Legalism in the SBC

Whenever somebody disagrees with you, just call him a legalist… that’ll teach him. (bogeyman)

Instead of dealing substantively with a well-reasoned article, some just mock and scoff. I could understand a young Christian opposing responsible alcohol use because of ignorance of the bible or being unduly influenced by erroneous teaching, but not a leader or seasoned saint. One has to be willing ignorant, in my opinion, to disallow and proscribe moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages to the responsible and ‘of age’ Christian.

Even John Piper who doesn’t drink and prefers other Christians not to imbibe recognizes the danger of going to the other side of the spectrum and ending up self righteous.

… God hates legalism as much as he hates alcoholism. If any of you still wonders why I go on supporting this amendment after hearing all the tragic stories about lives ruined through alcohol, the reason is that when I go home at night and close my eyes and let eternity rise in my mind, I see ten million more people in hell because of legalism than because of alcoholism. And I think that is a literal understatement… .

… Legalism is a more dangerous disease than alcoholism because it doesn’t look like one. Alcoholism makes men fail; legalism helps them succeed in the world. Alcoholism makes men depend on the bottle; legalism makes them self-sufficient, depending on no one. Alcoholism destroys moral resolve; legalism gives it strength. Alcoholics don’t feel welcome in church; legalists love to hear their morality extolled in church. Therefore, what we need in this church is not front-end regulations to try to keep ourselves pure… .

http://philgons.com/2013/03/john-piper-on-alcohol-consumption/

Its not either drink booze or you are a legalist. Here is a helpful article:

http://thecripplegate.com/shooing-away-the-legalism-boogeymen/

Is the SBTS seriously considering allowing students to use wine for communion? If true, then this would open the door to wider use, no matter how much they might protest otherwise.

RC Sproul also endorses the use of fermented wine in communion:

“There is an ongoing controversy in that many Protestant churches don’t use wine in the celebration of the sacrament. In fact, I think the majority of churches don’t use wine; most use a form of grape juice. One of the major reasons for that is the porblem of alcoholism, and church leaders want to protect their people from unnecesary temptation. In other cases, churches don’t believe Jesus used real wine.

I agree with Calvin–real wine communicates to our taste buds both elements–pain and joy, sorrow and gladness–and somehow, in my opinion, grape juice just doesn’t do it. I think we lose something there because, in the worship of Israel, God associated certain truths with certain tastes.” (R.C. Sproul, A Taste of Heaven), p. 170

The full text of the

Southern Baptist Convention Resolution:

On Alcohol Use In America
June 2006
WHEREAS, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that alcohol use leads to physical, mental, and emotional damage (e.g., Proverbs 23:29-35); and
WHEREAS, Alcohol use has led to countless injuries and deaths on our nation’s highways; and
WHEREAS, The breakup of families and homes can be directly and indirectly attributed to alcohol use by one or more members of a family; and
WHEREAS, The use of alcohol as a recreational beverage has been shown to lead individuals down a path of addiction to alcohol and toward the use of other kinds of drugs, both legal and illegal; and
WHEREAS, There are some religious leaders who are now advocating the consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of “our freedom in Christ”; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages.
RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in supporting legislation that is intended to curb alcohol use in our communities and nation; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.
-SBC, Greensboro, NC

David R. Brumbelow

Some of the reasons why I do not use alcohol for the Lord’s Supper:

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-we-dont-use-alcohol-for…

David R. Brumbelow

Part of the problem (and one that has shown up countless times here on SI) is that we don’t have a set definition of “legalism.”

Some say it means “Requiring good works for salvation.” Some, “Requiring good works to have good ‘standing’ in the Christian community.” Some, “Claiming that my conviction is necessary for someone else.” Some, “Any promotion of rules within the church.”

But “Legaism” isn’t an exact Biblical word that we can define with the precision of Biblical usage. The author says,

The SBC arguments that highlight the fact that alcohol can be abused (i.e., “leads to” reasoning) are arguments that treat Christians like those described in Gal. 5:19-21 rather than those described in Gal. 5:22-23. That may be the worst thing about the so-called wisdom of commanding total abstinence. It treats Christians like pagans. The SBC seems to have a low view of self-control in the life of the Christian. These studies of how worldly people act are affecting theological practice rather than allowing good theology to affect worldly practice.

And when you treat Christians like pagans, you’re not only entering into the legalistic realm that Paul and Christ so strongly rail against, but you’re also breaking the first commandment by denying the power of God (see 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 3:16).

