The church member was surprised to see her church staffer dining alone in a local restaurant. When she headed towards his table to offer a courteous “hello,” she was even more surprised to see him make a quick attempt at hiding a glass of cold beer. Although her church did not have a highly detailed, written code of conduct that prohibited the pastor and staff from drinking beer, wine, or liquor, such was a longstanding, unquestioned expectation on the part of the membership of the staff. I share the predictable outcome of the incident below.
The travails of celebrity megapastors notwithstanding, it is still a deal-breaker in SBC life for clergy to drink alcohol casually, moderately, or in any other way.
Ed Stetzer doesn’t run in the same circles as I do, but I take his point in his article, Alcohol Abuse, Perry Noble, and the Church’s Response: What Now?
It appears that views of alcohol are changing among some evangelicals.
I get that and see it in folks around me who are my kid’s generation. A little beer or wine isn’t taboo to them as it has been to me, both pre- and post-entering the ministry.
Lest we err here, we should be clear to pastors, staff, seminarians, potential seminarians and church staff, planters, missions personnel and the like that use of alcohol in SBC life might be cool, relaxing, and modern but it will not advance one’s ministry and may likely end it.
North American Mission Board church planter code of conduct:
I will abstain from consumption of any alcoholic beverage.
From the International Mission Board Field Personnel Manual, as paraphrased by David Platt:
...the Field Personnel Manual requires all missionaries to abstain from alcohol following their appointment.
From the Southeastern seminary covenant (and I assume the other five seminaries have identical or similar covenants):
Either on or off campus and while classes are both in and out of session, I will not possess or use alcoholic beverages.
I think these are good, sound policies and I don’t see any SBC entity trying to loosen them. That would be like jumping into a fire and we’ve got enough problems as it is. I would not argue with Stetzer that we will be dealing with clergy and alcohol more and more as time passes.
…which brings me to a wry question asked of me by my brother, a moderate alcohol-consuming Methodist: “Now that you are retired do you plan to start drinking?”
“Well no bro, I don’t.”
The church staff member above was dealt with redemptively by the church but soon left the church. Some said that trying to have a secret glass of beer in a restaurant in his own community, a location where he would likely encounter some of the membership, was either monumentally foolish or a death wish.
Alcohol is a deal breaker in SBC life and should stay that way.
I’m surprised that everyone believes that the only issue with Perry Nobles is alcohol. There is so much more to the story.
This is right – there is so much more to the story but reductionism is an easier way out.
Was he self medicating so to speak because of being resistant to medication relating to his anxiety and depression issues?
In discussions on this forum before I have taken the biblical counseling route and discouraged the going to secular counselors and looking to meds too early and not dealing with the root. I still stand firmly by that philosophy.
Sometimes however, the root issue is a medical one and must be taken care of under the common grace of medical treatment. When a Christian has diabetes we certainly encourage them to consult and obey medical advice and prescriptions and there is little resistance to doing so among Christians – and certainly people are not looked down for doing it – however – with depression and anxiety medications many tend to be rather shall we say – judgmental and condemning – which leads far too many to resist observing the medical treatments and voila – preventable suicides, alcoholism, anger issues, and more rear their disgusting heads.
This issue not just about alcohol per sae – and CERTAINLY not appropriate for teetotalers to use as a battering ram against moderationists.
I want to be clear that I am in no way justifying or defending Noble’s behavior and sin. He essentially said that he sought escape and relief from alcohol instead of Jesus and accountability among godly people. The statement from the church mentions that he rejected attempts to call him into accountability.
I was just offering a possible explanation – not to justify – but to say we ought to pray for Perry, his family, NewSpring, and his disciplers as there are undoubtedly some more rough and difficult waters ahead.
I am a t-totaler for the most part. I do not drink beer. May have an occasional glass of wine at a function where it is part of the celebration etc.
Our church does not have a rule about the consumption of alcohol. Our elders are not prohibited. Our staff are not prohibited, though as a practical matter most of them abstain out of caution with respect to their relations with everyone in the congregation.
The Christians in the NT had no rule about the consumption of alcohol.
I see no problem with the employment agencies of the SBC having such a rule.
But I think that it would be healthier for our churches generally to get back to the New Testament standard, and in so doing, not to embrace the party lifestyle that makes more out of drinking alcohol than should be made.
My daughters and their Christian friends do have a more relaxed attitude about it than even I do.
Little said about that case, certainly not about “everyone” believing it being the “only” issue. I referenced it because it clearly put the issue back on the hot burner for now but I don’t think it would be wise or appropriate to discuss that case. I offered another case that is much closer to the reality that non-megachurches face.
Let’s leave NewSpring out of this, please. Thanks.
My church recently changed the no alcohol rule to allow usage. Neither pastor or any of the elders, as far as I know, imbibe. The goal was to be true to the Bible as possible. I don’t and never have drank alcohol so it affected me not at all.
A couple unrelated thoughts:
1. The “Secret” part could have been part of the problem. Had he not tried to hide it, or even discussed it with church leadership first, it probably would have gone better.
