Balance, schmalance…”beer is a gift to be enjoyed in moderation” sayeth my neighbor Georgian evangelical pastor…and brewer.
Heavenly balance? A craft-beer-brewing, evangelical pastor
Alas, the dilemma of today’s newspaper editors. If an evangelical pastor founds a brewery, where should the story go? Better put it in the business, not religion, section of the paper, but be sure to include more than a little about the church angle; you know, details like the brewery founder has a degree from the venerable Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the concept that “beer brings people together”.
Eureka! Beer + people + religion = church, a craft sort-of church. Think boutique.
Well, so what?
Craft breweries have popped up like tattoo parlors and dry herb vape pen shops, they’re everywhere. And, this beer-and-church concept was pioneered a generation ago by clever, shirt tailed whippersnappers using promo lines like “suds and theology,” remember? Where’s the relevancy? Where’s the news value in this?
Even though the SBC has multiple resolutions against alcohol, we only go to the extent of kicking out churches for being gay friendly these days, not beer-friendly. The church in question is not listed in the SBCnet database. Perhaps the SBTS-trained pastor, who declares that starting a brewery is a lot tougher than starting a church, wanted to keep life simple, the church side of it anyway.
So, maybe it’s just no more than an interesting story, right?
Then again, the brewery is named “Reformation Brewery,” which jacks up the potency of a post like this, eh? Alcohol + SBTS + Reformation…critical mass has been achieved, an important matter to SBCers, especially the “critical” part (“mass’ we leave to the Catholics).
What’s left to say but……”cheers.”
[And, yeah, I know that this is so 2011 to some here. But the AJC article is today. And lest I incur wrath from the Matthew 18 crowd, believe me, both the brewery and the church will be appreciative of the publicity.]
Cheers to this brother!
Cheers and Amen!
Clever William, clever, indeed.
Why do I suspect that this post will end up with a critical mass of comments?
When you have been posting here as long as you and I have you know where this is headed.
Train wreck city.
And a whole bunch of endorsements for a certain gulf coast book. Lol
Your neighbor pastor would be right.
I want to say up front that I’m sympathetic to both sides of this discussion, which I guess may automatically put me in the moderationist camp. However, the one thought I’d like to share does not concern is more related to unity and diversity within the SBC and how that relates to alcohol.
I went to my first SBC annual meeting a couple years ago when it was in Houston. Some dear brothers who were African American and came from an all African American church (until I joined) came with me. By God’s grace, they had gone from being a Word of Faith church with a health & wealth message to gospel-preaching Baptists adhering to the New Hampshire Confession. Quite a story – but that’s for a different time.
Anyway, these brothers were convinced that the biblical prescription for the Lord’s Supper is to serve bread and wine. While we were at the annual meeting, during the presentation from Guidestone, somehow (don’t ask me how) our esteemed leader managed to make a jab at moderationists and insinuate that anything other than abstinence is just stupid. To be fair, he didn’t call it stupid, but from the tone and language that was how it came across. Thankfully, my brothers there didn’t take this too badly, but they were still pretty shocked that someone could take a swing at drinking wine during a presentation on the state of Guidestone.
By God’s grace, these brothers are still committed to joining the SBC, which I believe is great progress for unity in the gospel, especially here in Mississippi. But if we end up fighting over non-essentials rather than championing the non-negotiable, then we may lose many more opportunities such as this. Can we not just admit that these are not primary issues? Drunkenness is for sure, and we all oppose that. Can we not leave this at the same level as eschatological preferences? (Which, by the way, the BFM does talk about eschatology but never mentions the consumption of alcohol.) For crying out loud, there are churches in the SBC in serious disagreement with the BFM as it relates to believers’ Baptism preceding the Supper, but nobody’s scolding them for that even though it goes against the statement of faith. If we can love each other and be patient enough with each other to even allow flexibility with our official statement of faith, then can we not do the same with issues not even in the BFM?
Joker face – “And Here. We. Go.”
LOL. Just don’t try any magic tricks. 😉
Create a topic on Billy Graham or the need for discipleship, and no one bats an eye. Create a topic on alcohol in the SBC and everyone goes crazy!
You win the internet!
Common Myths regarding the use of beverage alcohol during pregnancy.
Myth: My doctor said it’s fine to have a glass of wine or two while pregnant.
Your doctor might not be informed about the risk of prenatal alcohol exposure or could be uncomfortable talking with you about the risks to your embryo or fetus associated with prenatal alcohol use. Unfortunately, many doctors are not properly educated about the risks associated with prenatal alcohol exposure. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advises women to not consume any alcohol while pregnant. Some doctors tell women that it’s okay to drink a little wine because they are not comfortable talking with women who might not be interested in abstaining from alcohol or have difficulty doing so.
Myth: My friends or family members drank a bit and their kids are fine.
Every pregnancy is different. Not everyone who drinks while pregnant will have a child with measurable problems at birth, adolescence, or even adulthood, just like not every cigarette smoker will develop lung cancer. The fact remains that alcohol is toxic to the developing baby. Why take the risk?
