The Problem of “Southern Baptist” Branding

We did a formal, scientific poll in Kentucky and found a much more positive response to a similar question about “Kentucky Baptist.” I cannot remember the percentage, but I believe the positives were in the high 80s.

You know, you’re starting to risk being a “bad” blog, Tony. You really should post more choir hip hop.

“tech savior, well education” ?

I would argue that the majority of people following Thom Rainer are Southern Baptists. This does not describe how others see us, but how a portion of our convention sees ourselves.

I believe that Southern Baptists are very comfortable criticizing the others at the table. It reminds me of polls in which 90% of respondents claim that others are racist but only 3% claim they themselves are racist.

Southern Baptists are fundamentalist legalists….except for me of course, I am driven by grace and purity.

Tims last blog post..Quotable Thursdays

What do you expect. The SBC has an actual, official resolution prohibiting alcohol-use, effectively banning Jesus from attending an SBC seminary for ordination.

So, yeah, “legalistic” is pretty accurate.

I concur with Tim. I would think the majority of responders would be Southern Baptists if they “follow” Thom–so this is more of a “what do we think others see us as”. There is merit to that information as well.

However, It would be interesting to get the results from running the poll on several secular websites.

Kevin: Wait for it.

I think Jeff brought out an excellent question…why are we known as legalistic? I don’t think we should simply assume those who answered the poll were Southern Baptist. If this is an image problem we have with our culture in general, then it is a serious problem we need to address and correct (and I don’t mean with an advertising campaign).

If it is only Southern Baptist that have this perception, then we must ask what requirements we have that are legalistic? If we are legalistic because we ask people to share their faith, then I don’t mind the label. If we are legalistic because we ask people to study their Bibles, then I don’t mind the label. If we are legalistic because we require people to live a godly life, then I don’t mind the label.

However, if we are legalistic because a person has to be Southern Baptist and a calvinist, then that label does bother me. If we are legalistic because a person has to believe in the pre-trib rapture theory, then that label bothers me. If we are legalistic because we don’t want people with drug addiction in our church, then that label bothers me.

The simple fact that Southern Baptist’s call Southern Baptist’s legalistic doesn’t necessarily bother me; it’s why they are calling each other legalistic that matters. Just some thoughts though 😉

Olon Hydes last blog post..Should churches require anything for membership?

Olon,

I think the term legalism usually goes with injunctions against things like alcohol, tobacco, clothing, dancing, movies, working in Sunday, etc. Now obviously there might be situations where anyone of those things can create a problem and deserve a word of rebuke or caution. But as Kevin alluded to, the SBC in general has gone beyond (in many people’s opinion) simple caution and biblical wisdom to blanket condemnation; with regard to alcohol for example.

There may well be a time when Southern Baptists are told what “we” believe about eschatology, soteriology, and how to interpret the Genesis account of Creation. We aren’t there yet, but wait for it. We can see things just recently that suggest the only right way to interpret Genesis 1 is literally. Will that be codified in our confession? Perhaps not, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Legalism? Maybe.

Some will have a negative view of any church. Some had a bad experience. Some are too sensitive and unreasonable about things. Some will believe that any group that takes a stand against sin is evil. Some dislike us simply because they disagree with us. Some believe missionaries are imperialistic and evil. If someone is negative about the SBC, they may be more likely to answer the survey. Of course, some may be legitimate complaints.

We should learn from these perceptions, but most of all be trying to please Jesus and to be true to His Word. We should do that in the most loving, tactful way possible.

A couple of ways we can make public perception more positive is by our disaster relief and the local ministries of our churches. Sometimes we need to do a little better public relations work in those areas. Let the media know the good things going on.

Also, I would love for us to use commercials more that feature Southern Baptists – our love, ministries, and what we believe. I think the NAMB is working on that now.

Finally, I like Tim’s statement above, most everybody’s a legalist – except me.
David R. Brumbelow

This legalism could either be perceived legalism or it could legitimately be legalism. Sadly, I think it’s the latter. If it were perceived legalism I don’t think we would see “boycott, Disney, Pharisees, and Don’t” quite as big.

