I’m sorry to hog up the posts recently, but after sitting on it for a week, I feel it is necessary to say something about a tweet that I came across during the SBC Annual Meeting last week. It comes from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary president Ergun Caner and is in regards to the continuing SBC debate over what the Bible says concerning alcohol consumption.
At 10:50 PM on June 23rd, erguncaner wrote, “If there is no difference between imbibing [drinking] and getting drunk, can I just smoke a little pot? It’s good for the stomach (they say)…”
Wow!
I know this is supposed to be funny (?), but let’s get serious. This is a man who we are supporting with CP dollars (the almighty CP) to run a school with the intention of training the next generation of church leadership, and he feels that this level of sophmoric, unedifying, unbiblical reasoning is appropriate for the alcohol debate? I would hope that Dr. Caner knows this argument is a non-sequitur seeing as how the primary charge against “smok[ing] a little pot” in the American context is because it is illegal (and thus in violation of Romans 13) and not because of it’s physical effects.
Can you even imagine Al Mohler, Danny Akin, or Paige Patterson saying such a thing?
With all of the firestorm against Mark Driscoll and his leadership as pastor of a non-SBC church and church planting network, I believe we should spend a little more time focused upon the poorly behaved leaders within our own camp, of which Ergun Caner could be first on the list.
{ 127 comments }
With respect to those who are of the opinion that any alcohol is sinful… That is a type of argument that I used in High School. Thankfully, the teetotalist camp does have better arguments than this nonsense. Maybe that was the best Caner could do on Twitter?
With quips like that, Caner will be running the SBC in a couple of years.
Unbelieveable. At least he’s not a calvinist, right?
#moonfruit.
.-= Frank Turk´s last blog ..#moonfruit mania =-.
RIGHT!
Drinking has ironically been more of an issue in the southern SBC churches than smoking.
I suppose we shouldn’t risk bringing up the whole tattoos or piercing issue?
The CP supports Liberty?!?
.-= Deek Dubberly´s last blog ..Quote of the Day: 7/3/09 =-.
A little context would probably help, but his phrase is essentially self-refuting.
“If there is no difference between imbibing [drinking] and getting drunk,
Of course there is a difference. It’s like saying “If there’s no difference between eating a cracker and eating 14 entrees at Cracker Barrel, then I should be able to rob banks”
Yes. There IS a difference. Thanks for pointing that out.
.-= Stan McCullars´s last blog ..Legitimacy for prostitution? =-.
Todd,
For one thing, are you sure that CP dollars go to support Liberty?
Secondly, for you to bring up such a thing as this Twitter and your comment about it is so ridiculous…it’s just hard to believe that you would even write this. Are you seriously asking this on this post? Are you for real?
Are you gonna compare this joking comparison about drinking alcohol and smoking dope to the things that Driscoll has said???
This is sad. And, sadly, it once again shows why people are “racist” against Dortian Calvinists…it’s a great illustration of why a lot of people in the SBC are “scared” of where Dortian Calvinists want to take the SBC.
David
David,
I’m sorry. I didn’t realize this post had anything to do with Todd’s last post. Maybe we should leave that conversation on that thread.
David et al.,
I am under the impression that Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, not Liberty University proper, receives some form of SBC support. If this is incorrect I would welcome the correction and will openly acknowledge my mistake.
My questioning of his behavior in light of him being someone who is routinely invited to give addresses at convention related events still stands regardless and is truly what I want to get at here.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..Fully Fixed on the City to Come- Watch David Platt Bring It at the SBCPC =-.
Everyone knows that the Founders crowd does not like the Caner’s, or at least I thought everyone knew this.
David
Todd isn’t a member of Founders. What do the Founders have to do with this?
Bill,
Dortian Calvinists like Todd and the Founders do not seem to care for the Caner’s very much. Is that not an accurate statement to make? Therefore, those like Todd would be more apt to jump on something like this…to get after Dr. Caner for a joking remark.
Do any of yall not think that the SBC entity heads, or the heads of seminaries and Baptist colleges do not make jokes, and jokingly say things in their conversations with people? Do you really, honestly think this? Or, is this just another witchhunt against another one of those anti-Calvinist, racist non-Calvinists?
David
David: This is the first I’ve heard Todd speak about Caner. And as I said, I’ve heard this very argument from abstentionists who weren’t joking.
This is called an ad hominem attack. Calvinism is not the subject of the post, but you dismiss the topic because Todd is a Calvinist.
Bill,
I am a Calvinist and I think I have to agree in principle with David.
I do not mean any offense to Todd and I also understand what he is saying. We should not be trying to excommunicate someone that is not even a part of the SBC. We should be “taking care” of our own. So, I agree with Todd on this…and I think this is what his argument is.
All I am trying to say is that if we want to actually engage in healthy debate with people then we probably should not be straining gnats like this and saying Caner is first on the list of those with bad behavior…without giving any other evidence.
And I bring in Calvinism b/c of its connection to Todd’s last post. He seems to be troubled by non-Calvinist attacking straw men…I just kind of think he’s maybe doing the same thing here.
Anyways, I mean it with the deepest love and respect to Todd.
.-= Mike Leake´s last blog ..This Week in Blogworld 07/03 =-.
David,
I find your constant use of the term “Dortian Calvinists” offensive! I know of no one in the SBC who claims to be a “Dortian Calvinist”… as far as I know we are “Southern Baptist Calvinist” thank you.
For someone who, according to all I read on the bogs, has an extreme bias against Calvinist in the SBC please keep in mind that to many of us Southern Baptist Calvinist your use of the term “Dortian Calvinist” is offensive, and it is certainly a hindrance to the type of cooperation between Southern Baptist of different theological positions that most in the SBC are striving to build.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Rise of Passionate Missionary Calvinism in the SBC =-.