2. Also, geography may play a part as well. I live in a rural area, but it is in Indiana…and we have several of our “senior saint” Ladies who will have a small cup of wine at night for their heart, as well as other church members who will drink occasionally. One of our staff pastors had a Seder Dinner at his house, invited some church members over, and had real wine as part of it. Non issue.
3. For those who might argue that an urban church planter must drink in order to identify with those he is trying to reach, I offer this anecdote: I lived for 2 years in Boston, MA, working at a church in which most people drank, and often eating and going out with friends who were believers and non-believers who drank. I was offered Alchohol multiple times, and once I simply said “No thanks,” nothing else was said about it, EVER. The supposed ridicule or stigma or “look at that weird Christian who doesn’t drink alcohol” doesn’t exist in normal social settings, even settings that are basically a bar scene…ordering Coke instead is simply not that weird….FRAT PARTY, MAYBE…I wouldn’t know.
Interestingly, I believe that you do not have to drink nowadays, which is equally refreshing.
Most parties that I attend, I do not drink. Mainly because I am driving, and I am zero tolerant on that. I always want to be able to look at the cop and say, “No sir, I have not had anything to drink.”
And no one bats an eye at it.
So that is a good trend, as well.
Andy, good thoughts. I especially think your number three is spot on, IMO.
I have always said that Christians who “drink to be cool, hip, etc…” are doing so for reasons that are fleshly and therefore not god honoring and risk falling into the well known “people pleasing” trap.
Likewise those who do not imbibe and promote that as a badge of advanced personal spirituality and then seek to impose total abstinence onto another Christian’s conscience also risk falling prey to legalistic and hypocritical traps.
I agree that drinking is, and should be, a deal breaker in the SBC.
Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. -1 Thessalonians 5:6
Preachers especially should have nothing to do with alcohol.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-problem-with-drunk-preachers.html
Is it just me, or have posts been disappearing and sometimes reappearing at SBC Voices?
David R. Brumbelow
David B. I have seen some post disappear and reappear. I figured the one at the control of Voices was looking upon the wine when it was red and going down smoothly.
Well, let’s just say that a person takes pain killers, and a doctor prescribed them; a doctor who is willing to hand them out, and there’s a lot of them out there. So, a person takes pain pills twice a day. They don’t really need them, but they like the way they make them feel. And, it’s legal, and there are no verses in the Bible that say that taking pain pills is sinful.
Is this person FOOLISH for messing around with pain killers? Would you say that they are kissing the rattlesnake?
“we should be clear to pastors, staff, seminarians, potential seminarians and church staff, planters, missions personnel and the like that use of alcohol in SBC life might be cool, relaxing, and modern but it will not advance one’s ministry and may likely end it.”
1: I don’t know of any Christian who drinks alcohol because it’s cool. Not one. All of them drink it because they enjoy it. And not one has abused it.
2: I don’t know of one pastor who would say alcohol would advance one’s ministry anymore than having a piece of cake or owning a gun would.
The quote above was pretty unnecessary.
Also, deal breakers should be prescribed by Scripture, not our tradition.
I’m generally in agreement with your blogs and comments, but I think you really missed this one.
By the way, I do not drink. I find alcohol repulsive. But I also fine some of the logic used against alcohol bad as well.
There are 50k or so SBC churches, 3k or so IMB positions, and thousands of others in NAMB, the seminaries, state conventions, associations, state colleges. Any of these may set their own deal breakers for their paid staff (or students) and non-use or possession of alcohol is where the vast majority of these are.
You may instruct them of their errors but if you seek employment, admission, or appointment you will find what I said to be true.
“You may instruct them of their errors but if you seek employment, admission, or appointment you will find what I said to be true.”
Yes and defiance of these polices after employment/admission becomes a sin because intentionally breaking a promise is a lie.
The sin is not the alcohol consumption – its the lie.
If one is asked in screening “have you consumed any alcohol in the last 5 years” and the questioned can remember consuming a single glass of wine 4 years ago at his sisters wedding, for example, and answers “no” – he has lied. Sin. Not the drink. The lie.
Most people start drinking to fit in with the crowd. They don’t like being left out of the party. Others start drinking to get drunk. There’s just no other reasons, not really, to drink liquor. It’s expensive. It tastes bad(one has to acquire a taste for spoiled, ruined corn, grapes, etc…or, fermented). And, there’s many other drinks, which are good tasting. We don’t need alcohol. And, with all that we know about the dangers of alcohol, and it’s addictive nature, we need to be WISE.
Also, cakes and guns are not addictive. Nobody killed an innocent family in a car wreck after eating a piece of chocolate cake. And, nobody carried a gun, and the gun made them say something, or do something, that they wished they hadn’t, because the gun influenced them to do something they couldn’t control. To compare alcohol to guns and cake is like comparing apples and sausage.
What would you drinking people say to someone, who was taking strong, pain killers, everyday? and, they “legally” prescribed by a doctor? And, the person was not suffering with any horrible disease?
David
The only way alcohol or guns, or a lot of things for that matter can be used to inflict death or harm, is by an act of the will. The greatest blessing is that the Holy Spirit instructs the will to use things wisely as scripture demands. Warning…A big general overstatement forthcoming….Baptist folks use or ignore a whole lot of things willingly; therefore deal breakers will vary by location and maturity. 🙂
William writes “Alcohol is a deal breaker in SBC life and should stay that way.”