Also, some children may have subtle damage from being exposed to alcohol that is not evident until school-age or later, such as problems with learning and behavior. In many of these cases, the problems are most often not linked to the prenatal alcohol exposure, inhibiting an accurate diagnoses and delaying appropriate intervention. According to Dr. Susan Astley Ph.D. and Dr. Therese Grant Ph.D., “Children exposed to and damaged by prenatal alcohol exposure look deceptively good in the preschool years. The full impact of their alcohol exposure will not be evident until their adolescent years.”
Myth: There is no evidence of any effects from just one drink.
Dr. Michael Charness of Harvard Medical School gives just one example: “We’ve been able to show very striking effects of alcohol on the L1 cell adhesion molecule, a critical molecule for development, at concentrations of alcohol that a woman would have in her blood after just one drink.”
Myth: A little bit of wine helps to reduce stress and can be healthy while pregnant.
The potential benefits of alcohol use during pregnancy to the mother are separate from and are outweighed by the potential risk to the mother’s developing child. The scientific and medical research is very clear: No published biomedical research has found any risk-free benefit of prenatal alcohol exposure for the embryo or fetus. Hundreds of papers have conclusively demonstrated that alcohol use has the potential to cause both physical and functional damage to a growing baby.
The good news is that the vast majority of women in the U.S. stop drinking alcohol when they are pregnant. Those who continue drinking may do so because they do not understand the risks of continued drinking or because alcohol is a part of their lifestyle that they do not want to or cannot give up. Women commonly cite the need to relax as one of the reasons they drink during pregnancy even if they understand the risks. Pregnant women should ask their doctor about the diet and exercise that is appropriate for them, and to relax they might listen to soothing music, pamper themselves, take a bath, read, eliminate guilt, try deep breathing or meditation, schedule time for themselves with no responsibilities or distractions, and don’t hesitate to ask their friends and family for help if they feel overwhelmed or uncomfortable.
Myth: On a holiday or special occasion, it’s perfectly fine to at least have a few celebratory sips.
The human body functions the same, whether it’s a holiday or not. Alcohol does not somehow lose it’s toxicity in utero because it happens to be New Year’s Eve, or because wine is consumed instead of whiskey, or because the drinker has an advanced academic degree and a high socioeconomic status. The risk of prenatal alcohol exposure is not a risk to the health of the expectant mother; it is a risk to the development of her offspring.
The guidance to abstain from alcohol when pregnant is not intended to interfere with a woman’s lifestyle choice to consume alcohol or in any way judge a woman for choosing to enjoy her favorite alcoholic beverage; it is intended to eliminate the chance her baby will have even the slightest reduction in their intellectual and physical abilities.
Myth: One glass of wine is not enough for the developing baby to even be exposed to the alcohol.
Any alcohol consumed by a pregnant woman is passed to the developing baby, even if it’s a small amount. There is no threshold of prenatal alcohol consumption below which the baby is not exposed.
Myth: Drinking wine is better than using heroin or cocaine while pregnant.
Alcohol, including wine, causes far more damage to the developing baby than any other drug. The Institute of Medicine says, “Of all the substances of abuse (including cocaine, heroin, and marijuana), alcohol produces by far the most serious neurobehavioral effects in the fetus.” No type of alcohol or illicit drugs consumed during pregnancy are completely without risk.
Myth: You have to be an alcoholic to drink enough to cause real damage
The medical research is clear: Drinking at a level below the threshold for alcoholism can still cause damage to the growing baby. There are many women who are not alcoholics that have children with measurable effects of alcohol exposure. Damage can be caused by a pregnant woman’s lack of awareness of the risks–not only as a result of her alcoholism.
Myth: Alcohol can only cause physical deformities. If the baby looks normal, it must be fine.
The vast majority (over 85%) of children with damage from prenatal alcohol exposure have no physical birth defects, only cognitive and/or behavioral consequences. There is such a wide range of effects that most subtle behavioral and cognitive difficulties are rarely diagnosed as alcohol-related.
Myth: It is alarming and even condescending for a doctor or anyone else to advise a woman to abstain from alcohol during pregnancy.
In the United States 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, so it is possible that the first time a woman is told that alcohol can harm her pregnancy is after she is already pregnant and has been drinking. It is important for physicians to advise the woman of the risks of alcohol use during pregnancy, be nonjudgmental, and provide guidance for an appropriate intervention if necessary. If a woman has been drinking alcohol during her pregnancy, the earlier she stops the greater the chance that her child will not have alcohol-related birth defects.
All women should be reminded of the risk of prenatal alcohol exposure. If a woman is informed of the risk and decides to drink, that is her decision–NOFAS is opposed to any rules, regulations, or statutes that seek to punish or sanction women for drinking alcohol during pregnancy. Practitioners should always inform their patients about the risks of known exposures.
It is important for pregnant women to be reminded that proper nutrition, good general health, and early and regular prenatal doctor visits might help reduce the effects of light drinking during pregnancy. It is believed that some women have a genetic predisposition that increases the vulnerability of their embryo or fetus to alcohol exposure, and, consequently, some women have a genetic make-up that reduces their vulnerability for having an alcohol-effected birth. However, the scientific community does not know for sure whether or not these genetic and epigenetic factors (changes in how genes are expressed without altering the underlying DNA sequence) contribute to the vulnerable pregnancies for certain women.
The Simple Approach
Thousands of pieces of research have shown alcohol to be a neurotoxin in utero. That means alcohol is a toxic substance to the developing baby just like carbon monoxide and lead. Alcohol causes the death of developing brain cells in the embryo or fetus. Common sense advises not exposing a developing baby to any amount of a toxic substance.
