Steve deNeff spoke on the turning of water into wine this morning in church. His topic wasn't on drinking but since it was there he did make a quick aside.
His best comment to me this morning had to do with a common Wesleyan conversation you hear from time to time:
Person 1: "So Steve, if Jesus were here today, could he become a member of the Wesleyan Church, since he drank?
Steve: Absolutely!
Person 1: How?
Steve: Because if Jesus decided to be Wesleyan, he would submit to the practices of our community.
This question has a hidden premise that is unexamined and false, yet prevalent. We should be able to do whatever we want, especially if there isn't a definite right or wrong on the issue.
So if someone thinks a rule is stupid, they don't feel obligated to keep it. This is rampant in our homes and schools to where I fear what will happen when this generation is making the laws.
Do I break some rules of the various communities to which I belong? Do I ever break the speed limit? I would be a hypocrite if I said I didn't sometims treat myself as a higher authority.
The difference is that I'm willing to take the consequences. When I'm caught speeding--and I was speeding--I take the ticket as justice, as right.
Did Jesus need to be baptized? No. Then why did he do it? Because it showed his solidarity with the community of the repentant and cleansed being formed through John's baptism.
On the issue of homosexuality, I might just mention that the question of whether a person is born gay or not is irrelevant to the question of whether homosexual sex is appropriate or not. Both sides go at this one. Those who favor homosexual sex often assume that if a person is born a certain way, then God made them that way and must approve of them being that way. Many Christians then follow suit with the same assumption and argue vehemently for homosexuality being a choice.
But this discussion is a red herring. Christian theology teaches that the world, including people, are messed up. Christianity doesn't teach that if you are born with Turrets syndrome, that God made you to cuss uncontrollably. Christianity teaches that things like diabetes or heart disease are a part of a fallen world, not something God has micromanaged in every case. In this sense the Purpose Driven Life is off in its theology. It is unorthodox.
I don't mean to offend anyone who is homosexual by this line of thinking. I'm simply clarifying what the New Testament and Christian theology has always taught [in the light of Dave C's comment below, I'll add after the fact that there are some contemporary theologians and interpreters who disagree with this consensus of history]. The question of whether a person is born gay is a completely separate issue than the question of whether a person should have homosexual sex as a Christian.
So we return to the assumption that if a person has certain desires, it wouldn't be fair to keep them from expressing them. This would be the logic that would say, "If a person wants to drink and it's not absolutely wrong, it would be wrong to prohibit them from drinking." But some practices provide community identity and may not be universal. And there's no law that says that desires have to be gratified.
I didn't get married until I was 31. Given my understanding of Christian ethics, that means I could not have sex until I was 31. Just because I wanted to have sex did not mean that I had to be allowed to have sex. According to Christianity, sex is not a divine right and celibacy is a real option for anyone.
So kudos to Steve. God has given him great wisdom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
The toughts presented here are well reasoned, but not totally true. I could never agree to the proposition that Christian theology has always taught such and such about gay sex. There are many theologians today who totally disagree with that biblical intrepretation. This may be the traditional teaching of the fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, but not the totality of Christian theologians.
I suppose one could easily dismiss them as being "un-Christian" because of this disagreement.
With so many other real issues facing the church today (hunger, poverty, war, crowded prisions, etc) it is difficult to understand the disproportion of attention given to the "gay" issue.
If Jesus were physically walking among us, would this be HIS main concern?
Dave, right before you posted this here someone else posted one below on the Countryman piece with the opposite tone--it was interesting.
By Christian theology I meant the consensus views of Christians throughout the centuries. You're right that there are a number of Christian theologians today with different conclusions. I would not personally consider them unchristian on this issue alone (although I might consider them outside historic Christianity on other issues).
If this is the direction that God is taking Christianity, I certainly won't be able to stop it. The jury seems still well out on that one. But I do agree with your priorities for the present. Issues that concretely and unwillingly hurt others must surely be a higher priority in God's eyes than this issue.
Thanks for your returned comments. I don't want to belabor this, but I want to recommend a book by Jack Rogers,"Jesus, the Bible, and Homsexuality." Rogers is an evangelical Presbyterian and theologian who changed his mind on the "gay" question after a long period of intense study. He now believes that the church/theology is making the same kind of mistake in regard to this as much of the church made about slavery and other social issues in the past. Of course it will not change everyones mind, but it does show another viewpoint. A description of the book is available on Amazon.
