;)
House Calls for Alcohol
Posted by Geoff Baggett in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology, Church & Missions, News & Culture
We have a really interesting battle going on in our community right now. It’s a battle for/against alcohol.
You see, Trigg County, Kentucky, is a “dry” county. We do not have alcohol sales here of any kind … no package stores, no alcohol by the drink. Completely dry. Of course, there are road houses and saloons in adjacent counties (some right on the county line) along the highways out of the county.
But now there is a movement afoot to bring alcohol sales here. A political group celled, “Grow Trigg,” has formed for the purpose of taking the necessary steps to bring alcohol sales to our county. The group managed to secure the legally necessary 1,800 signatures to motivate a local judge to order a special referendum/election on September 29. The petition did not call for the legalization of alcohol sales. Instead, it called for the issue to be put to a public referendum so that the citizens of Trigg County could decided for themselves.
Of course, many local churches have mobilized to combat this movement. The group, Trigg Citizens Against Alcohol TCAA), has worked out a strategy of public information, yard signs, and displays to fight alcohol’s entry here. The majority of the anti-alcohol group are members of churches in the local Baptist association. I do not have exact numbers, but I was told this weekend that the proponents of alcohol are being out-spent by a margin of greater than 2:1.
Here’s where it gets interesting … the TCAA group purchased a copy of the petition, with all ofthe signatures present. The group originally threatened to publish the entire document in the local newspaper, in an effort to hold people publicly accountable for signing the document. They later backed off of that decision, but apparently made the document available to area churches.
This past week controversy erupted … a controversy that made local and regional news … when one local church searched the list for the names of its church members … then took action. Here is that action, as described by Gabriel Roxas of WPSD Television in Paducah, Kentucky. He called his report, “Trigg County Church Members Feeling Pressure to Vote to Keep Prohibition.”
The campaign to legalize alcohol is getting ugly as a church gives its members an ultimatum: vote no or get out. A petition could be tearing a local church apart. A number of Trigg County voters contacted Local 6 to say church leaders have given them an ultimatum over an upcoming vote.
Recently some 18-hundred people signed a petition to legalize alcohol sales in Trigg County. It turns out some of those signees names have become public and soon after church leaders went to their homes pressuring them to apologize publicly in front of the whole church and promise to vote no in the coming election. Otherwise, they’ll be kicked out.
Church leaders say members agree to abstain from the sale and use of alcohol, but some of these members tell Local 6 they didn’t agree to anything about what petitions they can sign or how they vote. Mark Graff knew the leadership of his church was against drinking, so he wasn’t surprised when he received a visit after he signed the petition to end prohibition. “I completely expected them to ask me to change my mind. I didn’t expect to be called out on my front step and given an ultimatum,” Graff said, but he says that’s exactly what happened.
Graff says his pastor at Blue Springs Baptist Church and another church official were abrupt and in no mood to argue. “He said the church was against this and if I did not go to church and confess my sins and say that I was going to change my way and my opinion on the vote, then I would be stricken from the rolls,” Graff said.
Dr. Michael Rust is the head of the Little River Baptist Association. The group includes Mark Graff’s church. Rust says his group encourages its members to vote against legalizing alcohol sales, and the churches have every right to revoke membership. “The purpose of the visit is to encourage the membership to be united,” Rust said.
So … church leadership scoured the petition for names on the referendum petition, then made disciplinary home visits to these families. All of this has resulted in an eruption of emotion, ansgt, and vitriol in our community. And no one involved seems to be very excited about making regional (and, most likely, national) news.
Of course, any local, autonomous church has the right to take such disciplinary action as it sees fit. But as this story splashes across local newspaper, radio, and television, what does it all say about the witness of the church in our area? Is it a positive or a negative?
What do you think? Did Blue Springs Baptist church do too little … step a little too far … or did they do “just right?”
Looking forward to the conversation.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
“The purpose of the visit is to encourage the membership to be united,”
I’d find it hard discerning anything encouraging about the Association/Church behavior. What an outrage.
Hopefully the church has been doing what it should have been doing … prompting one another to love and good works, edifying the Body of Christ, stuff like that. I’d suppose what upsets the pastor and leadership so much is knowing that, if they saw their purpose as uniting their membership around (and instilling in them a spirit of) teetotalling, they’re miserable failures at their jobs.
I sincerely think the church went way too far. Our churches are getting much too involved with trying to help legislate morality. In the case of this particular matter, the Bible only talks against getting drunk not of necessarily avoiding alcohol altogether – even Jesus’s first miracle was turning water into wine. Just because a law makes it legal, does not mean that anyone is being forced to purchase and consume. They would all still be free to consume or abstain according to their own beliefs.
The works of the flesh or the works of faith are manifested in how the church does its business. When you want to make sure something happens, just go public with it, right? However, I find a different approach in Matthew 18:15-17 that works the way Jesus would want it to work. From what was said above, it didn’t indicate that the leadership approached it with the right motive.
I just don’t think I would have purchased a copy of the petition in the first place. That tells me that the church was moving into the political arena where she has no reason or purpose or qualifications to be. God has not given us permission to go there. It is a coliseum of political compromise and we do not compromise. Why waste the time. By entering that arena the church has done more damage as a whole than the individuals did in part.
The community is going to view this as a witch hunt. This issue is a very divisive issue and I think the question of primary, secondary, and tertiary doctrine should come into play. Most of the arguments for a complete prohibition are based on suggestions and beliefs that are extra-biblical (that is, coming from outside the biblical text) and non-historical (that is, having a relatively recently history).