Todd,
I’m not sure this is the way we want to engage in such discussions. The problem is not that we are “going after the wrong guy”. The problem is that we are so quick to throw people under the bus. I disagree with Ergun Caner on numerous things. In fact I doubt he would want to be my friend. I agree his argument is a little silly. But what if Driscoll would have made a similar argument and people said it was, “sophmoric, unedifying, unbiblical reasoning”?
In my opinion you are doing the exact same thing to Caner that we are upset people do to Calvinist. You pick a low moment…like this tweet…and make a broad judgment (considering him a poorly behaved leader). Of course there are quite a few things about Caner that you could bring up and add to your defense, I do not doubt that. My point is that if we really want to engage in helpful discussion then we need to stop doing the things that “tick us off” from the other side. (Yes, that is a reference to what you said about Lemke and Allen in another thread).
If you want to comment on his tweet then my suggestion would be to engage in what he is actually saying instead of dismissing it because of the way it is packaged.
.-= Mike Leake´s last blog ..This Week in Blogworld 07/03 =-.
Wow, it almost sounds like you receive Dr. Caner’s tweets in anticipation of him slipping up and making a comment like this so an article could be written about him. When I was working in the secular world and not the ministry I often saw men who were normally good men run another man down to make himself look good. I sure hope this is not the case. If you do not like what the man tweets get off his list and listen to a more liberal view. And no I did not attend Liberty…
Todd,
I do think you are correct in trying to get the SBC to stop focusing on pastors who are not even in our convention when there are plenty of pastors among us that need addressed.
I agree. I thought that was the primary emphasis of the post.
.-= Stan McCullars´s last blog ..Legitimacy for prostitution? =-.
What does this have to do with Calvinism?
Is this a joking comparison? I have heard this very argument made countless times by abstentionists.
david: Before you speak to loudly, you would have jumped on this had this been Mark Driscoll or Danny Akin or any number of people I could name. So your cries ring pretty hollow.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Need To Begin To Wipe The Slate Clean…And Begin Again =-.
Debbie,
Oh really??? You know my heart? The last time I checked the Holy Spirit’s name was not Debbie.
Debbie, BTW, I love Mark Driscoll in the Lord. I count him as my brother in Christ. I also love and respect Dr. Akin as a brother in Christ.
That does not mean that I have to agree with everything that they say and do, nor do I have to go along with everything that they say and do.
David
I would really like some kind of definitive word on whether Dr. Caner is supported by CP dollars.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..The Best Preaching Ever? =-.
Me too. Todd, is there a way you can find out for certain and give some evidence. I am quite curious to know if he does receive CP.
A friend of mine who walks the same trails and beaches I do has 35 years experience smoking a little pot. Recently someone offered him a toke and he turned it down. I suppose there are some people who do smoke a little pot, but I have never met one.
Why are the baptists of the south discussing beer and wine and spirits? Seems like everything worth saying on that subject has been said aeons ago.
Bill,
I dismiss this topic because it’s ridiculous and nonsensical that this was even made into a post.
David
David,
I think the main point of the post: that the SBC should concern themselves more with pastors within the SBC, rather than outside the SBC is not so ridiculous. I think it is needed.
The quote/”tweet” is a low moment in the Caner profile, but he was the one that chose to make it public. I have a lot of good things to say about Caner, but his reasoning/argumentation via twitter is certainly vacuous at best.
1. LU gives to the CP, but does not receive funds.
2. So the measure of whether an action is right or wrong is based on whether it is LEGAL?
3. I laughed at the post, and consider it the funniest bunch of non-answers I have ever read. The argument and logic I used are absolutely sound.
4. The proof? The fact that the poster ridiculed the argument without actually answering it. That is ad hominem.
Attack me all you want- it doesn’t change the facts.
Have a nice day.
.-= Ergun Caner´s last blog ..Caner interviewed by Fox News Radio =-.
Ergun,
Thank you for clarifying the first point. A lot of us were unsure.
Dr. Caner,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to this thread.
1. First, I would like to apologize for saying that LBTS receives CP money. I was under the impression that they did but am mistaken and wish to amend the above post to reflect this as soon as possible.
2. As for the issue of why smoking marijuana is/is not sinful. My issue with the comparison is the implication that 1 Corinthians 6.19 is the reason why one should not smoke marijuana. I am not a hermeneutics scholar, but I do know that in my reading on this passage from various resources and in watching it (ab)used by many among us, that the argument about our body being a temple is probably the weakest and most apt to be co-opted for use to push an agenda versus pursuing truth (this is not to say that you are pushing an agenda, but that this verse has a propensity to be used as such). Thus I appealed to the legality of smoking pot as biblical justification. Issues of sobriety also seem to apply. 1 Corinthians 6.19, in my opinion, does not, or if it does, should at least be supported by other, clearer arguments.
3. Keeping with the primary issue in this post of wanting people looking within instead of without for people to hold accountable, I also wished to address your comment because I found the Tweet to be unnecessarily divisive on a day that had enough division for a whole year. To be honest, I do now follow you on Twitter, but at the time only knew about your update because several guys around me at the 9Marks event had seen it and were discussing the issue. I wrestled with bringing this up and conferred with others before it was posted, but in the end I think the principle of keeping our own leaders accountable is sufficient at least for discussion here. I do not want to cast stones or judgment on you, but I do believe the issue of being “above reproach” (Titus 1.7) casts it shadow into the realm of 140 character text message updates and thus merits the attention of the brothers.
Again, thank you for coming here and engaging in this discussion with us.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..Fully Fixed on the City to Come- Watch David Platt Bring It at the SBCPC =-.
And do you REALLY spend that much time responding to a TWEET?
Really? Please note the bio- sarcastic and caustic. I dwell in the world of sarcasm. Perhaps the humor is lost on certain people, but not from a lack of trying.
I do believe the SBC has bigger problems than my little rantings. And certainly they deserve more attention.
.-= Ergun Caner´s last blog ..Caner interviewed by Fox News Radio =-.