If you are interested you can read my response here.

Mike Leakes last blog post..Baseball Trivia

The first thing that has to be established is whether or not those of us who call oursleves Southern Baptists are in fact legalists. If we are, no amount of name changing will alter that fact.

Barry Wallaces last blog post..Vampires and Zombies on my iPod

Name changes don’t get to the heart of the matter so it would be useless to call ourselves anything else. It would probably lean more towards making people think we are a cult anyway.

Some things will always be viewed with a stereotypical perception and nothing you do will change the perception… for instance Fried Chicken is pretty big in that wordel…LOL

We aren’t perfect. We do SIN daily. Truly if more of us focused on that personally, then we as a whole would be better off.

Have a blessed week!
Sallie

Sallies last blog post..The Essence of True Beauty

I think Sallie is right. Changing our name will not accomplish anything unless we change what caused the label “legalistic” to be placed upon us in the first place. If we are legalistic, with alcohol for example, and we change our name to “The Fellowship of American Baptists” (FAB)– sorry couldn’t resist 😉 –and are still legalistic about alcohol, what has a name change acomplished? To borrow a line I heard recently, you can put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig.

If Southern Baptist’s are genuinly legalistic, we have to change from the bottom up, not the top down; and I still say commercials are pointless unless there is real change to back them up. We can sell ourselves as “no longer legalistic,” but it will not take people very long to figure out that we are still legalistic.

Olon Hydes last blog post..Should churches require anything for membership?

Several times being against alcohol and legalism have been equated.

If biblical principles are against something it’s not legalism to be against it. Biblical teaching is certainly against the recreational use of a mind altering drug.

Southern Baptists are on solid ground in opposing beverage alcohol. Reasons to be against it include biblical prinicples, compassion, saving lives and homes, automobile accidents, disease, etc. A recent scientific study (reported 2-25-2009) found that British women who drink moderately have a significantly higher risk of several kinds of cancer.

It just could be that 150 years ago Southern Baptists realized that being for drinking was a tradition; and they rejected that tradition in favor of direct biblical teaching and biblical principles that condemn alcohol.
David R. Brumbelow

This is not a comment directed to David but a history of these discussions in general. If this posts spirals into a discussion on alcohol use within the SBC I think the point of legalism will be proven. And I do not mean that only those proclaiming “down with alcohol” are being legalistic. Those that are crying “freedom, freedom” can be just as legalistic; they just bow down to a different law.

The point of all of this is not so much with the specific forms of legalism but rather with hearts that are not radically in love with Jesus.

Teaching that drinking alcohol is sinful in and of itself is legalistic. Teaching that it is unwise (especially considering the circumstances) is not legalism. Those who often howl about their “fundamentalistic” brethren often fall to proof texting and oversimplification themselves.

It seems that those who promote “social drinking” typically only focus on the latter portion of this passage from Prov. 31, and even then it is often wrenched out of context:

It is not for kings, O Lemuel,
It is not for kings to drink wine,
Nor for princes intoxicating drink;
5 Lest they drink and forget the law,
And pervert the justice of all the afflicted.
6 Give strong drink to him who is perishing,
And wine to those who are bitter of heart.
7 Let him drink and forget his poverty,
And remember his misery no more.

Chris Poes last blog post..Our Only Hope

I have had this topic stuck in my head far more than I have wanted today, not sure why.

I think that compared to Christ, any denomination, church or movement is going to be disappointing. Look inside of whatever you consider the greatest gathering of believers you know of — your church, someone else’s church, a church from history — and you will discover that if you look long enough there is much to be disappointed about. But it is not about that church….it is about the Christ.

I think Paul’s words about the parties in Corinth really apply here, particularly his grand conclusion in 1 Corinithians 2:2. When we preach Christ (and I know a ton of Southern Baptist churches that do) we are all right. When we don’t (and at times we don’t) we can be really disappointing.