I do understand the concern of the elders though, especially if they are of the persuasion that alcohol in and of itself is sinful and the members signed a covenant. I just think that the elders should be a little more graceful and should leave the issue of alcohol to the ultimate judge. I don’t think you should drop people from the church membership unless they are living in violation of the Word of God, teaching false doctrine, or are not Christians. Is voting to allow the sale of alcohol living in violation of the Word of God? That’s a tough choice to make, and one, I’m guessing, that shouldn’t be made by a single pastor or a small group of elders.
Questions immediately come to mind:
1. If a member wanted the item on the ballot so the county could overwhelmingly vote to keep itself dry, why would they need to confess their sin? Why is the implication that if you want something on the ballot, you are necessarily in favor of the initiative?
2. Is this any of the church’s business? Is this the kind of work that the church needs to be engaged in? Depending on your perspective church leadership is either sneaking around into the private lives of its members or else it is holding members accountable to the beliefs, traditions, and standards of the church. In either case, this hardly looks like Great Commission or Great Commandment work.
3. Is there a need for a person who holds a personal conviction on an issue that differs from the church leadership and/or consensus to confess that difference as a “sin”? What if in good conscience a libertarian church member felt that it was government intrusion telling the county citizenry that they could or could not allow the sale of alcohol and was opposed to the law on that principle? Furthermore, what if he also opposed the use of alcohol as a beverage while favoring a libertarian approach to legislation? Should he confess his “sin”?
Or what if he didn’t agree with the church’s stand on alcohol consumption? Even if in practice he is a teetotaler, should the church exclude him for not prohibiting in others what his church feels they must prohibit in their own members?
I agree that the community will see this as a witch hunt and will have an incredibly negative effect on the church’s image in the community. Regardless of what the community feels about the sale of alcohol within its borders, for a church to enforce political conformance on its members will be seen as an egregious breach of liberty of conscience (something Americans, churched and unchurched hold sacrosanct).
Just curious, does anyone who believes that alcohol/the consumption of alcohol is a sin have anything to comment on this episode? I don’t fit into that category, so I’m interested in the other point of view.
Andrew,
I was wondering the same thing …
Sometimes, when I read articles like this it brings to mind the interview with the person from the trailer park after a tornado. Some of the blame has to go to the local news for the need of a story. It is always skewed in order to be news worthy. Unforturnately, the church simply does not understand that bringing these things to the surface publically and leaving it in the capable hands of the media is an obvious mistake.
Sorry Andrew, I do not have the other point of view. However, since alcohol falls under self control, I would think we would need to expand into food, entertainment, rest and other things we need to keep in check. Your picture makes me think you are too happy and that needs to be controlled, too. Ha.
Rick, regarding your item #2. You could assume that this church was keeping up with the tithers, too. Wonder how many have been excommunicated from that? Of course, they didn’t go public with that information.
Brother Geoff,
We will be praying for you as your church and community have an opportunity to make known the precision of the gospel in the midst of church throughout the area.
It grieves my heart to see an overseer veer from preaching and teaching the gospel and enter into the vanities of man. While he is a member of the county, he is foremost a member of the body of Christ and a steward of the Word of God. Whether this town remains dry, becomes wet, or decides to be damp…. The mission of the church is not to change….she is to build up one another in the bond of peace.
When you have part of the church mobilizing against another part of the church for signing a petition to authorize a vote, and requiring a confession, and making it an ultimatum,…it appears that it is not the county that has a problem as of yet,…the problem is in the church that is not able to love one another.
We need to pray for these churches….and that God would allow them to love one another as He commands that they and we must do….
1 John 4:15-21 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. (16) We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (17) By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. (18) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. (19) We love, because He first loved us. (20) If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. (21) And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.
I guess we will find out who the liars are….
Blessings,
Chris
I can speak to this as somewhat of an authority I suppose seeing how our community went through this very same thing just a few years ago. We were a “dry” county for decades and the referendum had been placed on the ballot several times and always failed. This last time, however, our County Commissioners voted to use a mail-out ballot on this issue to “get the voice of the people.” It was really just an underhanded way to get it passed. They knew the majority of people who show up at a polling place to vote would not support the issue, so they devised a way around it. I will be praying for you as your community deals with the issue and more importantly, if your community does go “wet” I will be praying for your young people. Within a year we had several fatal accidents involving teenagers and I’m sure you guessed it, all alcohol related.
As far as how the church is handling it. I think they could have done the same thing with a little more wisdom and brought less reproach upon the church and Jesus Christ. It appears to me (from the excerpts above) that the church is not handling the matter in love. I do not disagree with the principle of their point, but I would disagree with the execution of it. There is a right way and a wrong way to do the right thing.
OK, I’ll speak up. It is interesting to me that the SBC has been against alcohol for well over 100 years and huge SBC majorities vote for resolutions against alcohol – yet the big majority in the blog world seems to be for beverage alcohol. Also, I find it interesting that in the old days most Baptists of all stripes opposed alcohol – conservative, moderate, even liberal.
As to the situation in this post, it is an awkward one. I think even among Baptists who strongly oppose alcohol, there would be a diversity in how they would handle this situation. I think they would all be voting for the county to remain dry. Is a country better off dry? Yes. (Wet – county allows alcohol sales; Dry – county prohibits alcohol sales)
But as to church members who signed the petition for the wet/dry vote:
* Some churches and pastors would just ignore them, knowing that not all members of a Baptist church are going to agree on some issues.
* Some would preach strongly against alcohol and for voting to keep the country dry, but would not individually pressure members.
* Some would be angry at those members who signed the petition, but leave it at that.
* Some would at least make sure that members who signed the petition would not be elected to positions of leadership in the church.
* Some would view this like some would gambling – I am going to preach against it, this church is going to stand against it, but I am not going to go around individually checking up on church members. If I hear a member has done so, I’ll mildly reprove them, and pray the Lord will convict them.