I cannot find in the SBC Cooperative Program study any evidence that Liberty Seminary receives support. Can’t find anything on either Virginia Baptist Convention site showing they send funds, although the SBCV has a partnership with Liberty University to place student missions teams around the area.
Dr. Caner does speak frequently, apparently, at various Southern Baptist events, so he personally might be receiving compensation from the CP funds that establish those events or agencies.
The main point of the SBC needing to be more concerned about our own house is legitimate, but those who raised the Driscoll motions at the SBC argued they were trying to guard the SBC house from bad outside influence. So, what’s more dangerous? People within or without?
I’m thinking, as I’m reading Todd to also say here, that within is the primary concern.
.-= Doug´s last blog ..Southern Baptist Convention Part 3 =-.
Caner is silly
.-= Tom Whiteman´s last blog ..twsoundsoff: RT @ThomRainer: http://twitpic.com/96085 – Healthy menu =-.
Tom,
To call a man like Dr. Ergun Caner names is juvenile and just wrong. You really need to take a minute and examine your heart.
David
Just a clarification – Liberty seminary, like Mid-American in Memphis is NOT supported by the SBC cooperative program. There are 6 SBC seminaries supported by the cooperative program: Southeastern, Southwestern, Southern, Midwestern, New Orleans and Golden Gate. Liberty was started by Jerry Falwell and after Thomas Roads BC joined the SBC in the 1990′s, Liberty became more geared towards the SBC.
As far as Dr. Caner’s comment goes, he probably could have been a little more careful in how he chose his words, but I wouldn’t take the illustration to the extreme.
Blessings
Wow. Is this really the sound we want to make as SBC Voices? Extracting someone’s 140 character statement is not enough to adequately form an opinion of someone’s daily character. While Dr. Caner’s Twitter may have been sophomoric, I would sugget that you actually followig through on the thought of writing this post was sophomoric.
When are we going to quit throwing each other under the bus and truly unite for mission? Is passing The Great Commission Resurgence going to be as untransformational on our togetherness and as unfinished on our follow through as the as the Acts 1:8 was a few years ago?
I hope not.
My Dad, an SBC pastor for almost 50 years now, once said this:
“Let’s be careful how we are judging each other. The ones in the New Testament who cried blasphemy and below-standard behavior were the Pharisees. I don’t want to be counted in that group.”
I don’t either. The mission is too important.
.-= Jason C Dukes´s last blog ..here’s to Mom’s recovery… =-.
The quote from your father is a mighty good one.
Neither Liberty University nor Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary receives Cooperative Program dollars.
.-= Wes Kenney´s last blog ..Glory in the Church =-.
Wes,
So for the record and all the Southern Baptist Churches out there… “Neither Liberty University nor Liberty Baptist Theologicial Seminary” are Southern Baptist?
I am asking a question here?
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Rise of Passionate Missionary Calvinism in the SBC =-.
Universities and seminaries cannot become Southern Baptist, unless the convention itself decides to make it so. Thomas Road Baptist Church is in friendly cooperation with the SBC, but those two institutions are not formally affiliated with the convention.
.-= Wes Kenney´s last blog ..Glory in the Church =-.
Thanks Wes…
I really did not know this… Interesting!
So am I correct to assume that the Board of Trusties of these institutions are not appointed by, or accountable to, the Southern Baptist Convention?
If this is true, you would think that as Calvinist pastors in the SBC have been called upon to let pulpit committees of perspective SBC churches know that they are Calvinist, equally pastors from these Non-affiliated institutions would be called upon to make it clear to these pulpit committees that they are graduates of a Non-affiliated university or seminary.
I think that many of our pulpit committees are probably unaware of this fact.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Rise of Passionate Missionary Calvinism in the SBC =-.
I don’t know about pulpit committees and such, but your assumption about trustees is correct.
.-= Wes Kenney´s last blog ..Glory in the Church =-.
Greg,
The difference in Mid America Baptist Seminary and Liberty, and with joining with some of the groups like Acts 29, is that Mid America and Liberty are “Baptist” in their theology. And, they are sound in thier practice.
David
David,
David are you saying that the Calvinist who have been called to disclose that they are Calvinist are not Baptist in their Theology?
Liberty is, and always has been, an “Independent” Baptist University… all I am saying is that in all fairness if a Calvinist graduating from Southern Seminary should be called to tell the church up front about his Calvinism, then it is not unreasonable for us to ask someone graduating from an “Independent” Baptist University to do the same thing.
Lest we forget, there is a reason why they are “Independent” and not Southern Baptist.
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Rise of Passionate Missionary Calvinism in the SBC =-.
It seems that the politics are more on trial here than the theology.
My real concern about the tenor of this conversation is that battle lines are drawn before posters post.
There are facts and then there are opinions about behavior.
I don’t know caner’s politics but I do know he’s a southern Southern Baptist which for better or worse likely places him as a teetotaller.
Which also for better or worse means he is also of the opinion that any drinking is too much drinking.
Caner is entitled to his beliefs and I hope no worse than mild disagreements take place over said beliefs.
Yet it is the trap of a theological debate for both sides to forget the common ground of following Christ, turning it into a turf war.
I have yet to be convinced that either the calvinist or arminianist perspectives are 100% right to the exclusion of the other. I say this because they share too much in actual practice to really more than paper enemies.
As to drinking, this issue will likely never be settled because its not explicitly banned in the word and as such is one of those issues that is not necessary to salvation.
I think you have a good point here. Many bloggers tend to instinctive and compulsively support those they agree with, regardless of their behavior or rhetoric, while condemning the same things (or similar things) in those with whom they disagree.
I think its an occupational hazard for all of us.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..The Best Preaching Ever? =-.
Dr. Lust,
Did you really say that Dr. Caner was a southern Southern Baptist?? lol. Man, you made me chuckle hard on that one. Do you realize that he is Turkish, and if my memory serves me well, he was raised in Ohio. That his Father was a Muslim Imam?
