Thursday, June 15, 2006

Alcohol Use and the SBC


There was a resolution passed this week concerning alcohol consumption and SBC leadership.

"When the back-and-forth on alcohol finally ended, the messengers passed with about a four-fifths majority a resolution not only opposing the manufacture and consumption of alcohol but urging the exclusion of Southern Baptists who drink from election to the convention’s boards, committees and entities. Like other resolutions, it is not binding on SBC churches and entities."

Those who were in favor of the resolution were
Jim Richards, executive director of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention and a messenger from First Baptist Church of Fort Worth, Texas, who introduced the bill. He stated, "While there may be liberty, we cannot violate [the admonition in 1 Corinthians 8 that] says our liberty can become a stumbling block. … [T]he use of alcohol as a beverage can and does impede our testimony for the Lord Jesus Christ,” Richards said in support of his amendment. “[O]ur leaders should take the high road in our walk with the Lord Jesus.”

Also in defense of the resolution was
committee member Dwayne Mercer, pastor of First Baptist Church in Oviedo, Fla. He said he appreciates “the fact that people become alcoholics because they drink too much alcohol, my parents always taught me, ‘If you don’t take the first drink, you don’t have to worry about taking the last.’”

In oppostion of the bill was
Tom Ascol, pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Fla., and executive director of Founders Ministries, a Southern Baptist organization that advocates reformed theology, referred to an New Testament account of Jesus at a wedding as his rationale.
“Christ turned water into wine,” Ascol said.

Benjamin Cole, pastor of Parkview Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, said he does not advocate the drinking of alcohol but he feared the convention was in danger of “misstepping” if it adopted “a position that is contrary to what the Bible teaches in the flexibility of the scriptural admonitions as they relate to the consumption of alcoholic beverages.”

Cole’s father died at the age of 39 from a liver disease brought on by alcoholism.

“My father did not die because he drank alcohol; my father died because he drank alcohol in excess,” said Cole, who said as a 13-year-old he cared for his father during the last six months of his life.
Jeff Young, pastor of Corinth Baptist Church in Ravenna, Texas, said the older members of the SBC had won the battle to proclaim the Bible is “authoritative and sufficient, but when we pass extra-biblical resolutions such as this, we pull the rug out from underneath that teaching.

I'd be interested in hearing what people think about this.

24 Comments:

Blogger Michael D. Estes said...

WOW!!! I must say that I'm a little shocked about this one. While I don't really advocate the consumption of alcohol, this resolution borders on enforced legalism. The most troubling statement I saw was this one: "urging the exclusion of Southern Baptists who drink from election to the convention’s boards, committees and entities." Since Scripture does not explicitly prohibit drinking, this is tantamount to creating new laws and becoming the judaizers Paul speaks about in Galatians. They almost go so far as to say that anyone who drinks is not worthy to be a part of this convention. In fact, they might not even be a Christian.

8:28 PM, June 15, 2006  
Blogger Michael D. Estes said...

OH!! And another thing. If you are going to pass a resolution about alcohol, we need to go on and pass one against gluttony since we are probably the fattest denomination (as far as clergy goes). Can I get a witness!?! I mean, really!!! If we are going to create new legalisms, lets keep on going. Lets pass a resolution against speeding since it is against the law and all. And I know of certain leaders in the convention (a man with the initials PP) that have been known to drive over the speed limit.

While I say some of this tongue-in-cheek, I am very serious about the gluttony one. If we are going to make legalism because alcohol negatively effects the body, then we must also say the same with regard to overeating. In fact, we must act more resolutely toward it since it has been proven to be more harmful to the body.

9:46 PM, June 15, 2006  
Blogger Ben said...

The one who has been consumed by the strong grip of alcohol will advise us to stay away from it. Those who desire to flee from every temptation will not view pleasing the Lord Jesus as legalism, but freedom.

It is apalling that the SBC had to even spend time on the subject.

11:39 PM, June 15, 2006  
Blogger Matthew Celestine said...

I think this kind of unbiblical legalism is very disappointing.

Who gave the SBC the authority to make any resolutions at all? Do we not have Scripture to guide our lives and the activities of our congregations?

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

3:36 AM, June 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Being an outsider to this debate, it does seem like a very "un-Baptist" resolution to make. By this I mean that the convention is passing extra-biblical resolutions which, while not holding de jure authority over the independent congregations, does in fact, function as such a hammer. When we create an environment in which fellow brothers in Christ who understand Christian liberty in a different manner are barred from leadership, then we have crossed the line.

Sola Scriptura!

6:31 AM, June 16, 2006  
Blogger Michael D. Estes said...

