I read a post over at SmuloSpace about a resolution by the Southern Baptist Convention that dealt with their policy about the prohibition of alcohol consumption. Here is the resolution:
5. 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.
Now John 2:1-11 tells the story of Jesus’s first miracle, which was to turn water into wine. Would this then preclude Jesus from being elected to a leadership position in the SBC?
Athough the resolution is attempting to do a positive thing, I think this “smacks” a little of self-righteousness, elitism and legalism. It sounds like something the Pharasees would condemn Jesus for doing. Or am I wrong in my assessment?
May 30, 2007 at 11:47 pm
You know where I stand on this. I think the intentions are good, but the results are legalism.
May 31, 2007 at 1:16 am
Well, it isn’t Biblically based, that’s for sure. And Prohibition did not work. And just think of all the energy it will take to implement this.
A joke from my more Catholic students:
Q: Why, if you are going to take a Southern Baptist fishing with you, should you take *two*?
A: Because if you only take one, he’ll drink all your beer.
May 31, 2007 at 8:55 am
Everything in moderation. Self-control is the key.
May 31, 2007 at 10:13 am
Wine in Jesus’ day was not typically the firmented stuff we think of today. The firmented wine was around, but it was definitely not used as the wedding at Cana. There’s even a different word used in the Bible for the wine that was firmented and used as alcohol is today.
For instance, when the disciples are accused of being drunk after preaching the gospel (Acts 2:13) and other places when we are told as Christians not to be drunk or be “given to wine” (Romans 14:21; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Timothy 3).
Even the word used to describe what Jesus made at the wedding at Cana is different. With that said, I doubt that the SBC would have that big of a problem with the grape juice that Jesus made.
To make a resolution that is clearly derived from a Biblical directive is not at all legalism. It’s New Testament Christianity.
May 31, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Travis, I have heard the position that the “wine” referred to was not the “fermented wine” of today and that it was a type of grape juice. I have also heard that the original word used could be translated as being either wine or a type of grape juice. I guess it comes down to belief and most of the people I have heard discuss this issue contend that it was an “alcoholic” form of beverage. So I will go with the majority on this one. Regardless of what it was… I contend that if this position is, as you call it: “New Testament Christianity”… it’s certainly not the type I would want to be associated with.
BTW… I checked out your site… interesting… I will certainly put it on my blog reading list. I have also added it to my blogroll under “Spirituality”.
May 31, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I described it as New Testament Christianity only because that is where they got the directive. The Bible is explicitly clear about Christians not drinking for the sake of testimony, especially with leaders in the church. So, is that unreasonable that the SBC make rules for its leaders that are any different.
Thanks for putting our site on your blogroll. It’s new so we are trying to get the word out.
TJS
Acts 20:24
tjcontending.wordpress.com
June 22, 2007 at 9:01 pm
My father was an alcoholic. I saw what it did to him and I chose not to have that happen to me, so I haven’t touched alcohol (or marijuana or any other street drug) since 1986, for over twenty years.
I would no sooner advise someone to experiment with alcohol than to experiment with crack. Some will get addicted and some won’t but, unfortunately, they won’t find out who’s who until it’s too late.
The best policy, for people who value their minds, families, jobs, their freedom and their lives, is just to stay away from the stuff. So, I support the Baptist Convention just as much as I would if they pledge to fight the use of sniffing glue.