CB, not to trivialize ANYTHING you said there, as I strongly agree with all of it. I’m just wondering if you could clarify how that ties in to the topic of the original post?
The info you gave seems better suited for a separate post as it’s most certainly good information that everyone should be aware of, but it seems like this is straying from the topic at hand.
If the discussion is about the rightness of drinking in general, or about whether it’s wise for a baptist to open a brewery, then I’m just not seeing how these facts are helping further the discussion. Perhaps you’re intending to write another comment to draw some conclusions from that data, and if that’s the case I look forward to that and you can count this comment as merely premature.
Grace and peace.
Bob Browning,
I am not arguing the “rightness” or “wrongness” of the use of beverage alcohol within the parameters of Scripture. I will leave that to others.
My position has always been that it is unwise to use alcohol as a beverage.
Bob, a few years ago, I wrote a post about the use of alcohol as a beverage. I have been told that the comment thread was one of the longest in SBC Voices history. Nevertheless, I contended one thing and one thing only. It is unwise to use alcohol as a beverage. That is my position.
I realize that I have committed brothers and sisters who follow Jesus as closely or more so than do I who have a different position. I concede the fact that they can make a strong argument for their position from Scripture.
However, the information I presented in my first comment is based on new research reported as recently as 01-08-2016. My sources are basically secular.
Bob, there are two afflictions I deal with every day. I have read extensively about both. I am not the final authority on either, but I can speak with knowledge on both. I know they are both killers. There is a cure for neither. I hate them both.
One of them remains in darkness as to its cause. The other is caused only by one thing. That one thing is the use of alcohol as a beverage. Therefore, I shall speak of that of which I know and let others argue its theological merits and let the devil take the hindmost parts with the rest of it.
I do wonder if a glass or two is okay when Alabama wins the national championship in football. Surely, when such evil occurs, CB, just a small amount to make a person forget?
Fortunately, I was in Africa, so I didn’t have to see how far my lifelong teetotalitarianism would carry me in that moment of great evil.
When Auburn beats Alabama, could that drive CB to sip just a little to wash away his tears?
Les,
Such an event is of such a severity that only a stint in sackcloth and ashes give me any degree of comfort.
Dave Miller,
My personal experience has been that once the “small” or “large” amount it takes for one to forget wears off, reality returns.
Here is reality. The Crimson Tide is a winner, always has been a winner, always will be a winner. Why? Because we are winners. We own the sport of FOOTBALL. We always will. . . . and no matter what one does to run away from this fact, the reality of our greatness as the SABANATION is without place, time, or beverage of escape.
We are the CRIMSON TIDE. We are FOOTBALL.
ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!!
I think we should start calling Alabama the Crimson Trumps – because CBs rhetoric is very similar to that of the Donald when he’s talking about his precious Alabama.
😉
Tarheel,
One big difference: I’m not lyin’. . . . but who am I to “RUB” “It” “On” and on?
I thought Big 10 fans got out of the football business in January; I haven’t heard a peep from one. All year we heard chirping about an overrated SEC receiving favoritism.
9-2 in bowl games and just look at the scores
Alabama/Michigan State (big 10 champs) 38-0
LSU/Texas Tech 56-27
Mississippi State/NC State 51-28
Tennessee/Nwestern (compared by Dave all year to Ole Miss) 45-6
Georgia(they fired their coach and they still beat Big 10 opponent)/Penn St 24-17
Arkansas/Kansas St 45-23
Ole Miss/Oklahoma St 48-20
Auburn/Memphis 31-10
So not to highjack the post, I do not drink alcohol and find it puzzling a pastor makes door to door visits – selling beer.
CB is welcome to post anything about pregnancy and alcohol. Dave Brumbelow is welcome to post anything about his book on alcohol and the Bible. Dave Miller is not welcome to post even a syllable about the Yanquis.
Yankees.
Since this post was about a Reformed church and a brewery, I have a question.
How many people here are Reformed, Calvinist, and are against drinking alcohol?
David R. Brumbelow
David B., I don’t know on this forum. But I can say that in my PCA circles, most hold the position of Christian liberty regarding drinking alcohol. Quite a few in my PCA circle hold that view and are personally teetotalers. I know quite a few Southern Baptists who are Reformed and I’d say most are libertarian on alcohol and many I know personally are teetotalers.
That sounds like the PCA folks I know and the SB Reformed folks I know are about the same. But what I’m trying to say is the Reformed Baptists I know are somewhat less libertarian and more teetotaler types than the PCA folks.
Last, there is a bigger difference in both groups by age. Younger folks are much more tolerant to alcohol than the blue hair crowd.
Thanks Les. I was just wondering if there were any Calvinists here who were against drinking. I know some are, but apparently not here.
Two examples, one past, one present: Charles Spurgeon and John MacArthur.
David R. Brumbelow
I don’t know David B. How many professing teetotalers actually drink secretly?
How many “Trads” are actually conscientiously open to the idea of moderation but toe the prohibitionist line out of fear of being labeled by those who view it legalistically?
I would agree with the quote in the article by John MacArthur,
“It’s puerile and irresponsible for any pastor to encourage the recreational use of intoxicants.”