Thanks for the good belly laugh. Saying that Dr. Caner believes in teetotalling because he’s a southern Southern Baptist just struck my funny bone.
David
David,
I do see the humor in that as well. It is funny how we sometimes associate beliefs with upbringing/location. Most of the time it is unwarranted.
Culture is as culture does is more than simple truism. I knew that caner wasn’t good old boy kind of southern but that is neither here nor there.
What I meant about caner had more to do with the fact that he was president @ liberty which is more southern southern Baptist than Southern seminary.
Again this issue goes deeper than theological talk and goes to culture and politics.
I think it would be interesting to see whether there is anyone who (a) Is a committed abstentionist, yet (b) Finds the logic behind Dr. Caner’s tweet to be so completely without merit as to be unworthy of response. I qualify for (a), but not for (b). I think, apart from hiding behind the law, it would be helpful for moderationists to explain why moderationism does not apply to marijuana. It is not illegal everywhere, you know. Perhaps Dr. Caner could have asked whether it is moral to have a little pot while visiting Amsterdam.
Bart,
I do think you are asking a good question. IMHO, it appears that Scripture approves moderate drinking, but it does not approve “hard drugs.”
One joint really messes with a persons brain function: one beer doesn’t. We should not drink or do anything that effects our judgement. A small amount of pot does this. A small amount of alcohol does not.
Maybe I am wrong about pot since I have never smoked it. But from what I have observed in my own family and friends it only takes a little pot to alter a persons judgement. Correct me if I am wrong.
Matt,
I used to smoke weed before I got saved. I was able to function much better after smoking weed, than I was after drinking alcohol. Alcohol messed me up way worse than weed did.
Also, Matt, I keep hearing people talking about the moderation drinking arguement…but, from my personal experience…I have never met anyone that drank moderately. They would talk about drinking moderately, but they would always drink more than just one beer.
David
Well, you have met someone who has only ever drank “moderately.” Now, I have only been 21 for 3 months, but as of now I have never exceeded “moderately.” (and yes, I never had a drink of alcohol until I was 21)
I have one question for those that have smoked pot…and then a few things to add to the discussion.
Question: How much pot does it take to get high? Is it possible to only take one hit and not feel the effects of it? I’ve never smoked pot and don’t know.
Now, concerning Bart’s question. I know this is not a “nail in the coffin” type of argument but just a thought to add. We do not see anything in Scripture where Jesus turned water into pot. We do not see any verses about pot being a sign of blessing (like wine is in the OT). We also do not hear people accuse Jesus of being a pot-head but we do hear people accuse Him of being a drunkard.
My point is that there are some biblical questions raised about alcohol that the teetotaler is forced to answer…whereas there is nothing about pot. So, I see the connection that Dr. Caner was making but it’s kind of an apples to oranges…in my opinion.
.-= Mike Leake´s last blog ..This Week in Blogworld 07/03 =-.
Matt,
I think that you are foolish…very foolish for playing around with alcohol. I say that with all the love in my heart. My uncle, and others that I have known, started out as social drinkers. Just drinking a little. Alcohol got a hold of my uncle, and he became an alcoholic…a drunk. He ended up losing his farm and his marriage. He wrecked trucks, and he wrecked his life. One day, after my family sent him to a dry out, rehab place, a retired missionary led my uncle to Christ. The Lord Jesus saved him and changed his life completely. He ended up going back into farming. He remarried his wife. And, now, he sings in the choir and teaches Sunday School at his Church. He does not drink anymore.
I sure hope that one day we are weeping over the fact that Matt Svoboda has been taken over by alcohol.
David
Bart: I think that the statement that there is no difference between drinking and drunkenness is where the biggest logical flaw lies. Do you believe there is absolutely no difference between drinking and drunkenness? Does any amount of alcohol in our system render us drunk? What then of non-beverage consumption of alcohol? The bible forbids drunkenness and does not seem to allow for exceptions.
Bill,
One drink will make you buzzed. Buzzed driving is drunk driving. The alcohol we drink in our day and time will give you a good buzz…much, much more than what they had back in Bible times. We have the technology to make it stronger….and they do make it stronger. The whole purpose of drinking alcohol is to get a buzz…to get high…to get “drunk.”
I dont drink anymore. I’m glad that I dont. Before I got saved, it was something that I needed to have a good time. I had a lot of “good” times on alcohol and weed both. In fact, the night I got saved, I was buzzing on Jack Daniels. I was partying with my buddy in high school. The night I called on Jesus to save my wretched soul, I had alcohol on my breath. That was the last time that I drank alcohol. I havent smoked weed since that night either. I certainly still struggle with different sins, of course. I still fight with my flesh about many things. But, I havent let alcohol nor weed go into my system since the night that Jesus saved me and gave me real life.
So, I really have a problem understanding why any preacher of the Gospel would defend drinking alcohol and/or smoking weed.
David
Isn’t comparing alcohol to marijuana like comparing alcohol with cocaine? I dont think anyone would make that comparison, would they?
David,
“One drink will make you buzzed. Buzzed driving is drunk driving. The alcohol we drink in our day and time will give you a good buzz…much, much more than what they had back in Bible times. We have the technology to make it stronger….and they do make it stronger. The whole purpose of drinking alcohol is to get a buzz…to get high…to get “drunk.”
Some of those things arent true. One beer does NOT get me “buzzed.” Also, I drink what tastes good. I do not drink in order to “get high.” Your assertions are simply not true, at least in my case.
Brother Matt,
One beer does NOT get me “buzzed.” Also, I drink what tastes good. I do not drink in order to “get high.” Your assertions are simply not true, at least in my case.
