More Thoughts on Convictions, Complexities, and Drinking
Image
First
I appreciate all of the spirit, and much of the substance, of Ed’s work on this topic yesterday. It’s just reality that even in historically total-abstaining circles, ministry leaders are going to be working with Christians who believe Scripture allows them to consume alcohol. That being the case, we should do more to help these believers exercise wisdom and restraint—or to recover, if they’ve stumbled into problems with drunkenness.
For those of us (including me) who are persuaded that total abstinence is the right course, there’s some temptation to think “Well, just don’t drink—and if you do, the consequences are your problem.” But where’s the ministry heart in that? I’m reminded of Matthew 12:20. Our Lord was not in the habit of breaking bruised reeds or quenching smoldering wicks. The spiritual thing to do is “restore … in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal. 6:1), “encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all” (1 Thes. 5:14).
Second
An abundance of interesting but non-evidential data seems to exist in the alcohol debate, and this clutter often obscures more important questions. For example, I was going to post some research on whether there really is a “Greek word for unfermented wine” that is never used in the NT. Perhaps our understanding of the NT should be informed by what we find in the OT, where the same term is used for normal fermented wine and wine that is still fresh in the press. See Jeremiah 48:33 and Isaiah 16:10 for a couple of examples of “wine” still in the press (therefore nonalcoholic, for those who haven’t had their coffee yet).
The thing is, though there is often confusion on the facts in this debate, where we really get into the most trouble is with our “therefores.” What does the absence of a word for nonfermented wine in the NT actually prove? I think, not much, because—well, see item 3, below.
(I also want to note that the potential stumbling associated with wine in Romans 14:21 is not about alcohol. It’s about ceremonial cleanness vs. uncleanness. Evidence: ”drinking” and “wine” in the passage are always linked with “meat” and “eating.” See Romans 14:14-15 and 14:23. Use of food and drink that had been previously involved in idol worship is most likely in view. But again, either way, what does this prove about the ethics of alcohol consumption today? Not much.)
Third
I’ve been convinced for some time that the strongest case against use of wine (etc.) today is a wisdom case. Even if the argument can be made that believers in OT and NT times were using unfermented wine as a beverage on a regular basis (which I really doubt), few who aren’t already total abstainers are going be convinced of that idea. It’s just too easy to counter that angle. But if we suppose that everybody drank wine with some alcohol in it in those days, again, what does it prove about our choices today? Say it with me, class—not much.
The situation today, in a nutshell, is this:
- no biblical obligation to consume wine (This post might be helpful on that point.)
- easy total avoidance of alcohol (not the case in OT or NT times)
- much to gain by avoidance
- very little to lose by avoidance (granting, for sake of argument, that there are pleasures of taste and smell, as well some social benefits)
Also important in this regard—the wisdom case is not simply a matter of take-it-or-leave-it logic and practicality. That is, in Christian living, we don’t have “questions of right and wrong” on one hand and “questions of practical wisdom” on the other (nor do we have “questions of truth” on one hand and “questions of logic” on the other). When the wisdom is “from above” (James 3:17-18) it is always intertwined ultimately in a very personal way with our Savior Himself (Col. 2:2-3).
To put it simply, it is wrong to do what is unwise.
Fourth
For the sake of edification, Christians really do need to get past “emotional reaction mode” on this topic, and get it onto the list of things that believers can study, ponder, and disagree over while maintaining mutual respect. Sometimes I think us “fightin’ fundies” should all have the principle tattooed on our foreheads so we see it in the mirror every morning:
It is possible to take a firm stand without insisting that everyone else has to take it, too.
We’re so prone to look at touchy topics as though there were only two options: either (1) I cave in and do what everyone else is doing, or (2) I insist that every Christian worthy of the name must join me in renouncing (fill in the blank).
But there is, as the old-time clear thinkers used to say, a tertium quid—a third thing. In this case, the third option is to stand, and grant love and respect to your brother who sees the matter differently. (Maybe love and respect him enough to challenge his thinking on the subject, but always hold him in manifest high regard throughout that process. I’ve written on that topic previously elsewhere… though not well, maybe. One for future revision.)
Fifth
What kind of guidance can we offer those who have diligently and submissively thought the issue through and concluded that moderate consumption is pleasing to the Lord? Well, the abundant biblical warnings about the potential hazards of intoxicating beverages would be a great place to start. If these texts don’t quite add up to “never consume alcohol,” they certainly at least add up to “this is more dangerous than you probably realize.” The famous texts in Proverbs (Prov. 23:29-35 and 20:1, for example) really need very little expansion.
A great deal of benefit can be gained also from the simple principle the apostle repeats in 1 Corinthians 15:33. If you find it difficult to avoid drinking too much, don’t hang out with people who tend to drink too much.