When I think of Southern Baptists, I think of thousands of churches and ministers around country that our working hard to do the best they can to honor Christ and extend the Kingdom where they are. My church is not perfect, your church is not perfect, but I find myself more at home theologically and missionally here than any place else.

And really…..if the ten nearest SBC churches to you are having weekly chicken dinners and banning women in pants then I bet the Methodists and the Assemblies are too.

Tims last blog post..Quotable Thursdays

I brought-up the alcohol issue because it is hard to find a better example of the SBC being legalistic. Indeed, the SBC is going against the Bible’s support of moderate wine-drinking. Both the OT and the NT justify the drinking of wine and consider it a blessing (and potential curse, as with all good things — sex, food, etc.). Jesus used wine as a symbol of his blood and commanded that it be used for successive generations as a commemoration of his sacrifice.

These are the facts. Sorry to disappoint you.

When your average person thinks about “Southern Baptists,” many will think about legalism (as demonstrated in the poll above), and I am certain that many of these people have the alcohol issue in mind as an example. So, what’s it going to be, SBC? Continue with anti-Biblical laws?

Kevin Daviss last blog post..You Never Let Go

Kevin,
You present only one side of the argument. Plenty of evidence can be presented on the other side. We could begin by defining wine (yayin, tirosh, oinos) in its biblical and historical sense; rather than our modern day English usage of the word. Also, how the Jewish translators of the Septuagint viewed those words. Proper biblical interpretation is more concerned with how the words were used 2,000 years ago rather than how we use them today. As well as I remember, Jesus never used the word wine in connection with His blood.

For the record, I believe one can be both against beverage alcohol and radically in love with Jesus.

I doubt the world will love us if we give in to social drinking.
David R. Brumbelow

PS – No one has been called a legalist is this comment.

David,

I agree that one can be against beverage alcohol and radically in love with Jesus. Would you be willing to assert the opposite as well; that one can be NOT against beverage alcohol and radically in love with Jesus?

Kevin Larson posted this quote by C.S. Lewis yesterday and I think it’s pretty timely.

“One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons – marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.”

Mike Leakes last blog post..A Mission of Legalism

Perceptions of the SBC vary by region and demographic. When I lived (for a VERY short time) in North Dakota, their view of Southern Baptists is much different that it was in Denver. The perception of Southern Baptists in Alabama and North Carolina is different from each of those. Here in southern West Virginia, we fight the perception that Southern Baptists are a bunch of liberals or that we’re controlled from Nashville.

Our fascination with surveys and statistics is tiring and often times destructive. If the majority of people in our relativistic society think we are legalistic, that’s probably a good thing. It would be interesting to see if those respondents who used the word Pharisee to describe us know anything about real Pharisees. It seems that many of the most common responses stem from a cultural bias that would respond detrimentally to any conservative denomination or church—except of course, fried chicken. That one is clearly ours.

Pastor Jims last blog post..This Week’s Memory Verse

David, I don’t doubt that a case can be made, historical and exegetical, but many of us find your position far from persuasive. And, unless it can be shown with clarity that scripture forbids alcohol-use, then a church or denomination has no justification to bind this law on others. That’s the problem: many SBC churches and seminaries want to make this a binding law on everyone else and without clear biblical authority to do so.

This issue is a hindrance to the mission of the SBC. I am a young, twenty-something evangelical who works with and witnesses to other young, twenty-something non-Christians. I know alcoholics, and I’ve seen alcoholism nearly kill a friend of mine. But I also know the vast majority of people who drink a beer a day and occasionally go to a bar to relax and converse about politics and religion. The difference between the alcoholics and the non-alcoholics is a difference in values and moral self-governance. When alcohol becomes a substitute for love, God, friends, etc., then it becomes a problem. Ditto for food, sex, and sports. The solution is not to ban alcohol-use, but to bring people into meaningful fellowship with God their Savior and genuine friends.

