Approving Alcohol, Prohibiting Marijuana: An Inconsistent Position

Wally - if you want some credibility on your argument, offer credible evidence to support your argument.

I suggest that you open an Excel spreadsheet and list the similarities & dissimilarities between beverage alcohol and smoking a joint. Include that with your article.

I began to do the work for you but the task is yours!

Example: While marijuana and alcohol are drugs that can impair driving: After states legalized medical marijuana, traffic deaths fell.

Also for whatever reason(s) there are few “overdose” deaths associated with marijuana use - there are no recorded instances of anyone dying from a fatal dose of marijuana alone.

Got a smile out of your last comment, Wally, but suffice it to say that if we had evidence that marijuana addiction was really in the same class as that for heroin, I would change my mind. I actually used to be a fairly ardent prohibitionist in terms of dope until very recently.

Regarding Trueman’s use of hard liquor, really it’s the same thing, just stronger, than wine or beer. Is he getting drunk on it, or is he simply enjoying a drink that doesn’t get him anywhere near drunkenness? I would agree 100% that if someone is prone to gulping, hard liquor can be a really bad idea, but hey…maybe let’s stay with the Biblical categories?

Or, put another way, I’d warn against hard liquor using very similar logic to how I’d warn against the Super Big Gulp, concentrated marijuana oils, The Old Country Buffet, the big box from Krispy Kreme, or the Dollar McMenu (RIP) from McDonald’s. It simply enables a person to get in too much trouble too quickly.

Apparently Jim still doesn’t understand the principles behind my arguments. I have never focused on the College. Others brought that into this discussion. My concern was with TMS and its (and MacArthur’s) public statements on alcohol and how those public statements can be reconciled with having Carl Trueman teach a class to TMS students in light of Trueman’s open (and sometimes flippant) use of scotch and brandy. MacArthur himself has said that “booze” (which scotch and brandy certainly are) is dangerous. Here is the quote which Jim posted:

“It is puerile and irresponsible for any pastor to encourage the recreational use of intoxicants—especially in church-sponsored activities. The ravages of alcoholism and drug abuse in our culture are too well known, and no symbol of sin’s bondage is more seductive or more oppressive than booze. I have ministered to hundreds of people over the years who have been delivered from alcohol addiction. Many of them wage a daily battle with fleshly desires made a thousand times more potent because of that addiction. The last thing I would ever want to do is be the cause of stumbling for one of them.

Besides, deliberately cultivating an appetite for beer or a reputation for loving liquor is not merely bad missional strategy and a bad testimony; it is fraught with deadly spiritual dangers.”

Those are strong words. So to have someone like Carl Trueman (who is an excellent writer) teach a class to its students, a person whose use of scotch and brandy seem to contradict TMS policy of discouraging alcohol use and MacArthur’s strong words on alcohol, is just very odd.

I do not understand how “throwing mud” applies to pointing out this inconsistency. The pejorative use of “throwing mud” tends to obscure the underlying issues. Once again, Jim shows his skill in put-downs.

But this is a side issue. My concern is how Christians who will not oppose alcohol consumption, apparently even strong drinks like scotch and brandy, can rationally oppose recreational marijuana or any other harmful drug which may become legal. If you oppose the use of recreational marijuana, what are your arguments?

First of all - look in the mirror, Wally and FBFI / Proclaim and Defend: You have MacArthur envy. He is in your sights and he has been for some time. Is he inconsistent? Yup - he is. You know what: you are too! And I am too! Don’t claim perfect consistency because that would be a whole new thread about FBFI!

Now you said:

My concern is how Christians who will not oppose alcohol consumption, apparently even strong drinks like scotch and brandy, can rationally oppose recreational marijuana or any other harmful drug which may become legal. If you oppose the use of recreational marijuana, what are your arguments?

• There is the “that that Is” versus “that that should be” / the reality vs the ideal
• I’m against divorce (been married 43 years and never officiated for a divorce-background wedding). Divorced Christians represents the reality. I want to minister to them
• I personally do not advocate beverage alcohol but some Christians do drink in moderation and without getting drunk. That’s a fact. They may have a beer with pizza or wine with a plate of pasta.
• I have not reached a conclusion about medical cannabis (now legal where I live)
• I view the Colorado (where I once lived for 9 years) experiment as a disaster

You are FBFI / Proclaim and Defend look for a rule-based answer for everything (some exaggeration)

My response is: “those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God” (Romans 8:14)

I commend MacArthur for his approach: he teaches and he warns. He does not legislate!

[As an aside: I was in college (1967-71) and smoking joints was all around me. For the 1st two years of college, I wasn’t a Christian. Never smoked a joint! Many opportunities - never did! And never have!]

JohnBrian’s various comments do reflect and “live and let live” approach. I’m not suggesting antinomianist (if that’s actually a word) tendencies. But when he says that Trueman’s personal beliefs are of no concern, that suggests a “live and let live” approach.