If the Wesleyan church taught that you have to be married for 5 years before you have sex how would you have felt about waiting?
Ken, Steve DeNeff was our main camp evangelist last summer at Brown City Camp. He did an excellent job and I was able to talk to him a couple times and thought he was a great guy. My denomination holds pretty much the same stand on drinking. Some enforce the social drinking ban, some do not. I'm curious in your response and feedback to this heretical piece of blogging, where I argue that banning moderate drinking in all circumstances for the here and now might be going a bit outside the intent of the text. My main concern is not so much my right to drink, which I wouldn't really care if I ever exercised, but rather proper Biblical interpretation and application. Anyway, I'm positive this isn't breaking any new ground below, but curious to hear your response:
http://billbarnwell.blogspot.com/2007/01/is-drinking-alcohol-in-moderate.html
AJ--at some point you join another denomination ;-)
Bill--didn't seem too heretical to me... My nervousness if the WC were to change its position is not temperate drinking but what the unforseen consequences would be to who we are. In any case I have no real interest in getting into the debate going on in a few Wesleyan circles. I have no problem with letting Australian or European Wesleyans make up their own minds on the issue. I'm not sure the American church has a mental space for the self-controlled one glasser at this point and have no idea how to construct one to allow for something like this. These other cultures have a space of this sort built in because they don't associate drinking with drunkenness. The vast majority of American Wesleyans only associate drinking with drunkenness!
Nice. I'm "lol"ing as the kids say.
Thanks for the response, Ken. I think the stickier issue for me on a practical level in terms of moderate drinking is defining what line there is that shouldn't be crossed, and those conversations almost always go the wrong direction. The question itself implies that somebody wants to walk as close as they can to sinning without actually sinning. You also have the issue that it gets a bit subjective based on each individual and what their tolerance level is. But it's still a valid question at the core when we evaluate the ethical aspect of the Christian life.
I guess a better question might be, "What is drunkenness according to the Scriptures?" Is it secular definitions, which vary state by state? Let's say State A has a blood alcohol legal limit of 1.0. The moderate drinking Christian only has a blood alcohol level of .09, and he or she is not even operating a vehicle. In this state, he's legal, yet in State B, where the limit is .08, is he sinning? Even if he or she is not even driving? Is the state he or she resides in with the slightly higher legal limit the only thing keeping God from looking down on his actions as being sinful? Can one be legally drunk in the eyes of the state (which for some people might only be a drink or two!) yet not be morally sinning as long as they are not operating a vehicle or breaking any other law?
This might sound like "legalism" or ethical semantics but I suppose if you're going to socially drink you need to ask yourself these things. The biggest problem of going down the road of opening the doors to social drinking is the subjective nature of the whole thing. But then on the other hand, I don't want to apply a cultural prohbition to every single person in our culture when there are concievable circumstances where a Christian could moderately drink and not cause anyone else to stumble or cause a controversy. Perhaps this is why it is easier to just tell our people to stick to the sparkling grape juice.
Dave C & Schenck:
As I'm reading "The Next Christendom: The COming of GLobal CHristianity", I'm reminded that "modern consensus" is quickly shifting South, and East, and too the poor, and pentocostal, and darker skin, etc. And this emerging southern Christianity is much more conservative than contemporary theologians in the West, which we may see becoming more of a minority and more out of touch with (the new) mainsteam theology.
I think that when we focus on one aspect of the drinking issue, that being can I and still be a Christian, we lose focus of the larger issue. Can I drink and still be a Christian? Yes. I believe I could go down to whatever store, buy a 6-pack and still be saved. HOWEVER, that's not the issue.
I believe that there is more at stake than my own personal liberty. First, the issue of public witness is at hand. It is one that is too easily dismissed in the name of freedom and liberty in Christ. As a parent, I seek to put forward a good and Godly example for my children to emulate. As an older Christian, and particularly as one who is entering the ministry, I must be careful to provide the same type of witness.
Second, if I insist on drinking, what is my rationale and justification? Am I drinking to show that I can? If that is the case, then what am I really saying? Am I saying that my own personal liberty is greater than that of the community? If that is the case, then once again, I'm afraid the point is being missed.
Speaking from experience, drinking is truly as Steve put it, a pale imitation of the joy that we find in our relationships with God.
It is temporary, at best, and frankly opens the door to so many problems, space limits this consideration.