I do not want to rehash old arguments that you have laid for the groundwork in your position, but this statement calls to light something. You say that you never drank before you were 21. You also say that you have been 21 for only a short period of time. Now you make the above statement. Brother, I turn 50 on 7/12/2009. I was a drunk before my salvation on 9/11/1988. I had to acquire a taste for beer, wine, and hard liquor. My favorite beer was Budweiser, my favorite wine was the California white wines, and my favorite hard liquor was Tequila. All of these alcoholic beverages I had to acquire a taste for. Once the taste was acquired I was hooked and could not stop because it tasted good. You have, in just a short period of time, moved pass the first warning sign on the road to becoming an alcoholic. I do not write this as a “gotcha” statement only as one older brother to a younger brother. You are traveling a very dangerous road. It is like you are sitting outside of a snake den placing you hand inside and pulling it back just before the old viper bites you. One day that viper will bite and it will sting, not only you, but your family.
Blessings,
Tim
Mike Leake,
I could smoke a joint and not be as buzzed as I would be after drinking a beer.
Matt, why do you drink? for what purpose? I mean, could you not drink sweet tea, or coke, or water with lemon in it? Why do you have to drink a beer?
To get buzzed.
David
Also, the whole marijuana not being talked about in the Bible thing really falls apart. They did not know about maryjane, nor crack, nor heroine back then…in the land of the Bible. And, if they did, mood altering, mind altering drugs might have been what the sorcerers and witches of the OT and Bible times used to make thier “spells.” And, sorcery and witchcraft were condemned in the Bible.
David
David,
I do not see how your argument proves me wrong…rather it almost proves my point. I do not think that I was clear.
My point is that they DO NOT talk about mind altering drugs in the Bible (and as you point out if they do it’s expressely condemned as witchcraft). Yet they DO talk about wine. Sometimes even favorably, and other times negatively in the case of drunkenness.
Therefore comparing smoking a “little pot” to “drinking a little”, and looking at it from a biblical standpoint is not really a correct comparison. One is talked about in the Bible and one is not.
.-= Mike Leake´s last blog ..This Week in Blogworld 07/03 =-.
Todd,
The assertion that Dr. Caner bears more guilt than does Driscoll is a ridiculous assertion, at best. First, Dr. Caner wrote a tweet which is intended to be humorous, as any objective reader would be able to observe. Caner’s tweets are filled with humor the majority if the time. That is significantly different than Driscoll’s continuous statements about sex, alcohol, and curse words. There is a continuous history of Driscoll’s ill chosen words, which far outweigh Caner’s statement in less than 140 characters. This post is an overeach and exaggerated attempt to defend the antics of one by manipulating another’s short statement. Any objective observer will quickly recognize it as such, which I am sure the leadership of LU will not doubt be more than capable of doing.
Matt,
That should have read “I sure hope that we are NOT weeping over hearing that alcohol has a hold on Matt.”
Sorry, I was typing too fast.
David
I have had, perhaps 3 beers in my life. There was no buzz. Now you may argue that it produced chemical effects in my body and I won’t argue with that, but when you say buzz, you obviously mean a felt effect. Nothing. Nada. To say that people only drink to get buzzed is simply a falsehood.
Mr. Caner’s premise is IF A THEN B. If all consumption of alcohol is drunkenness, then smoking pot is permissible. Logically speaking, A is not true, therefore B is not true. Also, even if A were true, B is not necessarily true.
Let’s not make the person who has a glass of wine with dinner the moral equivalent of a crack addict.
Why are we even bothering to allow ourselves to get all riled up by other people’s legalisms? Or the half-considered statements of someone whose credibility took a large hit a while back? Is this really worthy of our time, energy, and bandwidth?
.-= Stephen Newell´s last blog ..GCR: The Gospel and Deaf Ministry =-.
Here goes the old, tired, worn out accusations of legalism and Phariseeism. Puuulease.
It would do you well to read Peter Lumpkins new book. Just read it…with an open mind.
David
Todd, “If” we contributors spend all our posting influence space on tearing down instead of building up, “can” we expect any better dialogue to abound in anything positive for the SBC? Can we joke about a person and not about a thing? The difference in Dr. Caner’s comment on Twitter, as I see it, and some recent support of comments on the VOICES board, is Dr. Caner placed emphasis on an issue and Voices placed emphasis on named individuals. Yet the personal emphasis is okay and funny, but the issue is out of line.
Debbie Kaufman spent a great deal of time explaining how she felt about belittling people and yet no one seems to hear her. Now, it is not only what Dr. Caner said, but can we gather evidence that our CP dollars support him as he says it.
May I ask something? How many seminary students who are supported by CP dollars have been writing entire blogs with dialogue unbecoming of a Christian? How many church planters who are supported by CP dollars are “murmurring and complaining”?
“If” Dr. Caner has committed some offense (which I do not believe he has), by framing an argumentative rhetorical question in cyberspace, are we all who blog with our fingers quick to judge not just as offensive?
I’m just wondering. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..PROTECTED FROM GOD’S GLORY, LEST…. =-.
Todd Benkert: Thanks for hearing Debbie. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..PROTECTED FROM GOD’S GLORY, LEST…. =-.
I’m doing my best. Thanks for the affirmation.
Todd, you are welcome. That’s a great example. I hope that all who have come to this post in search of whatever will go by and read your post, Baptist Disagreements, Things to Avoid, [HERE]. It’s well worth the read. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
Thanks to all for indulging my little thought exercise. I was just wondering. As for me, I overcame my addiction to discussing this particular topic long ago. I thought that Peter Lumpkins put forward a good product in his most recent book, if anyone is interested. Good night to all.
Bart,
I have not actually read Lumpkins book, but only a summary posted on line. However, if the online summary is correct then for someone to accept Lumpkins book as correct they would by necessity be saying that the Bible Translators and Language experts of the last 500 years have all been wrong in their translation of the word “Wine”.
If we cannot trust our English Bible Translators with such a simple thing as getting the word “Wine” correct… What else can’t we trust them on; the atonement? What?
I am just asking a question here?
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Rise of Passionate Missionary Calvinism in the SBC =-.
