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
Do you see the value of the triage of teaching as presented in the concentric circles, here?
If so would you view the drinking issue as: Absolute? Conviction? or Opinion?
“Individual Soul Liberty” defined: Every individual, whether a believer or an unbeliever, has the liberty to choose what their conscience or soul decides is right in the religious realm. This also involves the personal and individual accountability of each person before God.
Now it seems they are BaptXsts. (By the way … when was the last time you heard anything about “Individual Soul Liberty”?! Anymore it seems it is My Way or the Highway!)
View A is anti-liberty.
Click above for larger
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this article. This is the pretty much the exact position I have come to myself. With the “wisdom” answer to be the best! I have the same thoughts on “Contemporary Christian music”. I don’t believe it is a good thing when it veers into the lack of reverence, and appeals to the body more than the Spirit, and the repetition issues, as well as ‘amorous lyrics placed on our God. I’m taking a strong stand, when those things are brought up…with a spirit of respect and gentleness for the believer I am discussing it with. I express my concerns, but….. I say, you yourself must come to your own conclusions by seeking God’s will on this subject..
Tom
[Aaron] FourthI agree with this statement. Many here know why. But why should the Fundamentalist agree? If you believe that “wine” is adiaphora (weak/strong, “Rom14”) then you import the commands for the strict brother (don’t judge) and the strong (don’t despise, keep it to yourself).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.
But, consider this line:
[Don Johnson] (here in the other thread)Gordon Fee says this in his ending comments on 1 Cor 8-10Anyway, the misinterpretation of Romans 14 has perpetuated a huge misunderstanding of Christian liberty amongst many believers. It hasn’t improved the life of the church at all.
Unfortunately, and despite this passage, the issue of personal freedom in matters that are adiaphora, as well as the limitation of freedom for the sake of others, continues to haunt many sectors of the church. Usually the battle rages over what constitutes adiaphora. Conservatives on these issues simply fail to reckon with how “liberal” Paul’s own view really is. Hence Paul is seldom heard for the sake of traditional regulations.(1)
I underlined one line. The issue with alcohol here on SI has always come down to: Is alcohol adiaphora?
The abstainers don’t see wine as a matter in the bounds of Romans 14. “Don’t judge” therefore doesn’t apply to alcohol. They believe they should use “speak truth in love” (Eph4) and “if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal 6).
Here’s the thing - IF wine isn’t adiaphora, then they’re right. That’s why Fee’s observation that the battle rages over what constitutes adiaphora is so important. And why Don is right that, “[Romans 14] hasn’t improved the life of the church at all.”
–––––––
(1) Gordon D. Fee, NICNT The First Epistle to the Corinthians, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2014, p. 541.
I agree Jim, but I think you have some “issues” from your experiences over the years from some of the things you have said.
A Baptist distinctive is individual soul liberty. Certainly. But, a Baptist church can have a standard for membership or leadership. A standard might be “no alcohol consumption”. Your liberty would be to say no, I cannot agree with that and move on, or yes, I agree.
[Mark_Smith] a Baptist church can have a standard for membership or leadership. A standard might be “no alcohol consumption”.
Observation: Those standards are often not set by the current church by rather by the past church. The option for someone who does not agree is to walk
By “past church” do you mean at XYZ Baptist Church the by-laws were set in 1948 and they’ve never changed? To the point that in 2015, if the members of XYZ voted today they would allow freedom in the area of alcohol?
If that is the case then the member of XYZ need to act to change the by-laws.
IMHO, leaving is a good option.No one is bound to stay at some church. They are free to leave if their conscience is violated by something going on at that church and they can’t change either themselves or the church.
If you believe the studies those same people just might approve same-sex marriage along with alcohol consumption!
[Jim]Do you see the value of the triage of teaching as presented in the concentric circles, here?
If so would you view the drinking issue as: Absolute? Conviction? or Opinion?
Taxonomies like these do have some usefulness. In reality, it’s very difficult to distinguish between conviction and opinion. To me, the former is a subset of the latter… in fact they are all subsets of opinion. My opinion is what I believe and it includes the fundamentals of the faith, my convictions, etc.
So what we’re really talking about is degree of certainty and how to relate to those who differ.
I think Henebury’s Rules of Affinity are more useful because they focus more on what we have in Scripture rather than subjective categories like conviction vs. opinion vs. preference, etc.
While I don’t see the wisdom of abstinence as even close to a fundamental of the faith, it doesn’t follow that local churches and other institutions may hold to it as a distinctive. Indeed, the wisdom case is even stronger for institutional abstinence policy than it is for individual abstinence. (I might trust myself or someone I know well to use alcohol carefully, but is it wise to trust a whole congregation or faculty or student body, etc. to do that? Just in terms of the odds of failure, they rise with the increase of the number of people involved.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
On this comment: http://sharperiron.org/comment/77936#comment-77936 and adiaphora in general….
