Posted by Helen on: 05.22.2007 /
Yesterday I found myself defending Southern Baptist practices. I’m not sure exactly why - this post may or may not explain it.
I got in a discussion on Bob Hyatt’s blog based on his post Question for you Southern Baptists out there….
He’s closed comments on that now but has reposted his latest thoughts from that discussion in the new post Hide the beer the (SB) Pastor’s here… which is open for comments.
Amongst other things Bob is objecting to the Southern Baptist rule against drinking alcohol. He says it’s a “ridiculous man-made rule with no basis in Scripture.” Bob points out Colossians 2 where it says “Don’t let anyone condemn you by insisting on pious self-denial…” (New Living Translation). Bob (I originally said Makeesha but that was a mistake - sorry Makeesha!) also commented that “There is no greater good being served in requiring anyone to abstain from something, be it marriage or alcohol or anything else, that God specifically created for our enjoyment and pleasure. All it serves is a spirit of pharisaism.”
Bob wrote in his latest comment to me “Helen- you are not hearing or misunderstanding the actual question I am asking.”
I don’t know whether I am or not. I understand the principle of not submitting to unnecessary rules. I read the Bible verses given to back it up. But I can’t help that it sounds the same to me as “it’s morally superior to refuse to do anything which personally inconveniences me”. That’s the opposite of what I believe. I’ve yet to see anyone in this discussion prove that their refusal to submit to rules they find ridiculous is not motivated by the simple selfish desire “I want to do what I want to do”. I’m not saying it is. I’m saying “How can you tell the difference?” No-one has explained to me how.
I see Jesus’ life as the antithesis of selfishness. He continually did things he didn’t have to do. He would have laughed at the idea that giving up alcohol was a big deal. He gave up his whole life for a ‘greater good’.
Why is it so hard to believe that some Christians see a ‘greater good’ in belonging to the Southern Baptists which makes it worth some small sacrifices?
I don’t even know if I like the Southern Baptists. All I know is, I really don’t like seeing Christians in effect present a one-sided glorification of freedom and independence without acknowledged that the Christian life is not a free one anyway. What happened to being ’slaves to Christ’?
The Bible does not present ‘my rights’ as what life is all about. Jesus wants followers who understand self-denial - otherwise their own issues will get in the way of them serving other people.
Jesus addressed pious self-denial. He encouraged fasting by giving instruction on how to do it so it didn’t get subverted into a way to impress other people. (Matthew 6) Why did he do that if it’s all about me exercising my freedom to drink alcohol or do everything else I can’t find a specific prohibition against in the Bible?
Comment by: steve
1 05/22/07 8:11 AM | Comment Link |Helen,
I saw (and participated in) Bob’s conversation yesterday. The point I saw him making actually didn’t have a lot to do with alcohol or self-sacrifice. It was more about pushing back against legalistic rules because they’re unnecessary and unhelpful. Keep in mind that the self-denying Jesus you’re talking about embraced the freedom to heal others on the Sabbath, have conversations with the unclean, and make friends with the immoral . . . all to the horror of the legalistic rule-keepers.
Comment by: Helen
2 05/22/07 8:47 AM | Comment Link |Steve, I don’t think it’s even just about rules.
I’m tired of Christians claiming they are on Jesus’ side and saying the Christians who disagree with them are Pharisees.
Isn’t the claim of these Christians: “I’m on God’s side and you’re not” exactly what the Pharisees said?
I don’t see the point of trying to, in effect, “outpharisee the Pharisees”.
Comment by: steve
3 05/22/07 8:54 AM | Comment Link |Helen - that’s a valid point. There’s no point in celebrating freedom to drink or whatever, if that’s all there is to it. It’d be like a prisoner being released and going around for the next 20 years telling everyone he’s free. At some point, he needs to just acknowledge his freedom, and then shut up and live into it.
Comment by: Helen
4 05/22/07 9:25 AM | Comment Link |Steve - I also think that any gift is given to be shared, right? So, freedom is never just about me. Biblically speaking.
And isn’t part of the complexity that the reason SBC leaders are asked to give up their freedom to drink is in order to help members be free from alcoholism? They give up some freedom so others can have more. Jesus gave up the freedom to be alive so others could live life to the full.
If freedom is something we have to hold onto it’s become an idol.
I understand the principle - don’t needlessly take the freedom of others away. I see this more as “As a leader, will you give up some freedom so others can have more?” It’s a choice and people can say no. But I don’t think it’s fair to imply that ‘no’ is the only Christian choice.