To take Ed’s perspective on this point a bit further: if we only attend to the wine-warning texts when we’re making a case for total abstinence, we really are missing the good sense these passages also offer to those who do drink on occaison.
Support for total abstinence from alcohol is certainly on the wane today. Better teaching might help some, and the general swinging of the pendulum might eventually reverse that trend as well, but the present reality is that believers are going to continue to differ on the matter. So both wisdom and compassion call Christians, especially ministry leaders, to do what we can to be helpful to those who use.
Aaron Blumer 2014 Bio
Aaron Blumer, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years.
- 34 views
[Jim]
- We had the typical church covenant … abstain from … et cetera
- What did we do? We did nothing. We decided that in the whole scope of things this was a minor deal. We told single man B that it did not rise to the level of any kind of church action. I told single man A to not drink in front of single man B
- Reasoning: single man A was not a drunk. He did not appear to have a drinking problem
I generally avoid the alcohol discussions if I can help it.
But church life is important to me.
In the context where there’s a church covenant…isn’t it no longer an issue of what you believe, but what you promised to do?
A former church of mine had the opportunity to remove abstention from the covenant. Most people didn’t care to drink themselves, but were uncomfortable imposing extrabiblical requirements on potential new members. We had had some potential new members not join (just stayed regular attenders) because they could not in good conscience sign the covenant (and they occasionally drank). During the discussion, one of the leading people who wanted to keep abstention in the covenant asked, “Why can’t you all go just go drink on your own without changing the covenant? No one will know. Why rock the boat?” Most of us were shocked, because we understood the covenant to actually mean something, even when we didn’t like it.
I don’t want to wade into the alcohol discussion as such. But on the ecclesiological point: having attended BJU and then a teetotalling church, I was used to cheerfully abstaining and accepting the rules placed on me. As I thought about the implications of congregational polity, I realized that I was no longer simply accepting rules imposed on me (my choice), but also participating in imposing those rules on others (present and future members). In light of those implications, going forward, I am very reluctant to join a church with abstention in the covenant.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
I agree that it is an integrity issue.
As a side note, my own church recently revised our church’s covenant and basically relegated the issue to a footnote with an asterisk.
And in this mountain
The Lord of hosts will make for all people
A feast of choice pieces,
A feast of wines on the lees,
Of fat things full of marrow,
Of well-refined wines on the lees.
-Isaiah 25:6 NKJV
Wine on the lees could mean fermented or unfermented wine. Lees are dregs, sediments. Wine is usually racked or strained off the lees. Some premium grape juice, however, has cloudiness and sediments.
Look closer at Isaiah 25:6, though, and you find the word for wine is not even used in the original Hebrew. It is a word (shemarim) that could be translated “wine,” or, “something preserved.” In ancient times they could preserve fermented wine, and they could preserve nonalcoholic wine; and, of course, other food and drink.
“And made hath Jehovah of Hosts, for all the peoples in this mount, a banquet of fat things, a banquet of preserved things, fat things full of marrow, preserved things refined.” -Isaiah 25:6; Young’s Literal Translation
Shemarim - “What is preserved, sediment.” -Dr. Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance.
“In Isaiah 25:6, mention is made of ‘wines on the lees.’ The original signifies ‘preserves’ or ‘jellies,’ and is supposed to refer to the wine cakes which are esteemed a great delicacy in the East.”
-John Kitto, The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature; 1852.
Contrary to some moderate drinking advocates, this verse really gives no evidence either way about drinking.
Isaiah 25:6 should also be understood in the light of Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18; verses that strongly imply when Jesus returns the wine will be new, pure, un-intoxicating fruit of the vine.
David R. Brumbelow
Those who believe in abstaining from alcohol, marijuana, etc., are often presented as legalistic, hateful, self-righteous bigots. Surely there are such on both sides of this issue. But if these drugs are wrong and dangerous, perhaps abstinence is in reality the most loving position to take and to advocate to others. Many would be surprised at the compassion and time abstainers have given to those struggling with alcohol and other drugs.
There is the old story of a preacher who so hated cigarettes when he saw someone smoking he would slap the cigarette out of their mouth, stomp it in the ground and give them a lecture on the evils of smoking. The preacher finally died - cancer of the foot.
That is not the way I, or most abstaining preachers, deal with alcohol. A pastor’s job is to preach the truth and point people in the right direction, all the while knowing that they, and he, will never be perfect. I deal with the issue maybe one to three times a year in preaching. If I see someone drinking, I don’t condemn them on the spot. And most abstaining churches would make a difference between church leadership and regular members and attenders. Some view a church covenant as a very strict and enforced rule, other view it as a way of pointing folks in the right direction.