Further, as a minister, should I ever offer counsel to another to drink? This seems outlandish, but in a manner of speaking, if I were to publicly or even privately, that is exactly what I am advocating. Once again, the issue of witness comes up. EVEN if the Wesleyan Church wasn't against drinking, would it still be alright? As one who comes from a slightly different tradition, The UM Church, I can say no. Once again, witness, the ill effects that drinking has on a body over time - which was one of Steve's points, and other issues make drinking, in any context, something that just doesn't cut it.
Jeffery, I'm finding myself in the unfortunate position here of sounding very pro-drinking, and I'm really not. But it seems your main bone of contention is the cultural argument against moderate drinking, an argument I think has a lot of merit. However, are there concievable instances where moderate or social drinking would not cause any testimonial problems in the eyes of both Christians and non-Christians? I would think so. There's whole conservative denominations even here in America (usually from the Reformed perspective, however) that are not terribly offended by the prospect of moderate drinking. There are some secular folk that have similar attitudes towards drinking. They do not drink towards excess but they see no problem with having wine with dinner, etc. So if a Christian who accepted social drinking had a glass of wine with them, would that be a bad testimony? I'd say that's a bit of a different circumstance than visiting trashy bars and knocking down a few cold ones in order to "meet unbelievers on their level and where they are at" (the latter circumstances I've heard defended, but I don't buy it). I agree that if somebody is having a drink just to drink and make some kind of point then that is silly. But it's not true that every Christian who engages in social drinking is flirting with drunken disaster or is a bad witness. If that's not always the case, then the cultural arguments we both agree are valid are not applicable in each and every circumstances. Thus, I've concluded, and perhaps wrongly, that not all forms of modern "drinking" should be associated with sinful worldly behavior.
As I've said elsewhere, I think the problem is assuming that even today in America that this must be a black and white issue without any shades of grey. There's some who can't distinguish between an innocent slow dance or fun dance at a wedding and the most trashy forms of dancing out there. Likewise, some can't distinguish between non-offensive TV shows/ movies with other forms of televised entertainment that is indeed morally offensive. I sort of see this issue in the same area in that those from our traditions aren't good at distinguishing between forms of social drinking that are morally neutral and the worst of alcoholic behavior out there (or that if you are a moderate drinker today, you may well in fact be a drunk tommorrow). Has drinking caused lots of damage? Yes. So has immoral sexual acts. This doesn't mean any those with a Christian ethic should abstain from sex in marriage or that sex should be villified outright. To a lesser extent, food and any number of other things have been taken to excess and have caused damage. Anything can be taken to excess. Even good things can become unhealthy. I tend to see alcohol in of itself as something that is morally neutral, but that can certainly be used for destructive and unhealthy ends. That coupled with the Biblical evidence, where it certainly wasn't just "unfermented grape juice," along with a nuanced view of the cultural considerations involved, perhaps make this not as much of a black and white issue as we'd like to think.
Bill,
I am in total agreement that drinking is far from a black and white issue. As far as social drinking being acceptable in certain circles, there is no doubt. I know from experience that the Catholic Church in my hometown set up a beer tent annually right between the church and the rectory as a type of "social fundraiser". Would have worked for me to go in there and bash them or drink with them? For me, no, it would not have. My reasons are not purely social in nature, either.
Second, I know that some within the Reformed tradition don't take great issue with moderation - I'm thinking of some official stances of the Reformed Church, however, they do eschew drunkenness.
I guess I see a stance like that more as a type of balancing on a tightrope. Any wrong move and you're going to fall. That's why I feel that it is better to stay off of the rope entirely.
I also wouldn't tie in the issue of sexuality to drinking. The Bible makes very clear on nearly every issue what is acceptable with sex. It also is clear in most cases as to what is wrong. See, I think there is too much emphasis on sex in our society, so some issues that we have and make simply weren't as important in Biblical times. That is not to say that sex wasn't an issue - not by a longshot. One would only have to examine Greek and Roman practices to see differently. I guess I'm saying that I don't buy the sex angle in this argument. Oh well...
I would also think that wine is amoral, much like guns, etc. However, that does not negate the danger that they inherently possess. Just as there are restrictions on guns, so there are on wine. Let's face it, one drink can have impacts upon a person's - and another's life that it simply is best to avoid the dance altogether. Haha- that's another discussion entirely...
"I'm not sure the American church has a mental space for the self-controlled one glasser at this point and have no idea how to construct one to allow for something like this. These other cultures have a space of this sort built in because they don't associate drinking with drunkenness. The vast majority of American Wesleyans only associate drinking with drunkenness!"
