Kevin Ezell’s first NAMB report was pretty much boilerplate SBC agency reporting – testimonies, encouraging stories, videos of work being done. That is not a criticism, it’s a fact. In these reports, the agency heads highlight the good work being done by their agency and they all follow a fairly similar pattern. It is good to hear the good things that are happening through our SBC schools and missions agencies, but the reports do have a certain sameness.
But then, Ezell engaged in some straight-shooting with the Phoenix crowd, helping us to “Define Reality”. He used Jesus statements in the Sermon on the Mount, “You have heard it said…but I say to you,” to correct some of the myths that have gone on for years at NAMB.
Basically, the president of NAMB stood before the convention and confessed that for years, perhaps decades, NAMB has been reporting inaccurate and inflated numbers to the convention. We have been publishing numbers that are simply not accurate.
He told us that NAMB has had no system for tracking church plants in place – they did not ask for names and addresses of the plants, the names of the planters, or engage in any kind of tracking. Then he dropped what was one of the great lines of the convention:
“If Walmart can track how much toilet paper it sells in an hour, we can track how many churches we plant in a year.”
He then promised us that we would have accurate tracking information and that the numbers coming from NAMB from now on would be accurate and honest.
Here are some of the facts he gave:
1) He is making a concerted effort to reduce bureaucracy at NAMB and increase missions. He reduced Alpharetta staff (cut by 38%, I think), saving 8 million per year so that more of NAMB’s money can go to the field. He says that the cuts of NAMB staff are not an indication that they were planning to do less, but more. They plan to do more with less infrastructure and by establishing a regional mobilization strategy.
2) “You have heard it said” that NAMB plants close to 1500 church plants a year, “but I say unto you” that NAMB planted 769 churches. In other words, like half the members of our churches, half the churches we planted are fantasies.
Whatever one’s opinions are of Ezell’s actions or philosophies, can we not agree that accurate reporting of numbers is a good thing?
For the record, he did not accuse previous NAMB leadership of intentional deceit, just sloppy record-keeping. He did, very clearly, distinguish between “Old NAMB” and “New NAMB.” I think the message is clear, that NAMB is not going to be what it has been.
3) “You have heard it said” that NAMB has over 5100 missionaries, “but I say unto you” that 3480 of those are jointly funded with state conventions (NAMB appointed with partial funding) and 1839 are missionary spouses, some of whom have ministry assignments and some of whom do not. He also pointed out that that 1616 are Mission Service Corps volunteers who receive no NAMB funding at all.
He did add that we have 3400 military chaplains and 955 summer missionaries. We have a good group doing good work, but our numbers reporting again has been inaccurate.
I would also make the following points:
1) He was VERY careful to honor state conventions and express appreciation with them. There seems to have been a change from the GCR rhetoric that was pretty hard on the state conventions, and it appears that a new partnership is forming. This seems to be very good news.
2) He addressed the “Acts 29” and church planting controversies, though not by name.
He told us that NAMB is planting churches with the following identity.
- NAMB is only planting Southern Baptist churches.
- All NAMB plants subscribe to the BF&M 2000 as their doctrinal statement.
- All NAMB plants give to the Cooperative Program.
3) He gave a moving tribute to Disaster Relief ministry and its workers, focusing on one couple from Joplin, MO, who have been working with DR for 6 years until they became victims of the Joplin tornado a few weeks ago. They gave a moving testimony.
Honesty is the first step to move forward. As a former MSC Missionary with NAMB, I didn’t feel like any less of a NAMB Missionary because I didn’t get funding, I got all the support I needed, and they supported me in raising support. Many mission agencies are self-funding, as well as many para-church organizations, it doesn’t make them less missionaries.
Good Stuff from Kevin Ezell!!!
Perhaps this will go a long way in “toning down” all those who were hyper ventilating over his appointment to NAMB?
Grace for the Journey,
Good start from Ezell. Accuracy in reporting is the beginning of accountability and true cooperation. Seems like a good spirit backed up by wise actions.