Comment by: Makeesha
5 05/22/07 9:47 AM | Comment Link |I didn’t actually say that :) I think it was Bob.
I agree with you that sometimes we have to give up our “right to be right” for the greater good of loving God and loving others. There are many instances where I would do that. HOWEVER, in the midst of that, I would still move toward a more fully redeemed position.
I would give up my “right” to “leadership” in an Islamic state to respect and honor the culture of that place. But I would, in all my ability, in love and patience (I’d like to think anyway) try to provoke change toward a more redeemed position of gender justice.
“As a leader, will you give up some freedom so others can have more?”
I think this sounds really good and is very noble but it very rarely actually works when taken to its end result… and means that there will very rarely be significant positive change. What if Ghandhi or MLK Jr. had that attitude? “I must give up my right to justice in order that the bigots will feel loved.” rhetoric you say? fallacy you say? maybe, but it communicates a point of direction and intention.
as the prohibition showed, banning alcohol does nothing to help alcoholism…but again, this isn’t about that specific thing anyway.
to your point about phariseeism…if you study the pharisees, there are specific behaviors associated with them, there’s a specific reason why that term is used. And there are reasons why Jesus condemned them. Building walls around the law is one of them. That term is very appropriate in this context, in my opinion.
we’re getting into this thing again though helen - you’re saying something to this effect
“you can’t get upset with the SBC for bashing emergent if you’re going to criticize the practices of the SBC so I’m going to criticize you for criticizing them for criticizing you”
So to end that cycle, I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m not telling you you’re wrong and hopefully, my tone will communicate a response that acknowledges the complexities of being a body with very different parts. I totally get what you’re saying and I respect your heart but I’m not sure it really “works” when lived out in a practical sense.
…oh and for the record, I come from conservative evangelicalism. I grew up there. As recently as a few months ago I had given up my “rights” to serve a community like that. So this isn’t all hypothetical to me.
Comment by: steve
6 05/22/07 9:59 AM | Comment Link |Helen,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. One thing, though: “And isn’t part of the complexity that the reason SBC leaders are asked to give up their freedom to drink is in order to help members be free from alcoholism?”
As someone who has lived in this world at various levels of experience and leadership, I humbly submit that freedom from alcoholism isn’t a major factor in the SBC policy. Sadly, it has much much much more to do with control/power, personal piety (which has both good and bad connotations), and showmanship.
Setting alcohol or anything else aside for the sake of others who may be weak is noble and pure. Setting it aside for the sake of approval? As Jesus said, “You’ve received your reward in full.”
Comment by: Helen
7 05/22/07 10:26 AM | Comment Link |Makeesha, sorry about the misattributed quote.
Thanks for your comments. It sounds like you’re saying, this is complex; neither extreme presents the full picture. Which is all I’m trying to say too. If I seemed to be arguing one extreme then it was because I was trying to fill in the missing pieces. Maybe I didn’t convey that very well. The last thing I want to do is be another voice saying “I’m right; you’re wrong”. I don’t think it’s ever that simple. (Which is probably one reason I’m not a conservative Christian any more)
Steve, I don’t know the SBC world so I can’t really comment on the motives of people in it. To the extent it has problems I hope that insiders who care are doing their best to address them.
Comment by: Laura M.
8 05/22/07 5:13 PM | Comment Link |Alcohol is a drug.
It’s not extremely legalistic to tell people to stop using a drug their body doesn’t need, and which has the potential for extremely harmful repercussions.
I think sometimes people like to claim this argument is about legalism to distract from this basic fact:
Alcohol is a drug.
Comment by: Makeesha
9 05/22/07 7:42 PM | Comment Link |tylenol is a drug that can be abused
vicodin contains a narcotic and is a very helpful pain killer
“laughing gas” is a drug
allergy medicine is a drug and contains a drug used to manufacture meth.
I’m sorry, that argument just doesn’t hold water.
but again, that’s not what we’re talking about
Comment by: Laura M.
10 05/22/07 9:59 PM | Comment Link |If a person is in extreme pain, they need a pain killer.
If they have bad allergies, they may need an allergy medication, depending upon the severity.
What exactly would be the body’s physical ‘need’ for alcohol, or laughing gas for that matter?
My argument:
Would any Christian argue that it is the Christian thing to do to use laughing gas, overuse pain medications in whatever amounts they choose, whenever they choose, or use ‘meth’ at their personal discretion?
