Check out the website of the Marin Institute for stats on the use of alcohol in our world today. (Caveat – I am unsure if this group has a hidden agenda, but they do refer to outside groups like the Mayo Clinic). The use and abuse of alcohol a problem of epic proportions, especially in countries like France where the French drink much more than Americans. Granted we are talking about the abuse of alcohol in most cases but what constitutes abuse in one person is at best subjective.

Jesus had very few beverage choices in his day. It is moot to talk about whether the wine he made could get people drunk. Assume that it could. He certainly did not make it for that purpose. Granting the use of wine in moderation . . . there is no evidence that he drank beer or anything else. Most/all believers who argue that it is permissible for Christians to drink do not limit drinking to wine only, which was likely highly diluted in Jesus day.

Jeff Straub

P.S. I am less concerned THAT Driscoll drinks but with the flagrant manner in which he flaunts its use. See p. 138ff of the work I cited above. You wanna drink, drink. As the son of an alcoholic’s home and as a former EMT, I have seen first hand the devastation in its wake. But like I said, the Scripture never actually prohibits slavery, so I guess I am free to go and buy one!

Also, Jeff, you said, “the use of wine in Jesus day simply has no parallel to the use of alcohol in our world today.” I would strongly disagree with this statement. I will give you that the use of wine in Jesus’ day simply has no parallel to the use of alcohol in the South today (which, sadly, for many Southern Baptists, is synonymous to the first sentence, but that’s a whole other fight). However, in certain places in America and definitely in Canada and Europe this does not seem to be accurate. In what ways do you see Jesus using alcohol that differs from the culture of alcohol in Europe today?

Todd Buruss last blog post..Visitors Not Welcome?- Further SBC Divide Over Driscoll Following Propaganda Piece

I am glad to hear you are “offended” with some of what Driscoll says, but it does sound like you are defending him, which of course is your perogative.

As for Jesus making wine or Welchs–that is really a non sequitor in the discussion on whether or not believers in our 21st century world should drink Sam Adams, Budweiser, Jack Daniels, or Johnny Walker.

It is really interesting to me that Christians who have no problem rejecting slavery, despite the fact that the OT regulated it and the NT overlooked it, cannot see that the use of wine in Jesus day simply has no parallel to the use of alcohol in our world today. I find it odd that the Superbowl advertisers haven’t yet tapped into the Christian market and designed commericals for the myriad of Christians whose churches have Superbowl parties complete with a full cooler. In fact, just watch the beer commericals or look the alcohol ads in any magazine and let the world tell you what beverage alcohol is all about. Frankly, the issue is not whether a Christian can drink but whether he should drink (1 Cor. 6:12 and 1 Cor. 10:23). Moreover, my quibble with Driscoll is not simply that he drinks, but he actually rejects abstaining and PROMOTES alcohol consumption (The Radical Reformission, 168ff). My concern with SEBTS is that the SBC has a formal no-alcohol stand.

So did you bother to listen to what Al Mohler and Russ Moore had to say or did you decide that since Jesus made wine, this whole discussion does not interest you?

As for his use of course langauge, I am well aware of his public statements to the contrary. He has certainly stopped using some words, but still uses other expressions that at best are coarse (Eph 4:29). Read the comment in the NYT regarding the text message he received on masterbation and his flippant comment from the pulpit. Funny maybe, but sad to hear from a man of God! Accusations of his speech continue to dog him in the press (NYT, Baptist Press) . . . I wonder why? I wonder who is sinning?

Finally, it is not sin on my part to continue to warn naive believers of the danger of public leaders whose message is contradictory. Cf. Gal. 2:11ff and Demas (2 Tim. 4:10) as well as other individuals who Paul identified in the Word for their public error.

Mark Driscoll’s statements are public–very public. Therefore public rebuke is not only permissible but warranted.

Jeff Straub

I really had to spend some time in prayer before I felt comfortable responding to you again. It is clear that you are “sincerely” offended by Mark Driscoll and as I said before “I am not here to defend Mark Driscoll” .

1st – I agree with you on Sodomy… The Scriptures are very clear that this is never acceptable and Mark should reverse his position on this sin. He is simply wrong on this issue.

2nd – I disagree with you about Beverage Alcohol. Again the Scriptures are very clear that Jesus and his disciples did drink Wine, and Jesus did in fact turn water into Wine (not Welch’s).

3rd – On Marks use of vulgar language, Jeff this is very old news… Mark has publicly repented of his use of vulgar language years ago. As someone who is daily in need of God’s Grace and Forgiveness that settles this issue for me. In the light of Matt.18:35 I do not believe it is appropriate for you to continue to bring this issue up… in fact to continue to do so is sin on your part.

Grace Always,

Greg Alfords last blog post..Arkansas Nears Allowing Guns in Church

My problem with Driscoll has nothing to do with his theology which I personally am in sympathy with but with his worldiness, his wretched vulgarity–and the pornification of evangelicalism. I have attached three links–one from Baptist Press today, the second from a New York Times article of one month ago and the third from Driscoll’s Mars Hill church web site.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29852
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html
http://blog.marshillchurch.org/2008/11/30/question-21-can-i-perform-anal-sex-on-my-wife/

As for my use of John MacArthur, he is the only evangelical with the backbone to publicly address Driscoll and his “grunge Christianity.”