I agree with the last sentence in this point but have a difficult time with the first sentence (unless American church here too was referring to Wesleyans). I was born and raised in a Christian home but never attached any negative stigma to alcohol until I came into contact with Wesleyans. I found the prohibition odd at best (and still do). Of course I knew drunkenness was not approved of, but the actual consumption of alcohol was never taboo. I can only speak from experience, but the only larger social communities that I have known who associate drinking and drunkenness are high schoolers (generalization) and Wesleyans (or those in traditions similar to the Wesleyan-holiness tradition). In other words, this connection is something in many ways unique to the conservative Wesleyan heritage. It is a paradigm in some ways created and perpetuated by those who seem to presuppose the inappropriateness of alcohol.
If drinking and drunkenness are inseperable then we must predicate sin to alcoholic consumption. But who would ever say consuming alcohol in and of itself is intrinsically sinful? It is of course not, but when drinking alcohol is linked with drunkenness then it seems to assume alcoholic consumption is intrinsically sinful.
I also don't think the example of abstaining from sex before marriage is an adequate comparison. Christians have always affirmed sex outside of the bounds of marriage is inappropriate. The act is in and of itself sinful. Thus, the comparison becomes difficult because, as aforementioned, consuming alcohol is not intrinsically sinful. The big difference is that it makes sense that we would prohibit acts we know are sinful (e.g. sex before marriage), but I think one of the reasons the prohibition on alcohol doesn't make sense to many is because it prohibits something not sinful.
Consuming alcohol can certainly lead to sin, but if we are to employ the slippery slope fallacy then we ought to do it consistently. Is alcohol really more dangerous than obesity? Liver failure and heart failure both leave people dead. So shouldn't we prohibit overly fatty foods? Or at least those which really serve no other purpose but to satisfy our taste buds and are filled with substances bad for our bodies. What about ice cream, or doritos, etc. Do these foods really serve us any purpose besides being delicious? Do they contribute to a positive health or can their over-consumption quickly and easily lead to obesity (a leading killer in America)?
The reason I bring up this example is because I believe it makes a better comparison than the mentioned issue of premarital sex. Just as we would think it silly to prohibit eating ice cream because it's misuse and abuse leads to obesity and health conditions (which do affect more people than just the person with the conditions), the prohibition against alcohol consumption of any sort is difficult to maintain. Certainly we are not consistent.
I think way too much time has been spent trying to prove why we shouldn't drink instead of utiziling that time to teach and preach responsibility to our congregants...responsibility about much more than just alcoholic consumption.
Hi Jeffery, I don't think we're too far apart on this, at least in terms of the basic interpretive issues involved. Certainly all Christians should agree that drunkenness is not an option. This does raise the question of what exactly is "drunkenness" according to the Scriptures. I think all Christians can (or at least should!) agree that losing ones ethical inhibitions, operating a vehicle while intoxicated (or after consuming any amount of alcohol for that matter), visiting certain trashy establishments, etc, etc are not appropriate for Christians concerned about holiness. For the record, I'm also not comfortable with the beer tents and bingo nights from certain traditions.
My point about sex, movies, dancing, etc, is that all of those things are not necessarily immoral but can be used for immoral means. Certainly sex falls in this category. Much havoc has been brought by an unBiblical sexual ethic but most Christians (most) do not demonize sex outright and know that it is a very good thing created by God. But anything can be taken to excess, even very good things.
Fermented beverages are not on par by sex. Alcoholic beverages are not needed for our survival or ultimate happiness. But neither is it necessarily evil by its very nature. It can be used for morally good things (such as communion, if a church chooses wine instead of grape juice. Scriptural context makes it clear they used fermented wine, or else I Cor. 11:21 makes no sense). Or morally neutral things (moderate social drinking). Some studies indicate a regular glass of red wine is even healthy for the human body. And certainly it can be used for many evil things involving drunkenness.
Given these facts, and the fact that not every Bible-believing Christian is offended by moderate drinking, nor would every non-Christian be necessarily negatively affected, then to me it seems to be going a bit overboard to say "You can't be a member of this church if you have red wine with dinner" or whatever else to that effect. I also happen to know several "sipping saints" from Evangelical backgrounds who are far from drunks and are very solid Christians. That said, there's certainly nothing wrong with completely abstaining and certainly we must teach people the evils associated with alcohol abuse. But I don't want to make up things that the Greek text supposedly says about wine when its mentioned in a positive context in the Scriptures, or make binding my preferences on every single person in America, or apply cultural arguments against moderate drinking for every and all contemporary circumstances when they might not always apply.