Kevin Daviss last blog post..You Never Let Go

Mike,
You ask a good question. I believe someone can be radically in love with Jesus and NOT be against not drinking, I would just believe they are wrong on this issue.

I love and recommend C. S. Lewis and, like most Baptists, would disagree with him on some points. I would class giving up marriage, going to movies – and drinking beer – in different categories. I believe alcohol is directly condemned in Scripture, and that biblical principles condemn it. I believe alcohol as a recreational drug is bad in and of itself and causes untold destruction.

I agree with Lewis to a point. There are things I would not do, but I don’t criticize others for not seeing things exactly the same way.

If you or others disagree, I’ll love you anyway. I just like to present the other view that is often absent these days.
David R. Brumbelow

David,

I am guessing that you hold to what others have deemed the “anti-alcohol” position. But your comment “I doubt the world will love us if we give in to social drinking” speaks to the perception of alcohol, not to alcohol itself. On this point, I think Mike did a great job with a quote from C.S. Lewis. I don’t have a problem with a Christian having a drink (my writing that mean I am not SBC anymore?), but you are correct that society will most likely look at that with a frown. We have created the perception in our society that it is “bad” for a Christian to drink, smoke, or gamble. We condemn these actions without a second thought. This, I think, is why legalism has come to be associated with alcohol and Southern Baptists.

More importantly, while I see no problem biblically with having a drink (beverage alcohol if you will), I agree that Christians in America shouldn’t drink. I say this because of a few reasons. This is my conviction because of what Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 8:13, “Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.” Because there is a social stigma attached to drinking–that Christians ought not to do it–then I think we should refrain from drinking. I guess the best way to explain this is if I as a Pastor went to the store to buy a beer, would this cause someone to discredit the faith? Your darn tootin it would! There is nothing sinful about me drinking a beer and there is nothing sinful about buying a beer, but because it could cause someone else to stumble I will refrain from it.

This, however, isn’t the standard SBC position on this issue. It is a blanket declaration that it is wrong. But for the sake of my brothers, I will not drink alcohol (even though I wouldn’t because it tastes disgusting). I think this is what is lacking and why the term “legalistic” pops up concerning alcohol.

Olon Hydes last blog post..Should churches require anything for membership?

David,

You wrote, “I believe alcohol is directly condemned in Scripture, and that biblical principles condemn it.” This is what Kevin brought out in his comment, and you do not reference any Scripture to support your claim. There is no biblical condemnation of alcohol (at least as far as I know), neither directly nor indirectly. There is, however, biblical condemnation of drunkeness, but that is completely different than condemning alcohol.

Olon Hydes last blog post..Should churches require anything for membership?

This certainly contributes to our perception as legalists.

Yes. It does. And it is obvious.

So, when will blogs, like SBC Voices, come out and call for a change on this point? Or will they just keep toeing the party line, subverting scripture in the process?