Guys,
Where can we get that list of names and addresses of the 769 new church plants? Any ideas?
The address about NAMB only planting churches that are in line with the BFM2000, support the CP, and (he didn’t mention it here) NAMB’s strict no-Alcohol policies for their planters, as well as no tolerance for CBF affiliation/sympathies for church planters/missionaries has been said in several different ways in several different arenas (web posts, interviews, etc.). But apparently it is still not enough for some.
As you’ve said, there seems to be an improved tone from NAMB, especially regarding the state conventions, and I hope that Ezell can continue that aspect.
I was blown away and very much impressed. I still hope that NAMB will start looking at where they are planting churches as well as the other things that they are working on right now.
I still have nine years, but if this keeps up, I may have to admit that my prediction was wrong. This gives me encouragement.
Seeing as the SBC is “Officially” against any consumption of Alcohol, and as Josh points out in his comment above has a zero tolerance for employees at NAMB, IMB, etc… Did anyone else find the text for Gregg Matte’s sermon at the pastors conference just a little “Ironic?”
Greg:
What version of the Bible did “they” determine that any alcohol consumption is forbidden?
Tom,
I can’t find it in any version of the Bible… and what is somewhat funny about this is that the new HCSB Bible produced and published by Southern Baptist does not even try to mask the fact that Jesus turned water into alcohol (wine).
Greg:
How our SBC leaders can misuse scriptures to support their own views is beyond the pale/
It is just more silliness. But their will be dancing in the street by some with this new edict.
Wonder when our SBC leaders will address obesity?
smile
Tom,
This not a “New” edict… actually it is quite old, as it has been in place for many years.
I am actually encouraged by the events at this years convention… There was NO motion this year condemning wine, that is better than past years… Darrin Patrick, Vice President of the ACTS 29 Church Planting Network, preached at this years pastors conference, and as I mentioned above Gregg Matte’s sermon at the pastors conference was “Ironic” in that the text for his sermon was Jesus turning water into wine.
He used this text to illustrate that in our ministry we can only accomplish what man can do unless God shows up.
He mentioned that when a sermon goes really well, and he and his wife both know that God showed up and took what would have been unacceptable (serving water at a wedding) and turned it into something special (wine), she will whisper one word to him… “WINE”.
With all the Anti-Alcohol rhetoric of the past, I just found it… well… Funny!
🙂
Greg:
Thanks for the dialogue. It changes nothing, so life will mosey right along. And you are correct it is not a new edict.
You know, I bet they have policies covering how personal leave/sick leave can be used, where various employees are allowed to park, the expected dress code, etc which are part of employment. Not one of those are found in scripture, either, but I don’t see you blathering about them.
I don’t really care if they have a policy that allows their employees to drink or not, but I sure do enjoy the irritation that some people feel about the policy existing. 🙂
Joe, “Water”… 🙂
JB:
You said:”Not one of those are found in scripture, either, but I don’t see you blathering about them.”
Just what is blathering and if it is what I think it is, you’re pretty good at it yourself.
You also said:”but I sure do enjoy the irritation that some people feel about the policy existing. 🙂
Your irritation always seems to show when I comment, but I can assure you I do not enjoy the irritation.
I can assure you I do not enjoy the irritation.
I know. 🙂
JB:
Let me try again.
I said to you–“Your irritation always seems to show when I comment, but I can assure you I do not enjoy the irritation.
My point was that I do not enjoy that you get irritated, I do not intentionally comment as to irritate others unlike you who seems to enjoy trying to irritate others.
I’ve said too much to you, so I’ll stop.
Joe,
You make a good point about personnel issues. But, it is easier to belittle the messenger than to deal with the message.
I think this is an important point to discuss. I’m not sure whether I would come down on the same side of this particular personnel issue as you do, but it is a personnel issue. It does not in my understanding violate any Scripture, so it cannot be dismissed on that basis.
