Some think too much time has been spent on this issue, and I would agree that a lot of unhelpful things have been written or said. So I thought I would point out a few more contributions to the discussion that are noteworthy.
Ben Cole’s Response to Dr. Akin’s article in the Dallas Morning News.
ConcernedSBCer has a blog that focuses on this issue. Very well done.
And in a not so surprising move James P. Boyce, founder of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spoke out against the resolution on alcohol. Oh, wait - that was back in 1888 when he ruled, as President of the SBC, that a resolution against the consumption of alcohol “was not germane to the work of the convention.” (1888 Annual of the SBC, pp. 33-34).
8 Comments
Great quote by Boyce. What is interesting is that this quote (if 1888 is the year) is 20 years after Dr Welch introduced grape juice into the communion cups of his Vineland NJ church in accordance with his prohibitionist agenda.
Curious, do you know if the churches in the SBC used wine in Boyce’s day? I am curious as to why churches switched and amazed at the influence of Welch.
thanks.
/erik
Joe,
We should try to figure out the WHY of the resolution. I am still befuddled on that point. Anyone with a 6th-grade education can look at scripture and see that the arguments presented in the resolution (as well as all the other articles written by SBC leaders for the resolution) just don’t hold water - so why don’t we dig deeper to see the REAL reason for the resolution?
I was speaking with a good friend of mine who is a young SBC pastor and like-minded with us and he said that the old SBC guard was simply attacking some of US! They do not like many of the things we stand for and are taking pot-shots at us through resolutions like this one.
The arguing over what was presented is terribly boring on a technical level. If God wanted us to totally abstain from alcohol he would have told us that. He didn’t and therefore we imbibe moderately if we choose to because it is a GOOD gift from him (Ecc 9:7, etc ad naseum).
Thoughts?
We should try to figure out the WHY of the resolution. I am still befuddled on that point.
I’m curious about the WHY of it as well, especially since I’m something of a transplant to SBC culture.
Thanks for the Boyce quote. It is great to hear wisdom from the past.
Erik,
My post may be a little late for you to get any use out of it, but I was researching some on this and it seems that the Temperance Movement in the South (which first started advocating for moderation and then moved to abstinence later) was to blame for the shift in views on alcohol. And to answer your question, Baptist churches well into the 20th century used wine in communion (in fact the 1925 BF&M reads, “It is prerequisite to the privileges of a church relation and to the Lord’s Supper, in which the members of the church, by the use of bread and wine, commemorate the dying love of Christ.” It was changed in 1963 to read, “The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.”).
Joe,
Thanks for digging that Boyce quote out of the archives!
D.R.,
Thanks for noting that change in the 1963 BF&M.
A greater historical awareness is always a good thing.
“We should try to figure out the WHY of the resolution…”
I’ve wondered all through this debate about one thing…
If one feels responsible for whether or not others come to Christ through what one says and does, one would be inclined (it would seem to me) to err on the side of extreme caution. After all, who in their right mind would want a glass of wine to stand between a friend and his/her salvation?
It boils down to a theological thing — as all things do — but it’s not really in the area of Christian liberty but in the unbiblical burden of “bringing souls to Christ.”
Dr. Aiken’s article never said this explicitly, but implied it numerous times. In fact, his defense for his position started out well enough but bogged down as he appealed, more and more emotionally, to the responsibility we bear for one another’s souls.
I think we would all agree that we should not be stumbling blocks — to the weaker BROTHERS (who are, by definition, already believers) — but if we understand the Sovereignty of God in salvation, then surely He is able to bring men to faith whether or not there is a glass of beer or wine on the table.
This changes the whole debate from leading people astray — meaning, according to the prohibitionist view, that we prevent people from coming to faith — to not causing the weaker brother to stumble. Keeping someone from stumbling can be, for a while, abstaining for his sake, but would also seem to imply that we help the weaker brother not be weak (ie, strengthen him through maturity and greater understanding).
So perhaps the real issue isn’t alcohol at all, but is the slide from the scriptural view of salvation.
Just thinking out loud.
We love it when you think out loud Laurie. Good thoughts.