Kevin Daviss last blog post..You Never Let Go

“They have turned the world upside down.” That was the popular view of the early Christians, and they were not well-received either. Guess what? They, too, had arguments over legalism and license just as we do. It is a part of the fermentation process going on where people are at least alive to the fact that there are issues. It is when there is no fermentation that things get really dicey..er LUKEWARM. Having suffered all of my ministry from legalism (just imagine how many churches will turn you down due to a second marriage….think in the hundreds, perhaps more), theology (regardless of whether you re following the original founding theology or not….they don’t know it for the most part or they are scared to death of it due to misrepresentatives of it), age (33 with 20 yrs of experience is the ideal demanded), education (two is max, five is practically impossible), work experience (taught at a Black college one church said, “You have to be a radical to have taught there”), denomination reps try to sink you cause you don’t jot their i s’ & cross their t s’ theologically. The new kids on the block have no time for old foggies. Not up to par, you know. The Old Boys network also works. But so what. Jesus never said it would be easy. And this is sort of like them old long rows of cotton in Arkansas. They seem to go on forward, when your a child and have to hoe or pick a row that is perhaps a quarter of a mile in length. Sunup to sunset. For 10 yrs. Praying for a great awakening is like that. You get down on your knees as many days a week as possible and beg God for such a visitation, naming even people and places. Interestingly enough some of the places I have prayed for have works of grace going on in them now, and they did not as far as I know have them when I began. And yet no answers to some of my own prayers. Better to keep the name Southern Baptist rather than change. I know I do not care for the racism I have ought encountered, but I have been praying for that to end since sometime in the 60s. We need to live down ou reputation for racism, legalism, etc. Every one has failures in their records. None of us our perfect. If God should mark sin, we would all perish. There is forgiveness with Him that He may be feared. Besides He is doing a strange work in this day, and I want to hang around and see what He will accomplish. He does do wonderful things, and one of these days He will flood and fill this earth with His knowledge and glory as the waters that cover the sea. Besides the angels gather his elect from one end of the Heavens to the other. Could it be that man will spread to the stars? Could it be that we have the eans now? Could it be that inter-dimensional travel is available to us? Who knows what God has planned for the future? Did Genesis man have space flight? Nanotechnology and zero point energy are coming upon us along with automation, computerization, and robotics. Already IBM has boasted on TV in the past 3 mos. that they have a computer that has a peroflop (?) capacity (150,000 calculations per second per every person on the face of the face of the earth simultaneously. (I think that falls within the range of Quantaum computers – or beyond??). Has the computer been instructed to develop a plan or every human on earth? It was said 20 yrs ago that the beast of Brussels (supposedly a fictional invention with reference to Hal Lindsay’s Late Great Planet Eart Eschatology or something like that) had a record of every human on earth (some fellow told about going to borrow some money from a bank where a childhood friend worked….The friend told him about the computer and pulled up a school paper the man had written in high school….!!!). Who knows? We are moving into the age of information/education/etc., and ange in which 5.5 billion people are no longer needed or wanted so tghe elite (?) few can be secure!!! I have actually heard such things on TV. And one could become completely paranoid by following the net with a gullible outlook. Still I am confident of this very thing: the SOVEREIGN LORD JESUS CHRIST, KING OF KINGS, RULES IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH. NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT HIS RULE, DECREED OR OTHERWISE PERMITTED. AND HE PROMISED US THAT HE WOULD TAKE THE WHOLE EARTH.
Could it be that the meglamaniac God is really so awesomely wonderful in His grace and kindness, that the mere perception of his greatness in our pea brains proves so irresistibly charming that we fly to him? Like a negative and a positive attract, while likes repel? O sure there is resistance, as one said, “It was so wonderful that I could not resist it.” What we really have to dread is success….especially when the LORD wins it all for a 1000 generations. AND IF PROPHECIES AND PROMISES ARE TO BE BELIEVED, SOMETHING LIKE THAT WILL HAPPEN, IS HAPPENING (?).

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation

I think the Kentucky research Darryl is referencing is a survey of Kentucky Baptist pastors and laity we conducted in 2005 to better understand perceptions and knowledge on a range of topics. The executive summary for the research can be found at http://www.kybaptist.org/kbc/welcome.nsf/files/schmidtexsum/$File/schmidtexsum.pdf?OpenElement

wow … i thought i was the only one who thought “legalism” when i think Southern Baptist

Bradleys last blog post..Karl Barth on Justification :: Summary and Conclusion

Kevin,
I appreciate you recognizing that a biblical case can be made against alcohol. You may not find the exegetical arguments against alcohol persuasive, but I and many others do. That would include many of the most scholarly out there.

Others – The Bible speaks directly against alcohol. Proverbs 23 gives a detailed description of fermented wine and its effects – and the wisest man in the world said not to even look at it. Scripture commands us to be sober (1 Thessalonians 5:6-9, etc.). Alcoholics Anonymous would be happy to explain to anyone that sober means no alcohol at all. By the way, the biblical command to be sober would include more than “not drinking,” but it would certainly include not using an intoxicating drug.