Scripture may inform personnel decisions–and should–but they are two separate matters. That creates tension, and personal attacks only make that tension greater.
Thanks for your input.
I thought it was a great report and showed that Ezell is the right person for the job.
http://www.sbcr2.com is worth a look for those who aren’t sweating to death in Phoenix all day.
Obviously they don’t have an editor. Wow…
If the quality of that website is in any way comparable to the quality of their organization/infrastructure then not only am I not worried about them or their views, I feel a little sorry for them. My 9 year old daughter has built a better website than that thing.
BTW after the way Dr. Mohler shredded Lumpkins today I think all of their “intellectual” credibility went out the window.
The directness is refreshing, kind of like the things Ed Stetzer says. The desire to not game the statistics is equally refreshing. The emphasis on carefully winnowing exactly who they work with is understandable given the overwhelming sense of necessity of the “conservative resurgence”.
I’m not sure that it follows the parable of the four fields all that well, though. It seems to me that the seed is productive (or not) regardless of the sower. Emphasizing the precise confessional state of the sower, though, might be like God requiring Gideon to limit his forces and that the filtering be very specific and be acceptable to the entire convention is not necessarily a bad thing. I do think we’re letting the weaker brothers dictate to the stronger ones how faith is practiced. And I think the accumulation of money through these very large entities is a huge problem.
I don’t really have a problem with the national convention’s (primarily) domestic mission board limiting support to folks who strictly avoid consumption of alcohol–again in the interests of not offending anyone–but it’s just legalism. And, yes, the Convention has repeatedly voted for this form of legalism and it’s hide bound to continue doing so. But it’s just legalism. It’s only legalism. It isn’t biblical. And therefore it shouldn’t be Southern Baptist.
The sooner we root out the legalism–which means falling on our faces in grief and humility before our Father because we have substituted our own righteousness for the precious blood of Jesus Christ which is the ONLY thing that can save us–the better.
“”but it’s just legalism.””
No, it’s just freedom. One is free-autonomously free-to NOT accept the policy and seek employment elsewhere.
I don’t abstain because of “legalism” but because I have the freedom in Christ–and power of the Holy Spirit–to do so for a greater good.
If I follow your logic and manner of argument, I’d call your position “just antinomianism.” I’m sure that you do not endorse this way of thinking anymore than I endorse legalism, so I will not attach that label to you.
There is nothing I can see that would qualify this policy as “legalism.” It is an employment matter that preserves the autonomy of all constituents.
FranK:
Just as there are those that believe scriptures forbid all uses of alcohol, there are those that believe scriptures do not forbid all uses of alcohol.
Oh, yes someone can find employment elsewhere because of this legalistic approach about alcohol.
Question–Show me in the Scriptures were Jesus turned the water into nonalcoholic wine.
I don’t recall anyone in this thread arguing that Jesus did turn water into nonalcoholic wine.
Tom I apologize, I guess the rest of this thread proved me wrong.
Justin:
Thanks for the apology. There seems to be quite a few who believe Jesus turned water into nonalcoholic grape juice.
Amazing!!!
Just a note: I believe David is the only one here arguing that Jesus turned water into non-alcohlic wine. “The rest of the thread” is arguing against that nonsense.
There are quite a few people who believe that, but hardly anyone in this comment thread does.
Tom Parker,
You asked, “Question–Show me in the Scriptures were Jesus turned the water into nonalcoholic wine.”
My question to you – Show me in the Scriptures where Jesus turned the water into alcoholic wine?
You see, the Bible and ancient non-biblical literature use the words for wine to refer to both alcoholic wine, and nonalcoholic wine. Whichever side you come down on, is your “interpretation,” not you “just taking the Bible for what is says.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
Please look up the word “Wine” in any/every English Dictionary… What does it/they say?
Now look it up in any/every English Translation of the Bible… What does it/they say?
If you are correct then every English Bible Translator that has ever lived has gotten it massively wrong… and we need a new Bible.