And anyone who tells them otherwise is a ‘Pharisee’ ?
I’m sure the God who ‘created’ us wouldn’t care at all the way we pour any drug we feel like into our bodies- despite all the “body is a temple” talk in the bible.
Alcohol is a drug. I know it is very popular to pretend like that isn’t the fact of the situation, but it is. Is it OK for Christians to use any drug they feel like whenever they feel like, in any amounts they feel like?
This has everything to do with what we are talking about.
I’m a Libertarian. I pretty much believe people have the birthright to do anything they please with their bodies and their lives. The choice is theirs, not the government’s, nor the church’s.
Having the ‘legal’ right, and being morally right are two different things.
Comment by: steve
11 05/23/07 12:33 AM | Comment Link |Laura,
Let’s keep in mind that alcohol is a “drug” that Jesus himself consumed. Caffeine is a drug that people don’t typically need, but consume in great quantities - should we also suggest morality around that? Labeling something as a drug doesn’t really prove much.
Also, “the potential for extremely harmful repercussions” applies to many things we are free to enjoy - alcohol, food, sex.
Comment by: benjamin.ady
12 05/23/07 2:21 AM | Comment Link |I’m sorry to see that this is slipping into a discussion about alcohol. I found the discussion about the nature of rules, freedom, and serving more interesting
Steve–I like your latest–about alcohol, food, and sex. Here’s to the proper and highly enjoyable use of all three. =)
Helen–I was surprised. This is the first time in … a long time when I found myself thinking “Wow, I strenuously disagree with Helen here”. That was kinda … different. Thankyou for making me think! You said
I’m going to attempt to express your opposite for you. Please feel free to correct me. Is it
Okay–that last one makes some sense.
But … Isn’t what Bob and co are talking about the issue of there being a *point* to doing the thing which personally inconeniences one, and how that simply cannot and should not be codified among groups larger than … say … 2 people? I mean isn’t choosing to have a *rule* choosing to avoid dealing with the inconvenience of shades of gray, the real world, personal relationships, etc. etc.? I mean it’s really *so* much easier and simpler in so many ways to just have an all encompassing set of rules for every eventuality. That’s why people get attracted to things like the Institute in Basic Life Principles. But isn’t choosing to set up and work with these rules sometimes just another way of avoiding the enormous pain we experience when god (the bastard) keeps demanding that we !*live*! and !*experience*! and !*relate*!.
Comment by: Laura M.
13 05/23/07 2:45 AM | Comment Link |Steve:
1)In Jesus’ day, how many healthier alternatives to drinking wine were available?
Water was unclean, fruit juice fermented or spoiled due to excessive heat and lack of refrigeration, so did milk. Not to mention the common problem of lactose intolerance among adults in that part of the world.
2)People shouldn’t consume caffeine, especially in large quantities. I feel very guilty when I do that- when my favorite decaf. products are out of stock at the supermarket. It is immoral to add such an unnecessary and potentially harmful drug to our food, in my opinion.
Of course, when that all first started, the manufacturers didn’t really understand the adverse health effects or addictive qualities of caffiene.
Remember old Dr. Pepper ads? “The quicker Pepper-upper, just what the doctor ordered,” ?
3)Alcohol, food, sex…brings to mind something I read somewhere…where was it(?)…about 7 deadly sins, let’s see, there was sloth, greed, gluttony, lust…
Food and sex serve an obvious function in supporting life and the existance of the human race on this planet, (when used in moderation) but alcohol, not so much, at least not anymore. As a matter of fact, beer- what is it good for…absolutely nothing, except getting drunk.
I’m borrowing this from a poster on Bob’s blog named David, but when people start getting pulled over for DUIC (driving under the influence of cheeseburgers, or in this case caffeine) then we can compare the two. Until then:
alcohol = caffeine, cheeseburgers ?
NOT ! ;->
Comment by: Laura M.
14 05/23/07 3:40 AM | Comment Link |I have to say it.
Comments like this really concern me. I really worry about the state of the culture I’m raising my kids in when people think using drugs is no big deal. It brings to mind the whole current “I Hate Tom Cruise” fad -which everyone likes to pretend is because he is a member of the so called Scientology ‘cult’, which we had all known for years (while he continued to be popular as the highest paid actor in Hollywood). But once he’d dared to suggest, horror of horrors, that perhaps we shouldn’t use drugs so much, he suddenly was considered a freak.