Ben, your point about food abuse is very valid in my opinion. In fact, I just preached a message last week on gluttony on this very point. I pointed out to my holiness congregation that we're great at getting on our high horses about drinking and smoking but there's barely ever a word about unhealthy consumptions of food. What's most interesting is that I've heard many a sermon from holiness guys against drinking and smoking based on the Corinthians command to "treat your bodies like a temple to the Lord" but in context that passage is talking about sexuality. Certainly it can be applied to other unhealthy habits, but it's rarely applied consistently to include gluttonous habits.
In fact, one study late last year said that some of the most conservative denominations (such as the independant Baptists) had the highest rates of obesity! I imagine for some of those groups food is their last acceptable vice, especially since they've condemend so many things outright which are only sinful if handled sinfully (such as the previous examples I gave). Again, certainly food, like sex, is not itself bad, but an abuse of these things are.
Wow, this one hit a nerve, didn't it. I'd bring it to a main post if everyone wanted to keep talking. Ben, it will be interesting to see what happens in the WC in the days to come on the issue. I'm sure some of the larger churches are ready to make this shift now. Others might leave the denomination over it.
The REALLY interesting part of the sermon, from my perspective, was that the point WAS NOT about alcohol consumption or even sin for that matter. Wine was both an example and a metaphor. That's it. In fact, Steve, playing the part of God, stated, "Can't we talk about something else?" If anything he was incredibly ANTI-legalism. That's something I agree with to the nth degree. I'm not advocating legalism in any way, shape or form.
I'm pretty sure that Steve understood what parts of the sermon were going to be hotbeds of discussion. Imagine that, pastors starting debates...
I would say that once again, the issue is about how we sell ourselves short, myself included, time and time again. Anger instead of peace. Lust instead of love. Aggression instead of control. That was really the focus of the message. NOT selling out for any pale imitation of the order of God. NOT settling for the ceremonial cleansing system of the Pharisees (and legalists) and instead moving for and focusing in on the new wine of God's true plan and love.
I obviously wasn't there to hear the sermon, so maybe I don't understand the last post, but if the implication is "Spirit-filled teetoaler or mushy compromised social drinker" (with the assumption that the former is much more spiritual than the latter) then I don't buy it. It wasn't necessarily true in the time of Christ and it isn't necessarily true today--even in 21st century America. I just don't see how we can speak in absolutes on this issue when it is not presented as one in Scripture, and as I've repeatedly argued, even the cultural arguments for totally abstaining don't even always apply.
This is indeed a controversial issue between good Christians who have different positions. But I hardly see myself as some freedom fighter for moderate drinking Christians. It's not really an important issue for my own life. I'm not really the one trying to force my own point of view on this for everybody else. The same can't really be said though for abstentionists who insist that everybody hold the same preferences as they do, to the point of keeping good people off their church boards, or even as church members, because they like wine with dinner on occasion or whatever. I hardly see this as something worth splitting churches and denominations. I think it's infinitely foolish for either side to condemn the other and declare irreconcilable differences. Perhaps the most ridiculous story I've heard on this front was a Free Will Baptist Bible College splitting over the issue of whether or not the wine really was fermented in Jesus' day! I’m sure there’s been plenty of other similar cases over the years. When it comes to issues like this, certainly zealots on both sides share some blame, but are we really to believe it's just those stubborn social drinkers who are causing all the division? That's hardly the case, but that's often how traditional holiness types portray things.
Ken,
I agree with your post and also with Pastor Steve's comments on drinking (everything is permissible but not necessarily beneficial). I especially appreciated his willingness to "admit" that the wine in the Bible was "real" wine and not try to pass it off as grape juice as so many do!
Again, some critical thinking needs to be employed here. I'll universally apply the "everything is permissible but not necessarily beneficial" to fermented drinks if one could show me that in EACH AND EVERY circumstance temperate drinking is detrimental to ones health, Christian testimony, etc. Certainly, in many cases, this verse would indeed apply. I've been in social circumstances where there was alcohol present, and even if I "had just one" I still think it would not have been beneficial given those particular circumstances. There have been other conditions where I feel like I could have had a drink and there would have been no harm at all. Nobody would have "stumbled," there would be no bad testimony; there would be no excessive drinking, etc, etc. Also, I know it's disputed, but I think research leans in favor of the concept of a regular glass of red wine actually is HEALTHY for you. So we could certainly say there are times when fermented drink could be "beneficial." At least in Paul's time he saw some positive effects to watered down but nonetheless alcoholic wine (I Tim. 5:23).