I agree that contention over what is in the adiaphora category and what isn’t is getting much closer to the right starting point…. for this and many other issues.
I suggest there is one more level deeper we need to go though, and look at the right process for identifying what is adiaphora what isn’t.
For those unfamiliar with the term, adiaphora itself is not understood identically by everyone (hence, part of the difficulty involved in deciding what is and what isn’t in that bucket).
Some helpful resources… selected pretty much randomly…
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470670606.wbecc0007/abst…
https://carm.org/questions-adiaphora
http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=ADIAPHORA
Due to work schedule, I’ll be out of the discussion until this evening. One more addition: from Encylopedia of Christianity
Adiaphora
1. “Adiaphora,” from the Gk. pl. adiaphora (cf. Lat. sing. indifferens), denotes things that are indifferent. A broad range of usage for what is permitted or what is between permission and proscription has helped to determine its historical significance.
The term occurs in the → ethics of antiquity, especially in → Stoicism. The Stoics tried to see how things that encounter us or acts that we perform have a moral significance that is not intrinsic to them. Christian ethics adopted the term but used it in many different ways as it faced problems relating to specific places and developments. Common to the usage as a whole, the concept sets a limit to what may be justified in terms of Christian ethics.2.1. In Christian ethics the term determines the range of biblical guidance insofar as this is understood as a comprehensive instruction for the Christian life. Adiaphora are matters in secular life for which the Bible gives no specific guidance.
2.2. The term fixes the range of a morality that consists of commands and prohibitions. As considered in ethical textbooks, adiaphora are things that are permitted or things that fall between command and prohibition. Over against them, some have maintained the comprehensive nexus of moral → duty (F. D. E. → Schleiermacher). Protestant ethics has largely followed the latter view and has thus maintained a Christian → freedom that exempts no sphere of life from moral accountability. Only marginally is it asked whether a “free area”—as, for example, in art—can exist (e.g., W. Trillhaas).
2.3. The fundamental problem arises when Christian freedom in all its scope is viewed as freedom from works. One might include all that we experience and do within such a freedom, which in turn is needed if any of our deeds is to be morally relevant before God. In such a view, adiaphora cannot refer to morally indifferent things but simply to all things without distinction. This position avoids both antinomianism and the binding of freedom to a specific morality. This is how we are to understand M. → Luther’s “freedom of a Christian.” The lordship of Christians over all things rests on their all having the same value for → righteousness before God. The evaluation of all things then relates to whether they give offense to the faith of others (see Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8–10). The criterion is the need of the neighbor. In this context there can be no regard for distinctions in moral validity.
2.4. Church ordinances (ceremonies) are paradigms by which to test Christian freedom, a point that textbooks of → dogmatics discuss. Luther understood the validity of church rulings in terms of Christian freedom. In the first adiaphora controversy a debate about this question arose between the position of P. → Melanchthon (1497–1560) and the → Gnesio-Lutherans, especially M. Flacius (1520–75), writing in his Liber de veris et falsis adiaphoris (1549). Flacius’s opinion is expressed in FC 10 in the statement that in the case of confession (i.e., when it is necessary under persecution to confess evangelical teaching for the sake of the truth of the → gospel), church ordinances are also included. An application of this understanding to moral or political matters is not in view. This application comes in the more precise usage of the phrase → status confessionis only in the 19th century (→ Church Struggle). The question of the obligatoriness of church ordinances also brings to mind the broader question of the theological significance of church order. This has been a decisive question since the German church struggle.3. The extension of the problem to political matters makes it necessary to define the relations between the obedience of → faith (§3), → freedom (§2), and → reason. What is “reasonable” for Christians can be understood only in light of freedom, which is not based on equating “reasonable” and “ethically indifferent.” Those who ask whether a decision about what is ethically reasonable could ever contradict what is taken as the truth of the gospel must not assume that guidance for all actions can be derived directly from the gospel. To establish such a contradiction would require theological judgment. No view of Christian ethics leads to the conclusion that political decisions would be indifferent in regard to Christian freedom.