Drugs like pain killers, allergy medications, and I don’t know…stuff like antibiotics, actually help people when used as directed by a doctor to relieve disease, illness, suffering ( those dosage instructions on over-the-counter meds. are written by doctors).
If a doctor prescribes marijuana to a glaucoma or cancer patient I have no problem with that at all. If a person feels they have the moral right to buy pot whenever they want and use as much as they want, wherever they want, I would disagree. What if they got high, got ‘hungry’, made a munchies run to the market, and ran over my eighty year old neighbors while they were taking their dog out for a ‘poo’ run?
If a doctor advises my elderly or not so elderly neighbors they should have a glass or two of red wine with dinner on a regular basis because it would be good for their heart/ circulatory problems, I have no problem with that either.
I’m sure a doctor would also advise them not to drive or operate heavy machinery when dosing, just like with any other sedative or depressant drug.
To equate medication used for specific medical problems, according to doctor dosage and instruction, with drugs people buy and use for the sole purpose of getting stoned, high, buzzed, or drunk…
…when normally intelligent people can’t see the flaw (or refuse to see the flaw because of what it might mean or say about their own motives and behavior) in that UTTER UTTER ’straw man’ argument,
I just have to say I find that frightening.
Comment by: Laura M.
15 05/23/07 3:46 AM | Comment Link |I just wrote a long response that disappeared when I clicked ‘Post’. I kind of want what I had to say to appear here. Please tell me I don’t have to rewrite it, I type terribly.
Comment by: Laura M.
16 05/23/07 3:47 AM | Comment Link |My missing post was in addition to post number 13 above.
Comment by: Laura M.
17 05/23/07 4:06 AM | Comment Link |benjamin,
I’m confused as to what would be the ‘proper’ (but enjoyable) use of alcohol. As I wrote in my amazing ‘vanished’ post: food and sex sustain either individual life or the human race as a whole -while alcoholic drinks do neither.
It is at best a dodge of the issue and at worst pure dishonesty to pretend these completely distinct items somehow equate.
food, sex -necessary for human life
alcohol -necessary to get drunk
correlation? -none at all
Comment by: Helen
18 05/23/07 4:15 AM | Comment Link |Hi Laura, I found your missing post for you :).
(Note to everyone: if you tell me a post went missing I can probably find it for you near the top of the spam catcher, so please let me know. I tend not to check it otherwise since, for example, it currently has 4095 spam comments - that’s two weeks’ worth of spam - life is too short!)
Laura, thanks for your comments. I agree that we should be careful about drugs. In a way you are agreeing with Makeesha and others by saying it’s fine for a doctor to suggest a glass of wine or two for health reasons. Because they are saying, why not let people make that choice for themselves rather than outright ban them from any alcohol?
Comment by: Helen
19 05/23/07 4:31 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin, I do see the other side of it, really I do :)
My point is that there are two sides. It seems to me that serving others usually necessitates some self-denial.
I’m against meaningless self-denial as much as Bob and everyone else. What I’m saying is, let’s not jump to the conclusion that someone else’s practice is meaningless especially if we haven’t lived it.
And even if we have lived it and it didn’t work for us let’s not jump to the conclusion that means it didn’t work for anyone else.
As I said, Jesus encouraged fasting. He must have seen some reason for what basically amounts to training people to be able to deny self.
I think the reason is, if you can do that then you are more ready and willing to serve others. You are more likely to think “Hey, I could really bless that person if I gave up something of mine to them”
And I don’t want to forget to say: I understand how damaging and destructive forcing people to keep pointless rules can be. Some of us are still figuring out how to give ourselves permission not to keep rules we never needed to keep and Jesus never intended for us to keep. Which brings me very close to what Bob and others are saying. BUT I can’t simply say “Hey you’re right!” because they only presented one side. And it’s too easy for what they said to look the same as selfishly going after what makes my life less constrained, no matter how that affects people around me. (The next question is to anyone, not just you) Surely there’s not any question that drinking around people who have past problems with alcohol could be an unkind thing to do to them?
To me it’s significant that these are rules for leaders. I think it’s fine to ask leaders to be very cognizant of what they are role-modelling and to be careful not to cause anyone to stumble.