As to the sugar in unfermented wine / grape juice and diabetes - The proper attitude would be:
When it comes to fermented, alcoholic wine - total abstinence.
When it comes to unfermented wine / grape juice - drink it in moderation.
David R. Brumbelow
As the recently self-appointed Corrector-of-Categories-in-Cheif, I’d just like to define the following two terms:
Abstentionist-one who, due to any of several possible convictions or concerns, refrains from engaging in an activity or practice and, perhaps, encourages others to consider the wisdom of the same.
Prohibitionist-one who has concluded that a particular practice or activity is sinful or otherwise seriously inappropriate and seeks to convince others of the same.
Aaron’s section on “Soul Liberty and Christian Liberty” was a necessary reminder for the subject at hand, especially the note that “the [local church] body should be free to unify to some extent on shared positions of conscience.” This is what I sometimes call the “corporate conscience” of a local church, an association of churches, or other ecclesiastical bodies. This corporate expression of soul liberty might take the form of covenants, articles of faith, confessions, standing resolutions, by laws and the like. They are shared convictions meant to identify, clarify, regulate or position the body in its formation and ongoing ministry. They can be replaced, amended or rescinded by the pleasure of the body; but until then,they are promises to be kept with Christian integrity. The Covenant was a marker of one being in good standing in the church. Churches used to have a “Covenant Meeting,” or some such, on the Wednesday night before Communion Sunday. This was a reminder of the covenant promises made when he/she became a member.
Until rather recently most if not all fundamental Baptist churches adhered to the old Church Covenant that included the promise “to abstain from the sale and use of alcoholic drinks as a beverage.” Many churches still retain this Covenant or one like it. I recall a new church applicant that was denied fellowship in an association of churches for deliberately excising the alcoholic drinks clause from their Covenant. This brought a mini firestorm from the church and its sympathizers, but such ignored the fact that not only was their position a violation of an established corporate conscience but also the autonomy of an association of like-minded churches.
I conclude that the infraction of a shared conviction of conscience, especially the subject of this thread, is not a “minor deal” that merits a pass because the offender was “not drunk and did not appear to have a drinking problem.” Integrity in this case should have seen this as a disavowal of the Covenant, instead of seeming to acknowledge that the Covenant only applied to a drunk or drunkards. This and similar treatments of the Church Covenant appear to reduce the shared biblical convictions to meaninglessness and might be taken as contempt for the Covenant itself.
Rolland McCune
It’s worth noting that the root word also refers to “yeast”, so arguing for preservation of sweet things apart from drying them or turning them into alcohol is..rather dubious.
And really, David, I know you mean well, but given the fact that most adults eventually have their taste buds grow up so they appreciate things that aren’t quite so sweet—pop drinkers migrate to coffee and tea, people go from chowing on the frosting to giving it to their kids—I really don’t think that it’s right to assume that when they had fermentation ready, they were making raisin juice, wasting good wood to boil it into grape syrup, and the like with most of their crop. Sometimes it seems like you’ve got an hermenteutic that says that all good references to wine are nonalcoholic, all bad ones are drunkenness. Convenient for your position, but a rather inconsistent use of the Hebrew and Greek words, to put it mildly.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The oldest Baptist church covenant I have is from 1878 and has no mention of abstinence from alcoholic beverages.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
The oldest Baptist church covenant I have is from 1878 and has no mention of abstinence from alcoholic beverages.
Was that when you joined, Mr. Bean?
[Rolland McCune]I conclude that the infraction of a shared conviction of conscience, especially the subject of this thread, is not a “minor deal” that merits a pass because the offender was “not drunk and did not appear to have a drinking problem.” Integrity in this case should have seen this as a disavowal of the Covenant, instead of seeming to acknowledge that the Covenant only applied to a drunk or drunkards. This and similar treatments of the Church Covenant appear to reduce the shared biblical convictions to meaninglessness and might be taken as contempt for the Covenant itself.
Covenants serve a serious purpose. They specify standards of conduct, behavior, mutual objectives, individual & collective responsibilites…which I know is not the textbook definition, but just my simple take. When violated, what should be the church’s response? Are all infractions equal, or not subject to interpretation? When discipline is merited, what form does that take?
What I fear is that too often, church discipline (when it is even practiced) is wielded in a manner in which the goal is to save face & maintain appearances, instead of it being a means to restore an erring brother or sister. Too often we immediately give up on such folks. They are deemed expendable in fundamental circles. Our inclination is to shoot our wounded. (I won’t mention any specific cases, but I think most on SI can fill in some of the blanks.)
