Guinness uses "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms" in "Empty Chair" commercial

Jim’s comment reminds me of a joke:

Protestants do not recognize the Pope.

Catholics do not recognize the solas or the Westminster Confession.

Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store.

And yes, I confess that the thought “it’s much more fun to point at someone else’s sins” has come to mind when I hear a so-called “evangelist” preaching against sins that no one in the congregation is practicing, and assiduously avoiding any mention of Christ dying to save sinners until the altar call.

[Larry]

you can only think it worldly if you think alcohol sinful.

Actually, no. One can think drinking to be worldly without attributing any moral characteristic to alcohol. I don’t know anyone who thinks alcohol is sinful. It is a non-moral entity, isn’t it? It has no capacity to sin. However, all agree that sometimes the use of alcohol can be sinful. And one can think a commercial mixing alcohol with a Christian hymn to be worldly without thinking alcohol is sinful.

The consumption of alcohol can be worldly on any number of fronts, including a desire to unrestrained freedom, a desire to numb one’s soul to something, a desire to elicit immoral activity, etc. These all stem from the human heart, to be sure, but that is exactly the point. Alcohol is used by some in some cases to heighten the expression of the sinfulness already in the human heart. This is not disputed by anyone outside of a narrow few. It is one of the most widely accepted axioms in the world today. The use of alcohol impairs thinking and response.

Therefore, you must prove alcohol sinful before you can disparage the commercial’s adaptation of the hymn.

Again, not true. One can object to the mixing of a Christian hymn or song with something quite apart from alcohol being sinful. For instance, I love sports (of just about all types). I do not consider them sinful. But I would object to using a Christian song to promote a sport or a sporting event. One can object to the adaptation of a Christian hymn to a beer commercial, merely on the grounds of mixing the sacred with the secular, without making any moral evaluation of the alcohol itself.

Your type of argument simply won’t stand up. It is insufficient to deal with the issues at hand.

Larry, normally your logic makes sense to me. But you’ve overdissected my comments and actually made my point. I was addressing Mark’s very specific bifurcation of the use of alcohol into a black and white cultural issue. He implied either A or B. No moderation. Which would mean that in his system an alcoholic beverage must be in and of itself sinful. Which is what you’re saying. The object is neutral. I was simply asking him to prove alcohol or its use inherently sinful/worldly.

And I’m not sure how you guys are defining worldliness, but how are you separating worldliness from sin? If you embrace worldly philosophy, you are falling short of God’s glory, choosing something above Him, which is sin. So yes, alcohol CAN be uses in a worldly fashion, which is sinful, but it is not explicitly black and white, which is what I was directing toward Mark.

Hope that makes sense.

[David R. Brumbelow]

dmicah,

You asked me to explain verses in Luke and Mark:

Luke 7:33-35

John Baptist did not eat and drink with the people. He did not socialize.

Jesus did just the opposite.

Jesus ate and drank with the people; He socialized with them.

I eat and drink with folks often, but I don’t drink alcohol.

But how could Jesus’ enemies call Him a winebibber if He did not drink alcohol at all?

The same way those who hated Jesus called Him demon possessed (John 10:20).

Jesus was no more a social drinker just because His enemies called Him a winebibber, than He was a little demon possessed because those who hated Him falsely accused Him of demon possession.

No matter what Jesus did, His enemies slandered Him.

Mark 7:14-23

1. This passage is not speaking of alcohol at all.

2. The context clearly shows it is speaking of the ceremonial Jewish practices of washing hands, pots, etc. See first verses of chapter 7.

3. Jesus is speaking of food, not drugs.

4. Jesus’ point is not, drink all you want and it will not defile you.

5. Jesus’ point is that whether you keep or don’t keep the ceremonial laws - that will not defile you; an evil heart is what defiles you.

6. This passage no more justifies drinking alcohol, than it justifies eating poison mushrooms, arsenic, smoking marijuana, taking meth, etc.

7. This passage in no way cancels out Proverbs 20:1; 23:19-35; 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8; 1 Peter 5:7.

Disclaimer: Ceremonial washing is not required, but you should still wash your hands often!

David R. Brumbelow

With all due respect, you’re straining at gnats here. You can’t call this “socializing” when Jesus specifically mentioned wine. It was clearly a logical progression. JTB doesn’t eat or drink WINE, and he was labeled a demon. Why? Because of outlier eccentricities. Exaggerated caricature of who he was. Jesus contrasts himself with John. He clearly says he’s the opposite. John - Nazarite Vow - No Wine. Jesus, no special vow, imbibed like every other common Jew. And because of his intake of wine, people called him a drunk. Another exaggerated caricature. While the basis of your name calling argument may seem logical, it doesn’t fit the context and natural progression of the conversation. And as someone has mentioned, Jesus made wine. To say it may have been non-alcoholic is simply digging your heels in. It’s unreasonable.