I’d also agree with Adrian Rogers,
“The position of a man, woman, boy or girl ought to be total abstinence.”
“It is the moderate drinker that encourages other people to drink.”
“You may be very surprised at who you may hurt with your ability to hold your liquor.”
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2016/02/adrian-rogers-on-alcohol-drinking-wine.html
David R. Brumbelow
David R.,
I don’t drink alcohol or beer. Never have. But when I want to know the truth of a thing, and how to live godly, I turn not to men and their opinions, but to the Word of God.
So here is some logic:
We aren’t to be drunkards so ban alcohol.
We aren’t to be gluttons, so ban food.
We aren’t to be promiscuous, so ban sex.
We aren’t to speak lies, so ban speaking.
I could go on, as you know.
But I think the point is made.
Humans can abuse lawful activities, and distort them, and live ungodly lives, but the problem isn’t in the lawful activity, but in the human.
And while I do support your right to opine on this matter, I need to ask the following question:
Does the Bible ban drinking alcohol and make it an UN-lawful activity?
Nope.
Neither than should you.
The linked article said brewers are faced with lots of regulations and can’t sell directly to the public.
There is a reason for that.
Many states purposely make it difficult and more expensive to sell alcohol.
Why?
To reduce consumption.
I even heard an alcohol representative, speaking at no less than an ACAP (American Council on Alcohol Problems) meeting, saying he agreed with this practice. He said we, the alcohol industry, makes enough money as it is, and if the price goes too low and getting it to the public is too easy, the rise in drinking will cause more problems than they can deal with. Then, he said, his industry will ultimately suffer.
So, interestingly, both abstainers and many in the alcohol industry, agree on these rules and regulations concerning alcohol production and distribution.
David R. Brumbelow
Here in Georgia, the reason gummit has archaic rules on alcohol manufacture and distribution has nothing to do with public health and welfare but is designed to be corporate welfare for big donor distribution companies. Clear case of gummit picking winners and losers. The winners are big donor fat cats and their servile politicians.
David, you said, “Many states purposely make it difficult and more expensive to sell alcohol. Why? To reduce consumption.”
I’m not sure I’d agree with that. If we look back at what happened during prohibition I think we learn the real answer, which is that people are willing to pay a high price for their pleasure. Thus, the state knows this is a money-making opportunity. That’s not to say your point doesn’t have an impact, but I don’t think it’s simply that the state is really watching out for people to the best of its ability.
Dave B.
“The linked article said brewers are faced with lots of regulations and can’t sell directly to the public.
There is a reason for that.
Many states purposely make it difficult and more expensive to sell alcohol.
Why?
To reduce consumption.”
or
To make sure they get their “sin tax”. Its a cash cow for the government. It’s all about the taxes.
In fact the govt.setting up govt. spending projects based on the p predicated on people buying and using it defies your point. It’s not about reducing consumption because if it were there would not be govt. programs set up absolutely depending on purchase and by extension consumption.
Leave this one to me, Tarheel. After all, I can read local news even I I don’t swill beer.
It’s not the taxes. The state has the ability to collect their tax on lots of stuff without forcing manufacturers to warehouse product with approved distributors before the consumer is sold the item. We have computers and stuff here in Georgia, you know.
It’s about the corporate welfare class maintaining their privileges. The craft micro-brewery cannot sell direct to stores. Coca-Cola can. Zoom Baits can (they make fishing stuff near me). Grandma’s Cookies can. Laws force Reformation Brewery to make their stuff, sell to a giant distributor, who sells to stores.
Same sweetheart deal for auto dealers. Tesla would have to set up a dealer network in GA. Why? Dealers have political power and if the state forces a manufacturer to cut them in on the money flow, they will pay politicians to keep that privilege.
It’s a racket. Been around forever. Don’t get distracted by the propaganda.
Besides, we have our own Sacred and Beloved Housing Allowance Gummit Clergy Welfare Tax Break.
William is exactly right. We are seeing this in Oklahoma right now. David B. lives in a fantasy world if he thinks the government is seeking to limit consumption.
But based on his book we already know that’s where he lives.
No matter….if it raises the price for beer and other types of liquor, then great! If it makes it more expensive to buy, then good. That will make it harder to get. That’s a good thing. They should raise the taxes on all alcohol products and tobacco products.
Great idea.
David
As long as they raise taxes on double cheeseburgers and Route 44 cokes as well. Obesity kills more people in America via heart disease and diabetes and stroke than alcohol.
And gluttony is actually a sin.
Seriously Vol, I thought you were a free market conservative. You really want taxes raised? You sound like a Democrat.
I kid. I kid. 😉
When did eating a bacon, double cheeseburger become a sin? What’s wrong with drinking a Route 44, cherry coke? When did it become sinful to be fat, or obese?
Gluttony is a sin; yes.
Besides, I’d rather meet CB Scott on the road, after he’s eaten a jumbo BBQ sandwich and fries, than to meet Bubba, who’s had a couple of drinks, down at the Redneck Riviera.
David
Ryan you are right about the obesity issue.
Vol, eating a bacon, double cheeseburger or drinking a Route 44, cherry coke is not a sin in an of itself. Neither is consuming alcohol a sin in and of itself. One can argue it may not be wise to consume alcohol, as CB does and argues it well. One can also effectively argue that eating bacon, double cheeseburgers or drinking Route 44, cherry cokes is not wise.