I think the specifics of what that means is for the Southern Baptists to work out amongst themselves. If they think it means no alcohol I’m not going to go argue with them over that. Part of my discomfort is with someone who isn’t part of a group telling a group how they should run their group. I have very mixed feelings about that. Maybe outsiders should step in if they see abuse - I guess I have commented on groups I’m not part of for that reason. But I don’t see it as inherently abusive if a group sets rules for leaders like ‘no alcohol’ that the leaders volunteer to abide by.
Comment by: Laura M.
20 05/23/07 4:31 AM | Comment Link |FYI to any who didn’t already know:
Alcohol dehydrates the body, so alcoholic drinks don’t even serve to quench thirst or hydrate the body.
I did mention in my other post that doctors sometimes suggest to patients with heart/circulatory problems taking a glass or two of red wine occasionally with dinner. In this case the use of alcohol is understandable as it is for medicinal purposes.
Comment by: Laura M.
21 05/23/07 5:02 AM | Comment Link |Thank You THANK YOU Helen !
I really like what you said in post #19, I agree with every word and you express yourself so well.
As far as letting people decide for themselves, I think the government should have no say in this issue. However, when we’re talking about an organization setting standards in order to qualify for leadership (just as you discuss in your post) I think this particular standard is reasonable and within their right to impose. Especially when we’re talking about a Christian oraganization. Christianity claims to hold the right to determine the moral standards for the world. Then the leaders of this movement should be held to a high standard of morality in order to set the example for the rest of us to follow.
Everyone can disregard #’s 15, 16, and 20, although by the time you get down here you’ve already read them, hehe.
Comment by: Helen
22 05/23/07 5:08 AM | Comment Link |Laura, you’re welcome :).
Comment by: Makeesha
23 05/23/07 6:32 AM | Comment Link |I’m not going to get into the argument about whether or not to drink alcohol. we’ll have to agree to disagree :)
“I think it’s fine to ask leaders to be very cognizant of what they are role-modelling and to be careful not to cause anyone to stumble.”
Again, I think that sounds very good on the surface but if you take it to it’s end conclusion it is a very slippery slope.
I agree with you, as I’ve already said, on the idea that we occasionally have to give up our perceived rights for the greater good - - leaders or not, it’s the call of respectful humans, not just christians.
but the “don’t cause another to stumble” is a slippery slope if you interpret it in that fashion.
I respect decisions of conscience but *I* in good conscience cannot condone and sit quietly by while a denomination weighs believers down with heavy burdens of man made laws.
and with the SBC and other groups like them, it’s not just the leaders because the leaders impose those laws on those they serve (I know this, I’ve experienced it and seen it in the SBC).
and that’s all I have to say about that. I’m deleting this from my conversation tracker so I don’t get sucked into debate about the alcohol issue.
Comment by: Helen
24 05/23/07 6:45 AM | Comment Link |Thanks Makeesha. I guess what I’m trying to say is, it’s not the only slippery slope I see. People who fight for their own freedom can end up sliding down the slippery slope into selfishness.
I just don’t want people mistakenly thinking that only one of the slopes is slippery and then not noticing themselves sliding down a different one.
One of my big-picture problems with how people approach things is, I see a lot of people finding one slippery slope and thinking “Aha! I’m done! All I need to do is avoid it!” - but when I look around I see way more than one. I see them everywhere.
When people say to me “Hey come join me over here - I’ve avoided the slippery slope!” I won’t because from where I am theirs looks just as slippery as the one they’re so pleased they’ve avoided.
Comment by: Laura M.
25 05/23/07 7:10 AM | Comment Link |If the ‘heavy burden of man made laws’ refers to folks being denied positions of leadership in the SBC simply due to consumption of alcohol or any other drug in the correct dosage prescribed or recommended by a doctor for medicinal purposes then I agree this is legalistic, unfair, and unreasonable -a ‘heavy burden’ to be sure.
Unless recommended by a doctor, I can’t imagine how not drinking alcohol, which is bad for the individual and for society as a whole, could possibly be considered a heavy burden. There is no scientific legitimacy to any argument which would claim any health benefits derived from drinking alcohol, other then red wine to prevent /combat heart disease.
This is why no one here wants to argue the morality of drinking alcohol, because it can’t be done. When an activity has no positive or healthy benefits (except rarely as mentioned) and only has negative consequences, this activity by definiton is immoral.To tell constituents of a denomination, particularly it’s leaders, that they shouldn’t do something which is immoral simply doesn’t comprise a ‘heavy burden’.
Comment by: Laura M.