Greg,
You presume that the meaning of the word “wine” has not experienced any drift in the English language down through the years, and that it always refers to a fermented beverage. One of the difficulties in reading older English translations is the fact that our own language has changed so much down through the years, isn’t it? Some of the books discussing this complex topic will produce eighteenth- and nineteenth-century dictionaries in which the entry for “wine” only lists a fermented beverage as the third entry in the definition.
Now, I’m not asserting that as evidence, because I’ve never consulted the primary sources (the dictionaries themselves) and am at this point only repeating what I have read. I only bring it up because if there is any validity to this business at all, then it answers the objection that you have raised.
Enjoy your holiday weekend.
Bart,
Thanks for the reply… and I hope you have a great holiday weekend as well.
Blessings!
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Rise of Passionate Missionary Calvinism in the SBC =-.
Greg,
You sound like a KJV only guy with your wine comment.
The Biblical languages clearly show that oinos and yayin can be translated either fermented, or unfermented… depending on the context.
Neither Moses, nor the Apostle Paul spoke King James, Shakesperean English.
David
David,
Nice try with the KJV only… but nope!
The responsibility lies with Peter and you to prove to the English speaking world why we cannot trust our English Bibles. And honestly I think the language translators who worked on our English Bibles probably knew about the fermented / unfermented issue, and in English we call the unfermented stuff “Grape Juice”.
Hope you have a great 4th
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Rise of Passionate Missionary Calvinism in the SBC =-.
As a final postscript, I might note that the thread, although interesting, was entirely ineffective in making me forget Mark Driscoll.
You must remember that in the culture the Caner grew up in one could deal in Opium and Hashish and still go to Heaven… but if he drinks a glass of wine he is going straight to Hell.
Hashish is a very strong type of marijuana that is used daily by many in the Muslim world… do a Google search on Hashish and you will find some very interesting videos on youtube.
So Caner making this comment does not surprise me at all…
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Rise of Passionate Missionary Calvinism in the SBC =-.
Greg, what “culture” did Dr. Caner “grow up in” that stated such as salvational doctrine? selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
Bart, I shall not forget Mark. I am praying for him by name as he grows in Christ. Surely we can depend upon Philippians 1:6. Wish he’d have everyone pray for me. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
SevahV,
Caner grew up a Mulim… that is the culture I am refering to.
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Rise of Passionate Missionary Calvinism in the SBC =-.
Greg, I don’t understand. How old was Dr. Caner when he was saved? Once he became a Christian, did he still believe one could use hasish and go to hell if they drank alcohol? Have you asked him this? selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
Hey, Dr. Caner…if you would be so kind, I would love to interview you on this subject. I don’t know your email. But this would be really exciting to hear your take on all of it. My email is at the top of my blog. You can get to me by clicking on the post title below my name. Thank you ever so much. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
SelahV,
That is not what I said… Please do not post that I said Dr, Caner believes anthing…
What I was trying to say was that the Muslim culture in which he grew up accepts drug use and is very strict in it’s rejection of any alcohol use.
I apologize to Dr. Caner in advance if anyone thought I was saying that he believes that drug use is acceptable… that is not what I was trying to say.
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Rise of Passionate Missionary Calvinism in the SBC =-.
Greg, sorry for the confusion. I thought you were referring to him as “one” since you are referring to him growing up there and you not being surprised at his comment.
As I said, I didn’t understand your comment. Thanks for clarifying that you don’t think that Dr. Caner believed such false doctrine as would be a pattern in the culture he grew up in.
Dr. Caner, if you are still reading this board, I’d still love to have an interview with you. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
Just for reference, I posted a correction in comment #32 along with my response to Dr. Caner that I was mistaken in saying that Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary receives CP funds. This whole reply thing is nice in that it let’s you carry on a conversation, but it’s not too easy to keep up with new additions. I hope everyone saw that and hopefully we can get the post edited to mark that correction. Thanks.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..Fully Fixed on the City to Come- Watch David Platt Bring It at the SBCPC =-.
Guys:
Lots of heat going on here, and lots of discussion, but let me say this clearly- I TAKE NO OFFENSE!
We are all big boys (and girls) here. Getting our feelings hurt over blog posts would be infantile!
I spend virtually every single day of my life with Muslims calling me every name in the book (see YouTube as an example!). Trust me- this is EASY! We are family, disagreeing on matters, but still family.
At least none of you has declared jihad!
ergun
.-= Ergun Caner´s last blog ..Caner interviewed by Fox News Radio =-.
Ergun,
I REALLY appreciate this last comment of yours! Also, thank you very much for all the work and evangelism you do among Muslims. It does make me proud to be in the same family, adopted by a great God.
Dr. Caner,
You are being very gracious considering the way some people have behaved themselves towards you in this comment thread. God bless you, Brother. Keep fighting the good fight of faith.
David
Dr. Caner, your words are another great example of the GCR in action. May God bless you richly in your ministry. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
You fundies crack me up!!!!!!!!!
Did Jesus ever turn fig leaves into ‘mary jane’?
Did Jesus ever turn sugar into ‘cocaine’?
Has the Holy Writ ever endorsed ‘drugs.’
It seems that metaphysics seems to be replacing hermeneutics for many SBC fundies.
I am surprised the none of the fundies at the SBC in Louisville decried the Boomerang Express VBS song, “Believe” in which a line says, (I think) “I believe that Jesus turned water into (gasp) wine.”
If I hear the fundies correctly, it should be stated clearly as ‘non-fermented’ wine [aka grape juice].
If that is the case, why doesn’t the SBC’s version of the Bible (HCSB) state that Jesus turned the water to grape juice?
Psalm 104:15,
chadwick
.-= chadwick´s last blog ..Wednesday’s Musings at the 2009 SBC =-.
Chadwick,
Read Lumpkin’s book. Did you know that the word translated “wine” was also used in some verses for a grape just picked from the vine???? Do you think that was fermented as well.