Moderate use isn’t the same as “drunkenness” (I think we all agree). So Moderate alcohol isn’t on the Gal.5:19-21 list. But surely that list is examples of sins - there are other sins that while not mentioned there, are still sins. If you apply God’s Word and concluded that moderate alcohol is wrong, I have no problem with that conviction. But I would agree that to require a church (or Convention) to follow a personal conviction is wrong, even if the conviction is commendable, logical, and Biblical. More about this in Part 12 of my series…

Probably the biggest flaw in the article is that the author uses the term “legalism” for what is really loose exegesis and poor logic on the part of the SBC resolvers. They reference only one passage, Proverbs 23, which describes someone with red eyes, stumbling, feeling no pain, and waking with a hangover, all of which occur at .15-.2% alcohol, according to This resource. To get there at my size (~ 210 lbs) requires about 8-12 drinks; eight to twelve cans of beer or two full bottles of wine.

In other words, the SBC document assumes that drunkenness and alcoholism are the same thing as social drinking, and millions of people who drink responsibly would beg to differ. It does the cause of Christ no help to spread such silly arguments.

SBC:

WHEREAS, Alcohol use has led to countless injuries and deaths on our nation’s highways; and

WHEREAS, The breakup of families and homes can be directly and indirectly attributed to alcohol use by one or more members of a family; and

WHEREAS, The use of alcohol as a recreational beverage has been shown to lead individuals down a path of addiction to alcohol and toward the use of other kinds of drugs, both legal and illegal

I think we could debate the frequency of some of those things, but not that they are true. And we could debate whether the alcohol shares it’s causal role with other important factors in each of those. But I don’t think we can disagree that it plays a role in all those things.

And even though they didn’t quote Scripture, things like “injury, death, breakup of family, addiction” are clearly things that Scripture is against.

For me, if the SBC had issued this as a warning to its members to take heed of the dangers, but had still affirmed the personal nature of the conviction they are promoting, it would have been fine.

Although I have many criticisms of the SBC (having grown up in the SBC), at least the SBC is trying to tackle the subject instead of caving in to the culture, as many Evangelicals and some Fundamentalists are doing. We can clothe our arguments with nice sounding words such as “freedom, liberty”, etc., and while we do so watch the next generation take that “liberty” to a level beyond what we intended. The SBC leadership knows that many of their younger generation do drink alcohol, and I assume they are trying to confront that. Good for them. The denomination is establishing a boundary in order to help people with a problem that is basically a wisdom issue. I imagine they are trying to help people not act foolishly. However, if the SBTS allows wine for communion, then the wall is already cracking, and any resolution they have passed will be quickly forgotten by younger Southern Baptists. Allowing wine for communion but not for social drinking is a distinction without a real difference.

[Dan Miller]

SBC:

WHEREAS, Alcohol use has led to countless injuries and deaths on our nation’s highways; and

WHEREAS, The breakup of families and homes can be directly and indirectly attributed to alcohol use by one or more members of a family; and

WHEREAS, The use of alcohol as a recreational beverage has been shown to lead individuals down a path of addiction to alcohol and toward the use of other kinds of drugs, both legal and illegal

I think we could debate the frequency of some of those things, but not that they are true. And we could debate whether the alcohol shares it’s causal role with other important factors in each of those. But I don’t think we can disagree that it plays a role in all those things.

And even though they didn’t quote Scripture, things like “injury, death, breakup of family, addiction” are clearly things that Scripture is against.

For me, if the SBC had issued this as a warning to its members to take heed of the dangers, but had still affirmed the personal nature of the conviction they are promoting, it would have been fine.

I’ll agree with the last bit, except to point out that when you look at the data on alcohol use worldwide and drunkenness and alcoholism worldwide, you don’t find a terribly good correlation between alcohol consumption and alcoholism. Peru, Columbia, and Sweden have relatively low alcohol use but higher rates of alcoholism/alcohol problems, while Spain, France, and Italy have high rates of alcohol use but very low rates of alcohol related problems.

Now if they had defined drunkenness (Biblically) and warned against that and pointed to the dangers of hard liquor in particular (just like fraternities do, by the way), I’d be OK with that. As is, however—including pretty much prohibiting anyone who attended Jesus’ first miracle from church office, not to mention Jesus and the Disciples—their statement serves only as a textbook example of the hasty generalization fallacy. The sooner the SBC can get off this hobby horse and start warning their members about the dangers of excessive sugar, fast food, and buffet restaurants, the better.

(reasons why wine and beer are less problematic are first of all because the culture discourages drunkenness, and second of all because the sheer volume you’d have to drink to get drunk compels people to slow down and go to the bathroom….whereas a motivated drinker could get to .15 in less than a minute with distilled spirits, and no trip to the bathroom)