Les,
Eating a bacon, double cheeseburger is very wise. It satisfies the pains of hunger, and it tastes good.
Drinking a cherry coke is always a good thing. It delights the tastebuds, and it makes one feel good, again.
Now, alcohol is unwise. It can get a hold of you. It can take you down. It can cause people to act in ways, they normally would not. It can cause FAS in pregnant women. It can bite you like a rattlesnake. It can cause people to lose inhibitions, which leads to sinful things. It can cause people to run their cars into other people, and kill a Dad, or a Mom, or an entire family.
Don’t put any Jack in your black, Les. Just put cherry flavoring in it. It taste good, and you don’t have to worry about all the bad things it might cause in your life.
David
What is a Route 44 cherry coke? What is in it other than cherry flavor?
Vol, I do love a good bacon double cheeseburger. Not Cherry coke so much. DDP is my preferred soda.
I was simply pointing out that a) alcohol consumption is not necessarily a sin. May be wise or unwise. b. bacon double cheeseburgers and cherry Coke consumption is not necessarily a sin. May be wise or unwise. Personally, I think the burger is usually wise and the cherry coke not so much.
But people have wisdom views on both a and b.
Les
CB, CB, CB, have you lived so long without enjoying this delicious elixir of the Heavens?
Go down to your local Sonic, or DQ, or your local burger shack type restaurant. Order a cherry coke. If you go to the Sonic, get a Route 44 Cherry Coke…you’ll be able to drink on it the rest of the day.
All it is is coke, cherry flavor, and ice. The Sonic route 44 is 44 ounces of it. Your basic big boy.
David
Les,
Drinking Diet Dr. Pepper is worse than drinking George Dickel bourbon. I really didn’t think you’d be that kind of a person.
David
“Drinking Diet Dr. Pepper is worse than drinking George Dickel bourbon.”
I cannot agree with you Vol. I’ve been to the George Dickel distillery way back in the early 1980s. Then he and I had some shall we say, run ins. Lost my “taste” for George Dickel.
Fascinating tour BTW, even for teetotalers. As is the AB brewery tour here in St. Louis, even for teetotalers. Very informative and free! I want pics though if a bunch of you Baptist preachers go together on an AB tour this summer.
Oh! How foolish I feel. I was thinking that it had to do with mixture. I should have known it had to do with quantity.
Could be worse. Could be Caffeine-free Diet Mountain Dew. First time I saw that in the grocery store, my thought was “What’s the point?”.
Yeah, prohibition worked so well too. 😉
Yes, Ryan Abernathy,
William is right. However, there is no reason to make statements toward David R. Brumbelow suggesting he is unstable. His position is very defensible and has merit.
You cannot make his position appear to be that of a theological dwarf by casting aspersions toward his position as if he has pulled it from some mystical cloud which hovers over Neverland.
He is a good and honorable man and solid follower of Jesus. I will state that some of his friends are far less than honorable men, but I do not think him to be cut of the same cloth.
CB
I have mad respect for you and your position even though I do not agree with it. You do not attempt to manipulate the text make it say something it does not say. I respect that immensely.
David B does and that was the intent of my “fantasy land” comment. If you say he is a good man, I believe you. I don’t doubt that he is a brother in the Lord. I simply cannot condone the manipulation of the Bible to make it agree with one’s already decided position. The integrity of scripture is more important to me than any personal hobby horse.
I apologize if my comment was taken as an assault on his character. I meant it only against his scholarship.
Diet Dr. Pepper is the best of the diet sodas. Diet Mt. Dew is the worst.
William Thornton is right. It has always been that way. There is also another factor that is not that often spoken of among the law abiding citizenry. There is always the “white collar black market” operations that do not want “commercial Vandals and Visigoths” coming over the walls and undercutting the undercutting of the illegal vendors who undercut the legal vendors.
Not all pirates look like pirates, but all pirates will stick together to keep a new Captain Kid out of their waters.
Zoom baits!!! A 9 inch zoom watermelon seed colored plastic worn is the most deadly culprit I fish with.
Do not go messing with the production and selling of them or we are going to fall out of fellowship.
Used to know a guy who worked there who would give me the less than perfect baits. I don’t do much fishing since I retired.
“I don’t do much fishing since I retired.”
That sounds backwards.
Dean Stewart,
That does sound backwards. I was thinking the same.
Well, it’s sorta the way it worked out. When I think about fishing now, it’s too hot, too cold, too windy, too sunny, etc.
I think I went fishing three times last year.
“The three-tier system of alcohol distribution is the system for distributing alcoholic beverages set up in the United States after the repeal of Prohibition. The three tiers are producers, distributors, and retailers. The basic structure of the system is that producers can sell their products only to wholesale distributors who then sell to retailers, and only retailers may sell to consumers. Producers include brewers, wine makers, distillers and importers.”
“After Prohibition, the states began to seek methods to regulate and control the alcohol industry lest it return to the excesses and abuses that led to Prohibition years before. The states were also eager to devise a method to levy and collect taxes on alcohol producers. Both of these concerns led to the states individually creating environments in which single ownership of all three tiers (production, distribution and retail) was entirely or partly prohibited. As states were left by the 21st Amendment to regulate themselves, alcohol laws and the nature of the three tier system can vary significantly from state to state.”
“Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA), an influential trade organization and lobby group based in Washington DC that works to oppose initiatives to alter the three-tier model, contends that wholesalers not only sell alcohol but also perform state functions and are in the business of encouraging social responsibility concerning alcohol.”
-wiki
David R. Brumbelow
Archaic system but quite lucrative to segments of the industry.
David R. Brumbelow,
There has never been a time when there were not excesses and abuses in the regulation, sales, and control of the alcohol industry of this nation. The same is true of the regulations, sales, and control of tobacco and firearms. That is the reason we have the ATF.
Alcohol, tobacco, and weapons are commodities of which the normal laws of supply and demand never apply in regard to cost or taxation. The demand for all three shall never decrease and the supply shall forever be existent whether regulated or unregulated.
Tobacco use is price sensitive, particularly among younger users. It stands to reason that if society finds it in the general public interest to discourage kids from acquiring the habit, then tax policy should be used to elevate the price to the maximum effective point. OTOH, people with lower income and levels of education people use tobacco at higher rates, making a tax look like these were targeted.
Here’s an area where mods/libs and con baptists could cooperate.
William Thornton,
The sale of black market tobacco products will trump placing higher taxes on the products. The sale of un-taxed cigarettes has always been a source of revenue in this nation. Increasing the tax will only make it more profitable.
I thought this was supposed to be a place to talk about things related to the SBC… but it seems we’re just discussing the price of beer. Maybe if someone has the time they can go back up and read my first comment.
I’m really curious what some of the older crowd thinks about the fact that these kinds of discussions may push a lot of younger conservative evangelicals toward non-denom churches, even though they could be in 100% agreement with the BFM. Is abstinence really a sword we need to fall on at the convention level? Sincerely asking.
I see no way that any SBC annual session will yield a resolution that is less than total-teetotalism on steroids. And it’s not Calvinism in my view that drives the moderate drinking stuff but demographics.
But no, I don’t see that today’s typical religious consumer, church shopper puts alcohol high up on their list of must haves for a church. SBC churches have always been de jure dry but de facto rather damp, probably moreso now than previously. And I gather that the biblical case against any consumption of alcoholic beverage is not seen as very persuasive.
I bet even David Brumbelow had sea faring ancestors who would have died of thirst save for rum, grog, and beer.
“SBC churches have always been de jure dry but de facto rather damp, probably moreso now than previously.”
Yep, William Thornton. Having buried a few Baptist deacons and SS teachers with diseased livers, I am inclined to agree with you.
William has hit some important points here, I think:
1. “And it’s not Calvinism in my view that drives the moderate drinking stuff but demographics.”
–> I agree, while I was in a conservative Christian College in the late 90’s/ealy 2000’s, filled mostly with Baptist students…Even then It seemed most of the students were of the persuasion that alcohol use is often unwise, but not totally forbidden by scripture.
2. “But no, I don’t see that today’s typical religious consumer, church shopper puts alcohol high up on their list of must haves for a church.”
–> True for some perhaps, but if I were church-shopping, and I heard someone condemn as sinning any Christian who takes a drink of wine, my legalism radar immediately goes up, and I wonder what other extra-biblical sins they believe in. I would likely not end up joining such a church.
3. “And I gather that the biblical case against any consumption of alcoholic beverage is not seen as very persuasive.”
–> BINGO. As a 30-something younger SBC pastor/person, I can agree with all of the arguments not to use alcohol as a beverage, and in fact practice tee-totalling myself, and encouraging young people around me to abstain…While at the same time vigorously defending the liberty of my other Christian friends who do not abstain completely.
Interestingly, this was the position I grew up with under my wise father who, despite losing his younger brother to alcoholism that led to a fatal car crash in the 70’s, still defends the right of other Christians to drink, all the while abstaining and encouraging abstaining to his children.
I wrote off the the local 1st Baptist in town, because their Statement of Faith included the fact that “The sale, purchase, possession, or usage of alcohol as a beverage is a sin.” It’s not even that I crave alcohol as a beverage, but it told me a lot about the folks who attended the church, and who supported such a specific statement. This wasn’t buried in their church bylaws, but was one of the bullet point, “We believe”s, right up there with the Trinity and the Virgin Birth.
I remember during the worship wars some people left the Baptist faith and joined other denominations because they still had organs and hymnals. One member of my immediate family approached me saying they were joining another denomination because of music.
I pointed out the denomination they were considering joining baptized infants, did not believe in the eternal security of the believer, and had homosexual and lesbian pastors but at least they sing what you like and evidently that is the most important.
That would be my response on this issue. If a man leaves a denomination whose statement of faith matches his Biblical convictions for the sole reason he can drink whiskey with a church endorsement that cat has a problem.
Dean,
Amen and amen.
If people leave a church, because they want to have their ears scratched and tickled, then Adios.
David
Bob Browning,
You asked if discussing alcohol will push people away from our churches.
My first thought is that if using a recreational, mind altering drug (beverage alcohol) is wrong, we should speak against it whether it is popular or not. There is also the danger of someone saying, “Why didn’t you warn me?”
Many have said even if the Bible did not condemn alcohol, they would oppose it out of common sense and medical, scientific information.