Really, Chadwick, you are sounding like Greg Alford here… I didnt know that you chaps were KJV only guys? who think that the KJV words are the words that were quoted by Paul and Moses?
David
Chadwick,
You will have to cut David a little slack he and Peter have been working long hours on their new version of the Bible… The King David/Peter Version.
When you think about it I guess David would have the English speaking Christians dependent on a pastor/priest to tell hem what the Bible “truly” means… seams like we are going back to the days before we even had the Bible in English.
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Rise of Passionate Missionary Calvinism in the SBC =-.
Ah Chadwick, but it can be argued (rather ridiculously) that God gave us marijuana, salvia (a drug plant we use as borders in our flowerbeds), poppy flowers (from which we get cocaine), to consume.
Chadwick, I would laugh today at your take on plants, but years ago my brother who was a new Christian used Genesis as evidence for continuing to use marijuana. The plants were all good. God created them. “And God said, Behold I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with the seed of its fruit. You shall have them for food….I have given every green plant for food.” Gen. 1: 29, 30.
Though the operative word is for “food”. He maintained food is what one eats to sustain life and enjoy. And he really enjoyed his food with his “maryjane” appetizer.
Just as grape juice can be wine and fermented wine, plants can be marijuana (legal for health benefits in California). Crazy. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
Selah,
You have spoken well this good day. Keep it up, gal!
David
PS. Chadwick, you just got whipped by a girl!!! Na nee na nee na na….na nee na nee na na…
This may be the longest conversation I’ve seen over a tweet (and a fairly benign one at that).
A Fairly benign tweet that it, the conversation itself a little less so.
Todd: True. Suppose we take the tweet-er out of the equation. We are left with two assertions that SBCers continue to debate. One is that any amount of alcohol in your system means you are drunk, and are thus condemned by the scriptures forbidding drunkenness. The second is the idea that if you support the right of a person to consume alcohol, then you are required by moral consistency to support pot, crack, meth, heroine, opium, etc. Both are specious in my opinion but continue to be propagated. Both are not new with Mr. Caner but are seriously argued by abstentionists.
I am not convinced by these types of assertions, on either side of the issue. If number one were true, then we could not use Listerine or Niquill and the “NT wine was a diluted-mixture” argument falls on its face. Number two is just as faulty as similar arguments used by the moderationists (if eating leads to obesity, should we abstain from eating).
That is not to say that there is no biblical case for abstinence. I prefer the more balanced approach of men like Danny Akin (http://www.bpnews.org/bpnews.asp?ID=23576) who argues from passages like (1 Cor. 6:12, 8:13; 9:19-22; 10:32-33; Rom 14) that abstinence is the only wise choice for Christians.
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
Bill, first, if you think I think that, you are sadly mistaken. Secondly, I’m not arguing anything. I simply answered and addressed my friend Chadwick’s jolly comment with a personal experience that has happened with my brother (and with multiple others who want to argue for the use of marijuana as Biblically okay.) That’s all.
Happy 4th of July to all. Independence Day came with a price. And I dare say we should not take it for granted as we watch our country slowly fall into the influence of Fabianism and Hedonist culture. May God be give all the glory He deserves with every breath we take. And as David Platt said…we take a risk to do great things for Jesus as He indwells in us to be salt and light. It’s not about us, after all. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
selahV: Sorry, but you lost me a bit. The format for comments, where you can reply at the end of the thread or reply to individual comments is a bit confusing. I wasn’t responding to any of your comments. I understand that you are an abstentionist but what you believe beyond that is unknown to me.
Our forefathers fought for freedom, including religious and moral freedom. I am thankful for that.
Ah, I see it. I was replying to Todd’s comment but his comment was in thread of yours. Sorry for the confusion.
I think you’re just trying to get your comment count up to bump me from the “Top Commenter’s list”
Ok, maybe not, but that’s what I’M doing
Todd Benkert, “tweets” have a way of twittering on an on, don’t they? I think the tweet took on a life of its own as Baptist wings took flight with it.
selahV
P.S. Thanks for visiting my blog and giving me David Platt’s sermon link. Great message
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
Greg, I’m not David but I think prospective pastors should disclose anything the search committee and church members ask them to disclose. And if they have any doubts about anything on anything that prove a problem in their ministries, they should offer that up, too. Honesty in all things is the best policy. If a man is to be a minister in a particular church, then his doctrine views and educational persuasions should be fully known. In our times with the search committees, those things were not as important to them as were we born-again Christians, would we love the people and preach Jesus. But that was then…this is now. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
First, I don’t think it is the same issue or bears the same type of criticism. With Driscoll, it is the way he preaches and what he says. With the twitter quote it was a like a retorical question. One is serious in what he said, and the other joking (I think).
And then there’s the wine thing….
Don’t you think if we start saying a word, such as wine, or any other word you want to choose, doesn’t mean what it meant back then, that we are tampering with the Word not being inerrant? Don’t you think God is big enough to fix a problem like meaning changes?
I think the reason we want to say it doesn’t want it to say what it says is because we want go against what it says. Next thing ya know, we’ll be asking “does kill really mean kill?”
Uh uh…not going there….
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Happy Independance Day!! =-.
is that last sentence as confusing for ya’ll to read as it is for me to re-read? I know what I was thinking but not sure it made it through my fingers right…any questions and I’ll clarify
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Happy Independance Day!! =-.
Here is what is funny, reading through all of this. BOTH positions use a valid hermeneutic argument. BOTH sides also argue from history.
HOWEVER, the arguments that I can NOT stand are the ones that do not use logic and/or biblical reasoning:
1. Being raised as a Muslim has NOTHING to do with my position. Psychobabble, or emotional arguments do not hold water.
2. My favorite, however, is the “Legalist” argument. Guys, if you ever saw me in a non-church setting, I doubt if you would EVER call me a legalist. I will just leave it at that. Ask virtually anyone who knows me.