Multiple SBC resolutions have been passed over the years pertaining to alcohol. They have made it clear that Southern Baptists (including their pastors!) should stand united in “total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages.” SBC churches and church leaders who think otherwise should be held more accountable by the denomination, for those who deviate from resolutions passed by the convention.
William, it was good to hear that the church staffer in your story was “dealt with redemptively by the church.” I hope he has since found an alcohol-free ministry to serve in. As Perry Noble once joked from his pulpit “The only difference between a Presbyterian and a Baptist is that a Baptist won’t wave at you in the liquor store.” Probably more truth, than joke, about that these days!
Max,
“Multiple SBC resolutions have been passed over the years pertaining to alcohol. They have made it clear that Southern Baptists (including their pastors!) should stand united in “total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages.” SBC churches and church leaders who think otherwise should be held more accountable by the denomination, for those who deviate from resolutions passed by the convention.”
Respectfully, I have several questions, sir.
What are you suggesting, exactly, should happen to those pastors and local church leaders who disagree with a non essential doctrine resolution passed at a convention?
What will be the enforcement standard for “thinking otherwise” on debatable issues?
Who should exact the discipline you suggest? The Exec committee? The convention President? A convention committee on resolution enforcement?
Lastly, I noticed you posted in another thread that you are “not a fan of plurality of elders polity” if you mean by that, as I assume, elder led or ruled congregational polity – why are you suggesting here some sort of convention hierarchy for (non binding) resolution enforcement?
“a non essential doctrine”
OK. Let’s just all go out and smoke, drink, cuss, and watch R rated movies until Jesus returns! The theological triage wins again.
When you going? You buying?
😉
Wait! so now anti smoking is in the list of “essential doctrines” that have had resolutions passed at conventions – oh boy – I might have smaller crowd than usual at deacons meetings once I make this known.
Oh! movies, too! Dang! (wait, is that cursing?)
Maybe Sunday – I will lead my congregants to come to the altar and repent in case they watched “The Passion of the Christ”, a rated R movie.
“I will lead my congregants to come to the altar and repent in case they watched “The Passion of the Christ”, a rated R movie.”
Oh no, don’t do that Tarheel! That would only be necessary if they were smoking, drinking and cursing while watching that particular R-rated movie.
oh, OK..thanks for the clarification.
#dontwasteyouraltar
Tarheel, you pose some good “how to” questions that don’t have easy answers. I guess I go back to William’s title for this post about alcohol being a “deal breaker” in SBC life. If it is, how does SBC break the deal with member churches which don’t give a big whoop about this SBC resolution? If there is no ‘catch’ that cannot be overlooked, then it’s a mute point. Various SBC church leaders have been chastised along the way over this, but their churches still remain on SBC rolls … I guess it’s not a deal breaker after all. In the absence of a clear Scriptural “Thou shalt not”, the whole matter is thrown into the non-essential pile of moral wiggle room. Maybe I’m just over-sensitive to this after watching family and friends turn drinking from moderation to addiction (including some Southern Baptists).
We certainly live in unique times, in the last few days we have read gun ownership condemned as a hinderance to revival and the consumption of alcohol defended as innocent.
It would be entertaining for a pastor to bring these two points in a message at VBC. It would be worth the tithe but again many of you quit paying that when you started drinking.
oh brother….
Heel, it’s been over three decades since I participated in such behavior but in the South if are going to let a man drink you have to let him shoot a gun. It’s in the creed.
Don’t forget the mouthful of ‘baccah
Max:
The Convention cannot “deal with” churches that disagree with resolutions.
That’s because the SBC Constitution and Bylaws and the Baptist Faith & Message set the parameters for whether a church can be “in friendly cooperation” with the SBC.
The SBC has specifically adopted a constitution and bylaws and a Confession of Faith with the intent of those documents being the parameters for being in the SBC.
If a church abides by those things, it is in friendly cooperation with the Convention.
Resolutions are adopted each year at the Convention to address specific things that particular meeting would like to address. These resolutions are sort of an expression of a feeling by that group of messengers attending that year.
Resolutions are not legally binding and do not have the force of the Constitution and Bylaws.
Thus, the Convention cannot “deal with” churches that disagree with resolutions.
I trust this makes some sense to you.
Thanks.
“Resolutions are not legally binding and do not have the force of the Constitution and Bylaws.”
Thanks for clarifying that Louis. I thought all these years that the effort expended to draft, propose, and adopt resolutions meant more than that in SBC life. I guess now I don’t see the point in burning up time at the convention to deal with resolutions. If a resolution approved at a convention has no power to influence the behavior of SBC membership, then local church autonomy supersedes anything that comes forth from that annual meeting of such distinguished leaders and faithful messengers.
Max, you are welcome.
It’s not just autonomy. It’s the weakness of resolutions.
They are helpful for pointing things out that need to be pointed out, but beyond that, they don’t have teeth.