Ben,

"The one who has been consumed by the strong grip of alcohol will advise us to stay away from it. Those who desire to flee from every temptation will not view pleasing the Lord Jesus as legalism, but freedom."

I don't disagree with you at all, BUT it is not the place of the SBC to determine for us the boundaries that should and should not be crossed. I think I'll allow Scripture to do that for me.

7:44 AM, June 16, 2006  
Blogger John Gillmartin said...

Charles -

God to Between Two Worlds and read the comments to this post. Some good and some poor views,

HE ALONE IS WORTHY

5:53 PM, June 16, 2006  
Blogger Charlie Wallace said...

As one who has been "consumed by the grip of alcohol" as Ben put it, for a season of my life, I support the resolution. I understand Matthew, Michael, and Drew's points as well. However, I think the "above reproach" principle is essential for SBC leadership...and leadership being the key word.

J.A., Thanks for the link.

10:02 PM, June 16, 2006  
Blogger Ben said...

Matthew:

From your post it is clear you are confused as to Baptist polity. Resolutions are not binding to an autonomous church. No one was given authority becuase there is none to be given.

Also, those bringing up this alcohol issue seems to have had underlying motives...

Michael,

that's the point. It is only your interpretation and your comments lead to some kind of relativism.

I have no problem with this resolution. Hasn't the SBC made a resolution concerning the dangers about gambling, etc? Is there nothing wrong with that?

My main concern was not with the messengers and the alcohol iasue but with their response to Condoleeza Rice's comments on the death of Zarqawi. We stood and applauded. I understand the psalmists cry for the judgment of the wicked, but we must remember that "God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked."

I cannot believe that the SBC messegners gave a standing ovation to the destruction of a person lost without Christ and burning in hell.

Did we stand and clap when there was the ordinance of baptism?

No. Because sometimes American SBCers cannot have a proper biblical worldview seeing through their foggy lenses ofAmerican "God and Country" Christianity.

10:03 PM, June 16, 2006  
Blogger Charlie Wallace said...

Amen on Zarqawi issue. I didn't know about that...that's horrible.

10:11 PM, June 16, 2006  
Blogger Michael D. Estes said...

Ben,

I will have to respectfully disagree with the fact that my statements lead to some kind of relativism. How? I say let us make the statements that Scripture makes.

"Hasn't the SBC made a resolution concerning the dangers about gambling, etc? Is there nothing wrong with that?"

Gambling is an issue that is basically addressed in Scripture. The Bible tell us to be good stewards, right? Well, in no way is gambling a form of biblical stewardship. However, Scripture doesn't prohibit the use of alcohol. It does tell us not to get drunk. Sorry but this resolution seems to be a form of legalism that Scripture does not require.

Charlie,

I agree that we should be above reproach. That is certainly a resolution that Scripture makes. However, I have issues with things that begin to exclude people for reasons that Christ or His Word would not. Would Christ condemn and correct a drunk man? Definately! But, would He reprove a man for having a glass of wine once a year with his wife in his home? I have my doubts. I mean Christ turned water into wine. Now, I realize what will come next. "The wine they drank is different than the wine we drink." I have two questions about this interpretation. First, do we really think the guests only had a sip or one glass of wine? It was a wedding party, which typically lasted most of the day. Second, was there any alcohol in the wine Jesus made? Obviously, there was some, and some is more than none.

10:18 PM, June 16, 2006  
Blogger Charlie Wallace said...

MacArthur's commentary on Ephesians is pretty solid on the alcohol content issue. You basically had two choices to drink back then: water or wine. Today we have many choices of what do to drink so what good comes from drinking a known dangerous (in many ways) substance? Paul commanded Timothy to drink wine because his stomach could not handle the polluted water. The reason for this command was that a little bit of alcohol helped dilute the polluted water. Anyone who's ever been to Mexico can relate here. The amount of alcohol on this drink could not make someone drunk.

MacArthur makes the point that we as sinful humans (then and now) have purposely made strong drink alcohol for the purpose to get drunk. I can find the exact quotes of what he says if you'd like. It is fairly detailed.

As for the wedding miracle, I have no idea how many drinks the guests had.

10:41 PM, June 16, 2006  
Blogger Ben said...

Someone please tell a positive reason for consuming alcohol.

By the way, as not to be understood, I am glad Zarqawi is dead. However, we must careful in our hatred of a wicked, horrible man.

I guess if my dad was beheaded by him, I would think differently..

10:48 PM, June 16, 2006  
Blogger Matthew Celestine said...

Charles, on the contrary, it was the norm in the ancient near east to dilute wine with water. In Hellenic and Roman culture, lots were taken to determine the ratio of water to wine.

