repeating myself in my response, so I attepted to interact with his ideas and the principles he laid out. If I did a poor job, at least I did try to engage his words. You have failed to do so with what I have written.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:45 am
I drank untreated, untested water for EIGHTEEN YEARS, 1976-1994, and never once got sick from it. Guess what? Tens of millions of Americans do too!
Kentucky bourbon was invented because it was too expensive and dangerous to float corn to New Orleans for shipping. But if it was distilled into whiskey, it would take up less space on a boat, wouldn’t rot, and would earn more money. That’s the reason bourbon was invented, and the reason it was invented in Kentucky and not Minnesota or Iowa, is that Kentucky was the site of the first English settlements west of the Appalachians.
ADDITIONALLY, anyone who would drink bourbon for hydration is in for a rude surprise.
Go find some new excuses, these make you look stupid.
July 5th, 2006 at 8:59 am
Besides that Ryan, bourbon doesn’t get stuck in your teeth!
I like what Publius said and its holds true for most of the things we go on and on about. Abortion, gays at Disneyland, drinking alcohol, dancing–are we still ranting about that?–who knows what will be next. Probably generic prescription medicines.
By far the best argument I’ve seen is the one about the Pharisee’s and their evangelistic efforts. They’re looking more familiar all the time.
Josh
July 5th, 2006 at 10:15 am
jtip -
You say, “All you do is interject some little thoughts every few lines, with absolutely no evidence or proof to validate any of what you’re saying.”
How about refuting Joe’s responses point by point instead of just ruling them invalid? Don’t tell someone he’s wrong without explaining why. Otherwise, you are are guilty of just interjecting “some little thoughts every …with absolutely no evidence or proof to validate any of what you’re saying.
July 5th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Joe,
You’re on the side of the angels in your definitions of moderation, but especially in pointing to the sufficiency of Scripture. I call this “zealotry” have begun a series on my blog today about zealotry.
No one, I hope, would make alcohol central to the gospel, but we should all take seriously the sufficiency of God’s Word.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Joe, here, I’ll “engage” your words:
Wisdom is subjective? What is wise for one person is unwise for another? I thought wisdom was based on truth, so in your line of thinking, then truth is relative. I hope I don’t need to delineate further down that path. (of course, who knows, maybe I do)
Following biblical principles and leading Baptists accordingly is not legalism, it’s being a Christian leader.
Pointing out precedents is not a way of saying “we’ve always done it that way”. I would think that you have done a lot of commentaries, or theses, on subjects, and generally the citing of precedents, history, and tradition is a large part of the presentation on an issue. One thing is for sure, the argument from “precedent” is not the main one Dr. Akin puts forward.
Comparing the destructive nature of alcohol to a grilled cheese sandwich is pathetic – and I think you realized that since you back-tracked a little in your next line. Here in 2006, alcohol is a recreational drink. We have chosen our recreation over people’s lives, feelings, families, etc. You’re correct that it’s abuse of alcohol is what causes the problems. Tell me, how can one abuse alcohol if they’ve never participated. Better yet, tell me how it is you think it’s responsible and “wise” for Christians to partake in a recreational drink that causes so much destruction. I would challenge to read the Bible, the New Testament, take a look at the statistics and facts about drunk driving, spouse-abuse, child-abuse, broken homes, alcohol associated with major crime, alcohol assoaciated with heavy gambling, etc. And then go to your local city’s bar district and just hang out for a night taking in the sights, the sounds, and the overall scene. Then explain how participating is living out biblical principles.
Then you say that some things recreational (I guess you’re lumping alcohol use in here) can aide in things spiritual. Did you really mean that?
Then you make your “hero” comment, where you put “my” in italics, trying to be inflammatory and disrespectful, and then had the audacity to respond to me that you weren’t. And the argument about moderation actually contributing to the cause of problems with liquor is extremely easy to follow. Yes, I know that moderation means only doing something in moderate amounts, not indulging. I’m sure Adrian Rogers, Dr. Akin, and any other educated person knows that too. It seems that any other educated person could also understand that he’s saying if you don’t subscribe to the value that drinking in moderation is okay, then there is no chance of having a liquor problem. Dr. Akin probably didn’t go into that further because he probably thought that anyone reading the article would be able to put that together, but I guess maybe he shouldn’t have.