Biblical principles also condemn alcohol, just like biblical principles condemn slavery. According to the standards people use to say those opposed to alcohol are legalists – those against slavery are also legalists and Pharisees.
By the way, could it be a little Pharisaical to call people Pharisees and legalists?

Biblical principles condemn a recreational mind altering drug. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. We are to love God with all our minds. We are not to cause a brother to stumble. We are to be wise. We should not support an evil industry. Add to that the incredible hurt, death, destruction, disease, crime caused by alcohol. There are no good reasons to drink, and a ton of reasons not to. As Abraham Lincoln said, “Alcohol has many defenders, but no defense.”

I believe a lot of the youth and young adults admire a church that tactfully, lovingly tells the truth. I also believe the SBC stand has saved countless lives from destruction.
David R. Brumbelow

Tony,

Since this post has morphed into a discussion on alcohol use, I want to send you a link to a couple of posts by the dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary. It’s an excellent treatment of the subject, as good as any I’ve seen. By the way, their feed would be another good one to add to one of your aggregators.

I’ll put them in a separate post so you can fish them out of the spam filter if you need to. Feel free to combine them into one, if you want.

Barry Wallaces last blog post..Vampires and Zombies on my iPod

Here are the links I mentioned:

The Son of Man Came Drinking: Was Jesus a Social Drinker? Part I

The Son of Man Came Drinking: Was Jesus a Social Drinker? Part II

Barry Wallaces last blog post..Vampires and Zombies on my iPod

Barry,
Since I seem to be the only “legalist” in this discussion, let me add a few comments and quotes in contrast to your links.

I’ve heard many times. The only drink they had in Bible times was fermented wine. The water was unsafe, so they had to drink wine. And since they had no refrigeration they had no way to keep it from fermenting. If that were true, men women and children would have been falling down drunk 24 hours a day.

Since we don’t know how to preserve unfermented wine without modern day methods, we assume they didn’t know how either. That is a false assumption. We project our ignorance onto them. However, they knew and used several ways to preserve unfermented wine. They could even keep fresh grapes for months.

“Concentrating grape juice down by heating is still used to make the popular shireh of modern Iran and was known to the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia as well as the Greeks and Romans. It enables fruit to be preserved, and, diluted with water, it produces a refreshing, nonalcoholic beverage.” -Ancient Wine: The Search For The Origins Of Viniculture by Patrick E. McGovern, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2003; p. 54. This book is very pro fermented wine. The quote is noteworthy, however, in that it reveals a common way today and in ancient times to preserve wine in an unfermented condition.

Wine regularly used in the New Testament, “would stimulate about as much as our tea and coffee.” -Dr. John A. Broadus, Matthew; Kregal: Grand Rapids; 1990, p. 244. Broadus was a Baptist theologian.

“Fermented wine was the least common [drink in Bible times] and the percentage of alcohol was small. New wines were wholly without alcohol and were easily preserved in this condition for several months. There were also wines in which, by boiling or by drugs, the process of fermentation was prevented and alcohol excluded. These were mixed with water and constituted the most common drink of the land.” -Dr. Lyman Abbott (1835-1922), Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, p. 973. Abbott was a Congregational minister, scholar, editor, and author.

“It should never be forgotten that when reading the Bible and the classic pagan writers of ‘Wine,’ we are seldom dealing with the strongly intoxicating and loaded liquids to which that name is alone attached in the English language, but usually with beverages such as above described. They were as harmless and sober as our own Teas, Coffees, and Cocoas. Had they not been so, the ancient populations would have been perpetually in a more or less state of drunkenness…These facts should never be forgotten when we read of ‘Wine’ there, – for it was simple fruit syrup, except where especially stated to be of the intoxicating kinds.” -Ferrar Fenton of England, The Bible and Wine. By age 28, Fenton had acquired a working knowledge of 25 classical, Oriental, and modern languages.
David R. Brumbelow

Matt,
Good question. I’m not saying there were no intoxicating drinks or fermented wine in Bible times. Just that the common wine was not intoxicating.