For me, I think I will trust that all those English Bible Translators are not wrong… Just saying!
Grace for the Journey,
Greg,
First, the modern day definition of “wine” does not matter so much; what matters is the definition of “wine” when the Bible was being written. The original intention of the biblical authors.
Second, look at older English dictionaries and even they will refer to “wine” as the product of expressed grapes, whether fermented or not.
Third, biblical passages call “wine,” that which has just been pressed out of grapes. That product is always unfermented “wine.” Examples: Proverbs 3:10; Isaiah 16:10; Joel 2:24. The Bible even refers often to “new wine,” unfermented sweet wine.
Fourth, most all modern English translations translate the above passages, that refer to clearly nonalcoholic wine, with the word, “wine.” So there actually is modern day acknowledgement of the word wine referring to nonalcoholic wine. I also trust the English Bible translators, although I’m sure like you, I would not agree with them at every point.
Fifth, Aristotle and other ancient writers speak of “wine” that did not intoxicate.
Sixth, ancient recipes for “wine” were given that, according to the instructions, could not have possibly been alcoholic wine.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
On this subject you are just wrong…
1) If I can’t even trust our modern day bible translators to get such a simple thing as the word for “wine” and the word for “grape juice” right then I certainly can’t trust them for the more important issues of the bible like Salvation, Heaven, and Hell.
2,3,4,5,6) I think most everyone here has pretty much exhausted themselves on this discussion (I know I have). None of these things you bring up can change the fact that every single English Bible Translator to this very day has agreed that the original text of John chapter 2 says that Jesus turned the water into Alcohol.
Grace for the Journey,
Greg Harvey,
I agree with what you have said here… I would however like to elevate this point just a little.
You comment “the national convention’s (primarily) domestic mission board limiting support to folks who strictly avoid consumption of alcohol–again in the interests of not offending anyone–but it’s just legalism.”
No argument here – “It is legalism”… However, it is far more than just legalism… It is Idolatry! It is to bow down at the feet of ourselves as the one(s) who are truly wise… as the one(s) who are truly qualified to say what is right and what is wrong… as the one(s) who are the proper “Law Giver(s)”.
It is Idolatry… to say “God you left something OUT of Your Word”,
It is Idolatry… to “Call Evil what God calls a Blessing”,
It is Idolatry… to say “God I am more wise than you”,
It is Idolatry… to “Speak where God has not spoken”,
It is Idolatry…
Idolatry…
Grace for the Journey,
Greg:
Amen, Amen, and Amen to your point about alcohol and Idolatry!!
A side point, how many SB are at this convention?
David B:
Are you saying that some words in the Bible such as the word wine do not really mean wine. I sure am confused as how to interpret words in the Bible if they do not mean what they plainly mean.
Greg,
The IMB also has a stipulation that you cannot be appointed if your children are over 14 years of age (I think that’s the age requirement).
Is that also idolatry?
What determines when a personnel requirement is “idolatry?”
Sounds like a strong accusation. Tends to make it look like an exaggeration.
Frank,
You misunderstand me completely!
I am not just saying that the IMB is guilty of Idolatry, I am saying that the SBC is guilty of Idolatry… “And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
You ask “What determines when a personnel requirement is “idolatry?”
When a personnel requirement (or a resolution) is in direct conflict with the teachings and life of Jesus Christ it is an act of Self-Worship, or “Idolatry”.
Let me ask you a question that might help frame this discussion in a little clearer light… Did Joseph Smith commit Idolatry when he wrote the book of Morman?
Grace for the Journey,
Ridiculous!
Ridiculous! 🙂 Yes, my point exactly!
Frank:
You abstain from alcohol because you believe it is more moral to do so than to not do so. I’ve had this conversation with hundreds of Southern Baptists and they all acknowledge that they believe it is more moral to abstain from alcohol.
The belief that you can be more moral by abstaining from the product of Jesus’s first miracle is legalism pure and simple.