Now, elsewhere I interpret the Pastoral Epistles through a cultural context. Certainly we have more options today than just table wine and water. When my stomach hurts, I don't think I've ever considered drinking a wine cooler. Pepto will do just fine. So there are certainly cultural considerations at hand here. But even this does not prove that alcohol itself is evil or the mere taking a sip is basically ingesting sin. At best you can argue that the substance itself is morally neutral and can be used for good, neutral, or bad behaviors. There are times when temperate drinking may be "permitted but not beneficial" (except in our churches, where we've decided that it's not permitted after all). But there are other circumstances where certain forms of temperate drinking are actually healthy, and hence beneficial. Most instances of responsible drinking though would fall into the neutral category. It can carry no more importance or moral weight than any other things one can do throughout the day. Yet, in these instances, it certainly isn't detrimental.
For those who just want to say, "It's easier for me to just not drink at all" I say kudos to you. There's nothing at all wrong with that. I do think though there's something wrong with one saying, "It's easier for me to just not drink at all, and regardless of how you feel on the subject you need to do things just like me. And guess what, if you have a little broader perspective on this issue and look at all the nuances of it, I won't let you join my church. So do things my way or go join those wishy-washy Presbyterians down the road."
Well Bill,
Not to be a jerk but a wine cooler won't help any stomach problems because it's flavored beer. That's also how it's marketed in Texas, too. Anyway, as for the medical benefits, actually more research - it escapes me where at the moment- has concluded that the de-oxidation benefits of wine are actually present in the grapes themselves rather than in the fermented by-products. I know there's research that goes both ways...
I'd really have to take exception with the need to make a blanket, universal statement about the "not wrong but not beneficial". I guess I'm not following you on this one. By the way, I hope you don't take anything I am saying in any way to be combative, accusatory or the like. One of the down sides of this medium is lack of ability to use inflection or any other vocal device to detect emotional intent - anyway...
By the way, only become a Presbyterian if you feel the Lord leading you. I've got brothers and sisters in that church, too, I'm sure. My only other thought on this issue is that it makes more sense and requires more courage to make a stand against it and frankly, the positives don't add up to the negatives. Have a few trips to the porcelain throne for some vomiting good times or better yet, don't and take my word for it, the negatives outweigh the issue so far that alcohol is better avoided. Sinful? I believe there is some subjectivity there. I guess that's the UM in me coming out... Wise? Not particularly. Thanks for the thoughts!
Jeffery, I was kidding about the wine cooler, I was making a rhetorical point that when my stomach is sick I take medicine, not wine. And I was also kidding about the Presbyterian thing. I think your analysis, like many others, only looks at things from a worst case scenario. My point is that there are many social drinkers, or people who just like wine with their meal who pose no risk to themselves or others. There's no negatives as far as I can, except for offending people who believe consuming a drop of alcohol is sinful, even though they aren't around you when and if you do and choose to totally abstain anyway. The fact that you automatically link any temperate drinking with risks of becomming one who vomits in the toilet shows you're unable to seperate the alcohol issue from the very worst sins involved with its abuse. And no, I don't think you're tone is inapprorpriate or offensive and I appreciate this conversation.
For the purposes here of quick hits on topics, I apologize for making any quick links or assumptions. I understand that many can imbibe without the need for vomiting. I guess I am speaking from personal and observed experiences. I know that in many cultures, the stigma of alcohol is non-existent, rather it is almost a forgone and unspoken conclusion. I am speaking for this Midwestern and Protestant culture.
To understand and communicate all of the varied nuances involved in drinking still is to skirt around what the central point of Steve's message was.
Drinking isn't the point, it's more of a product or a loosely associated item. To speak either pro- or anti-drinking is bound to hurt someone's feelings somewhere, somehow. Either perspective could be viewed as being close-minded towards the issue entirely.
