I am very interested in reading the rest of what you have to say about this topic. I agree that the Bible never strictly forbids or condemns the drinking of alchohol and to say that it does is unsound exegesis. Therefore to demand or command total abstinence would be an unbiblical position. With that being said I do practice abstinence from the position of wisdom and profitability.

"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." 1 Cor. 6:12

Is it wise or profitable to drink alchohol when it is not a necessity? Within the cultural context of the Scriptures wasn't it wise and profitable to drink alchohol due to the dangers of drinking unsanitary water? Wasn't Timothy practicing abstinence to the point of losing his health and Paul basically had to command him to drink alcohol for its medicinal value (1 Timothy 5:23)?

At a time and place in history when there are plenty of nonalcoholic beverages available that are sanitary and profitable, is there wisdom in placing yourself in a position of coming under the power of alchohol which could lead to drunkenness? Due to the warnings of Scripture about the power and danger of alcohol (Prov. 20:1; 21:17; 31:4) isn't it wiser to abstain if possible? I'm not sure anyone in America today is a total abstainer. Have you checked the alcoholic content of most cough syrups?

Just a few questions that I am sure you will be dealing with in future posts. I look forward to your biblically based answers.

I abstain from alcohol for many of the same reasons as Ben. I believe it is a matter of conscience. I would not demand anyone to make the decision I made because I find no absolute scriptural command for it. However, I think the questions that Ben brings up are worth noting. There seems to be enough biblical warrant for the abstinence position to at least not accuse supporters of the SBC resolution of "legalism." If you read the good arguments in support of the resolution (Akin and Patterson), you will find that both of these men are seeking the right position based on their understanding of Scripture. You may disagree with their hermeneutic, but they are by no means "legalists" by virtue of the fact that you disagree with them. Legalism is always connected with trying to establish your own righteousness apart from Christ and then applying your righteousness establishing rules to other people. It always has to do with pleasing God apart from faith in His Son. I do not think most intelligent supporters of this resolution can be call legalists. It is not fair, and when the word "legalism" is used so loosely it looses its value as a word to descibe anything. Also, I think that cultural context should be considered more when discussing this issue. The Bible contains eternal truth that was contextualized to specific cultures. Our task is to bring out the truth while leaving the culture behind and then reapply that truth to our own culture which is very very different from the Biblical cultures. I think that any approach to Scripture that ignores this is "atrociously amateurish." Again, I am not trying to argue in support of the resolution. I just think its a more complicated issue than most think. One more thing that should be considered: An SBC resolution is by no means a law that every SB must obey. It is voted on by the people to represent the denomination's opinion on the matter. It is not imposed upon anyone. SB churches are autonomous. The convention doesn't rule over them; it is designed to serve the churches, not force the churches to serve it.

One problem with the line of reasoning expressed in the comments so far is that there seems to be no indication in Scripture that we should abstain from things that God has declared good just because some people abuse them. The case of alcohol is no different.

If the Bible was not so clear about the goodness of alcohol, I could see your point. However, the Bible is so clear that God gave alcohol to be enjoyed that I cannot see how the abuse of some (even many) could somehow make it wise to abstain.

Compare this to sex, for example. It's quite likely that far more people abuse sex than alcohol, and it's also quite likely that the abuse of sex has caused even more harm than the abuse of alcohol. However, God indicates that sex is something that he has given to be enjoyed in the proper relationship of marriage, and we are not to throw this gift aside just because millions of people abuse it.

Fitzage,
Your point is well taken, and I have to consider what your saying. However, I am uncomfortable making the comparison between drinking alcohol and sex. Sex isn't just to be enjoyed. It goes to the heart of who we are as people created in the image of God, not to mention married Christians who represent the gospel of Jesus Christ by having sex. Sex is to be enjoyed, of course. However, its also the means by which the human race is continued. Its also so central to the gospel that Paul says the purpose behind marriage (and thus sex) is to draw a picture of the gospel (Eph. 5). Drinking alcohol for personal enjoyment is no where close. God made many things for enjoyment that many people choose everyday not to enjoy. A better analogy would be meat. Some people choose not eat meat and some even attempt to make biblical arguments for it. However, God has given meat to be enjoyed as food. Is it wrong to abstain from eating meat? I don't think associating alcohol with sex is wise. Your point that alcohol's abuse doesn't lead to its demise is well-taken and right on. However, you also say that you do not see how it could be wise to abstain. Paul answers that question in 1 Cor. 8:9: "But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak." Rom. 14:21: "It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble." It is definitely wise to abstain, especially in a culture where alcohol is so associated with evil. When you say it is not a sin to drink, I agree, but to say that there's no wisdom in abstaining is another thing altogether. As Christians we always have to elevate the needs of those around us above our own personal liberties.