Greg,
Please to not put words in my mouth. I do not think it is more “moral” to drink than not drink, or vice versa. The word, “moral” has significant connotations that would not apply to my ethical position.
Because I think you have the absolute right to drink in moderation, and because I attach no judgment to such behavior, it is not a moral judgment–hence, not legalism.
Feel free to continue to disagree with my position, but at least represent it fairly.
Plus, just because the product of Jesus’ miracle was wine, does not mandate drinking it. That seems to be “legalistic,” not to mention illogical.
Jesus also calmed a raging sea. Do I need to launch out into a hurricane in order to experience Jesus’ calming abilities? I don’t think that is the point of that miracle and I don’t think marketing wine was the point of his first miracle.
Just for the record I consider you (and your family) to be highly moral people and would never suggest otherwise.
Greg Harvey,
No, it is not legalism to oppose and abstain from beverage alcohol. It is biblical; it is also common sense.
It is ridiculous to imply Southern Baptists are relying on their own righteousness, in things like abstaining, rather than the blood of Jesus. Southern Baptists, including the majority who abstain from the drug of alcohol, are exactly right in believing Jesus and Jesus alone saves from sin. We have believed this since the formation of the convention in 1845.
You also say, “The belief that you can be more moral by abstaining from the product of Jesus’s first miracle is legalism pure and simple.”
I do not abstain from the product of Jesus’ first miracle, but I abstain from beverage alcohol.
David R. Brumbelow
Hooray, another alcohol discussion…
In other news, not one single position will be changed.
Bill,
I agree with you 100%. I’m done with this discussion. I only commented because somebody knew that I know commented.
It’s a useless discussion. So easy to get sucked in. But not this time.
Greg,
The point is that the English translators did not get the word “wine” wrong. They translated it just as it was used in the original languages. You have to figure out the proper definition by the context; just like other words. Words like God / god; Spirit / spirit; faith; angel. These words can mean different things depending on the context.
The words “cider, punch, liquor, eggnog, drink” can refer to either an alcoholic or nonalcoholic beverage. Just like the biblical and ancient uses of the word “wine.”
Do you think the Bible translators got it wrong when they translated as “wine” that which is clearly nonalcoholic in Proverbs 3:10; Isaiah 16:10; Joel 2:24?
The Bible used a general, generic word for wine; whether you like it or not. Some of the proof, which you refuse to recognize, is given above.
You say, “Translator to this very day has agreed that the original text of John chapter 2 says that Jesus turned the water into Alcohol.”
That is false, and the English translations do not say that. The Bible never says Jesus made alcohol; it says He made wine. You can “interpret” that either way.
David R. Brumbelow
PS – This is in regard to your comment, as of now, #29.
Mr. Brumbelow,
You are right in saying words differ in meaning depending on context.
However, the issue here is that you are reading the Bible anachronistically because of your traditions against alcohol.
Before Welch, there was no such thing as non-alcoholic grape drink.
Non-alcoholic grape drink was invented around 150 years ago, after Pasteurization and systematic Refrigeration. Before those two inventions, keeping grape juice from immediately fermenting would have been a physical impossibility.
There was simply no such thing as a non-alcoholic grape drink before this.
It is a basic fact that freshly crushed grape juice immediately begins to ferment. Alcohol content in a Pre-Welch world was merely a matter of percentage and degree.
Isaiah 16:10 clearly refers to the process of making wine, which as proven historically, must be alcoholic. People have been treading out grapes into wine for millenia.
To “tread out wine” is a reference to the process for making wine, an alcoholic beverage. Grape juice will immediately begin to ferment into wine when crushed/smashed/juiced ect.
To ‘tread out wine’ is the first step in making and collecting the new fermenting juice. It will start becoming alcoholic immediately.
Proverbs 3:10; Joel 2:24: these refer to wine, which as proven above, can not be anything but alcoholic.
Vats filled with a grape product in those days could only possibly contain wine. Not non-alcoholic grape juice. Once stored in a vat, the alcohol content would of course be exponentially higher than freshly squeezed grapes as fermentation takes place over time.