Pure wine was seldom drunk in the Hellenic world.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

8:16 AM, June 17, 2006  
Blogger Matthew Celestine said...

A positive reason for drinking alcohol- to make on joyful. The Bible never condemns this motive.

Admittedly a believer knows the joy of the Lord, but the Word never condemns the joy-inducing effects of alcohol.

God Bless

Matthew

8:19 AM, June 17, 2006  
Blogger Charlie Wallace said...

Matthew,

"Charles, on the contrary, it was the norm in the ancient near east to dilute wine with water. In Hellenic and Roman culture, lots were taken to determine the ratio of water to wine.

Pure wine was seldom drunk in the Hellenic world."

How is that contrary to what I wrote? I think we're saying the same thing, here. Maybe there is a misunderstanding.

10:49 AM, June 17, 2006  
Blogger Charlie Wallace said...

Matthew,

I suppose you are referring to the OT references of wine that "gladdens the heart"

10:50 AM, June 17, 2006  
Blogger Mr McFeely said...

I know I'm out of me element on this one, but I do enjoy reading your blog and gaining insight onto the way you guys see things. I wasn't going to even comment because as I see it, the SBC can govern themselves any way they please. One thing in the article struck my interest though.

"Also in defense of the resolution was committee member Dwayne Mercer, pastor of First Baptist Church in Oviedo, Fla. He said he appreciates “the fact that people become alcoholics because they drink too much alcohol, my parents always taught me, ‘If you don’t take the first drink, you don’t have to worry about taking the last"

This is true. It's also true that if one never picks up a gun they will never shoot anyone. I don't know the SBC's viewpoint on the NRA but I'm assuming that a majority of southern baptists support the NRA. Ol' Dwayne is not allowing free will here. Shouldn't someone be allowed to participate in something as long as it's not done in excess. Isn't there something in the bible about not doing anything in excess?

I like Micheal's comment about gluttony. It's seems that along Dwayne's line of thinkning, cheeseburgers should be outlawed too.

11:40 PM, June 17, 2006  
Blogger Charlie Wallace said...

McFeely,

I understand the arguments made about gluttony, etc. in response to alcohol usage. However, I would submit that there is a difference. If I were to gorge myself on cheeseburgers I would be sinning and feel fat but my decision-making would not be impaired the same way that alcohol consumption would impair my inhibitions and decision-making faculties. The destructive nature of alcohol use is no secret, especially in the US. Also, the potential destructive nature of alcohol use is far more dangerous than over-eating.

As far as gun control, people using guns are still in their right minds (unless, of course, they drink alcohol while hunting). There are many many people who are killed as a result of drunk driving. Don't drink at all and that threat is eliminated.

With this said, an important distinction needs to be made on this issue. The SBC is not telling church members not to drink. They are simply stating that because of the destructive nature of alcohol use in American society, its LEADERS, who are to set an example, should abstain from partaking.

I think this is a wisdom issue and really should not even have to be explained to my Christian brothers. Those crying for "Christian liberty" are really, in my opinion, stating that they'd rather drink then have to give up something they enjoy doing for the glory of God's kingdom. Furthermore, anyone who claims that alcohol abuse is not a HUGE problem in America is not paying attention to society. I do not think there is any justfiable comparison to this issue, especially not over-eating.

2:12 PM, June 18, 2006  
Blogger Michael D. Estes said...

Charlie,

"I think this is a wisdom issue and really should not even have to be explained to my Christian brothers. Those crying for "Christian liberty" are really, in my opinion, stating that they'd rather drink then have to give up something they enjoy doing for the glory of God's kingdom."

I'm sorry to disagree. But, you know me, and I don't drink. I just think it is silly to "urge the exclusion" of people because they have a drink of alcohol once and while (and I mean a long while). The resolution should have been against drunkeness.

12:26 AM, June 19, 2006  
Blogger Charlie Wallace said...

Michael,

I understand your point. But, I don't personally know someone who drinks once in a long while. I think those cases are probably few and far between. I just think the SBC is trying to protect its members from a potentially dangerous habit.

10:25 AM, June 19, 2006  
Blogger Marty Duren said...

I'd be interested in hearing what people think about this.

Alchohol posts always, but always, attract the most # of comments on a blog. I'm not sure that I understand why, but it seems so.

3:36 PM, June 28, 2006  
Blogger Charlie Wallace said...

Marty,

You're right. It's a 'hot-button' issue.

4:59 PM, June 28, 2006  
Blogger Charlie Wallace said...

Thanks for your comments, Dr. Reid.

10:44 PM, July 05, 2006  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home