We should not be silent about the most dangerous drug in America, because some get offended.
We should practice evangelism and missions without compromising our biblical convictions.
On the other hand,
I’m not advocating abstinence as a substitute for evangelism. Most of all, the alcoholic needs Jesus. Other things will come in due time. I’ve witnessed to a man with a beer in his hand, and never said a word about his beer. If you never touch a drop of alcohol but do not accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, it just means you will go to Hell sober.
Also, no one is saying alcohol needs to be preached every Sunday in every sermon. The opposite end of the spectrum, however, seems more prevalent today.
By the way, March 20, 2016 is Substance Abuse Sunday.
Last, Happy Texas Independence Day, March 2.
David R. Brumbelow
Ladies and Gentlemen,
When you read David R. Brumbelow’s comment of, March 2, 2016 at 9:44 am, you have to admit that you have read a comment that had its genesis in the heart of a pastor. No matter how you stand on the subject of this post, you have to agree that a man with a pastor’s heart has spoken.
I say: May his tribe increase.
CB,
I add my “amen” to this, as well.
David
CB, and Volfann,
Thanks very much.
And, I agree with the comments CB has made about fetal alcohol syndrome. Some have even advised the safest thing is for all women of child bearing age to abstain from alcohol because by the time a woman finds out she is pregnant, damage may have already been done.
Of course, the safest, wisest thing is for everyone to abstain.
David R. Brumbelow
BOB BROWNING: “I’m really curious what some of the older crowd thinks about the fact that these kinds of discussions may push a lot of younger conservative evangelicals toward non-denom churches, even though they could be in 100% agreement with the BFM. Is abstinence really a sword we need to fall on at the convention level? Sincerely asking.”
DAVID BRUMBLOW: “You asked if discussing alcohol will push people away from our churches….My first thought is that if using a recreational, mind altering drug (beverage alcohol) is wrong, we should speak against it whether it is popular or not.”
Even though I do not think any biblical case can be made for condemning a single glass of wine as sin, I agree with David here. IF one something is a sin, then we should speak against it no matter the popularity.
However, since I don’t believe it is a sin, I’m convinced that warning people about the dangers, perhaps practicing and even encouraging abstinence, without saying that those who drink are sinning is the more biblically faithful path.
One more thing, and I want to be clear that I am not saying David Brumblow does this across the board…I do not know him at all. BUT, it has been my experience in my fundamentalist up-bringing that those who draw a harsh line on this issue often draw un-biblical lines in other areas, such that growing up I heard at various times that the following were sinful: Playing cards, preaching without a tie on, using the church sanctuary for non-sacred activities, going to a movie theatre, drum sets and guitars in church, women wearing pants, and more. I have grown very wary of those who wish to call something sin that scripture does not.
To Bob’s question, I would simply say that most people join individual churches, not denominations. In our modern setting, a young person who was turned off by an SBC church preaching against alcohol could often easily go across town and find another SBC church that accepted it and had a brewery in the basement.
Andy,
When you said, “Playing cards, preaching without a tie on, using the church sanctuary for non-sacred activities, going to a movie theatre, drum sets and guitars in church, women wearing pants,” I would agree with you. Those things are not dealt with, in the Bible.
Alcohol is.
Proverbs talks about the foolishness of drinking fermented wine. It’s foolish to drink something that can bite you like a rattlesnake, and take over your life.
And, it’s sinful to get drunk on alcohol…to let liquor influence your emotions, and thinking, and choices. It’s sinful to let alcohol control your life. And, everything we’ve got today, with our distillery technology, is more potent than what they had back then. It doesn’t take a lot of hooch to influence a person’s thinking, emotions, and choices.
So, it’s foolish to drink alcohol as a beverage…to play with fire. And, it’s sinful to be drunk on it.
And, if people don’t want to come to a church, because they don’t want to hear the truth, then let them go join Joel Osteen’s church, and Churches like his. They’ll get their ears tickled, real good, at those spiritual country clubs.
David
Three deacons and myself have a running Rook game. We even play in the fellowship hall sometime but most of the time in our homes. The card game itself is not sinful but the lies and cheating we do sure are. 🙂
Ah, Rook. Back when I was going to Asbury College (now Asbury University), the school had a ‘no regular playing cards’ rule. As a result, Rook was rather popular.
Vol,
In all honesty, giving up card playin’ and pool shootin’ was really hard for me- near about killed me!. . . . and dancin’?? Now that one was almost more than I could handle. . . . almost made me join the Pentecostals.
Alcohol is dealt with in the bible, but it is not prohibited across the board. That is the difference. It is similar to Bart Barber’s recent article on Lent. I can agree with a lot of what he is saying, without going so far as to say those who practice lent are sinning. Paul addressed “observing special days” and concluded observing or not was ok. Bart agreed, and did not go so far as to say observing lent was sinful.
With alcohol, the biblical case for saying it is always sinful is weak. I do not find a biblical basis for telling my otherwise mature Christian relatives and friends that they are sinning if they have a drink. For me to do so would be to be calling something sinful that God does not unequivocally call sinful. It is my commitment to the sufficiency of scripture that leads me to this position.
When I go to a church, I DO want to hear the truth, but that truth does not include telling me that something is a sin that Scripture does not say is a sin.