* Some would make it more of an issue if the member was publicly for the county going wet, or publicly pushing it in the church.
* And then, of course, some may take a hard line position and give a member a choice of repenting, withdrawing as a member, or being dis-fellowshipped. Church discipline is a dicey thing, and it is easy to go to one extreme or the other. As has already been stated, a church has the authority to discipline.
So anyway, I think pastors and churches that are strongly against drinking would fall into the categories above.
As for the perception of the community, I think we should avoid church business and discipline getting out in the media but sometimes that is unavoidable. In such a case, we should just follow our convictions as tactfully as possible. We should be concerned what the world thinks, we should be more concerned what the Lord thinks.
David R. Brumbelow
One thing to remember is that a church does not have any authority in-and-of-itself over and beyond what has been permitted in scripture. God is our ultimate source of authority, and we understand what authority He has given to the church through the written Word He has given us.
As I understand it, the process of Church discipline as is laid out in Matthew requires first a private meeting followed by a meeting with a third party followed by a public meeting within the church. It is then up to the church to expel a member. Bypassing or ignoring this process is a violation of the command of Scripture.
I don’t see how this can be viewed as anything but a witch hunt.
Brother Andrew,
Excellent observation. The church must follow the principles of restoration,….so that in obedience to the commands the true offense is revealed and the brother is restored. In this case, it is possible that the Pastor is the one that may need to be restored to his brother, because of his actions and activity to supercede the Word of God in this matter.
Blessings,
Chris
Geoff wrote: “So … church leadership scoured the petition for names on the referendum petition, then made disciplinary home visits to these families.”
We don’t know that from the news article referenced above. All we know is that church leadership talked with Mr. Graff and he responded by contacting the local media. In my mind, that makes Graff’s whole story questionable.
It could be that the church leadership mishandled things or it could be that Mr. Graff exaggerated. It’s hard to tell on the basis of this rather one-sided news article.
If the question is would I have visited the homes of church members who signed the petition, the answer is yes – if I believed the bible mandated abstinence.
It would be interesting to know if Mr. Graff were an active member of the church or if he was one whose name was on the membership roll, but did not participate in the life of the church. If the former, I can understand a desire to talk with him, if the latter… why in the world would the church choose this time and this manner to bring him back to a place of meaningful membership?
I was raised in one of those legally “dry” counties, down in Alabama. I think they went “wet” in the 80s, or maybe even the 70s, but even before that, getting beverage alcohol was not an issue. Anniston to our north and Birmingham to our west was wetter than rain, and that is just the legal sources. Now maybe back in the 50s and prior, before better roads and interstates, we could be isolated and those county limits meant something–but not by the 70s. On top of that, everybody (even non-drinkers luike my family) knew where the bootleggers were. One was just outside the city limits of my hometown–creating an issue for the local police, as it was within the police jourisdiction, but the sherrif’s office viewed it as in their territory, not the town police’s. Consequently, there was a jourisdictional dispute, which worked to the bootlegger’s advantage. And guess what? When the county finally went wet, all the bootlegger’s business dried up, and as far as I could tell, the community suffered no damage. All the dry laws were doing was feeding the bootleggers!
Back then, I wasn’t a Christian, but I drank very little anyway, and I quit altogether after I became one. Today, I don’t recommend it (Romans 14:20, 1 Cor 10;32), but alcohol itself is a mere “thing,” and like many other “things,” its moral value depends entirely on how it is used–or abused. If drinking or distributing any amount of beverage alcohol is a sin–what about those 120 or so gallons of wine that Jesus created?
Plenty of churches and pastors who do like this group did honestly believe they are “standing up for what’s right,” and I appreciate that. But they are actually creating a hierachy which puts “behavior” far above “relationship with Christ.” And giving “the church” a black eye as far as the unchurched community is concerned.
John
Geoff,
What is your involvement in the situation? Have you had discussions with the other pastors in your area? What have you done in your church to address the issue of this referendum? I only ask because the comment stream hasn’t really picked up as much as I would have expected from this type of issue.
Count me as one who opposes this kind of Baptist Big-Brother control, especially on a matter that is clearly, in the Bible, an issue of individual conscience.
According to Geoff, the petition was not to legalize the sale of alcohol, but to let it come up for a public referendum. So the church is going to discipline its members, not for supporting the legal sale of alcohol (which would be way out of line as it is) but for supporting the democratic process of majority rule? I was going to say that this boggles the mind, but sadly it does not. This fits in nicely with one of the world’s major monotheistic religions, but not Christianity.
Exactly my point, Bill. Just what is the church disciplining members for?
I helped to fight against the sale of alcohol when I was a pastor in MS. We won, and our community won. I didnt scour the pettition to see if any of my members had signed, but I did encourage my members to vote against the sale of alcohol in our county. I did know of one Pastor…out of the many, many Pastors who stood against the sale of alcohol…who did exactly what this church that Geoff is talking about did. He was also villainized by the community for taking such a stand. I didnt agree with him, but I understood what he was doing and why. I didnt consider him to be cooky, or a Bob Jones type, or a legalistic meany. I didnt agree with him. I thought it was a bit extreme, and it was unnecessary.
But anyway, I think that we should be less concerned with what the world thinks of us, and be more concerned with being faithful to the Lord…whatever the world thinks about us. The worldly crowd didnt think too much of John the Baptist, nor of Paul, nor of Peter, nor of the Lord Jesus, Himself.
May we be faithful to God.
David
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4a6I1bJtBg
This will bless you, and it’s pertinent to the conversation.