On many occasions and forums (such as First Things articles), Carl Trueman has casually and flippantly referenced his drinking scotch and brandy, not just the TMS situation. It’s more than his telling a funny story. To compare scotch and brandy to soft drinks or doughnuts seems way out of balance. And the issue with Trueman isn’t whether he is getting drunk. The issue: Is drinking scotch, brandy, or whiskey comparable to the warnings about strong drink? If it is, then Trueman is reflecting the foolishness which Proverbs warns about. If we’re not willing to apply the warnings about strong drink to scotch, brandy, or whiskey, then what do they apply to, or are the verses basically useless for today? The issue is not “perfect” consistency. Of course we are all inconsistent. But we don’t excuse inconsistency because everyone struggles with it. Especially when the inconsistency is so obvious as Trueman and TMS. Trueman consumes the strong drink whch Proverbs warns about. TMS doesn’t believe it is a problem. Yet,with MacArthur’s strong statements about alcohol, I would think it would be a problem. Apparently not, for MacArthur, TMS, and many others.

Again: The original concern is about reasons for opposing marijuana. Those who seem to not be willing to oppose recreational marijuana use: Would you approve a pastor for your church who uses recreational marijuana regularly? How about a potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law? It is inconsistent to approve today’s wine and other, stronger alcoholic beverages yet oppose recreational marijuana. It it inconsistent to publicly state your strong opposition to alcohol consumption, then have someone who openly talks about his drinking scotch and brandy to teach a class at the seminary which discourages alcohol consumption.

I appreciate some of Jim’s comments on the 11:16am post. But he is assuming motive on my part which 1)he cannot know and 2)he is wrong. “MacArthur envy”? Wow, that thought never entered my thinking. “Rules-based”? I wasn’t aware that “rules” were automatically wrong. Sanctification is Holy Spirit based and produced. Having some “rules” can be helpful and protective, especially if based on Biblical principle. But that is another issue.

I appreciate the comments. I have put just about all the time I can into this discussion. If someone wishes to talk further, email me. Or, better yet, how about a national conference? Seems everyone is having them today.

How Paul handled it:

• The problem - DRUNKENNESS at the Lord’s Table: “when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk” (1 Corinthians 11:21)
• Paul’s various warnings about drunkenness: 1 Corinthians 6:10, “nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (Add: Galatians, Ephesians, et cetera
• But he did not prohibit drinking: To the Corinthians: “Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?” (Drink at home) (1 Corinthians 11:22)
• I do not find an absolute ban an alcohol consumption in either the OT or NT

Tyler: The issue is not “insulating” people. Students on the seminary level are aware of the issues, debates, and personalities. I imagine many knew about Trueman’s drinking scotch & brandy. The issue is not “insulation”. The issue is consistency with the stated and strong beliefs of the seminary. Trueman’s teaching the class seems inconsistent with MacArthur’s and the seminary’s stated warnings about alcohol. Was there no one else, who didn’t have the alcohol issues Trueman has, who could teach that class with just as much, if not more, academic credentials than Trueman? THAT is the problem and inconsistency. Also: I wonder if TMS would have had someone teach a class who openly admits he smokes marijuana? And that gets back to the original point of my article.

Again: I am willing to discuss through email, but I don’t have any more time for this discussion. So, as usual, I’ll leave the final comments to others (however dangerous that may be!).

My take is that “strong drink” (“shekar”), being used most of the time with “yayin”, would have to refer directly to the liquors available in Israel at the time—wine and perhaps beer. Distillation was invented only in the late 1st century, and so it’s not a direct comparison to make. I would further guess that, given that starvation was always a possibility there, that most barley would be used for bread. So it’s mostly wine, really.

Now if you want to argue that wine was proscribed, be my guest, but that point seems to have escaped our Savior in John 2, among a lot of other passages. Hence we have to view the passages Wally refers to in context of a culture that made, and consumed, an awful lot of real wine, generally with God’s explicit blessing.

Application to Trueman? Twofold. First, again, it’s on the Biblical categories, specifically drunkenness, not on the torturing of Strong’s 7941 and associated words to mean something it cannot possibly refer to. Second, Tyler is entirely right that fundagelicalism is getting inbred and ghettoized, and a big part of that is the rules Wally and others have been bringing up. If you can’t bring in opposing opinions, good luck correcting course when that’s necessary.

It’s worth noting that this really is why there are only five theological fundamentals. The point was to put the critical parts of the faith on firm footing while not excluding others based on “disputable matters”. It seems that some who claim the name have forgotten this.

Second, Tyler is entirely right that fundagelicalism is getting inbred and ghettoized, and a big part of that is the rules Wally and others have been bringing up. If you can’t bring in opposing opinions, good luck correcting course when that’s necessary.

You are presuming, of course, that we want to change course or even see the need to do so.

Maybe when the FBFI gets down below 100 members that will happen, but I am not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

[Jay]…when the FBFI gets down below 100 members ….

I know this for a fact: they have old demographics … shrinking membership

From Parker’s Lake Baptist Church ( http://www.plbc.org/ ), Plymouth, MN:

http://www.plbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Alcohol-and-Membership.pdf

From Bethlehem Baptist Church ( https://bethlehem.church/ ), Minneapolis, MN:

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/total-abstinence-and-church-membership

These are examples of balanced, biblical approaches to the issue of beverage alcohol that argue it is NOT inconsistent to hold to a personal view regarding alcohol use, without demanding conformity & feeling compelled to impose that view on other Christians.

It’s going to happen a lot sooner than anyone suspects if they don’t do something soon, Jim, and what is sad is how utterly predictable and preventable it is.