In the United States today, not participating in alcohol absolutely contributes to your edification. It sets us apart from a destructive, needless part of life. Alcohol is addictive and powerful – again, look at statistics. Just as an intelligent person, aside from being a Christian, just by looking at alcohol for what it is, you can come to the realization that it’s a bad thing to be a part of. That is if you can put other people’s (and possible your own) lives and safety above your desire for pleasure.
This is a lot longer than I intended, and I know I’m not done “engaging” all your comments, but I’ve got to run. Looking forward to your reply.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
jtip,
I am on my way to Home Group so I will have to make this quick.
Yes wisdom is subjective. This means it is practical, experiential and particular to the individual or circumstance. Of course, widsom is based on truth and truth does not change. So, for example… a truth: anything not done in faith is sin; principle: do not go against your conscience; wisdom: If eating meat sacrificed to an idol is something you cannot do in faith, do not eat the meat. If your conscience is clear you can eat the meat because an idol is nothing. So wisdom says to one,”Do not eat meat,” and to another “Eat freely, but do not lay a stumbling block before your brother.”
You said, “Following biblical principles and leading Baptists accordingly is not legalism, it’s being a Christian leader.” I did not say that following Biblical principles is legalism. I said that establishing extrabiblical laws, and claiming that to transgress them is sin is legalism. My claim is that Scripture alone is our sufficient guide in all faith and practice.
You said, “Comparing the destructive nature of alcohol to a grilled cheese sandwich is pathetic…” I was not equating drunkenness with cheese, but gluttony with drunkenness. That is the comparison. The point was that the food itself (or beverage) is not the problem. Abuse is the problem. Yes, abstinence is one way of avoiding abuse, as is moderation. It just so happens that Jesus intentionally chose NOT to abstain while John the Baptist did.
This is my fundamental problem: People who wish to abstain from alcohol have all my encouragement, but those who want to claim that abstinence is God’s will for all Christians are stepping outside of the parameters of Scripture.
I have done everything you suggest in your fifth (I think it’s the fifth) paragraph. But could you be more specific about what parts of the NT you think I should read? How is it wise to drink in moderation? In the same way it is wise to eat in moderation. It is a demonstration to the world that we value self-control (fruit of the Spirit), and the proper enjoyment of God’s gifts without over-indulging. Abstinence sends one message. It can be a good one. Moderation sends another message which is always a good one. It says, “We are enslaved by nothing, or to no one but Jesus Christ.” BTW, if you will take the time to hang out in the local pubs with me in my neighborhood, you will see many adults enjoying wine and beer without getting drunk.
You said, “Then you say that some things recreational (I guess you’re lumping alcohol use in here) can aide in things spiritual. Did you really mean that?” Yep.
You said, “Then you make your “hero” comment, where you put “my” in italics, trying to be inflammatory and disrespectful, and then had the audacity to respond to me that you weren’t.” You should try not to judge men’s motives brother. It’s bad form. I have explained my aim and intent. If you choose to call me a liar that is on you.
You said, “In the United States today, not participating in alcohol absolutely contributes to your edification.” It may contribute to one’s edification. But abstinence can also be a destructive practice if done for the wrong reasons. “If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” (Col. 2:21-23) My point here is to say abstinence, in and of itself, is not a virtue. I am thinking of writing one more post, explaining this very point. How abstinence can be a good or a bad thing. Perhaps that will help the conversation.
jtip, I simply do not find the arguments for total opposition to alcohol biblically convincing. Do we agree on these points: God gave wine as a blessing to the nation of Israel, as well as to gladden the heart of man, and that Jesus and his disciples drank wine when abstinence was an option? If so, then wouldn’t it be better to say that wisdom allows for abstinence or moderation? (Please check the Scripture references linked).