David
David: The petition wasn’t to legalize the sale of alcohol, it was to allow the issue to be decided by the people of the county. How can anyone who believes in what America stands for oppose it? Churches can enforce their covenant however they like (although I would hope they do it consistently) but there is no way this violates any typical SBC covenant.
007:
Do you really believe that a person drinking a beer or having a glass of wine with a meal will be impaired?
The use of alcohol could be a very divisive issue in any SB church. It would be nice if the Bible said–Thou shalt not drink, but it does not and is not the first miracle Jesus turning water into wine, not grape juice.
In MS, they had to get enough signatures on a petition to sell whiskey. We took a stand at this time…and challenged many of the names they had on the petition. So many of the names were false that they could not vote for beer and whiskey to be sold due to so many signatures being thrown out. In Ms, you have to have more signatures for beer than you do for whiskey. Guess why? Because beer is a poor man’s drink, and liquor is what a lot of the more wealthy drink. But anyway, they got the amount it took to sell liquor, or whiskey. So, it came to a vote. And, the vote was against liquor being sold in our county. We were glad.
In the county next to us, they voted for liquor and beer to be sold a few years before we voted. In that county, drunk driving arrests went up from something like 30 per month to 300 per month. They had more domestic violence; more drunken car accidents; more deaths in car accidents; more bankruptcies, etc. We were very thankful that we didnt have to worry about some drunk coming out of a bar in our county and him driving home…with us, or our loved ones, on the road with the drunk.
David
Tom (comment #23),
The Bible saying Jesus turned water into wine in no way says He turned it into alcohol; that is your interpretation. The biblical words for wine (yayin, tirosh, oinos, etc.) were used interchangeably of grapes still on the vine, wine just pressed from grapes (so obviously unfermented), fermented wine, unfermented wine, and sour wine (vinegar). A quick example: Proverbs 3:10 is plainly non-alcoholic wine since it is just pressed from grapes. Yet it is translated by the Septuagint from Hebrew into the Greek word “oinos” (same word used in John 2), and is translated by our English versions into the English word “wine.” This even shows that the English word wine is still used generically.
The Bible simply says Jesus turned water into wine (oinos). Wine is a generic word. So you can “interpret” that as fermented wine, or unfermented (non-alcoholic) wine. Either is an interpretation. The Bible never says Jesus made alcoholic wine. By the way, doesn’t that view present a problem? Jesus coming to a drunken party and making more alcohol?
I believe that Jesus turned water to wine, just as He does every year in the vineyard, although through a slower process. Why would Jesus turn water to the pure juice of the grape (non-alcoholic wine), then reverse His creation (miracle) by rotting it to the point of being alcoholic and intoxicating?
David R. Brumbelow
David,
“When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense,” is a hermeneutical rule of thumb that has stood me in good stead over time. The ONLY reason people want to “interpret” this as non-alcoholic wine is because of an a priori belief that consumption of alcoholic beverages is evil in and of itself.
This in spite of verses like:
Deuteronomy 14:25-26 (King James Version)
25Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:
26And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,
Psalm 104
1Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
14He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;
15And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man’s heart.
Isaiah 25:6 (King James Version)
6And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.
Joel 2:18-24 (King James Version)
18Then will the LORD be jealous for his land, and pity his people.
19Yea, the LORD will answer and say unto his people, Behold, I will send you corn, and wine, and oil, and ye shall be satisfied therewith: and I will no more make you a reproach among the heathen:
21Fear not, O land; be glad and rejoice: for the LORD will do great things.
22Be not afraid, ye beasts of the field: for the pastures of the wilderness do spring, for the tree beareth her fruit, the fig tree and the vine do yield their strength.
24And the floors shall be full of wheat, and the vats shall overflow with wine and oil.
The only people it presents a problem to are people who believe that consumption of alcohol is a sin. This view is not shared by God as the verses above attest to.
Besides, we have this to look forward to:
Mark 14:25 (New King James Version)
25 Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
And we all know what the fruit of the vine does when it is new, according to the scripture:
Acts 2:13-15 (King James Version)
13Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
I know of no scholar who believes that imbibing alcohol is permitted who also teaches the “interpretation” of oinos you cite in John’s gospel. Such an interprettion is closely tied to personal conviction and is undoubtedly bad exegesis and a hermeneutic that is informed more by cultural taboos than an exposition of scripture.
Rick,
I’ve tried to make a reply but the site just says a duplicate comment. Maybe I’ll try tomorrow.
David R. Brumbelow
Rick,
.
Apparently the computer, or internet is on your side
David R. Brumbelow
David B:
In comment #25. What you are saying is your interpretation. You believe the bible teaches abstinence. I interpret the Bible as teaching moderation.
Fermentation is not the same as rotting. Yogurt, sourdough bread, soy sauce, buttermilk, sauerkraut, vinegar, etc. are all the product of fermentation and none of these are “rotten.”
As much as I enjoy the alcohol debate, the issue is whether church members should be subject to threads and intimidation because they take part in the democratic process of their county.
David,
You said: “Why would Jesus turn water to the pure juice of the grape (non-alcoholic wine), then reverse His creation (miracle) by rotting it to the point of being alcoholic and intoxicating?”
First of all, the juice of the grape is not “pure.” If it were Welch wouldn’t have had to pasteurize it. You do know what the pasteurization process is, don’t you? It is where a product is heated up to just below its boiling point and held there long enough to kill or inactivate most of the NATURALLY OCCURRING bacteria. Even Welch’s grape juice on the store isn’t “pure” which is why you have to refrigerate it after opening.