You are correct, Mark 7 is not indicating alcohol per se. In any case the principal is accurate. Whether a beverage has alcohol in it or not is of no consequence to the heart as it relates to holiness, righteousness, sin, etc. Alcohol is not a “drug”. To somehow analogize a beer or wine with poison mushrooms, arsenic or meth only highlights the desperate straw man stretch the abstinence argument needs to mask its weaknesses. All the passages you mentioned have been debated ad infinitum. No one is arguing for drunkenness. And no one in their right mind can argue that alcohol consumed in moderation creates drunkenness.

If in fact Jesus did not drink alcoholic wine or make it then the disciples would have been obligated to follow this example. However, we know what the historic culture was like and we have ample records from this period. Not one historian notes that the early Christians didn’t drink alcoholic beverages. To assert differently is folly, end of story.

Thanks, DMicah,

…Which would mean that in his system an alcoholic beverage must be in and of itself sinful. Which is what you’re saying.

That’s not at all what I am saying. As I said above (and before), alcohol is a non-moral entity. It cannot be sinful in and of itself. It even has some good uses. I haven’t even said that the use of alcohol as a beverage is inherently sinful or worldly.

My point was in response to your comment that “the only way” that one could object to the union of song/beer in said commercial was if alcohol was sinful. My main point is that there are other grounds on which it is possible to object which have nothing to do with the sinfulness of alcohol or the sinfulness of the use of alcohol. I think your “only” statement is too narrow to do justice to the topic.

And I’m not sure how you guys are defining worldliness, but how are you separating worldliness from sin?

I am not separating it. I find that distinction to be strange, and like you, I wonder how they make that separation. I think worldliness is sinful. I am not saying that any use of alcohol is worldly or sinful. I would say that some uses are, and you agree with me on that based on your statement that “alcohol CAN be uses in a worldly fashion.”

[Jim]

Meanwhile I love this photo

[Mark_Smith]

Anyway, while driving I noticed around a dozen churches with nice large buildings. NOT ONE OF THEM had a Wed night service or any mid-week service. When I looked at the church sign they all had only Sunday services ( a few did have Sun pm services). Now is that a sin? No. They gather together to worship the Lord on Sunday so they aren’t disobeying Heb . But is it worldy? Yes. Now I am not looking to start a debate on mid-week services, only to point out an example of worldliness that is not sin.

Your answer doesn’t quite address my question

Yet, as far as I know, there were any discussions like, “If we could drink the water, we wouldn’t have to drink beer.”

And yes, I see the conundrum of the youth pastor you cite. But, it arises from holding to the total abstention position. The American saloon culture of the 1840s until Prohibition harmed this country like no other drug until the introduction of crack cocaine. It created scars and wounds that still haven’t healed.

[Mark_Smith]

Why did abstaining from alcohol only become prominent recently? Many reasons. As we have stated on this blog water was often polluted with bacteria…alcohol in small amounts helped to kill it. People often mixed alcohol as a purification procedure. Second, without refrigeration you get fermentation…BUT…fermintation unless it is done right leads to vinegar, not usable tasty alcohol (so I am told). Third, since everyone drank alcohol due to 1 and 2 above, there was large part of society that responsibly drank. It was a part of life, not just an escape mechanism.

Fast forward to 2014. We have refrigerators and multi-million dollar water purification plants. Thus 1 and 2 are eliminated. The only reason to drink alcohol today IS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO. As a result alcohol has become a social drug of fun and frivolity. It is the definition of worldliness. Thus, while you might have the liberty to drink, it is best to not as an ambassador of Christ in America today.

Example: A few houses down from me is a “youth leader” at an independent, non-fundamental Baptist church. It happens to be the largest Baptist church in the city I live by far. He is proud of the fact he is a beer brewing aficionado. He brews it at home and talks about it often. What does that tell the kids he teaches?

[Larry]

Thanks, DMicah,

…Which would mean that in his system an alcoholic beverage must be in and of itself sinful. Which is what you’re saying.

That’s not at all what I am saying. As I said above (and before), alcohol is a non-moral entity. It cannot be sinful in and of itself. It even has some good uses. I haven’t even said that the use of alcohol as a beverage is inherently sinful or worldly.

My point was in response to your comment that “the only way” that one could object to the union of song/beer in said commercial was if alcohol was sinful. My main point is that there are other grounds on which it is possible to object which have nothing to do with the sinfulness of alcohol or the sinfulness of the use of alcohol. I think your “only” statement is too narrow to do justice to the topic.