So here I am, I’m a teetotaller who doesn’t believe abstinence from alcohol is require by scripture. I’m a tither who doesn’t believe a tithe is required by scripture. I’m a LENT non-observer who believes that observing lent is allowable by scripture. 🙂
Andy,
For each of the issues you bring up, and others, I’d simply say consider a couple of issues.
1. Does the Bible directly speak against it?
2. Do the teachings and principles of the Bible speak against it?
In the case of alcohol, I believe both speak against it.
Some who oppose alcohol would agree with #2, but not #1.
By the way, those who oppose slavery have mainly used #2 to oppose it.
David R. Brumbelow
PS – And in the case of Dean and his card playing, in church no less, a motion needs to be presented at the next SBC to remove them from our fellowship! 🙂
David, I think the problem is not that scripture doesn’t condemn alcohol abuse, or drunkenness, but that it in other places condones or even encourage it’s use. If it ONLY spoke about it in the negative, the case for biblical abstinence would be stronger.
Just for fun, In addition to alcohol, tithing, and lent, I’ll throw out one more thing in this category: Gambling. I don’t believe there is a blanket prohibition on gambling….so we have things like the stock market, raffles for charity, and perhaps even 2 boys saying, “I’ll race you to that stop sign and whoever loses buys lunch…” none of which I would say are sinful in and of themselves. 🙂
It seems that some consider the abstinence from the use of alcohol as a beverage issue of culture and generational morality, ethics, and biblical interpretation. I think that may be a limited perspective.
As more research comes to bear on alcohol consumption by women in their child-bearing years, I feel compelled to warn young adults and even teens as to what alcohol consumption can do and cause. Frankly, the subject of Lent and beverage alcohol consumption are apples verses oranges in my opinion.
Beverage alcohol consumption is dangerous to women/their unborn babies. I think it wise to stay away for its use. Especially, do I think it wise for young women. I will add that I think it unwise for young men to encourage their wives to use alcohol at social gatherings or even use it during meals. I think the best way for young men to help their wives not to use beverage alcohol is to abstain from its use themselves.
For consideration regarding the use of beverage alcohol:
According to the CDC and the U.S. Surgeon General, “There is no known safe amount of alcohol to drink while pregnant. There is also no safe time during pregnancy to drink and no safe kind of alcohol.”
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics:
“There is no safe amount of alcohol when a woman is pregnant. Evidence based research states that even drinking small amounts of alcohol while pregnant can lead to miscarriage, stillbirth, prematurity, or sudden infant death syndrome.”
When you drink alcohol, so does your developing baby. Any amount of alcohol, even in one glass of wine, passes through the placenta from the mother to the growing baby. Developing babies lack the ability to process, or metabolize, alcohol through the liver or other organs. They absorb all of the alcohol and have the same blood alcohol concentration as the mother. It makes no difference if the alcoholic drink consumed is a distilled spirit or liquor such as vodka, beer, or wine.
Alcohol is a teratogen, a toxic substance to a developing baby, and can interfere with healthy development causing brain damage and other birth defects. Most babies negatively affected by alcohol exposure have no physical birth defects. These children have subtle behavioral and learning problems that are often undiagnosed or misdiagnosed as Autism or Attention Deficit Disorder instead of one of the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
Andy,
I and many others do believe the Bible condemns the use of beverage alcohol. I believe it’s use is abuse.
Yes, in places the Bible condemns wine, in other places it commends wine.
But the word wine is used differently in Scripture and in the ancient world.
The Bible calls fermented wine by the word wine (Proverbs 20:1; 23:29-35; etc.).
The Bible also calls unfermented wine or grape juice by the word wine (Proverbs 3:10; Isaiah 16:10; 65:8; etc.)
In the very same verse (Matthew 9:17), Jesus even referred to both fermented and unfermented wine by the word wine (oinos). They knew how to preserve both kinds of wine.
They did not have a word for alcohol in the Bible. You have to determine from the context what kind of wine the Bible speaks of. But in the Bible, wine is not always synonymous with alcohol.
One example. The Bible speaks of fermented or alcoholic wine in Proverbs 23:29-35. They did not have a word for alcohol, so they described alcoholic wine by its effects. I don’t think anyone will disagree that here the Bible is speaking of fermented wine. And about that kind of wine, it says not to even look at it (23:31); in other words have nothing to do with it. I believe that is an example of the Bible directly speaking against alcohol.
These issues are discussed and defended in detail in
“Ancient Wine and the Bible.”
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2015/03/ancient-wine-and-bible-book-update.html
And William gave me permission to refer to it!
David R. Brumbelow
Thanks David,
I have read much about the different kinds of wine in the Bible, and on the topic in general. Even the explanations by total abstainers on passages like Deut. 14:26, in which they talk about the Jews diluting their “strong drink” so as to make it less potent… leads me to being very comfortable with my position of encouraging people to not drink, while not saying those who do are sinning.
I have no differing opinions with CB’s arguments.
And I in fact reject the idea put forward by some advocates of moderation that some social or evangelism situations would be hurt by not drinking. People turn down alcohol in “wet” settings all the time.
I lived in Boston Massachusetts for 2 years, attending a church in which most of the people drank alcohol, and often being in social settings with both church people and non-believers in which I was offered alcohol. I simply said “No thanks,” and nobody cared.