Also, you seem angry man. What’s up with that?
July 5th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
>>>Wisdom is subjective? What is wise for one person is unwise for another? I thought wisdom was based on truth, so in your line of thinking, then truth is relative.
Wisdom involves the application of the clear teaching of Scipture. We must be cautious in this area, because it is possible that we are wrong in the area of application. This is humility, not relativism.
>>>Following biblical principles and leading Baptists accordingly is not legalism, it’s being a Christian leader.
What biblical principles??? What you are trying to do is to impose your man-made rules on others and deprive them of their Christian liberty. That’s not being a Christian leader. It’s being a slavemaster.
>>>>Here in 2006, alcohol is a recreational drink.
God created alcohol to be a recreational drink. In Psalm 104:15, God created “wine to gladden the heart of man.” Did God make a mistake when He did this? Do you think that you are wiser than God?
“For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, (5) for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer” (1 Timothy 4:4-5).
>>>>You’re correct that it’s abuse of alcohol is what causes the problems. Tell me, how can one abuse alcohol if they’ve never participated. Better yet, tell me how it is you think it’s responsible and “wise” for Christians to partake in a recreational drink that causes so much destruction.
You are using the same kind of reasoning as the Pharisees did in the time of Jesus - build a fence around the law so that people don’t even come close to breaking the law. Jesus came to oppose this kind of legalism.
>>>>I would challenge to read the Bible, the New Testament,
I have read the Bible all the way through multiple, numerous times, and I have yet to find anything commanding abstinence from alcohol.
>>>>In the United States today, not participating in alcohol absolutely contributes to your edification. It sets us apart from a destructive, needless part of life. Alcohol is addictive and powerful – again, look at statistics.
I would counter that legalism is far more dangerous than alcohol. Legalism has sent far more people to hell than alcohol ever will. The greatest danger to Christians today is not alcohol - it is a suffocating, stifling legalism that deprives believers of their Christian liberty and creates self-righteousness in people.
Basically what motivates those who advocate the abstinence position is the desire to feel superior to other people. Since legalists build their identity on their obedience to man-made rules, they feel threatened whenever these man-made rules are exposed as extra-biblical and thus unnecessary.
We need a new Reformation in the Southern Baptist Convention. We need a recovery of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture, and we need to rediscover Christian liberty. We need to liberate ourselves from the shackles imposed by those who would be tyrants over our consciences! We need freedom!
July 5th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Again wise words, Joe. And, especially in light of part of this discussion, true words. Thanks, my friend.
July 5th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
It’s amazing that you can tell my attitude from a web post. I have way too much more important stuff going on to continue this further. The bottom line is that you’re going to give any argument you can to justify drinking. I’m definitely not mad, in fact I think it’s rather comical. It’s like a teenager grasping for any little thing he can to rebel against authority. I guess you and I (and most other Baptists, more studied scholars, church leaders, etc.) will just have to disagree about this one, “man”.
July 5th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Well, that’s what I was talking about. You make a lot of sharp remarks that are not really on target. It wasn’t an accusation, but an observation. You “seem…” At any rate, you declined to answer my questions. I was hopeful we could talk since you said you were “looking forward” to my reply. You, and the majority of people holding your position that I am reading online, are not interacting well with the passages I bring up. Perhaps another time.
Have a good time at U of L.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:59 am
“The bottom line is that you’re going to give any argument you can to justify drinking.” And vice versa. Or maybe you’ll just quit in a fit of self-superiority (”It’s like a teenager grasping for any little thing he can to rebel against authority”).
Maybe I’m mistaken about his attitude. But what I DO know is there’s nothing like dropping a bomb and then fleeing the scene. Kinda like takin’ the ball and going home. Like the little kids playing on my street. Pot. Kettle. Black. I’m outta here.