They get a lot of discussion because they are not procedurally difficult. They can be brought up more spontaneously, and they can’t get ruled out of order as easily.
To the guys who have commented here who want the SBC to have an abstinence policy – what would you say to this issue?
Suppose a young man applies for a job with one of the Convention entities or an SBC church. Suppose he says that he has consumed alcoholic beverages in the past but never to excess, and does not believe that abstinence is mandated in the NT.
But that while he is employed by the entity or church, he will agree to be abstinent. He will not teach that the Bible requires abstinence, and that is a choice for Christians to make, but that the Bible forbids drunkenness.
Is this guy hirable, in your opinion?
“Is this guy hirable, in your opinion?”
In the backdrop of 21st century culture and condition of the church, yes.
Louis, IMB says ‘yes,’ although their process would uncover any behavior that would caution against appointing an individual who was a drinker. I assume all the seminaries would accept students who agreed to their covenant almost regardless of past behavior.
Since there is no SBC, save for the annual meeting, “the SBC” can’t have an abstinence policy…but all of the entities have policies in accord with the many resolutions on alcohol, so far as I know.
No. He is not hirable at our church. Is he a believer? Yes. Does he love God more than I do? Probably. But if he is a staff minister at the church with those views, how will he warn a teenager against taking one drink? How will he counsel the one fallen into drunkenness? If drunkenness is a sin (yes), how is it different than other sins about which the Scripture says to flee?
Every believer is free to make up their own mind here. Every church is free to have its own policy here. I am just telling you mine.
I believe that if for no other reason, for the sake of the weaker brother, believers ought to give up beverage alcohol.
I know there will be rebuttals. I am not thinking I will win this argument with this short reply. For conscious sake, I just needed to post this.
God bless you all.
Alcohol may be a deal breaker but apparently legalism isn’t.
Someday soon, “Don’t do that” will pass from SBC life and a new generation will take the helm to push back the boundaries. That which restrains now will be no more, as doing church embarks on an uncharted course.
Max, I have a bit more hope in the majority of SBC church families. There are plenty of churches that follow the scriptures and know the difference between solid biblical teaching and traditions in legalistic behavior. I find it a breathe of fresh air when maturity leads to less legalism. Legalistic behavior must be attacked and removed for the church to mature.
“I find it a breathe of fresh air when maturity leads to less legalism. Legalistic behavior must be attacked and removed for the church to mature.”
I wouldn’t be sad to see legalism vanish from the church, if holiness would replace it. Spiritual maturity leads to pure and holy living – yep, I would be up for an outbreak of that in 21st century church in both pulpit and pew!
Joseph,
Having a biblical, and common sense, conviction against the use of beverage alcohol is not legalism. Not even close.
What is legalism?
Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight.-Romans 3:20
Speaking of Romans 3:20, “In this verse ‘law’ both times is without the definite article in the Greek; so it means ‘legalism.’” -Herschel H. Hobbs, Romans, Word Books, Waco, TX, 1977; p. 44.
“More precisely, legalism is the false belief that keeping certain laws – whether biblical or not – can be used as a condition for meriting God’s grace, whether for justification or sanctification (see Galatians 3:3). But one can legislate wise laws about human behavior without being legalistic in the biblical sense of the concept. Otherwise, laws against drunk driving and illegal immigration – and a host of other things beneficial to society – would be legalistic and, thereby, wrong.” -Dr. Norman L. Geisler; president, Southern Evangelical Seminary; author.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-legalism-really-means.html
David R. Brumbelow
amen to David B’s words. It’s not legalism to call something foolish, which the Bible calls foolish.
David
Good words, Brother Brumbelow. This issue is not law vs. grace. It really boils out to flesh vs. Spirit.
Good grief people, the original SBCers in 1845 drank alcohol
The even had alcohol during communion.
They even have a whiskey cellar ar Southern
Sure. Many manufactured it because it meant cash income. Seems like we have to deal with the reality on the ground in 2016 on this, post prohibition/repeal etc. I just don’t see anyone leading a charge to change SBC institutional policies to allow for drinking although many churches have de facto relaxed their own policies.
“They even have a whiskey cellar at Southern.”
That explains a lot!!
I grew up with an alcoholic stepfather whom I disliked, and an alcoholic uncle whom I loved. I hated to see what the stuff did to them. I refused to drink anything even when pressured. But somewhere in my 40’s I realized that all that legalistic prohibition that I was taught at previous churches was not Biblical. The Bible tells us not to get drunk. Believers who are overzealous about alcohol set the tone and expectations about the unacceptability of any use of alcohol.
It’s not that I suddenly found alcohol attractive—I still remembered the terrible problems I witnessed first hand. But I came to realize that even in the alcoholic’s life, alcohol is not the real problem. And I came to see the freedom that ought to be ours as believers to drink of the same stuff that Jesus provided to the wedding guests and gave to the disciples when He instituted the Lord’s Supper (and He obviously used what was usually present at any supper). The fable taught to me as a child, that the wine that was used by the disciples was more like Kool-Aid or grape juice, just is not credible (else the command, “Be not drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit” is meaningless). And I came to see that I should no longer judge as sinful and foolish those who do choose to drink alcohol but not in excess.