I am also mystified as to why you think Jesus “reversed” his creation by “rotting” it to the point of being alcoholic. First of all, the fermentation process is a naturally occurring action of cellular metabolism. It is going on in the cells of your body at this very moment. In grapes, the naturally occurring bacterial metabolize the sugars in the fruit and convert them to alcohol. This is actually the opposite of “rotting” the product because what it does is convert a perishable substance – grape juice – into a non-perishable, preserved form – wine – that stays pure at room temperature. It is the presence of the alcohol that acts as the preservative.
As I pointed out earlier, your a priori assumption that consumption of alcohol predisposes you to a conclusion that is not only contrary to the whole of scripture, but also the laws of nature.
rick
I have heard this argument before: That people shouldn’t drink alcohol because it is grape juice that has “rotted.” I trust people who use that argument don’t use vinegar, because you don’t make vinegar unless you make alcohol. If alcohol is “rotten”, then vinegar is even more “rotten.”
David B.,
You might as well not waste your breath with these fellas. They are convinced that drinking fermented wine is ok. Their minds are closed to anything else, and so it just turns to arguements back and forth.. saying the same things. It’s sad, but it’s where they are.
Killing brain cells and destroying their liver and taking a huge risk in getting addicted to alcohol is ok with them. They refuse to see the warnings of Proverbs about fermented wine. And, who I really feel sorry for…if yall are teaching this stuff in your Churches… are all the people who will become drunks from your teaching.
Sad.
David
Rick,
This is some of what I attempted to send yesterday, but it would not publish:
So do you believe that all wine in the Bible is intoxicating? Do you believe Jesus came to a drunken party and made a huge amount of intoxicating wine to make them drunker? Do you believe that Proverbs 3:10 is really alcoholic wine? Do you believe Genesis 40:11 is alcoholic wine?
You list verses that can be interpreted both ways. Joel 2:24 is clearly non-alcoholic wine. In Acts 2 the words are spoken by the enemies of the disciples. They are spoken in mocking derision. New wine was not intoxicating. These opponents of the disciples likely were using irony or sarcasm in saying they were drunk with new wine; kind of like saying they were drunk on kool-aid or lemonade. While commentators are all over the map on this verse, the view I mention goes back over 1500 years to Clement. What enemies said in scorn certainly does not prove that new wine was intoxicating, or that wine just pressed was alcoholic.
Isaiah 25:6 does not even use the word wine in Hebrew and frankly does not give evidence for either side in the debate about alcohol. It is simply talking about things that are preserved. Even using the word wine here is an interpretation.
You saying that the “fruit of the vine” is intoxicating seems to show your bias in thinking that all products of the vine are alcoholic. Is orange juice not the fruit of the citrus tree unless it is fermented?
David R. Brumbelow
Rick and everyone else that says this,
Also, to use the verses in Deuteronomy 14 to excuse drinking intoxicating drink is absurd, and it even maligns the Lord. So, are you saying…according to your interpertation….that the Lord ok’s poor people buying hard liquor, because they’re poor and need it to be happy? Are you saying that the Lord is sanctioning getting high, drunk, on hard liquor???? Really???
Peter Lumpkins makes a great point on this passage, that I’m sure David Brumbelow can explain better than I, that this word used in Deuteronomy 14 can mean different kinds of wine…not hard liquor. IOW, it means wine other than grape juice, like orange juice, and watermelon wine, and peach wine, etc. Non-fermented juices from other fruits, other than grapes.
But, to say that the Lord God…Holy God…would tell them to buy fermented, intoxicating wine in order for them to be happy…is, well, getting dangerously close to saying that God told them to be foolish and sin. You’re walking a line that is thin and narrow… that’s easy to fall off. And, I wouldnt want to say anything like that about God. God told them to drink fermented wine so they could be happy….good grief, Charlie Brown. What next? God tells us to buy meth so we can be happy??? God tells us that it’s ok to smoke weed, so that we can be happy?????
God help us.
David
Some ancient & modern quotes showing not all wine was alcoholic:
A Greek Poet and physician of the 2nd century BC wrote: “Says Nicander: And Cenus having squeezed the juice of the grapes, into hollow cups, called it wine (oinos).”
Aristotle wrote, “that sweet wine [oinos] would not intoxicate.”
Yayin [Old Testament Hebrew word for wine] – “what is pressed out, grape juice.” -Dr. Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Eerdmans, 1970; p. 1058.
“The word yayin was used to indicate fermented or unfermented wine.” -Yael Zisling, Winemaking in Israel – A Modern Industry Based on Ancient Traditions. Published by gemsinisrael.com; Spotlighting Israel’s Lesser Known Tourist Attractions and Travel Sites, the Gems, August / September, 2001. This is a pro fermented wine site, but it recognizes that yayin was a generic word.
David R. Brumbelow
Volfan, you are quite dramatic. Perhaps you should consider acting.
You employ a wide range of logical fallacies. Allow me to highlight a few. Suggesting that you shouldn’t waste your breath on us because we are so set in our beliefs and that condition is “sad.” But perhaps it is we “fellas” who shouldn’t waste our breath on you, since you are also firmly convinced that drinking fermented wine is sin. Your mind is quite closed to anything else, as you accuse us of being, so, in fact, it is just as “sad” that you are that way.
None of us has advocated alcoholism or the negative effects of it. Has anyone suggested that we are pro-liver damage and for risking alcohol addiction. For crying out loud, just because I think that sex isn’t prohibited in the Bible doesn’t mean that I’m for premarital sex, STDs, abortion, or even “risking sexual addiction.” I have an idea; let’s assume that if someone doesn’t agree with me on 100% of the issues, then they must disagree with me on almost 100% of the issues. This logic is ridiculous.