…Oh wait, no I’m not. This conversation interests me, and I might actually benefit from what’s being discussed here. man.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:16 am
Now I’VE got a nasty tone in MY response. Ruffled feathers. Defensive attitude. Said nothing worthwhile. My apologies.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:21 am
Joe, don’t waste anymore of your time on this “jtip” guy. He is great at throwing stones at us but not very proficient at interacting with the various points “our” side brings up.
If someone cannot agree the Bible states that wine is a good gift from God and the INDIVIDUAL Christian is to make up their own mind whether they drink or not then there is not much more we can say. Simply put - it speaks of the “good” use of wine and the “evil” use of wine. Just as it does money, sex, worship, friends, food, etc.
Now, if the SBC leadership would argue that point at least then most of us would listen. I don’t mind them RECOMMENDING we abstain but ultimately the choice is up to the particular Christian. There is ZERO room for them to argue fallaciously or to even bring up the notion that Scripture speaks contrary to what I’ve intimated here.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:58 am
Next to the question of the sufficiency of Scripture, which Joe so rightly emphasizes, arrogance and pride are my biggest in with this argument. Why must people think that Southern Baptists equal “conservative Christianity?” Sure, SBs are the largest denomination in the US, but what about in the larger picture of global Christianity? So, why does what a small portion of SBs, which is what the messengers of the SBC actually make up, automatically represent all Christians in the global community?
Enter, IMO, the issues of arrogance and pride. Since the majority of messengers at the SBC say it’s best for everyone to abstain, then bing, bang, boom, it’s best for everyone to abstain. And, if that’s not enough, why not claim that all genuine conservative Christian scholars hold the same opinion, as jtip does when he places “most other Baptists, more studied scholars, church leaders, etc.” on his side of the argument against Joe. Maybe we can give him the first group in that list (though, if the conservative resurgence proved anything, it was that unfortunately SBC messengers don’t always represent grassroots SBs). But even granting jtip that group, or most “most other Baptists,” there is no reason to believe that the majority of “more studied scholars, church leaders, etc.” agree with him. I know numerous profs at evangelical seminaries and divinity schools who meet regularly over drinks of varying strengths to discuss theology and culture and their roles in both. Are we to assume these evangelicals either have not studied (at best) or are pseudo-conservatives or unconverted (at worst)? Or perhaps we ought to recognize that the scriptures provide some latitude on such an issue. Thus, as Akin points out, we all ought to strive for wisdom, refusing to look down on those who disagree with us. “A smug, prideful abstainer without Jesus,” writes Akin, “is just as lost as the poor drunkard who is always in search of another drink.” While I think there is at least one group standing between the abstainer and the drunkard, namely, those Christians who drink in moderation, he concludes this consideration with a wonderful challenge to all Christians: “Those who believe in abstinence (and those who believe in moderation) should be gracious and humble, kind and caring, loving and patient.”
Sounds a lot like Christ to me. And as those of us who know Akin understand, that is what he hopes for most of all–to see men and women come to look like Christ.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:06 am
I’m hesitant to jump into this “hot-zone” of a conversation, but I just wanted to raise a few questions. Today, Dr. Frank Page has an article on BP News (he also just started a page on the SBC website). He states that he stands against alcohol, “both the use and the abuse of it”. And his position reaches beyond the realm of his own personal convictions to the realm of making judgments on others actions. This position, of course, has received a scolding from many. So does that make him a legalist? Is he a part of the “establishment”? For many, Dr. Page’s election has been appealing because he wasn’t part of the “establishment”. But, after reading this article, it sure seems like he lines up pretty close to the men that many write so strongly against. Is Dr. Page going to get blasted too? Is he going to get compared with Muslims and Mormons too? Or is there room inside the non-legalist parameters to include Dr. Page’s position and the position of many other Southern Baptists?
And in case you were wondering, my tone is nice. Thanks for your time.
Here’s the link:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23582
And here’s the SBC link:
http://www.sbc.net/PresidentsPage/FrankPage/default.asp
July 6th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Joe, did I miss something?