Even so, my use of alcohol over the past 5 years or so has been limited to drinking a glass or two of wine before bed so that it can help me sleep. My night-shift schedule plays havoc with my bio clock, and sleep is often a problem. I have found that a limited amount of alcohol sometimes is a good thing in that regard. Additionally, I have high blood pressure, which is mostly controlled with medication. But I can definitely feel the pressure go down after a drink of alcohol, making me wish that there wasn’t such a stigma, so I could have that beneficial effect more often.
Ken,
While it may not be sinful to drink one drink of liquor, the Bible does teach about the foolishness of messing around with undiluted, fermented wine, or strong drink. The Bible teaches…in Proverbs….about the addictive, destructive nature of strong drink. It can bite a person like a poisonous snake, and it can get a strong hold on a person.
Wine in the Bible can be strong drink, or it can be nothing more than grape juice that’s been diluted with water. The Jews of OT times would dilute the grape juice with 3 to 10 parts of water, so that when fermentation did take place, it would be so watered down that a person would have to drink more than the bladder could hold, to just get high on it. And, they also had strong drink, which was undiluted, fermented wine. They knew this stuff would get them high. Proverbs 20:1 teaches us about the foolishness of drinking such…..”Wine is a mocker.” It’ll make a fool out of a person .
Do you think that Jesus would make water into fermented wine for a crowd that had already “well drunk” at a wedding party? Would that not make Jesus guilty of contributing to the drunkenness of people? And, there’s no doubt, whatsoever, that being drunk on wine is sin.
David
Who created grapes? God.
Did God not know that they would ferment and become strong drink that would cause much sin and heartache? Actually no.
Wine doesn’t cause sin.
Abuse of wine or food is sinful.
Should we ban food because some pastors and others overeat? -gluttony.
Should we ban sex because some people, even pastors, abuse it and sin? -adultery.
Should we ban talking because people use it to lie and gossip?
Should we ban sight because some people use it to ogle women?
I don’t drink alcohol. My parents did and the abuse of it led to the destruction of the home. But we are to walk the narrow path. We are not to step off the path into legalism, nor are we to step off the path on the other side into abusing the gifts and the creation of God.
Yes, God created grapes. And, after the fall of man, they could ferment. The Fall brought about fermentation and drunkenness.
It’s not legalism to call foolish choices what the Bible says is foolish. It’s not wrong to call sin what the Bible calls sin.
David: The fall brought about fermentation? Seriously? You mean pickles, yogurt, kimchi and sauerkraut were impossible before the fall? No vinegar before the fall?
If fermentation did not occur until after the fall, that means that mushrooms did not exist until after the fall as well, seeing as the main cause of alcohol fermentation is yeast, which is a fungus, just like mushrooms. Indeed the way mushrooms break down organic matter is very similar to what yeast does in alcoholic drinks. So there we have it, no mushrooms until after the fall. One could then argue that mushrooms are inherently sinful as they were not apart of God’s original plan of creation, and have come about only because of sin entering the world.
Oh but I can do one better. The way that bacteria which live in our guts break down our food, drawing out the nutrients and discarding the waste, is in many ways similar to what yeast does in alcoholic drinks. Indeed, the gut flora (as they are known) actually FERMENT things like fiber and turn them into various beneficial fatty acids and vitamins. If fermentation did not begin until after the fall, then I wonder how Adam and Eve actually got any nutrition from the veggies they were eating. I guess also our entire digestive system is sinful, you know, with all the fermentation going on.
I got another, if you are using “no fermentation before the fall” to signify that there was absolutely no death and decomposition before the fall, then were Adam and Eve created with only molars? Many of out teeth are actually more beneficial and helpful in the eating of meat rather than vegetables. And I doubt that cows were going around volunterally going around and taking a chunk off of their sides and giving it to Adam and Eve and then continuing on happily on its way no worse for the wear. So did God create Adam and Eve with all herbivore teeth and then after the fall gave them (and their decedents) omnivore teeth? Or did God create them with omnivore teeth at the beginning…What does THAT say about creating humans to eat meat before anything could “die”? That is unless your theology about animal death, decomposition, and fermentation before the fall is flawed.
Or do you actually want to suggest that it is only the fermentation of alcohol that did not happen before the fall? And everything else, gut flora, mushrooms, eating animals, are excluded from your assumptions about pre-fall creation.
I respectfully disagree with you. I really don’t believe fermentation or spoiling or anything turning bad or dying occurred until after the Fall. Mosquitos didn’t bite people either. The environment was perfect. So, all that stuff that y’all are saying had to be this way, and this had to be before that could happen is looking at things from our perspective; on this side of the fall of man.
No, things didn’t ferment before the fall because that would mean that things could ruin, or die. Things didn’t die before the Fall.
David,
you said:
“Yes, God created grapes. And, after the fall of man, they could ferment. The Fall brought about fermentation and drunkenness.
It’s not legalism to call foolish choices what the Bible says is foolish. It’s not wrong to call sin what the Bible calls sin.”
True. But my argument didn’t say anything against that.