I would reverse your question to me . . . what is it about Mark Driscoll that is so attractive? It cannot be his theology or his view of women . . . lots of people hold that. It cannot be he speaking ability–god as it is, there are lots of good speaker/preacher. His books aren’t profoundly theological. There are numerous good books on Jesus and the atonement.

What is it? Could it be his blending of Calvinism with worldliness that makes him appealing. 1400 students at SEBTS clamored to hear him, so we are told. With Driscoll, you don’t have to give much of the world up to be a Crhsitian.

Having grown up in the hippy era, Driscoll is a modern-day rebel, through and through–he drinks with wanton disregard of of its implications, he listens to music –indie rock, by his own testimony– music that is godless in its essence and he is worldly, something the church until recent days–evangelicalism, fundamentalism, pentecostalism, mainline denominationalism, you name it, universally rejected.

What historic Christian leader of the past would talk about sex the way Driscoll does . . . sermons on oral sex or satisfying your wife, blogs about anal sex? What do we call this? As a church historian, I can say this is unparalleled in church history.

The evangelicals who continue to us him despite these egregiously, ungodly actitities are going to be embarassed, no make that ashamed–if not in this life–at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Sure we all will, I concede, including me.

As for 1 Cor. 9:22 . . . so I should get a tatoo to reach those with tatoos and my ears pierced to reach those with ears pierced and my nose pierced to reach those with a nose piercing and my eyebrows pierced and let’s see , where ELSE can one be pierced, all to reach people with various piercings. You REALLY think that this is what Paul had in mind? I guess I should smoke to reach the smokers and own slaves to reach the slave-holders, and where does this end? Oddly enough this is the same Paul who refused to eat meat offered to idols BECAUSE of the potential scandal it would cause to the weaker believer. Should I smoke pot to reach the potheads? Where does this end? Jesus did none of this, nor any other NT leader including Paul. No amount of exegesis can hang all the weight on it that Driscoll and others try to get it to bear to justify their activity. This is eisegesis at its finest.

I have mentioned Driscoll’s attitude toward alcohol. I would encourage you to listen to R. Albert Mohler’s discussion along with Russ Moore on the beverage use of alcohol. Without naming Driscoll, he talks about those who flaunt their liberty as manifesting an adolescent immaturity by putting it into people’s faces as Mark Driscoll does. At the beginning of 2008, Mars Hill sponosred a New Year’s Eve party with a champagne bar and warned people they needed IDs to get into. This is what it takes to reach people today . . . running a Christian bar? Hey Jesus, pass me a cold one! You really think this is what heaven will be like. We will party with Christ?

I spent enough time thinking about Driscoll today. I need to go read someone who took God seriously, like Jonathan Edwards.

Call me narrow-minded, but somehow, I think Edwards is closer to true godliness than is Driscoll.

Jeff Straub

I am not here to defend Mark Driscoll, who has admitted to making his share of mistakes in the past, I’ve never meet Mark so I’m not in any position to be his Judge but perhaps you are?

I deeply respect the opinions of John MacArthur and Tom Nettles (I have meet Tom a few times, but I have not had any of his classes) however I am at a loss as to why you bring them into this discussion?

Just what is it about Mark Driscoll that is so upsetting to you? Is it because Mark is a Calvinist, is it just his pragmatism, or is it his Calvinism and pragmatism? And by the way 1 Cor 9:22 is a biblical text that I am not sure you take seriously, but I am sure Driscoll does.

Grace Always,

Greg Alfords last blog post..Arkansas Nears Allowing Guns in Church

By the way, while I was baptized in the early 70′s in the SBC and I hold a PhD from Southern (2004) under Tom Nettles, I am not currently in the SBC. However, as I have said to Tom repeatedly over the past decade, what the SBC regained in the late 1980s and early 90s, they are giving away today.

For the record, there are some well known evangelicals that have been very critical of the “grunge Christianity” (to quote John MacArthur) that is represented by Mark Driscoll. So while I may be in the minority, I am not alone.

I have great gratitude to God for the major course shift in the SBC. But at the same time I lament its rampant pragmatism–a point that many in the Founder’s Movement have likewise publicly lamented.

Jeff Straub

AMEN!

I am so very tired of all the Extra-Biblical standards for what is actable Christian conduct coming from some in the SBC.

I understand that there were over 1400 students in attendance… so many were trying to get into the chapel at SEBTS to hear Mark Driscoll that they had to set up TV’s in overflow rooms. WOW!

I think the Jeff’s of the SBC are simply afraid of Driscoll… and judging from the reception he got at SEBTS I would say they have a good reason to be afraid, make that very afraid.

Grace Always,

Grace Always,

Greg Alfords last blog post..Pastors and Concealed Weapons

Todd Buruss last blog post..It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times- A Tale of Two Seminaries