26 05/23/07 7:26 AM | Comment Link |Also, as regards the ‘burdens of man made laws’, I made mention earlier to the sins of sloth, greed, lust, and gluttony. Were those man made laws?
They apply aptly to the unprescribed use of alcohol, or illicit use of any other drug, don’t you think? Would we have any sympathy for a meth or heroine user, or a teenage ‘huffer’ bemoaning the ‘unfair burden of man made laws’ when Christians tell them their behavior is wrong and they should stop?
Notice I didn’t just say addicts; I’m referring to even occasional users.
Comment by: Laura M.
27 05/23/07 7:41 AM | Comment Link |And what about the commandments about idolatry (which I believe aptly applies to illicit drug use) as well as honoring thy father and mother? How many parents approve of their children getting high or drinking ? What parent wants to see that?
How does putting harmful drugs into your body help you honor the life your parents ( and God, if you’re a Christian) created (biologically, spiritually, and practically) for you? Does it honor their love for you and all their hard work in raising you, or can it only serve to take away from it (which in my book would be dishonoring -if that’s a word)?
Again, according to Christianity, these are not man made laws.
Comment by: Helen
28 05/23/07 9:18 AM | Comment Link |Laura, I’m guessing Mothers Against Drunk Drivers aren’t picketing the SBC over their ban on alcohol for leaders ;-)
I realize that freedom to drink alcohol or not isn’t the only issue here. Nevertheless it has been used in this discussion as an example of unnecessarily retricted freedom.
Comment by: Doreen
29 05/23/07 10:48 AM | Comment Link |What about your body is a temple from the holy spirit? How does drinking alcohol do that?
Comment by: benjamin ady
30 05/23/07 12:53 PM | Comment Link |Just wanted to throw my two cents in about the alcohol. I think christians should be encouraging people to drink a glass of red wine every day, and not wait for a doctor’s recommendation. From what I understand, it’s been more or less demonstrated that moderate regular injestion of red wine is enormously good for you, and can help prevent heart disease, which is from what I understand, *the* leading cause of death in the U.S.? You know, protecting and honoring the temple and all that.
Of course, I’m no doctor or chemist, so I could be wrong. But just a quick glance through the literature seems to strongly suggest a concensus.
BICBW
Comment by: Helen
31 05/23/07 6:17 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin I have to say, I think Christians give enough advice already ;-).
Even if they didn’t, the American Cancer Society site says that even small amounts of alcohol increase the risk of breast cancer in women.
Comment by: Laura M.
32 05/24/07 7:23 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin, Helen-
LOL !!
Want to really start a controversy?
Let’s have the SBC declare that it’s good for men to drink wine, but not OK for women.
Benjamin, I think if a person has heart or circulatory system problems and/or a history of heart disease in their immediate family and doctors as a general principal recommend a “moderate regular ingestion of red wine”, that’s what they should do. That’s what I was getting at earlier… or was that on another thread/site?
I don’t think they need to run out and ask their doctor’s permission or anything, anymore than you need your doctor’s permission everytime you take an aspirin.
(On the other hand, we don’t take all the aspirin we want, whenever we want and completely ignore the doctor’s recommendation on the bottle -a least I don’t).
Women who have a history of cancer, especially breast cancer, should probably ask their doctor if that’s a good idea.
My point is that just because alcohol can be easily added and blended to yummy tasting drinks(alcohol itself tastes like cr#p) and gives you a happy warm fuzzy feeling when you drink it, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be taken seriously as the DRUG it really is.
***I’m laughing so hard right now, I can’t tell you !
Comment by: Helen
33 05/24/07 4:33 PM | Comment Link |Laura, if you’re not fed up with this topic yet, John Smulo has a related entry on his blog Questioning The Logic Of Not Drinking.
Comment by: steve
34 05/24/07 7:17 PM | Comment Link |Laura, et al,
Sorry to be unresponsive - I’ve been out of town for a couple days, and had to disengage. I’ll make one quick comment, and then just assume that we will likely continue to disagree on this issue . . . but hopefully like the other topics on this and other OTM blogs, we can still be friends.