Casey,

Point taken. I do, in fact, usually not drink around some people because I don't want to make an issue out of it, and because I don't want to cause anyone to stumble.

That being said, I would have to say that I don't really know anyone who would be caused to offend their conscience by partaking of alcohol because of seeing me drink. There are many, however, who would violate the other commandment of Paul toward those who are abstainers and pass judgment on me for partaking.

I must admit that I also go the other route, and sometimes pass judgment on those who abstain.

This brings me to the point I was trying to make to begin with. While Paul says to avoid grieving weaker brothers with what we partake of, he seems to indicate that abstinence is not the generally desirable course.

Should those who are weak remain weak? In Romans 15, the strong are told bear with the failings of the weak and to build them up. Does this not indicate that there should be growth from weakness to strength?

A weak person should not partake of something that his conscience tells him is wrong. Should he not, however, try to bring his conscience in line with what God says is acceptable?

I also don't see how Romans 14 applies to the culture. It is one thing to set aside some of your liberty for a time for the sake of brothers in Christ, but binding our conscience to the abuses of the world is another thing entirely. I think the best way to show the world what is right is through the proper use of God's gifts, not refusing to partake of those gifts.

Fitzage,
I respect what you have to say, and I appreciate the open and honest dialogue about this. I haven't been able to talk to anyone about this without it getting too severe.

I was raised in south Alabama, and culturally speaking, alcohol was seen as a social evil. Perhaps it was just the Bible belt. This makes a good point: perhaps cultures even within our own country are so different that it makes such a topic harder to talk about. Contextualization will look different in AL than in NY. I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. You just came across like abstinence is sinful, but I think you realize that and have admitted it.

I don't believe that a weak person should necessarily bring his conscience along to what God says is acceptable. I don't think alcohol is ever proscribed in the Bible. Its never commanded. Just notice how Paul deals with Timothy on it. He doesn't reprimand Timothy for abstaining. He just encourages him to take a drink for an ailing stomach. Paul is not trying to change his brother's mind. In another place he says, "If food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble" (1 Cor. 8:13). There's finality in his tone: Never again. It wasn't even an issue to Paul. If there was any risk that it might even possibly hinder the gospel, the debate was over, he abstained. I think that's the attitude we need to adopt here.

Paul seems to deal with these issues as if either position is acceptable, but he does set up rules for us to make our own decisions:
1) Don't violate your conscience
2) Don't cause a brother to stumble
3) Don't just think in terms of lawful and acceptable, but think in terms of profitable and edifying (1 Cor. 10:23). Something can be allowed, and yet it might not be edifying. This is a big issue in this debate.

I look forward to your response.

I'm thankful to see a treatment of this subject that addresses the root issue. The serious danger that is represented by the loose hermeneutics required for an abstentionist position makes my stomach turn. The idea that "good people" can create their own set of canonical law without answering to Scripture should concern all of us. The oft misinterpreted Christian liberty issue simply doesn't apply to this. When Scripture speaks clearly on a topic, that topic cannot be swept under the rug of subjective ambiguity. To do so with the alcohol issue, in light of passages like Deuteronomy 14:22-27, means that equivalent ideas (like tithing or eating meat, in the case of this passage) must also be neutered of their God-given qualifiers and left up to the evidently omniscient wisdom of modern American church leaders. As you can tell from the commenters above, "wisdom", "profibility" and "conscience" trump Scripture when there's a conflict.