Somewhat like today in that we have plenty of intoxicating and non-intoxicating drinks. Haven’t checked statistics, but I would imagine if you added up all the common drinks of today, most would be non-intoxicating. Coffee, tea, soft drinks, milk, punch, power drinks, fruit drinks, bottled water, etc. I know some of you guys are hooked on coffee J.

Yayin and oinos were generic terms that could refer to either fermented or unfermented wine. Quotes and evidence can be given to demonstrate this. The point is not what we think of when we see the word “wine” today, but how it was used in ancient times.

How do you know the difference? By the context in the Bible. Sometimes it’s obvious (Proverbs 20:1), sometimes it’s not. So, we will still disagree at times on the proper interpretation of wine in certain passages. But at those times, both sides will be interpreting, rather than, “just taking the Bible for what it says.”

Similar generic words in our English language would be cider, liquor, punch, eggnogg. They can be either alcoholic or non-alcoholic.
David R. Brumbelow

The sentence, “I know some of you guys are hooked on coffee 🙂 ” was supposed to end with a note of humor.
David R. Brumbelow

I have said nothing about the issue of wine, because it behooves all of us to be very carful on this issue. Some folks take things wrong and turn that into a justification for indulgence in either drink or arrogant legalism. Neither extreme is desirable. I will answer the issue from the historical perspectives. It use to be that Baptist churches used wine (I never saw anything else to the contrary in the records back past the temperance movement). After temperance became abstinence, then the use of wine declined as it was replaced with grape juice (which action by the way made the Welsh family quite wealthy). I have been in Baptist churches where men in the oldest Sunday School classes could still remember who the person was that had been appointed to secure the wine for the communion. In the day when they used wine, they had strict discipline. A member found guilty of drunkenness would be dealt with gently, but firmly. When the last possible help had been tried, then they would proceed to excommunication. The Jersey Church whose first noted pastor was John Gano ( 1755ff?) in the 1800s labored for ten years with one member who had the problem of drunkenness before they finally decided he was incorrigible and excommunicated him. Churches that excluded members for drunkenness were also swift to readmit them, when they showed evidence of repentance. The original elements for communion as far as I can know them historically are unleavened bread and fermented wine (not the heavily alcoholic kind, but it would make a person drunk as Paul indicates in I Cors.11, if enough of it was consumed). I do know of cases where people who had been alcoholics were converted and taking wine in communion never bothered them. I also know of one case where a person was supposedly turned back to his drinking problem by wine in communion. I have found that one of the biggest problems is for brothers to fall out over this issue. One pastor became very upset at me over this issue, and that really grieved me. After all, I did not claim to know everything, but he was down right hostile. Perhaps, the problem came from alcoholism in his family back ground. I had some of it in my family history as many others have. No one wants to see a loved one return to that kind of life style. People handle the thing in dfferent ways, and I suspect that the problem and/or solution really lies in how we can learn to work together to address the problems raised. We also have to learn that both sets of advocates have a tendency to read our prejudices back into the past as well as into the Bible. God, however, desires that we read His book, His way….And His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways until we learn His are far better than ours. What I have written is intended to contribute to the peaceful side of the coin. Knowing the griefs that can be found on both sides, I recommend a conciliatory attitude toward any with whom we differ. After all, reconciliation is one of the major themes of our message, Is it not? And where is love suppose to be in all this. I for one do not wish to be a cause for someone falling into drunkenness nor do I wish to discourage any one who has come to a settled conclusion about the proper elements of the communion. Take care brethren, both sides can do harm by harsh words. Courtesy is definitely an element of love, I Cors.13:5, “Love does not behave itself unseemly.” Put a positive spin on that and it comes to courtesy and gentleness and tenerness and kindness.

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation

They drank fermented wine in ancient times, but that‘s not the only wine they had. They drank water, my previous point is just that some seem to imply they could not drink the water so they had to drink strong, alcoholic wine.

As Nehemiah points out (Nehemiah 5:18), they had all kinds of wine. Pharaoh liked his wine fresh and unfermented (Genesis 40:11).