I'm just saying, as means of closure on the drinking topic, for too many alcohol is like a loaded gun. You might shoot it everyday and be just fine or you might pull an inadvertent Dick Cheney. There are always risks inherent with alcohol. Even drinking one glass can have an impact. It must be remembered that many states are lowering their definitions of public intoxication from .10 to .08. For many people, that relates to about two beers or one glass of wine. Frankly, it is possible to feel tipsy from that amount - without being considered LEGALLY drunk. I do believe that all of these items though are trumped by one thing, that being the prayerful submission of the entire area to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If the idea of social drinking seems to be allowable by God for you, then maybe the Wesleyan Church isn't the place for you. That's a subjective call, but one that should be considered. No one is being forced these days to be a member of a denomination that they don't agree with. However, if you submit yourself to the authority of any given church and they have a policy against something you tolerate, you must be willing to give it up in the name of submission to authority. To not do so is to miss entirely the point of Christ's actions and example on Earth.
Jeffery, I'm not part of the Wesleyan denomination but I am part of a similar denomination with holiness roots. And rather than just say, "If you think this way, perhaps you don't belong," I think maybe raising these issues and the internal debate involved is in fact healthy. Several things: First, again, I agree that cultural considerations do matter. If I were a wine drinker, it would certainly be wrong for me to exercise my liberty in an enviornment that would offend my Christian brethern who have been raised or taught that drinking in any form is wrong and bad. However, I happen to think those from our background need a broader perspective on this, and rather than just leave the issue alone undebated within our ranks, this is the kind of stuff that perhaps will lead to a change in this same culture down the road.
I think the Biblical evidence is clear enough, despite many fundamentalist attempts to get away from the obvious, that temperate drinking was a regular thing in Biblical days and that Jesus Himself probably engaged in it. 21st century American culture is indeed different, but it's not like drunkenness is a new thing today. People got drunk back then and in many centuries before it. If they didn't, there wouldn't be the stern warnings against it. Yes, the alcohol then was less potent in many ways, but it's probably not true that you had to drink 90 gallons or whatever to get drunk as is sometimes presented by those who grudgingly admit that God's people occassionally had fermented drink. So today, like then, something that's not inherently bad can be abused. There are plenty of social situations today where alcohol would not lead to negative effects and not be the boogeyman we have historically presented it in our movement. If people learned more responsibility and it wasn't viewed as such a forbidden fruit, I tend to think people wouldn't be as irresponsible.
As far as someone being legally drunk with one drink, that is more rare, but if that's the case and the one drink is too much for them, then they shouldn't drink most likely. But the average person would not respond this way from one drink. I was much more affected by my legally prescribed Vicadin after my tonsil operation than I would be by drinking a single glass or red wine. Of course though, all people respond differently to alcohol based on their age, weight, size, etc. You can't make a "one size fits all" argument here.
So in sum:
(1) There is absolutely no good slam dunk argument in favor of the holiness position on temperate drinking from the Biblical text itself, at least in the context of the days it was written. In fact, the exact opposite is the case.
(2) Any good Bible interpreter, however, must take modern and ancient cultural considerations when making contemporary applications. Certainly there are instances where the liberty to have a drink is unwise in today's culture. However, there's absolutely no way to make this universally binding on each and every social possibility. A Christian husband and wife enjoying a glass of wine with their meal in the privacy of their own home is one example. There are plenty of others. In such cases, the negative modern cultural implications do not carry weight here.
3. While denominations or Christian institutions can make their own rules and form their own covenants and demand people submit to them, it doesn't necessarily mean they are correct in making up all of their rules--particularly if the rule is not one required by Scripture and the modern cultural arguments in favor of it do not always stand up to scrutiny!
4. To say that a person having a single glass of wine rules out their being a member of a church, or a church leader in part because it's "bad for you", but then turn a blind eye to gluttony and plenty of other unhealthy habits in the lives of hundreds of thousands of holiness types and fundamentalists is hypocritical and nonsensical.
5. The contemporary applications in Romans 14 and elsewhere would probably be much more productive on this issue than the one size fits all blanket rules being taught and handed down in our traditions. An outright ban is easy and makes this seem like a clear black and white issue similar to other moral issues, but it's not.
6. I tend to think we should not presume to make the decisions for other sincere and generally consistent Christian adults about what they can and can't handle in their lives. If some can handle temperate drinking and not abuse it, and not cause any testimonial crises, then I see Biblical and modern cultural arguments against it as falling short.
Why is it assumed that not drinking is such a wonderful witness? Those who advocate it often seem to me to be doing it with phrasing that implies either weakness to temptation or a desire to be "holier than-thou".