My comment relates to Jesus and the wine thing. I’m familiar with the argument that wine was used in part during 1st century Palestinian culture because there weren’t other healthy drinking alternatives. I personally disagree with that argument, but even if that were true, when Jesus turned water into wine, it was in response to a shortage. But Mary (who requested her son “do something”) wasn’t freaked out because people were thirsty, but rather because it was a wedding feast, and there was some celebrating to do. Further, when Jesus made the wine, the party organizer questioned why the best wine was saved for last. In other words, Jesus didn’t just make and consume wine, he made and consumed good wine! Does it truly taste like “cr#p”? Apparently Jesus’ fellow party-goers didn’t agree.
Just to nuance my position a little, I do recognize that there are some dangers around the use of alcohol, and that it’s nothing to take lightly. I happen to be a collegiate minister, and strongly discourage the use of alcohol with the students I work with (whether or not they are of legal drinking age). However, I’ve seen the dark side of legalism in my own life, and happen to believe that there are substantial dangers in it that often equal the dangers related to alcohol.
Helen, you might remember from this past year’s Revolution Conference that Brian McLaren spoke to the issue of drinking among some young Christian leaders. He said it’s great to enjoy scriptural freedoms, but it’s not so great to use that as an excuse to go overboard with it, toward drunkenness. Wise words.
(Oops, I just invoked the always-controversial name of McLaren . . . now we’re all in trouble!)
Comment by: Helen
35 05/24/07 8:04 PM | Comment Link |Steve I’m fine with Brian McLaren’s name :)
And for the record I’ve never wanted or supported legalism.
Comment by: Paul
36 05/25/07 3:19 AM | Comment Link |thanks Helen for your thoughts and for those who have written on the subject.
This reminds me of many conversations christians have about practice which boils down, in my view, to arguing about who is more right. We just dig in on our point on the line [pro, anti, somewhere in between] and like some tug of war match try and drag those on the other end of the line over to our position.
Why?
Why can we not accept that these are trivial issues, that in reality we are all on the same side and treat the positions of each other with grace? IF you wish to abstain and make that a practice of your christian community, great. If you wish to meet in the pub over a pint in your christian community well done you.
Of course alcohol might be easy for people to be generous with, move it to women and theology say and how many more of us start taking sides and throwing theological brick bats at each other?
Does this distract us from following Jesus? Do we all have to sound alike in some grey homogeneus splodge of christendom?
Perhaps I would do better to stop focussing on being right all the time and start practicing being good…
Comment by: Laura M.
37 05/25/07 3:54 AM | Comment Link |Because it doesn’t work that way Paul.
I’m right,
which makes anyone who disagrees with me wrong.
Comment by: Laura M.
38 05/25/07 3:58 AM | Comment Link |:8-o~
neener, neener
Comment by: Paul
39 05/25/07 5:47 AM | Comment Link |lol, in your case Laura it’s true ;)
Comment by: Helen
40 05/25/07 8:24 AM | Comment Link |Paul how can we get into an endless back and forth with you on who is right if you give up so easily?
Comment by: Laura M.
41 05/25/07 5:08 PM | Comment Link |Yeah Paul,
You’re just not any fun at all :-(
Comment by: Helen
42 05/25/07 5:46 PM | Comment Link |Paul must have missed class the day they taught how important it is to be right!
Comment by: Beverly
43 05/27/07 7:33 AM | Comment Link |I’m jumping in here late, but the Psalms explained the “why” of alcohol:
Psa 104:14 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth
Psa 104:15 and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart. (ESV)
Beautiful chapter, Psalms 104. We ought to sing it every day.
Comment by: Doreen
44 05/27/07 8:13 AM | Comment Link |Not to argue with the Psalmists, but forever glad I no longer need wine to gladden my heart! (But then, I’m not a man, so perhaps this never applied to me, LOL.)
Comment by: Helen
45 05/27/07 9:27 AM | Comment Link |I don’t want a shiny face - I hope God doesn’t mind ;-)
Comment by: Paul
46 05/28/07 2:10 AM | Comment Link |heh helen, since i am so often wrong perhaps when i said laura was right i was being wrong again, lol. Maybe we should shift the debate to out wronging each other instead - c’mon we’d also look exceedingly humble at the same time, right? lol ;)
Comment by: Helen
47 05/28/07 6:25 AM | Comment Link |Yeah but Paul, what if that makes us take pride in being the most wrong? ;-)
Humility is an elusive thing - it easily slips away!
Comment by: Paul
48 05/28/07 7:19 AM | Comment Link |helen, you’re so right, or is that wrong, no right… bafling too :)
Comment by: Helen
49 05/28/07 7:51 AM | Comment Link |I know…and I’m so humble too!
;-)