The mere consumption of alcohol or even hard liquor does not result in intoxication unless it is consumed irresponsibly. In the same way, firing a gun does not result in human injury unless it is handled irresponsibly. Just because the we argue Lord sanctions the consumption of alcohol doesn’t mean that we argue He sanctions irresponsibility. We’d never argue for that.
Also, there is nothing wrong with the idea that God would tell people to do something that is enjoyable to them. For God to tell people to drink something fermented is not wrong because there is nothing in and of itself wrong with it, so long as it is done responsibly. Comparing wine to meth and weed is hermeneutically irresponsible when looking at the whole council of Scripture on how to view wine.
David B, no one has suggested that all the occurrences of the word “wine” means a fermented beverage. We certainly have challenged your hermeneutic for establishing when it means fermented and when it doesn’t necessarily mean that. Arguing that all positive references are to non-fermented and that all negative references are to fermented is a faulty practice based on established negative beliefs about alcohol. Your argument on principle about the “fruit of the vine” attempts to remove the phrase from its historic and contextual setting. The Isaiah 25 passage does not use the word wine, but it is clearly making a reference to fermented wine and in so doing, paints it in a positive light.
We who believe that drinking wine is a matter of Christian liberty also recognize that it requires responsibility, caution, and abstinence in many cases for the sake of the brethren. That is why I choose to abstain. But I can’t judge a person merely for choosing to imbibe in a responsible way.
Either way, what does any of this debate have to do with the issue this post is even about?
David (Volfan) said:
You might as well not waste your breath with these fellas. They are convinced that drinking fermented wine is ok. Their minds are closed to anything else, and so it just turns to arguements back and forth.. saying the same things. It’s sad, but it’s where they are.
Killing brain cells and destroying their liver and taking a huge risk in getting addicted to alcohol is ok with them. They refuse to see the warnings of Proverbs about fermented wine. And, who I really feel sorry for…if yall are teaching this stuff in your Churches… are all the people who will become drunks from your teaching.
Let me express a deep sense of resentment at this statement. The characterization in the first paragraph is just as apropos of the rigid, “uncompromising” teetotalers.
At the same time, the second paragraph is an unwarranted and totally unsupported attempt at character assassination.
Neither is fitting of a godly discussion.
rick
A few quotes showing not all wine was alcoholic:
A Greek Poet and physician of the 2nd century BC wrote: “Says Nicander: And Cenus having squeezed the juice of the grapes, into hollow cups, called it wine (oinos).”
Aristotle wrote, “that sweet wine [oinos] would not intoxicate.”
Yayin [Old Testament Hebrew word for wine] – “what is pressed out, grape juice.” -Dr. Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Eerdmans, 1970; p. 1058.
“The word yayin was used to indicate fermented or unfermented wine.” -Yael Zisling, Winemaking in Israel – A Modern Industry Based on Ancient Traditions. Published by gemsinisrael.com; Spotlighting Israel’s Lesser Known Tourist Attractions and Travel Sites, the Gems, August / September, 2001. This is a pro fermented wine site, but it recognizes that yayin was a generic word.
***
It is untenable to argue that all wine in the Bible was intoxicating, just as it is to argue that all wine in the Bible was un-intoxicating. When we go to the grocery store today, we have a choice of intoxicating or un-intoxicating drinks. They had the same option in Bible times as to having intoxicating or un-intoxicating drinks. And they could easily preserve wine in an unfermented state. Just as they could preserve meat, grain, and vegetables without them turning sour or rotting.
So when you read “wine” in the Bible, don’t just assume it means the strong, intoxicating stuff. It may, and it may not.
David R. Brumbelow
For some reason this site is not accepting my comments. Hope you all have a great day.
David R. Brumbelow
Maybe a good post on moderation would work best. Drinking is an either or situation for many and a personal one at that. There is more to self-controlling ourselves in many other areas that would benefit all.
David Brumbelow,
I just checked, and noticed that a number of your comments are being intercepted as spam. I don’t know why that is. I don’t have the privileges to change that. Geoff Baggett and John Stickley, who are our current moderators, would have to do that. I’ll send them an e-mail to see if they can check into it.
Bruce,
Actually, Chris Johnson wrote a pretty good post about moderation a couple of months ago here:
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2009/06/16/self-control-christs-fulfillment-of-the-law-of-abstinence/
Also, there was a good bit of commentary about this issue on the post about Peter Lumpkins’ book.
I agree that the comments are getting a bit off of the main topic of Geoff’s post. But, if folks are still interested in discussing this, that’s fine with me.
David B.,
See what I mean?
David
Brother David B,
As of last year, I have now consumed a total of three caps full of wine (fermented) in my entire life. All three associated with the Lords Table. I have also consumed the fruit of the vine in its most raw form (freshly squeezed) most frequently. In all cases of consuming the beverage there has been reverence and honor given to the Lord. In all cases I have never been drunk,…in fact I have never been drunk in my life.
When I look to scripture it is abundantly clear that wine is fermented and that wine can also be considered freshly squeezed, simply because this is how it all begins….the juice must meet the air at some point. When it does meet the air, then it begins to ferment at some rate (Welches made a lot of money changing the rate of fermenting).
Bottom line,…. If a teacher of scripture is expositing scripture properly, it would be malpractice (eisegesis) to come to the conclusion that wine is unfermented where the context is obvious. To reach such a conclusion would be to reframe the context of scripture for personal gain or subjectivity.
The facts remain clear. That being drunk with wine is sin, unwise, an abrogation of responsibility, a horrible witness, and a host of other real problems. To abstain from drinking fermented wine is a more sure way to not being drunk, that is not an argument,…especially from where I stand on the subject. But to systematically perform eisegetical procedures because of emotional ties or political gain while using the Holy text is of equal harm,…and those eisegetical maneuvers do great harm to the hearers as well.