My argument is that men pervert the things of God and in doing so, sin.
That fermented wine does not cause sin. Men who abuse wine cause their own sin, not the wine.
Jesus turning water into fermented wine did not cause sin, even if man got drunk on it.
Their choices are on them.
Thus wine isn’t sinful, getting drunk is.
And when you step out of that narrow path, on either side, you err.
Our digestive systems are dependent on bacteria breaking down organic matter in order to survive. If for whatever reason you have no bacteria in your intestines that is a very bad thing.
Secondly, eating veggies is killing that which is a live or has the potential to be a live. Whether it is leaves (lettuce), roots (carrots, potatoes, ect), or seeds (fruits), by eating those in most cases we are killing that plant, or at the very least a portion of it. If NOTHING died before the fall, what did Adam and Eve eat?
Parson,
Then you’re saying that Jesus made an alcoholic beverage for a bunch of guests, who were already drunk? I’m sorry, Brother, but I just can’t agree with you. I love you, in the Lord, but I just absolutely cannot agree with you.
If nothing decayed or spoiled until after the fall, then things like fruit and vegetable peelings, apple cores, seeds, etc, as well as human and animal feces and urine would simply pile up. How would plants be sustained without natural mulching and fertilizer? What did bacteria do before the fall? Why would you say mosquitoes didn’t bite people? That’s exactly what they are designed to do, which doesn’t kill people by the way. How would plants propagate, since the outer hull of seeds has to break down to allow water and nutrients in.
And you are saying no plants died before the fall? I don’t know of any Young Earth Creationists who think plants didn’t die before the fall. Humans and animals ate plants. plants die when they are picked and eaten. You realize that if every living reproduced but never died, the earth would fill with plants and animals very quickly.
As has been pointed out, our digestive system relies on the bacterial breakdown of plant and animal foodstuffs.
Ruminants like cows, goats, sheep, etc, have 4 stomachs, one of which, the rumen, is specifically designed to ferment what is eaten.
Vol,
Where exactly in the text of John 2 do we see definitively that the people were already “drunk”? Or is that something you reading into the text?
SV, you say, “And I doubt that cows were going around volunterally going around and taking a chunk off of their sides and giving it to Adam and Eve and then continuing on happily on its way no worse for the wear.”
Are you arguing that men were meat eaters before the flood considering Genesis 1:29, 30 and Genesis 9:2,3?
While I recognize that many will argue about the propriety of teetotalism in SBC life, I do not think it is arguable that it is a deal breaker in SBC life. Most pastors if caught in the situation I illustrated above in the OP would be disciplined, perhaps fired. As a pastor, I understood that it was an unwritten job requirement that I not drink. No committee ever asked me if I drank. They presumed that as a Southern Baptist pastor, I did not. Maybe that isn’t true in some areas or circles these days.
Oh, I think you are absolutely right William. There is certainly a stigma attached, with gossip to follow, if a Godly man is seen near a bottle of wine. The problem though is more about the gossip and ignorance of scripture on the part of the onlooker ready to pounce with judgement, …..since most all (not all of course) Pastors are not drunkards, nor have been drunk during their tenure as Pastors.
Some men that Pastor become drunkards, and thus disqualify themselves from being an Elder to Pastor the church. Its just that simple.
Many folks like the chase though, and feel a bit more emboldened and are pleased to place judgement as they place a man of God within arms reach of a wine bottle. They simply need to grow up and mature.
Lead us not into to temptation . . . The man that NEVER consumes any alcohol will NEVER become an alcoholic. The Bible does NOT teach nor require tee-totalism. But, that is a prudent course of action for any man in the ministry. Perry Noble’s life would be dramatically different had he chosen this course of action.
I have 13 grandchildren. One of the “Life Principles” I inculcate in them is ‘Don’t do stupid’! That is an abbreviated and cryptic way of saying measure carefully what you propose to do and consider fully the probable consequences of any given action.
Perry Noble and family need our prayers. All of us, myself included, must heed that warning – ‘Don’t do stupid!’ Consider wisely and prayerfully any action. The first step may well lead to damaging consequences and ultimate ruin.
Pardon,
Answer my question about the wedding feast at Cana. Did Jesus turn that water into fermented wine for a crowd that had already well drunk? I mean, the Bible says that they had already drank a lot. Did Jesus contribute to their drunkenness?
The wine at the wedding was fermented. That’s a clear reading of the text. Anything else would not have been accepted as the best by the master of the wedding.
You assume that people were drunk because of what the master says. That’s not necessarily the case nor a clean reading of the passage.
They had drank a lot. That’s what it means. So, you are saying that Jesus made more alcohol for the wedding party. I’m sorry, but that’s just not a place I would want to go as a Believer. That’s calling Jesus a bad bartender and contributing to the drunkenness of the crowd. That’s very dangerous crowd.
I have somewhat hesitated to get into this thread or the other thread about Perry Noble. The reason is that a well known brother has fallen and regardless of the reason, it is a sobering thing to every pastor, or at least it should be. I am praying for Perry Nobel, his family, his church, and his friends in this hard time.