If you desire to witness by your holiness, people will be far more impressed by abstaining from lust and speeding than alcohol. Most non-Christians can see the difference between drunkenness and having one or two, so you'll be leaving them with an impression of legalism rather than holiness. (And a willingness to accept the consequences of your speeding doesn't make it right, my 1 year-old son was quite willing to hold out his hand to have it slapped after the fifth time in 30 seconds of doing what he was told not to. We're called to obedience, not mere acceptance of the consequences of disobedience)
As to the other, why is the potential for abuse regarded as sufficient reason to prohibit any use? We don't regard one who has sex with their spouse as being on some slippery slope leading to adultery, why is the proper enjoyment of one of God's other blessings regarded as nearly inevitably leading to becoming alcoholic?
For those who think that consuming any alcohol is sinful, I recommend a quick tour of Deuteronomy 14:26, Isaiah 25:6, and most of Song of Songs. It might also not hurt to note that one of the blessings God repeatedly promised for obedience to the Law was an abundance of wine, and a curse for violating the covenant being that he would take away the wine.
Just a couple of thoughts in regards to this issue:
In Steve DeNeff's presentation he made the statement that the Bible never instructs us to drink. He brushed aside Paul's words to Timothy as sort of a side note but what about communion? Now that we all agree that it was wine and not grape juice. Did Jesus not instruct his disciples to drink of the cup? By Jesus' own words, he assumes that this practice will continue well into the future (i.e. as often as you do this do this in remembrance of me). When Jesus commissioned his disciples He instructed them to teach their disciples everything that He had commanded them. Does this include communion? Or should we pass a memorial to ban communion from being served in The Wesleyan Church?
On another note:
Did Jesus submit to the Jewish community that he was raised in? Did he accept the legalism of the Pharisees as his guide for moral behavior? It seems to me that a community of believers have a tendency towards legalism over time and that periodically the community needs to correct the legalisms of the past?
What a great discussion! I seldom get so much stuff. Maybe it should be a main one sometime. For the record, I am not opposed in theory to the Wesleyan Church allowing drinking. I agree that as far as our broader culture, it would be much more beneficial to teach people how to be moderate and self-controlled than to insist on abstinence.
My practical question is this: this issue could be very destructive to my denomination if it were simply treated as a true or false issue. More than anything else, it is the body issues that make instant change problematic, I think.
Not to pick on Steve DeNeff, but someone sent me an mp3 of some comments he made to the West and East Michigan District pastors last week on this very issue. His logic has been used in the Wesleyan tradition to defend many things. The Bible after all never commands women to wear pants, jewelry or makeup. At one time this �community� ostracized people who did those things.
One subtle comment that Steve made to the pastors was that he knew some people would be surprised by his stand on the issue because he had been seen as a rebel when he was younger. He went on to say that when he was young he had set out to save the church, and that now he realized that he needed the church to save him.
I will give him props for sounding pretty holy with that, but in making these statements he is making an accusation that I think needs to be called out.
Asking our denomination to align its membership commitments with the clear teachings and practices of Jesus is not a rebellious thing to do. This is not about rebellion, and I am disappointed that Steve DeNeff operates under that assumption.
For a less serious and more satirical take on this issue, see my contribution here:
http://billbarnwell.blogspot.com/2007/01/ban-food-sex-and-computers-true-bible.html
Here's my prediction:
2008 will be a defining moment in the future of The Wesleyan Church. In fact, the delegates to General Conference 2008, will be asked to pick a side on this devicive issue. The remnant will sit and watch the mass exodus of a group of God-ordained pastors and leaders.
The question is which group will remain after the dust settles...
It has been said that local churches have a life cycle. Maybe the same thing is true of denominations as well.
Is it too much to ask the elected leaders of The Wesleyan Church to lead on this issue?
I'm afraid that it may be too late. It seems like the trickle has already begun!
Here's a thought:
Maybe the delegates to General Conference 2008 could give a love gift to the General Superintendent that is willing to LEAD us over the next 17 months leading up to General Conference 2008. It is going to take LEADERSHIP to bring about UNITY in the church.
This whole post has a very religious spirit to it, which is not good. The Pharisees expected people would conform to their religious practices as well. So no, I do not think Jesus would have joined the Wesleyan Church and conformed to their community practices. He was non-denominational in nature.
We all have a tendency to create Jesus in our own image.
Post a Comment