You say:
“the English translations do not say that. The Bible never says Jesus made alcohol; it says He made wine. You can “interpret” that either way.”
There is no such thing as ‘non-alcoholic wine’.
That is an oxymoron and an anachronism.
You are using a relativistic hermenuetic of ‘you can interpret it that way’ to mask your anachronisms which are based on traditions from the teetotaler movement.
My pastor recently preached a sermon on this very topic ( defending alcohol and defending wine Biblically) when our Eldership (in a Reformed Baptist Church) chose to return to what Jesus commanded us to take in communion: Wine.
Arlin,
Thanks for recognizing that the meaning of words in the Bible may be different according to the context.
On the other point, you are incorrect. Nonalcoholic wine or grape juice has been made and preserved for thousands of years. In fact, nonalcoholic wine was easier to make and preserve in ancient times than alcoholic wine.
One of the most common ways of preserving nonalcoholic wine and shekar was by boiling down the fresh juice to a thick consistency. This kept indefinitely at room temperature. I have some right now that has been opened and kept at room temperature – it is still as good as when I purchased it, though it has been opened for months. They also had a number of other ways to have nonalcoholic wine available throughout the year.
See Preserving Unfermented Wine in Bible Times
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/10/preserving-unfermented-wine-in-bible.html
Rather than interpreting the Bible anachronistically, many today are projecting their ignorance onto the Bible. Since they don’t know how to preserve food and drink without pasteurization and electricity, they assume the ancient people did not know. That is a false assumption.
It is much more biblical to use unfermented wine for the Lord’s Supper, for multiple reasons. I will be dealing with all this in great detail in a book due out this Fall, 2011, “Ancient Wine and the Bible.”
For those who say this has strayed from the topic, it is those who favor drinking that began this discussion.
David R. Brumbelow
I’ll buy the “non-alcoholic wine” explanation just as soon as someone can clearly explain how people were getting drunk (1 Corinthians 11:21) or potentially drunk (1 Timothy 3:8) off this “grape juice” they even used for the Lord’s Supper…
Dont you know that every time scripture uses “wine” in a good way, clearly that is non-fermented grape juice, and that ever time scripture uses “wine” in a bad way, it clearly is speaking of fermented/alcoholic grape juice. .
Actually Mike I am right there with you. This whole “two types of wine” excuse does not fly. The greek scholars that I know and have met and have taken classes with, all affirm that when it says “oinos” in scripture it is, with out a doubt, talking about FERMENTED wine. BTW these greek scholars are “good” enough to be teaching in our seminaries. And it should be noted that they are just as much abolitionists as anyone else. But they don’t try to hide that Jesus made WINE, with some lame explication of “grape juice”. Furthermore, the people pressing this likely dont have degrees in Ancient Roman/Greek History, OR the history of oenology so why we should listen to them on this matter is beyond me. Rather it may be some of the greatest Eisegesis I have ever seen.
Smuschany,
“Rather it may be some of the greatest Eisegesis I have ever seen.”
AMEN TO THAT!!!
Nonalcoholic wine in ancient times is not a theory, but fact.
“There is a kind of wine, for instance, which both solidifies and thickens by boiling – I mean, must.” -Aristotle; Meteorology; c. 350 BC. Vol. I.
“It is also interesting that the Akkadian word for ‘wine,’ though not related to yayin, was used in a similar manner: both for fermented wine and for ‘must’ (grape juice).” -Dr. Robert P. Teachout, The Use of Wine in the Old Testament: Doctoral Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary; 1979.
I could give much, much more evidence, but something tells me that would not matter.
David R. Brumbelow
I could give much, much more evidence, but something tells me that would not matter.
Yeah. And here’s why it doesn’t matter: instead of answering the biblical text that clearly says people were getting drunk or having the potential of getting drunk, you default to a word study and say “non-alcoholic wine was a fact.”