Now, William Thornton has written a post about the SBC and alcohol. he has written from his years of experience and interaction with multiple churches, pastors, church members, and the public. It is my opinion that his article is worthy of serious reflection by anyone in or going into ministry.
With that being stated, I shall state what I have stated over and over to anyone. It is my strong conviction that the use of alcohol as a beverage is unwise. It is especially unwise for women in their child-bearing years and, in my opinion, for any and all ministers of the gospel. I believe it to be unwise to use alcohol as a beverage.
I want to add to CB’s thoughts. By extension, abstention is wise in that it completely avoids the complications that can arise. And we need to lovingly preach the Gospel to both those who sin and those who are believers as a reminder that in Christ Jesus we are new creatures and we have set aside all idolatry and excuses for sin.
Good thoughts, CB. I do not think it is always unwise – but it certainly can be – discernment and common sense should be used – and thank you for phrasing your conviction as just that – your conviction – your opinion – I think that many others who argue from the total abstention viewpoint could learn a lot from that.
On the other side of the coin – those who are moderationists should not argue that its a good idea for everyone – nor should they, IMO, actively encourage others to engage in consumption.
I strongly believe that this is a Romans 14, freedom/weakness of conscience issue and both “sides” should respect the other and neither should look down on or needlessly offend the other causing them to stumble.
SV,
In the Garden, we’re told that they ate fruit and vegetables. They also had perfect bodies, in a perfect environment. Things were much different, back then….and, much better. But, they didn’t know anything about death, until they fell, and all of creation fell with them. Then, God killed two animals, and took the skins, and covered Adam and Eve. Then, they knew about death. Then, we had fermentation, and rotting, and spoiling. Then, we had animals eating other animals, and man eating steak and fish, etc.
David
Fruits and veggies die when you eat them. Your body produces waste, which you had better hope decomposes.
;-0 😉 😉 Yep! The explosion would be worse than “heartburn.”
Of course their bodies broke down what they ate. That’s not the same as something just rotting out in the open air. It’s not the same as fermenting and turning bad. But anyway, we are getting into a lot of speculating at this point.
Also, I would not want to be around when CB explodes!!!!!
So before the fall, the remains of the fruits and veggies Adam and Eve and all the animals ate, just lay on the ground, forever fresh? The same with their excrement? David I fear this is beyond the fringe of what even the most ardent YECers believe. Fermentation is not “going bad”. Do you eat nothing fermented? Fermentation is a necessary process for a lot of animals.
Why assume the people at the wedding feast had a lot to drink?
First, they ran out of wine. I would assume they had a pretty ample supply of wine in anticipation of the wedding crowd. A lot of people probably consumed a lot of wine for them to have run out.
Second, John 2:10 says,
And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!”
Notice he said after they have “well drunk.” While he is speaking in general, it is easy to assume he was also referring to the guests at Cana as having “well drunk.” Or, they were filled.
The point is that if they had been drinking a lot of fermented wine, they likely would already have been drunk. If you assume Jesus provided great amounts more of fermented wine, it seems like Jesus is contributing to their drunken condition. There is a real ethical problem with this view.
However, unfermented wine was common in that day and could easily be preserved and provided at any time of the year.
Assuming they were filled with good, unfermented wine, there is absolutely no problem with Jesus providing much more of the good, unfermented type of wine. And that is what the sinless Christ did on that day.
Notice that even though they drank much wine, there is no hint of drunkenness at this wedding feast. Nobody went home and beat his wife. No one got stopped for drunk donkey riding. Because the wine was the good, unfermented fruit of the vine.
David R. Brumbelow
This contains quite the leap of logic. You are making a big assumption about what the wine was or was not. They may have “well drunk” a lot of watered-down, weak wine. They may have had a huge crowd and perhaps the wine Jesus made was good enough for a pint a person. It takes a lot more wine to get drunk than other drinks. There are so many assumptions here. Also, the research on unfermented wine in that period? Not a lot of people alive today who were there. Wondering if perhaps there were recipes for the unfermented wine that we have on record.
To me, the best view is not to make a bunch of assumptions, but read the text in its simple presentation, then infer what we know about Jesus. He probably knew how much everyone had to drink, loved everyone there, cared about the host’s reputation, and oh yeah, knew what he was doing because he remained sinless. Those are logical assumptions we can make because Scripture supports it.
Scripture says Jesus turned water into wine, not alcohol.
The Greek word used is oinos.
It was used to refer to alcoholic wine, as well as to nonalcoholic wine.
Just based on this word, you cannot prove He made alcoholic wine, or nonalcoholic wine. Oinos was used both ways.
So, either view is an interpretation.
David R. Brumbelow
Suppose they had been drinking unfermented wine the whole time, and then Jesus made fermented wine?
They had been drinking for 4 days. It was a party. You don’t serve Welches at a 4 day party. Jesus made wine – and He made really good wine. Jesus drank fermented wine, as did the apostles. As did the early church.
Joel,
It’s clearly sinful to get drunk, or high on liquor. So, you’re saying that Jesus sinned? Or, that He contributed to the sin of the people of that wedding party? I mean, if they’d been drinking fermented wine for 4 days, then they would’ve all been drunk.