The tenor of this post is about voting not drinking. I grew up in a dry county….and although I would push for never being drunk, we had as many drunks as any other city….and since the package stores were thirty miles away…we had more drunks on the rode than where the brew was sold every Friday night, since those seeking to get the brew had to come back home at some point.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I am at a huge disadvantage here because most of my attempts to comment have failed. I never know if, when, and where a comment may go through.
You mention as soon as unfermented wine was exposed to air it begins to ferment. That is no more true than to say as soon as the meat of a killed and dressed animal is exposed to air it begins to decompose. It is true IF nothing is done to preserve it. But in ancient times they knew how to preserve meat, grain, vegetables. When they killed a cow they were not at the mercy of the weather as to how long they could eat it before it decomposed; they knew how to process and preserve the meat for later use. The Bible never spells out how they preserved wine (fermented or unfermented), meat, grain, vegetables; but nevertheless they did it with skill and with relative ease.
They well knew how to preserve wine. They could preserve wine fermented or unfermented. But there are preachers and scholars today who don’t know how to preserve such things, so they project their ignorance onto the people of Bible times. You might even call that eisegesis, “reading their thoughts and views into the Scripture.”
One common method of preserving unfermented wine:
“Concentrating grape juice down by heating is still used to make the popular shireh of modern Iran and was known to the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia as well as the Greeks and Romans. It enables fruit to be preserved, and, diluted with water, it produces a refreshing, nonalcoholic beverage.” -Ancient Wine: The Search For The Origins Of Viniculture by Patrick E. McGovern, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2003; p. 54. This book is very pro fermented wine. The quote is noteworthy, however, in that it reveals a common way today and in ancient times to preserve wine in an unfermented condition. There were other methods of preservation as well.
David Rogers, thanks for the explanation.
David R. Brumbelow
David R. B. asked:
“So do you believe that all wine in the Bible is intoxicating?”
rp: No. Why would I?
“Do you believe Jesus came to a drunken party and made a huge amount of intoxicating wine to make them drunker?”
rp: I believe what the Bible says. I don’t believe “the best” wine is non-alcoholic and in the words of the toastmaster, the wine that Jesus made was better than the wine served earlier. If you want to believe something the Bible does not say (that the wine was non-alcoholic, that it was non-intoxicating, etc.) that is your prerogative. Just be honest enough to state that your belief is based on an a priori assumption that consumption of alcohol is always evil at all times. Don’t try to convince me you believe it was a special kind of wine that was chemically unlike any wine known to man (i.e. non-alcoholic, non-intoxicating) and that is what the BIBLE teaches because it is not.
“Do you believe that Proverbs 3:10 is really alcoholic wine?”
rp: Not yet. It was freshly pressed grapes that within a short while fermented into wine.
“Do you believe Genesis 40:11 is alcoholic wine?”
rp: I believe it was a dream.
“You list verses that can be interpreted both ways. Joel 2:24 is clearly non-alcoholic wine. In Acts 2 the words are spoken by the enemies of the disciples. They are spoken in mocking derision. New wine was not intoxicating. These opponents of the disciples likely were using irony or sarcasm in saying they were drunk with new wine; kind of like saying they were drunk on kool-aid or lemonade. While commentators are all over the map on this verse, the view I mention goes back over 1500 years to Clement. What enemies said in scorn certainly does not prove that new wine was intoxicating, or that wine just pressed was alcoholic.”
rp: whatever. Any interpretation that suits your a priori assumption. Just ignore the plain use of language and make it out to mean something else. If you’re not going to accept scripture at face value, then there really is no point in discussion. The detractors in Acts accused them of being drunk. The disciples said they were not drunk as they supposed because it was too early in the day. They did NOT say, “they couldn’t be drunk on new wine.”
Even John McArthur, famous advocate of total abstinence, recognizes that there was intoxicating wine called “new wine.”
“You saying that the “fruit of the vine” is intoxicating seems to show your bias in thinking that all products of the vine are alcoholic. Is orange juice not the fruit of the citrus tree unless it is fermented?”
rp: This is what I like about you guys.
Out of one side of the mouth you will argue that the Bible forbids the drinking of alcoholic beverages and cite passage after passage where “wine” is used. You point the finger at these verses and say, “See? It says ‘wine’ and that means an alcoholic beverage.”
Out of the other side of the mouth every time we point to a verse where God either does not expressly forbid the drinking of wine or even condones imbibing of wine, you rush to the verse and say, “That doesn’t mean ‘alcoholic’ wine in that verse. It means something else.”
This is a classic case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. I find it more than just a little disingenuous that EVERY time the word wine is used in a negative context, it is referring to alcoholic wine, but EVERY time is is approved by God, it is non-alcoholic wine that is intended. As I said – the ONLY reason you interpret these verses is because of an a priori assumption that alcohol is evil. Please show me one single scholar who feels moderation is permitted by the Bible who “interprets” these verses as you do. I daresay you will never produce one. Why? Because they are not compelled by their theology to interpret the Bible in their favor.
And then to cap it off, you build these ridiculous straw man questions like this:
“You saying that the “fruit of the vine” is intoxicating seems to show your bias in thinking that all products of the vine are alcoholic.”
rp: And your willingness to type such a statement shows that you are either ignorant of, or at least dismissive of the most rudimentary rules of logic. You might as well say, “You saying that grass is green shows your bias in thinking that everything that is green is grass.” Same logical fallacy is employed.
And then you say something equally unnecessary, “Is orange juice not the fruit of the citrus tree unless it is fermented?” as if this lends something to the conversation. I don’t know which is more ridiculous, your statement or your belief that the statement somehow reflects the line of reasoning that I was pursuing.