Yes. We get they had the fruit of the vine–sometimes it was alcoholic and sometimes it wasn’t.
But when the Bible clearly paints a picture that Christians could and did use a wine that made them drunk, and the admonition isn’t: “You must use something else” but rather “don’t get drunk/don’t drink too much” you can’t turn around to quote Aristotle and say, “See the Bible condemns drinking beverage alcohol.”
They may have drank non-alcoholic wine (juice) to their hearts’ content…great. But they also drank alcoholic wine, and you either have to ignore or abuse the text to say otherwise; and they weren’t condemned for it but for drunkenness from over use.
Argue that drinking is unwise and can bring more harm than good, and I’ll agree in most contexts.
Argue that the over all testimony of Scripture condemns any and all drinking of alcohol because their wine (at least that used by proper Christians) wasn’t alcoholic, and I’ll say you’re wrong and you’re abusing the clear reading of the text with word studies and pagan philosophers.
David, sure there was non-alcoholic wine in ancient times. Fermentation grows over time. When first made, it was still called wine, but had little to no alcohol. But that wasn’t good wine (John 2). Watered down wine was not good wine (Isaiah 1:22). Non-alcoholic wine doesn’t “make the heart glad” (Psalm 104:15), so it’s alcoholic wine that is pictured there as a blessing from God.
The problem with the alcoholic/non-alcoholic wine debate is you guys want to act like it fits in these clean, neat categories. All the good references are to non-alcoholic wine. All the bad reference are to alcoholic wine. And the Bible won’t let you do that. Clear eisegesis.
Sure many passages say that God blessed Israel with “new wine.” But they didn’t drink ALL of it immediately, did they? No, they stored most of it. It fermented. They drank it. And it was God’s blessing to them.
What exactly is “room temperature” in a building with no AC/Heat in the ancient near east?
I’d just like to point out two articles published in April and October of 1841 in the Princeton Theological Review. The articles are Bacchus and anti-Bacchus by Rev. John McLean in which he refutes the two-wine theory. A breakdown of these articles as well as other resources may be found here: Origin of the “Two Wine Theory”.
Mark,
Thanks! It is always extremely helpful and enlightening in these sort of discussion to trace the main ideas back to their origins…
They were two essays written in the 1830’s to be entered in a contest that offered a large cash prize for the best essay that promoted total abstinence from all alcoholic drinks. These two essays invented the theory that the Bible speaks of two different kinds of wines – one fermented and the other unfermented. Before these essays, there are no historical records that speak of unfermented wine.
Wow! When the truth will not do, just make something up…
Wow, great article. I’m making sure to bookmark that for future reference. My favorite quote:
“11. Must, or unfermented grape juice, was not recommended as a drink. Describing the effects of drinking must, Hippocrates wrote: “it produces flatulence, purges, and causes commotion, by fermenting in the stomach.” Hippocrates, Sect. iv. p. 26.”
Brent,
That is hilarious. It appears Bro. David has been giving us half of the story when it comes to “must”. Sorry, maybe I should call it some sort of contradictory factual statement.
I would like to circle this discussion back to the original topic. I too was an MSC missionary for 4 years. I seem to remember that I had to finish my first 2 year appointment before I was counted among the mission force at that time. Of course, I think they still counted me for at least a couple of years after I moved into this pastorate based on the fact that I started getting calls from NAMB offices on my birthday for the following two years or so.
I am encouraged by the overall direction, even if I am a little wary of some of the things I have heard as benchmarks for church planting for our area. I am hoping that someone was exaggerating or misheard the number.
I’m sure glad someone mentioned that y’all are taking about “beverage” alcohol because I was confused thinking “rubbing” alcohol.
I think I’ll have some beverage coke now.
🙂
Speaking of which… Does anyone actually use “beverage”, “imbibe”, or “absention” in normal conversation? 🙂
No one I know and I’m not sure why people use those words in conversations like this since we all know what is being talked about.
Is there a fallacy in there somewhere?