When it comes to Grace, we are terrific at providing a clinical, abstract definition. We (ostensibly) are grateful for its extension to us. When given an opportunity to demonstrate it though, or practice it amongst ourselves, well, then things can get murky.
Far too often we are the ungrateful servant (Matthew 18), claiming we are grateful for the second chance we have been given, but unwilling to give others a break–a second chance. Sure, in the account above in this thread, a church member violated a clause in a church covenant. (From the account, I submit it was a first offense, and relatively minor.) What to do? Expel him from membership? Or talk to him, give him a relative slap on the wrist, and trust that he learned a lesson?
[David R. Brumbelow]And in this mountain
The Lord of hosts will make for all people
A feast of choice pieces,
A feast of wines on the lees,
Of fat things full of marrow,
Of well-refined wines on the lees.-Isaiah 25:6 NKJV
So if in every instance (from what I gather), the translators got it wrong (which they seem to have done quite often in your view), or words are stripped of their actual meanings (e.g. “lees”), or other passages are ignored, what is left?
It all comes back to the argument that when Scripture speaks favorably of wine, it’s grape juice. Unfavorably, it’s wine (fermented). Under such a pretense, discussions take on a circular nature.
I’m still left to wonder, though, why in Titus church leadership is warned to avoid too much grape juice.
[Larry Nelson]Sure, in the account above in this thread, a church member violated a clause in a church covenant. (From the account, I submit it was a first offense, and relatively minor.) What to do? Expel him from membership? Or talk to him, give him a relative slap on the wrist, and trust that he learned a lesson?
The way I read Matthew 18, you start as gently as possible to restore a brother. Charity would assume that the brother may simply have “spaced out” on the requirement. (Although you’d hope that the membership interview would have made sure the candidate was aware of the statement of faith, covenant, etc.) So step 0 or step 1/2 of Matthew 18 is, “Oh. Actually…did you know that the church covenant says we need to abstain from this?”
In my experience, a person’s reaction to early stages of Matthew 18 (humility versus defensiveness) says far more about his spiritual condition than the original behavior itself.
Jim gave only a bullet-point summary of events, so there may be more to it than summarized. But if Person B went straight to the deacon brother-in-law without dealing with the brother directly, than Matthew 18 was violated.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
[Rolland McCune]Aaron’s section on “Soul Liberty and Christian Liberty” was a necessary reminder for the subject at hand, especially the note that “the [local church] body should be free to unify to some extent on shared positions of conscience.” This is what I sometimes call the “corporate conscience” of a local church, an association of churches, or other ecclesiastical bodies. This corporate expression of soul liberty might take the form of covenants, articles of faith, confessions, standing resolutions, by laws and the like. They are shared convictions meant to identify, clarify, regulate or position the body in its formation and ongoing ministry. They can be replaced, amended or rescinded by the pleasure of the body; but until then,they are promises to be kept with Christian integrity. The Covenant was a marker of one being in good standing in the church.
How do we dovetail this with the Westminster Confession of Faith I.6 (and corresponding treatment in Baptist statements): “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men”
I would suggest that if a church believes something to be good and necessary consequences of Scripture, then they are within their rights to include it in a statement of faith or covenant. So if you believe that the Bible mandates total abstention (er, prohibition), then you’re OK to put this in your covenant. You are not OK, however, to put a “good idea” into the covenant. The church has ministerial authority, and so can only administer the rules God laid down in the first place. To deny somebody membership based on your good idea, or even a whole lot of people’s good idea, is still to usurp God’s authority. (After all, “traditions” are a whole lot of people’s good ideas.)
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
Did they really boil down unfermented wine to preserve it?
Did they really use all that wood to do so?
Some quotes; many more could be given.
“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.” -Patrick E. McGovern, Ancient Wine: The Search For The Origins Of Viniculture, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2003.
Aristotle said the wine of Arcadia was “so dried up in its skins by the smoke that you scrape it to drink.” -Aristotle, Meteorology; c. 350 BC.
“The more the must is boiled down, - provided it be not burnt - the better and the thicker it becomes.” -Columella, Book XII, Loeb Classical Library; c. AD 60. Must is new, sweet wine or grape juice.
“The cauldron-room, in which boiled wine is made, should be neither narrow nor dark, so that the attendant who is boiling down the must may move around without inconvenience.” -Columella, Book I, Loeb Classical Library; c. AD 60.
“As to the part devoted to the storage of produce, it is divided into rooms for oil, for presses, for wine, for the boiling down of must, lofts for hay and chaff, storerooms, and granaries,” -Columella, De Re Rustica, vol. I; p. 71.
David R. Brumbelow
One of the oldest and most used Church Covenants, dating back to about the 1850s:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/02/church-covenant.html
David R. Brumbelow
Discussion