Bibliography: K. BAIER, The Moral Point of View (Ithaca, N.Y., 1958) ∙ J. GOTTSCHICK, “Adiaphora,” RE 1.168–79 ∙ T. GRAEBNER, The Borderland of Right and Wrong (5th ed.; St. Louis, 1938) ∙ C. L. MANSCHRECK, “The Role of Melanchthon in the Adiaphora Controversy,” ARG 48 (1957) 165–82 ∙ G. MAURACH and K. ALAND, “Adiaphora,” HWP 1.83–85 ∙ M. SCHLOEMANN, “Der besondere Bekenntnisfall. Begriffsgeschichtliche und systematische Beobachtungen zum casus confessionis vor, in und nach Daressalam 1977,” Politik als Glaubenssache? Beiträge zur Klärung des Status Confessionis im südlichen Afrika und in anderen soziologischen Kontexten (R. Bertram et al.; ed. E. Lorenz; Erlangen, 1983) 48–98 ∙ W. TRILLHAAS, “Adiaphoron. Erneute Erwägung eines alten Begriffs,” TLZ 79 (1954) 457–62; idem, Ethik (3d ed.; Berlin, 1970) ∙ B. J. VERKAMP, The Indifferent Mean: Adiaphorism in the English Reformation to 1554 (Athens, Ohio, 1977).
HANS G. ULRICH
Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003). 16-17.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think it is important to maintain a proper distinction between Soul Liberty and Christian Liberty (or liberty of conscience).
Soul liberty does not mean a given church has no right to enforce discipline upon its members according to the majority’s understanding of the Bible. That is, in fact, entirely appropriate. Soul liberty has more to do with the inappropriateness of any government or churchly authority coercing its subjects/members to give assent to a religious belief. In the case of a church situation, it means doing so INSTEAD of allowing the dissenting member to “walk.”
Christian liberty has more to do with the subject at hand, I think—allowing quiet personal disagreement in the realm of standards given the lack of an absolute command.
Incidentally, the London Baptist Confession (1689) has a full chapter on Christian Liberty. So it is also an historic Baptist doctrine.
Now while I can certainly acknowledge the dangers of alcohol consumption, I’ve got to note that most of those who learn to abuse it learn to do so…..when they are at parties with other young people (e.g. college frat parties) where the goal is to get drunk. That is, statistically speaking, where you get your alcoholics. Alcoholism is much more rare in societies where people learn about alcohol at home and in other “adult” situations.
For example, I learned to appreciate the taste of beer and wine in Germany, and it was noteworthy that if someone showed signs of wanting to get drunk at a bar there, the staff would not serve them. And so those of us who had not already learned drunkenness at frat parties back in the states learned to appreciate the Gemuetlichkeit of having a glass or two over dinner or such, and most of us were forever ruined for Bugweiser, Boone’s Farm, and the like. Drunkenness? Not with what you’d have to pay for drinkable stuff.
So along those lines, I can think of a few reasons to support alcohol consumption among Christians. First of all, if I model responsible consumption to my children and introduce them to something drinkable, they too are likely to be forever ruined for “frat parties”, Bugweiser, Everclear, and Boone’s Farm.
Another strong reason that believers might do well—if they have not already become addicted of course—to consider drinking wine (or beer) is because Scripture so consistently uses it as a picture of God’s grace. Not to get drunk, not to be an insufferable wine snob, but simply to understand what God is getting at in Scripture when He compares His other good gifts with wine. Again, this is a great reason for churches to take part in the same.
Finally, it should be remembered that moderate alcohol consumption is correlated with good health outcomes (heart disease, etc..), and often a glass of wine replaces a much larger (and refilled) glass of pop over dinner—or repeated trips to the lemonade cooler at the church picnic. It’s also my experience that drinking wine (at least decent stuff) correlates well to a disdain for overly sweetened foods.
Guess that the doctors are finding is a key cause of heart disease, diabetes, and other maladies associated with “metabolic syndrome”?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Finally, it should be remembered that moderate alcohol consumption is correlated with good health outcomes (heart disease, etc..), and often a glass of wine replaces a much larger (and refilled) glass of pop over dinner—or repeated trips to the lemonade cooler at the church picnic. It’s also my experience that drinking wine (at least decent stuff) correlates well to a disdain for overly sweetened foods.
You do know that medical authorities who speak about the health benefits of moderate drinking do so to get people to consume LESS alcohol, not to START drinking alcohol, right?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Actually, Don, that’s false. Medical authorities will tell heavy drinkers to drink more moderately, but that does not impugn drinking as a whole. You might as well do a study about spanking without differentiating it from child abuse.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eatin…
Moderate alcohol use may be of most benefit if you’re an older adult or if you have existing risk factors for heart disease.
Read the whole article .. it’s pretty balanced with warnings about alcohol too. This is not a pro-alcohol article.
(Waiting for Brumbelow, who does not have a medical degree, to disagree (it’s happened many times before) :) )
Discussion