David
David,
Its wrong to lust after a woman not ones wife.
God has put many women on the planet.
Has God contributed to the sin of ogling males?
“Its wrong to lust after a woman not ones wife.
God has put many women on the planet.
Has God contributed to the sin of ogling males?”
parsonsmike,
In my lifetime, I have committed much evil and have been guilty of many things. However, I have never yet been guilty of the “sin of ogling males.” 😉
“Ogling Males” sounds like some fantasy football team name or an alternative rock band’s name…
CB, I think parsonsmike was saying, “Has God Contributed to the sin of “ogling males” (noun), by creating many beautiful women?”
But as far as the sin of ogling (at) males, I know you to be a fan of the Crimson Tide, that you enjoy watching the team play every season, you enjoy it very much (as well as you should! ROLL TIDE!) But could it not be said that you are, “ogling (at) males”? “Boy those crimson jerseys and helmets have never looked so good!” Just food for thought.
Mike, the better comparison would be Jesus making prostitutes and strippers and bringing them into a batch or party. Or, if the Lotd made more doobies for a crowd that had already gotten high because they’d been smoking weed for 4 days.
Ogling males. Lol
Ogling women folk.
Tide followers like to correct Buckeyes like me…
But Volfan,
My comparison is valid.
God has made many things in this world and people are accountable for misusing what God has made, whether it be grapes for wine, or eyes for seeing. Its what one does with what God has made that is the sin. Not the God who created. Jesus creating wine doesn’t mean He aided anyone in getting drunk.
Did anyone get drunk? You don’t know. Thus you have no case.
Did God make berries that He knew would be made into alcohol? Well yes He did.
The sin isn’t in the alcohol, its in and of the person who abuses it.
By the way, my earthly father did abuse it, and I do not nor ever have drank more than a sip of alcohol in my 50+ years. And that sip was close to 40 years ago.
I wasn’t around before the Fall, so I don’t want to speculate as to the nature of fermentation or mushrooms (both of which made Professor Tolkien very happy, but I digress).
As Parson Mike said so well above, there are many things in this world which can be used to God’s glory, or abused to man’s destruction. A mature Christian ought to take the whole counsel of God into account and apply it dutifully to their own life. Yes, the Bible says wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, but it also says that wine gladdens the heart. It says do not be drunk but be filled with the Spirit, but it also says God has richly given us all things to enjoy. Yes it says in Romans 14 to abstain from certain foods (or drinks) for the conscience of the weaker brother, but just prior to that there is an admonition against judging your brother for he is the servant of God, and it is God’s place to judge. Also, where is the opportunity to help strengthen the weaker brother? It’s an admonition against flaunting one’s freedom. So if that means you enjoy in the privacy of your home, or places apart from your fellowship, or just plain abstention because that is best, then do that. Let each one be convinced in his own mind.
I for one do not have an addictive tendency toward substances. However, I have an addictive tendency toward other things that cause me problems and those are the things of which I must be most wary. But I also do not consider myself impervious to the dangers of alcohol, so I remain vigilant and am not reckless with it. I always am eating if I have a drink, I usually have one of whatever it is but I enjoy it, conscience clear. I am careful not to imbibe where folks from my church might run into me, not out of fear or guilt, but out of respect for them. And it is a rare occurrence, anyway.
The key question for me is what drives you to do the thing? If you have a beer with dinner because you like it, that’s ok reasoning to me. If you have several beers because you want to get a buzz to numb your stress, you might have a problem. If you talk to your wife out of concern for someone who has fallen into sin, you’re probably ok. If you talk to others in the church about someone else’s problems and it makes you feel better about your life, you might be a gossip. If you enjoy a fruitful sexual relationship with your spouse, good for you. If you engage with pornography and feed your lust with your eyes, you have a problem.
While I don’t buy the case that either of the Davids make about the matter, we all end up in the same place: it’s best to leave alcohol alone. That should be the example we set for our family, friends, and church. It is what is expected for almost all SBC pastors.
William,
Good point.
We may disagree on some details,
but we agree that drinking alcohol is a bad idea and a poor testimony.
David R. Brumbelow
This is so strange to me. And I think it would be strange to the first century church. The policy and shame associated with alcohol wreaks of legalism. It’s a law that is not prescribed in scripture. Why create more law? It’s completely unnecessary and fosters a culture of shame and a vain sense of holiness.
“It . . . fosters a culture of shame and a vain sense of holiness.”
No, it does not. That’s simply not true anymore than to state that alcohol used as a beverage by a Christian means he/she is a liberal antinomian and a lush.
You mean you don’t think Christian moderationists are such, CB?
Tarheel,
No. I do not believe that Christian moderationists who are biblically and theologically sound are “liberal antinomians and lushes.”
However, I do believe that when the Christian moderationist who is biblically and theologically sound ceases to use alcohol as a beverage and he continues to be biblically and theologically sound, he will have the best days of his ministry life ahead of him. 😉
As I have stated many times here before: “I strongly contend that the use of alcohol as a beverage is unwise.” 😉
There’s our beloved CB!
😉