I use “beverage” and am, in fact, off to enjoy a tasty beverage right now.
Sweet tea, but that’s beside the point 🙂
I was wondering where I could get some rubbing coke.
Dave, that just cracked me up.
You cokebiber.
Brent,
My point was that ancient people had multiple ways to keep and preserve wine in a nonalcoholic state. It remains nonalcoholic. These methods kept it from fermenting, or becoming alcoholic, at all. See the article I reference above.
You said, “Non-alcoholic wine doesn’t “make the heart glad” (Psalm 104:15), so it’s alcoholic wine that is pictured there as a blessing from God.”
Are you saying only a drug can make the heart glad? A number of Scriptures indicate otherwise (1 Chronicles 12:40; Proverbs 27:9; 1 Samuel 14:27; etc.) Nonalcoholic wine has made my heart glad. You should try some of the premium grape juices put out today. Also, imagine a man who labors hard all year in the vineyard finally getting to drink his product. Any farmer or gardener can tell you after a year’s labor, that would bring joy. They had very few sweet things, and the sweetness of unfermented wine would also have brought them joy.
David R. Brumbelow
David said: “Are you saying only a drug can make the heart glad?”
I don’t want to speak for Brent, but technically speaking THE BIBLE SAID IT, not Brent.
By that I mean, wine making the heart glad is in Psalm 104 – not an invention of Brent.
Jason,
Yes the Bible said it. Both in Psalm 104:15 and Judges 9:13. Now, the question is – What kind of wine? Since we know for a fact they had both kinds.
Judges 9:13 says wine “cheers both God and men.” Some even use this verse to say God enjoys getting a little drunk. That is not the kind of God I read about in Scripture. You may be interested to know the word here for wine is “tirosh” which most scholars agree always, or almost always, meant un-intoxicating sweet wine. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia says tirosh, “Does not include fermented wine.”
One thing is sure, it does not take a drug to make the heart glad!
David R. Brumbelow
David B:
You said to Jason:”Now, the question is – What kind of wine? Since we know for a fact they had both kinds.”
But the Bible plainly says wine.
Tom,
Don’t you know that you can’t trust what the Bible plainly says??? It takes a Learned Priest to tell the common man what the Bible says…
The judges 9:13 obscures the issue, because it talks about the vine giving up its wine (which would obviously be new wine when it’s given up by the vine), but the reference to cheering hearts could easily refer to after it’s aged. In fact, the idea of ‘cheering both gods and men’ is impossible to mistake as anything other than a party where people or ‘gods’ are celebrating. And settings like that, pretty much universally in human history, involve alcohol. Unless you’re Southern Baptist.
New wine does cheer the heart… after it’s fermented. No alcohol is not REQUIRED to have a glad heart. That’s a non-sequitir. But alcohol does make the heart glad.
Even Proverbs 31 says Kings shouldn’t get drunk because of important leadership decisions they could be called on to make at any time. BUT, it says to give it to the common men to help them in their sorrow and anguish.
The biblical evidence is so strong that even alcoholic wine is a good gift from God, it takes willful blindness to deny it.
David,
So, it doesn’t take a drug to make the heart glad, but it does take a drink of some sort??
15 David – 30 Jason. Service, David.
Mark, I think you can see where I am going with this. Right?
Jason, I certainly do.
Greg:
You said about the two wines:”Wow! When the truth will not do, just make something up…”
People that do this are often ministers of the Gospel. How can they do this?
Tom,
I can only say that “Theological Errors once accepted are like dandelions… They have roots embedded deep within our souls and are very often almost impossible to uproot, and to make matters worse for the man of God… they reproduce quite rapidly.”
“Whoever drinks beer he is quick to sleep; whoever sleeps long does not sin; whoever does not sin enters Heaven! Let us drink beer!” – Luther
I can’t help but link to this at this point. I think this is a Lutheran hymn, but I could be mistaken. 🙂
Jeff… Now that was funny… 🙂