And I’m not sure how you guys are defining worldliness, but how are you separating worldliness from sin?

I am not separating it. I find that distinction to be strange, and like you, I wonder how they make that separation. I think worldliness is sinful. I am not saying that any use of alcohol is worldly or sinful. I would say that some uses are, and you agree with me on that based on your statement that “alcohol CAN be uses in a worldly fashion.”

Apparently I’m not being clear, or you have blurry vision. :-)

I am agreeing with you that alcohol is neutral. it is an object that is acted upon. It is the other guy that would have to prove it to be inherently or innately sinful to make his argument. which he can’t, so his black and white opinion is invalid. sorry for any confusion, but I actually think we’re on the same page here.

To build on Keith’s comment about the saloon culture, it was really the hard liquor saloon culture—a culture that made it easy to get drunk in a hurry. If I read the charts right, it takes me (200 lb male) about 4-5 servings of liquor to get legally drunk. In terms of beer, that’s like emptying a 2 liter bottle—I’ll need to go to the bathroom before I’m not legal to drive, shall we say—but in terms of whiskey or other distilled liquors, it’s about a cup. If you can get past the taste and the burn, it’s much easier to get intoxicated. (this is one reason I’ve never drunk distilled liquors—it’s just too easy to get in trouble)

I would also add that Prohibition also did some huge damage because much of the knowledge that was needed to make decent quality liquors was lost—just see the joke above about Oz Guinness having a Coke because the heads of Anheuser-Busch and Coors weren’t drinking real beer, either. It’s the root of “optimized for drinkability”, which is in a nutshell “optimized for drunkenness”.

Also, a quick note regarding Mark Smith’s comment that we have no need for liquor; well, along the same lines, there is no need for chocolate, coffee, tea, candy, soda, or animal protein of any kind (meat, dairy, fish) in the diet of adults today, either. And yet I hope we would all agree that if we enjoy these things with gratitude in our hearts to the One who gave them to us, we can bring honor and praise to His name.

Same thing with a glass of wine or beer. Plus, alcohol is a mild blood thinner, which makes it somewhat helpful for those with heart disease (people like me who have enjoyed the church potluck TOO much!), and many of the compounds (e.g. flavenoids) in wine and beer also are helpful with regards to heart disease and even some cancers. A friend of mine was actually prescribed a glass of wine with dinner by her doctor for this reason.

The main reason for distilled liquor being the mainstay of the saloon system was the lack of the natural or artificial refrigeration need for the brewing of beer in much of the US. It wasn’t until Anheuser-Busch developed artificial refrigeration for its brewery and refrigerated freight cars, that beer could be more of a local drink if it was available at all. However, by that time, distilled liquor reign supreme. Other countries had the climate for brewing and distilled liquor remained expensive.

[Bert Perry]

To build on Keith’s comment about the saloon culture, it was really the hard liquor saloon culture—a culture that made it easy to get drunk in a hurry. If I read the charts right, it takes me (200 lb male) about 4-5 servings of liquor to get legally drunk. In terms of beer, that’s like emptying a 2 liter bottle—I’ll need to go to the bathroom before I’m not legal to drive, shall we say—but in terms of whiskey or other distilled liquors, it’s about a cup. If you can get past the taste and the burn, it’s much easier to get intoxicated. (this is one reason I’ve never drunk distilled liquors—it’s just too easy to get in trouble.SNIP

I know an older Pastor who graduated from Seminary in 1959. He is big against alcohol. He says the wine at miracle at Cana was really grape juice. He refuses to go anywhere “where they have a liquor license.” He has been very shaped by the aftermath of the temperance movement in a very American context.

I lived in Italy for five years. They don’t have “liquor licenses” there. Everybody drinks wine. Everybody. Kids drink wine at dinner (if their parents let them). It’s in every single restaurant. It’s in every cafe. It’s everywhere.

It’s always tempting to let our own culture and context shape us, but an outside perspective is sometimes helpful. This Pastor’s view would be unheard of in Italy.

Yes, the entire point flew right by you… The ONLY point was to address dmicah who said worldly = sinful. I was looking for an example of worldly that wasn’t sinful. If you have small groups…wonderful. I’m happy for you. AS I TRIED DESPERATELY TO MAKE CLEAR, I was not shooting your way. But, it looks like you wanted to jump in front of the fire;-)

I appreciate that many churches do as you list. MANY DO NOT! Many churches meet only on Sunday morning. I was speaking to them. I only used the example of seeing the building’s empty because it triggered the response I needed for dmicah. Obviously there are a lot of different situations for churches.

BTW, what do your church’s teens do during the Summer when there is no AWANA?

Mark,

Do you see something inherently wrong with only meeting on Sunday morning?