My point has been that the wine “regularly” used in Bible times was either unfermented or of a very low alcoholic content. The scholars I quoted above confirm that. We read our modern day ideas of strong alcoholic drinks into what we see in the Bible.

“Making rules beyond what the Bible gives is clear legalism.” If that is meant to be that if the Bible does not directly say something is wrong, then it is legalism to oppose it – then I strongly disagree. If that statement is true, then:

We cannot make rules against slavery.
We cannot oppose cocaine, heroin, or marijuana. (Some argue that we are not to partake of these because they are against the law. But there are a couple of countries where they are not illegal. Can a good non-legalistic Christian go to those countries and recreationally enjoy crack?)
We cannot oppose smoking.
We cannot oppose gambling.
We cannot oppose pornographic DVDs.
We cannot oppose the products of those who are “inventors of evil things.”

The Jewish translators of the Septuagint clearly viewed wine as generic. They translated the OT word tirosh (Proverbs 3:10) that clearly refers to what we would call grape juice or unfermented wine, into the Greek word oinos. They did not even say “new” oinos, just “oinos.”

When we see “wine” in the Bible it does not automatically refer to strong alcohol, or even alcohol. Tony, I sincerely believe you are a good, godly man. I just believe you and some other guys are wrong on this issue. Thanks for letting me have my say.
David R. Brumbelow

I had a dear friend who wrote his dissertation for the Dr. of Theology at one of ours seminaries more than 50 yrs. ago, seeking to establish the views that Bro. David is arguing. He was a good man, led the singing for r. George W. Truett in a revival in Alabama, was more less Arminian in his theological views, except for the usual first and last points of the tulip outline. But h was a mn of God. When Phenix City Alabama was the sin city of the USA he led his people in winning some of the gang that had produced such evil. He baptised the wife and daughter of one of the gang leaders, had a lesser henchman that he baptized who said he (the henchma would be killed and he was. That dear pastor and friend probably had as much to do with bring about a change in that city as any one. At one point his deacons had to provide him with an armed guard for safety as gang members wanted to kill him for his opposition. I did not agree with his view (how can you get drunk at the Lord’s Supper, if the element is not fermented (which violates the rules on leaven0), BUT HE NEVER BEAT ME OVER THE HEAD WITH HIS VIEW EITHER. I LOVED HIM AS A BROTHER, AND WHEN HE WAS ON HIS DEATH BED SO TO SPEAK I DROVE HUNDREDS OF MILES TO SEE HIM AND HE COMMENTED ON THAT FACT. I MUST ALSO ADD THAT I NEVER BEAT HIM OVER THE HEAD WITH MY VIEW EITHER. I STILL SAY WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THIS MATTER LEST WE HURT PEOPLE WITH ONE SET OF VIEWS OR THE OTHER. KNOWING AS WE ALL DO, OUR ALTOGETHER HUMAN TENDENCY TO SEE EVERYTHING IN THE LIGHT THAT FAVORS OUR CASE AND SEE EVEYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT, LET US BE GRACIOUS. HERE IS WHERE ONE CAN SEE THE FLAW IN OUR PRESENT DAY SO-CALLED SCIENTIFIC METHOD. THE NULL HYPOTHESIS COULD BE TRUE AS WELL AS THE POINT ONE WANTS TO ESTABLISH. WHAT DOES ONE DO THEN? I must close. 2 comments should be my limit. Let us pray for a third great awakening.

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation

http://theophilogue.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/alcohol-consumption-is-okey-dokey-daniel-b-wallace/

Bradleys last blog post..Book Review :: King David: A Biography by McKenzie

THE BEST RAPTURE LOCATER

Guess what. If you can figure out when the “sudden destruction” of wicked persons takes place in I Thess. 5:3, and when “death” is ended in I Cor. 15:54, you will know where to place the rapture on your prophecy chart because those passages talk about the “times and seasons” (and the “when” and “then” ) of the rapture! Neat, huh?