Who’d you compare to Mormons or Muslims?
I thought you were most concerned with the faith of Christians?
July 6th, 2006 at 11:20 am
From my perspective, there was not much of a difference between the Presidential candidates. I was not shooting confetti poppers when Page was elected, nor was I troubled. I am hopeful he will do a good job.
I have not had the time to read Dr. Page’s article, but for the record, I am not standing against any person in our convention. I am standing against the unbiblical claim that God is against moderate alcohol consumption. Abstinence is a good choice for many, one that can honor God. Moderate enjoyment of alcohol is also a good choice that honors God. For me, it’s that simple. My final post will attempt to make this part clear.
Oh, I was not wondering about your tone, since you didn’t make any personal attacks. But thanks for clarifying.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Richard,
I have said, somewhere in the past, that absolute abstinence from alcohol has not been the historic position of Christ’s church, but it has been the historic position of the Mormonism and Islam. A few others have said the same thing.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Joe, I know that Publius said that above, but I searched your posts and found nothing. So, wondered if you were having words attributed to you that were not your own.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:41 am
I don’t think I said it here, but I think I made a comment like that on Steve’s blog. All of that is beside the point. It would be nice for people to engage the Scripture.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Book of Mormon or Koran?
Thanks for clarifying, Joe.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
I would like to see the scriptural defense of the outright demand for an across the board abstinence position.
I wonder if jtip is going to give us that or if he is just gonna hurl insults.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
jcoppenger,
Frank Page? Why bring up him? I can’t remember Joe ever talking directly about Frank Page on anything. What’s your point? If Page is against the “use” of alcohol, I think he’s wrong.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
I remember when I was at Reformed Theological Seminary taking a class from Steve Brown (Key Life Ministries) - when I first became a Xtian, Steve was one of the few preachers I could stomach who was on the radio. So when I got to take his class in seminary I was fired up! I really looked up to him in many ways.
Of course I grew up in a Southern Baptist atmosphere so when I committed my life to Christ the first 2 things I decided was never to smoke anything again and never to imbibe alcohol again.
Then one day in class Brown says we needed to take a break so he could grab a quick smoke. I about fell out of my chair. How could he do such a thing?!? He promptly went outside and lite up his pipe. Some of the RTS students lite up their pipes as well. I was terribly distraught and confused.
Then a few weeks later I asked Steve to dinner. There we sat (before class started) in Subway talking about many things when I asked him point-blankley why he smoked. He had hundreds of thousands of listeners on the radio and students he was influencing. He just laughed uproarously at me! Then he began to explain that if he tried to follow the rules and convictions of all his listeners he would end up in a straight-jacket.
It was the beginning of my great understanding of grace and Xtian freedom.
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has a great motto (something the SBC leadership should pay attention to) -
In Essentials - Unity
In Non-Essentials - Liberty
In All Things - Charity
Truth in Love
July 6th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Thanks guys for chiming in.
Jedidiah,
You can call me “Joe.”
I think we need to interact with each otjer generously, charitably, but honestly. I have attempted to do this, and I believe Dr. Akin is a guy who has sought to do so as well. But I’ll be honest. In my experience the anger is coming from the other side. I have been called names, had my integrity questioned, been called a sinner, etc.
If someone is saying God’s will is for all to abstain from alcohol, or that wisdom dictates to all that abstinence is the best policy - that becomes extra-biblical law and betrays a lack of confidence in sufficiency. Saying that one believes in the sufficiency of Scripture does not make it so. But to the point, I tend to see guys on the other side of this debate who do believe in sufficiency, but are not consistent with its application.
I have not called anyone a Pharisee. But forms of pharisaism are evident when people attempt to build a “fence around the Torah.” You know, God says do not get drunk. Therefore we say, “No one should drink.” I now in the past I have functioned on some levels more like a Pharisee than like Jesus. It is usually hard to see when you are doing it.