If you’re going to make an argument, would you at least be courteous enough to make it a logical one and not appeal to fallacious and specious comments to make an ad hominem attack? Thank you.
Why is the Cana wedding being denigrated as a drunken party?
Listen:
I don’t know any moderationists who think every biblical reference to wine refers to alcoholic product. It isn’t necessary for our view.
I don’t know any moderationists who thinks “strong drink” refers to hard liquor. Any bible dictionary will tell you it refers to a non-wine alcoholic drink. I would like to see a peer-reviewed scholarly reference that suggests that strong drink refers to lemonade or apple juice.
The Jews had vinegar. That means they had alcohol. Whether they had the ability to preserve grape juice unfermented has no bearing on the fact that they made and used fermented wine.
The Mosaic Law does not forbid the use of alcohol, therefore it was not forbidden. Solomon did not have the authority to add restrictions to the Law, therefore he could not forbid the consumption of wine. Ask any Jew whether the ancient Israelites regularly made and used fermented wine.
007:
Said to David B:
“David B.,
You might as well not waste your breath with these fellas. They are convinced that drinking fermented wine is ok. Their minds are closed to anything else, and so it just turns to arguements back and forth.. saying the same things. It’s sad, but it’s where they are.
Killing brain cells and destroying their liver and taking a huge risk in getting addicted to alcohol is ok with them. They refuse to see the warnings of Proverbs about fermented wine. And, who I really feel sorry for…if yall are teaching this stuff in your Churches… are all the people who will become drunks from your teaching.
Sad.
David”
I never cease to be amazed at the way 007 attempts to engage in any Blog about something he disagrees with others about.
It always ends up with him calling people names and condemning those people for being closed minded, when he certainly appears to me to be closed minded on the issue of alcohol. He is quilty of what he accuses others of.
His approach will only harden peoples positions about the issue and stifle the conversation.
It is a very real issue and one that really needs discussion between those that believe the Bible teaches moderation and those that believe the Bible teaches abstinence.
Brother David B,
I feel your pain when the posts don’t seem to make it through,…I have the same issues on the site. So keep trying….
The point I was trying to make is that “preserving techniques” has little to do with anything really. I agree with you there were many techniques of old to keep the wine from growing stale or ruining, but that is not really the point either.
The Holy Spirit is better than abstinence any day. He is a more sure paraklete than the associated guilt of not abstaining. It is because of the paraklete that I abstain, because I am assured of never getting drunk. In other words, I abstain from being drunk, whether I have wine of any kind (caps full in communion as an example). Its much more potent to be drunk in the Spirit.
When we teach others to not be drunk with wine, abstinence is certainly one way to achieve that goal. It is not the only way though…and it is at that point where it seems to be more convenient for some to preach around the text and place subjective thoughts in the minds of the hearer based on emotion or past bad actors. Its simply better to preach the text “it is what it is” and lead folks to Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, so that they will be drunk in the Spirit. That is a more sure way.
The theme of this post though points back to the strife between this Pastor and his congregation. I pray that He is able to love his congregation and understand that his relationship with his brother and sister is more important than a piece of paper called a petition. The petitions will come and go many more times….so, fight the petition if you must,…but love, don’t fight with your brother and sister in Christ.
Blessings,
Chris
David Rogers,
I just picked up your response. I did go to the Self Control and now recall what it was about. It was a good read again. Thanks
I fail to see where signing a petition to put a question before the voters would be a sin, let alone one that would require a public repentance before the church or disavowal.
Is it a sin that thousands upon thousands of pastors and churchgoers who live in counties that do permit alcohol sales have not taken up petitions to ban the sale of such drinks?
I am reminded of a friend of mine I attended church with in a small town several years ago. He’s a businessman and purchased the local gas station/convenience store. Previously, the store had sold beer and lottery tickets; not surprisingly, he was asked if he would continue to sell such items. He said was inclined to stop selling them if he could, but was sure would disappoint the deacons who bought beer there when nobody else was around and their wives who discretely bought lotto tickets!
Though I don’t agree that alcohol in and of itself is sinful, I can see the issues associated with it as often being sinful. Here’s another question though. What if the petition was about the issue of homosexual marriage? Would we be as nonchalant about that as we are about a petition to put the sale of alcohol up to a vote?
Just came to this discussion, and in usual fashion there is lively debate. Tom B… I think most parties on this post are pretty convinced of their position… for or against. My problem from this article comes in two areas…
1. Any church going through church roles for any reason like this just shouldn’t happen. I could come up with 100 different issues that this could be applied to, and it is not the pastors role to strong arm members of an autonomus congregation to be conformists. It has always been fascinating to me how a denomination that prides itself on local church autonomony and priesthood of the believer seem to try to exert the most control over their members.
2. Baptists have traditionally been against drinking – for well over 100 years. However, the biblical texts were pulled out of context and used to address a cultural problem. All the while, Baptists…especially in my home state, had no problem filling their lungs with smoke or stuffing their mouths with pork.
I can make a moral or secular argument that staying away from alcohol is a good if not GREAT choice. However, I could never preach that drinking alcohol is sin. The Bible just doesn’t support that. There are so many things in our culture that can be abused… sex, food, etc – but we don’t make a blanket statement and say that those things in the proper context are ok and good. Just think of all the deaths that have resulted in the misuse of sex. Just think of all the pastors that have died prematurely because they couldn’t control what they put in their mouths. Does this mean that we preach that everyone should abstain from sex — even out of it’s proper context? Should everyone go on a strict fast? Is sex evil? Is food evil?
No… of course not. Money isn’t evil either. And neither is wine. However, the love of or abuse of either is sin.
There is a BIG distinction there.