To reduce the issue further - what is truly authoritative? The church or the Scripture? Don't the problems with Romanism stem from the same wrong answer?

David,

You are a wise and brave man ... very wise and extremely brave!

I'll be linking to this series, and sending some prohibitionists your way!

Oh, and by the way, good post.

Casey,

You missed part of what Paul was saying.

4) Don't condemn a brother who is strong enough to partake.

I don't necessarily think you are doing that, but it's just as important as the other points.

You may also be right about cultural differences between different parts of the country, but I would also contend that most people who say alcohol is evil are either ones who are confusing it with drunkenness (think temperance and prohibition) and those who have been conditioned to think so by the Christians around them (which is sad, since the Christian church in America seems to have picked this up from the temperance movement, not the other way around).

Nathan,

I think Romans 14 might still apply here. Paul specifically mentions eating meat and drinking wine.

However, I think you are right that the Bible says so much about alcohol that this passage should be of only secondary consideration, not something to base our entire theology of the acceptability of alcohol on.

Here's yet more cultural context. This seems to be a particularly American hang-up. I have a European wife and have lived and traveled extensively overseas. People in other countries, including Christians, consume alcohol as a matter of course in their everyday lives. In many places in Europe, kids grow up with a wine bottle on the table. Therefore, there is no taboo to them. It is not forbidden fruit. Accordingly, teen and young adult binge drinking is virtually unknown in those countries. (This, of course, is not universally true. Russia has a terrible drinking problem, but that, I think, arises more from psychological and spiritual issues, not cultural.)

If people in this country knew that one could drink with moderation without the expectation that alcohol is good only for getting drunk, we'd see our teen drinking problem diminish greatly.

And, yes, I enjoy a fine Czech pilsner every once in a while, especially after mowing the lawn on a hot summer day.

Tom,

I was thinking of the cultural context as well, but I was wondering how Christians in those countries view alcohol. How do the churches deal with these issues? Does anyone know? From what I have heard it seems that most European and South American churches use wine for communion. Does that mean they view alcoholic consumption as normal, expected, accepted and biblically justifiable?

One more question: When, where, and why did the abstinence position come into history? Has anyone researched the history of this question?

I have done a little bit of research in regards to abstinence. While there were a few who have practiced this at various points, there weren't many. Even the Puritans were very fond of their alcohol.

It seems that the big push in this country was definitely not from the Church, but from women who felt (maybe rightly so) that their husbands were spending too much time in the bars and not enough at home.

Some of my info came from the book "Drinking with Calvin and Luther," which shows how alcohol was a normal part of the lives of Christians until relatively recently.

My church recently switched to using wine in communion, as being the best way to follow the biblical example and present the biblical picture, but we still provide grape juice for those who are convinced they shouldn't drink.

For what it's worth, most of the people at church who drink the grape juice just don't like the taste of the wine.

Don

For the most part, I don't think the churches or Christians in many countries (most of my overseas experience is in Europe and Africa) think much about alcohol at all. It's just not a problem.

Keep it up David.

I am a life insurance underwriter, and it is a statistical fact that teetotalers have a minimally shorter lifespan than moderate drinkers. Moderation is key. The benefits are stronger for men than for women, but especially in the elderly, we categorize moderate ETOH as a positive marker for longevity when pricing our insurance offers.

No reason to start drinking if you don't want to, but another instance where the wisdom of the Bible is reflected in real medicine. I don't drink because I don't have a taste for it, but my poor sister who likes it very much (in moderation ) is married to a Southern Baptist, and is constantly suject to the disapproval of her in-laws. She did not have the Champagne toast at her wedding that she would have liked, when Jesus's very first miracle was the wine at the Wedding in Cana!

This is blanket disapproval is unbiblical, therefore unchristian. I thank you for your post, and will get off my high horse for now.

Great post. I'll be linking to your series. This is a blatantly unbiblical stance by the SBC. If I hadn't already left an SBC church (for lots of other reasons) I would have strongly considered it after this incident.

An old religious/alcohol joke:

Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Son of God,
Methodists don't recognize the Pope as the head of the Church,
and Southern Baptists don't recognize each other at the liquor store.