Look, I am one of the guys who thinks the SBC should be confessional defined and missionally driven. In other words, I think we should use the confession we have (or come up with a better one) and work together within its boundaries. I am a Reformed pastor/theologian, yet I do not think those who misunderstand the doctrine of particular redemption should be booted out. My hope is not to produce the Five Point Calvinist Convention (even if that name is better than Southern Baptist Convention). I am the guy saying we should work together and not narrow our parameters of cooperation beyond our confession. Res. #5 works against a confessional identity.
So to answer your basic questions, as I understand them. Yes, I think many in leadership are mistaken on this issue (but come on, don’t you think others in leadership are mistaken on more important soteriological matters?). I think despite such differences we can continue to work together, have civil discussion, and push one another on toward a better, more biblical faith.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Joe, thanks for taking the time to respond. I just wanted to be sure that I understood your position. Hope the best for your ministry.
July 7th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Since I belong to the Alliance of Baptists (one of the “liberal” groups who left the SBC after the fundamentalist takeover), I probably don’t agree with most of your positions, but on THIS we agree. In fact, the most disgraceful thing in my perspective is that with a world in crisis (an illegal, immoral, and unnecessary war in Iraq; global warming; rising debt; a growing gap between the rich and the poor; a Tsunami’s worth of death by AIDS every few weeks; a growing police state and the erosion of our democracy as a supposed “answer” to terrorism; the growing acceptance of torture–at least when sanctioned by U.S. Republican presidents; etc.), all the SBC saw fit to debate was whether or not moderate alcohol use was sinful! In the ’60s, the SBC debated smoking and ignored the Civil Rights movement!!! More of the same.
I’m tempted to print up T-shirts that say,”I’m a Baptist Beer Drinker!”
July 8th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Thanks for engaging this subject, Joe. I’m with you.
July 8th, 2006 at 8:32 am
Since none of the leaders or scholars of the SBC are willing to do anything but toe the party line I figured we could bring in an objective and a definitely qualified scholar - D.A. Carson. From his commentary on John 2:
“The ‘wine’ (oinos) that was needed was not mere grape juice, generic ‘fruit of the vine.’ The idea is intrinsically silly as applied to countries whose agricultural tradition is so committed to viticulture. Besides, in v. 10 the head steward expects that at this point in the celebration some of the guests would have had too much to drink: the verb methysko does not refer to consuming too much liquid, but to inebriation.” page 169.
“The suggestion of some popular interpreters that Jesus simply provided water, and that the steward accepted the substitute with good humor and a witty remark about how Adam’s ale is the best kind, is indefensible. The text says that the water had been turned into wine (v. 9). Besides, social expectation would have been outraged
if the groom had proved so improvident as to run out of supplies before the end of the feast…John’s point is simply that the wine Jesus provides is unqualifiedly superior,as must everything be that is tied to the new, messianic age Jesus is introducing.” page 174.
July 8th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
I think Dr. Akin is overreacting. Maby he should search his motives on why is he that interesting in making this #5 Law something manditory. It’s not this way in Romania. I’m allowed to drink a glas of wine if I want to, I’m just not able. I know my limits so I won’t push them . This Dr. of yours
July 8th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Given my assumption that the last commentator was from the States, I thought it was interesting to note that the resolution is explicitly called “On Alcohol Use in America”. This is intriguing to me because they have culturally and geographically conditioned a resolution by adding “in America.”
What are we to conclude by this? Abstinence should be resolved in America, but moderation in say Europe where drinking wine is more accepted in that culture? My point is simply to note how intrinsically attached to culture this resolution has been made. It is “made in America.”
But the SBC and Christians base their wisdom and convictions on the universally applied Word of God which speaks to every culture and geographic region in the world. To say that the Scripture calls for abstinence in the United States and not elsewhere is contraditory in application. So why not draft a resolution that is unconditonally universal in its scope and not relativize it to the United States?
Here’s the answer IMO. The resolution itself reveals itself culturally and geographically contingencies which displace the Word of God and its sufficiency for “life and godliness” through faithful instru