3. No, I choose not to drink because I see it as the razor’s edge argument, that I submitted earlier. Why must we dance just up to the edge of safety? Why argue about the number of drinks, when avoiding it altogether solves the problem?
It is the same question students ask us: how far can I go sexually and still not sin. The logical, reasonable and simple answer is, WHY dance to the razor’s edge?
In issues of ethics, I am a non-conflicting absolutist. I realize we are in a fallen world. I just choose not to help accelerate the process!
So, to sum up- NOT a KJV guy (I am majority text), NOT a legalist. I love being a socratic gadfly. But I also enjoy being safe enough to dance without falling off!
.-= Ergun Caner´s last blog ..Caner interviewed by Fox News Radio =-.
Ergun! AMEN, brother! Preach on! selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
Todd, have you read Peter’s book? He says the same thing that it is the only wise choice. There is a lot packed into his book and I was surprised to be honest on what he didn’t claim and what didn’t present as some fact. For me, it only solidifies my understanding of the entire counsel of God pertaining to this subject, (which is only a fraction of the things we have to study and concern ourselves with). But the damage that it is doing in our society and expecially to millions of our children is worth noting. And the statistics regarding binge-drinking within the book are staggering. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
A couple of final points, because I head out on Monday to do a camp, and doubt if I will have internet:
1. I am an equal-opportunity offender. I start a four-part series on worship, where I am guessing I shall make everyone mad, at Thomas Road. I have no common reference to corporate worship, since I came to faith late in life. My first concert was neither Sandi Patti nor the Cathedrals. It was Van Halen. (!)
2. Secondly, just watch the Twitters sometimes (twitter.com/erguncaner). You will see that my little, inane tweets are just that. I have no bloated sense of importance. One of the guiding principles of my life: Take the ministry seriously; Never take yourself seriously. So my positions are just that- MINE. I was not put here on earth to make you more like me-
ergun
.-= Ergun Caner´s last blog ..Caner interviewed by Fox News Radio =-.
Ergun,
Your grace has been much appreciated.
God Bless.
And thanks for contributing to our discussion over here at Voices.
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
You know…if we changed our name from the SBC to something else atleast the arguments wouldn’t seem so tired. We could start all over again!
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Fourth of July Note and Blog Agenda =-.
Todd: ha ha ha. It took a minute for me to get what you meant by getting the count up. Were you talking to me? If so, I think I’ve already passed ya. funny.
Hey, do you know that the highest commented on post at SBCImpact was one I wrote on tithing ( over 200 comments). I’ll write a post on that and you’ll really have fun. selahV
.-= SelahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
No, that was to Bill. He has about 20 comments and that last couple bumped me. But I’m back now baby! Hahahaha.
Wow – that is all I can say concerning this comment stream.
Ergun,
Your grace and approach to ministry and life are appreciated. If only more could learn that lesson! Just one thing though – please post less pics of your “out of church” dress – they are more than scary to my dog who sits by me while I blog!
.-= Tim G´s last blog ..Seeking the face of God for Americans =-.
I’m someone who was raised Amish and grew up hearing the same argument/philsophy used by Caner in so many other areas of life. Televison has a lot of bad on it, so forbid owning a TV. Owning a car narrows the gap between the church and the world, so forbid owning a car. The references in 1Cor to a sister’s head being covered could have implications for today so require all the sisters in the church to wear an actual headcovering, and forbid her to cut her hair at all. I think you can see the implications of where Caners reasoning could lead, and what implications it has on the Pauline teaching on individaul freedom. Especially when you have those who advocate limiting the ability of those who disagree from serving on boards and as missionaries.
BTW, I am a LU grad who frequently refers college aged friends to LU. I could not , however, currently refer anyone to LBTS, in light of the Caner influence there; especially considering the much better options at other seminaries.
You make some great points as to where that logic can lead. Good word.
Admittedly, about 1/2 way through the comments I started reading every other post because I was stunned. How many people died without Christ in the time that you spent ridiculing someone about a tweet on twitter? My brothers and sisters, I think there are better uses of our time.
Have you ever wondered that maybe we just look like a group of people who claim to know all the answers and the way but the reality is that people who claim not to know our God just think we are just mean spirited? Its not IRONY that kills our attraction or wittness to a lost world but over spirtualization to make ‘Christian’ points about culture instead of the marginilized. I live in a world full of people who don’t know Jesus and they could care less about pot, drinking, gay marriage, abortion or any of the core issues folks blog about. What they care about is whether their next pay check will cover the bills. Whether their kid will stay in school. Whether their mother will survive cancer. So while all of us Baptist think its about this and that maybe we need to examine the full context of the Book we claim to believe in.
While I do not care alcoholic beverages, having been drunk only once in my life and it made me sick to my stomach with all that entails, I do have to ask: “Where did anyone ever get the right to change the elements in communion, namely, from wine and unleavened bread to unfermented grape juice and leavened bread?” From my knowledge of Baptist Church history, from the actual church records, Baptists used wine and unleavened bread until the 19th & 20th century, when they changed over to leavened elements…and their church discipline declined with the change. As recently as a few years ago a member of a Sunday School class spoke up and said he could remember even the individual appointed to secure the wine for communion. People who got drunk were disciplined and, if not repentant, excluded. Today with grape juice many a person is on the rolls who has never even been confronted for the sin of getting drunk. While I do not advocate social drinking due to weaker brothers, neither do I recommend that people carry the donkey as in the old story told to prove that their are limits to this matter of being concerned about every one’s opinion, especially when it drives the church to give up its maintance of the communion in its original elements. Also since our Lord took the cup from the Passover Feast to institute the Communion, I know from a friend who was raised an orthodox Jew and who was converted and who became a Baptist minister (we attended seminary together), that the cups had wine in them. And, yes, I have read where some Jews try to say grape juices was used, but even Jews who speak for a teetotal position have admitted that wine was used in the Passover Feasts and those asserting otherwise do so in the face of practice to the contrary.
Comments on this entry are closed.