“I can assure you of this: if you are associated with the use of beverage alcohol, I think I dare exaggerate not to say that 99% of all doors of ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention will be closed to you.”- Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Dan Kimball asks some honest questions concerning this post. He asks,
But what is intriguing me about this statement is that with this view, I am wondering - would Jesus then have 99% of the ministry doors shut on Him?Dan has garnered some interesting comments so you might want to read those as well. Personally I think Al Mohler is a genius and I love almost everything he writes, but this one really leaves me scratching my head. If anyone out there has a link or doc to where he expounds on this more I would love to be made aware of it. In the end thought, I think it is important though not to make a big deal out of "disputable matters". I think Paul said something about that somewhere...
10 comments:
I think this is the source of the quote:
http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/Mohler/Alcohol&Ministry.mp3
Zach, as a member of a wonderful church that is in "friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention," (Capitol Hill Baptist) I have to say that, at least at this point, I do not agree with the SBC's policy of total abstinence from alcohol for seminarians (and, as Dr. Mohler suggested, people in SBC ministry in general). Now, I am not a Biblical exegete, in the sense of knowing Hebrew and Greek. Certain Biblical scholars will claim that the wine we have today is much, much stronger than the wine of Jesus's time here on Earth. I honestly can't claim detailed knowledge on that question. On a certain level, the SBC's policy seems, to me, to be a matter of traditionalism (maybe even legalism?) winning over true Biblical exegesis, but again, as I said, I'm not currently an academic student of the Bible and Biblical times and culture, so I could well be wrong here. Having said that, here is a link to a post from Steve McCoy that, from where I am right now, seems full of wisdom and clear thinking:
http://www.stevekmccoy.com/reformissonary/2005/09/alcohol_abstent.html
Oops, sorry, that link was too long to fit-- go to Steve McCoy's blog at http://www.stevekmccoy.com/reformissionary/ and serch for his post, "Alcohol, Abstinence, and Redemption."
If the people in Biblical antiquity didn't have problems with drunkenness then why does so much of the Bible spend time telling us to not to get drunk? It doesn't really matter if the wine was weaker back then, if it was then it just meant that you needed to drink 10 beers instead of 5 to get drunk. So even if it is proven that alcohol was weaker back then I don't think it makes a lick of difference. What is at stake is drunkenness and it's clear that people back then got drunk or else we wouldn't have any admonitions against it. Just because it may have been weaker doesn't mean that people couldn't get drunk off it cause they clearly could. Enough said...
Another point: SBCer might say: So abuse in the culture should mean abstinence from it all together for Christians.
As Christians we don't have that policy with sex. And sex is WAY more abused in our culture than drinking.
Or you could "search," too... and to think that I was an English major! :-)
I agree with you on all points here, Zach. I wasn't mentioning the "weaker wine" argument to take a stance in favour of the SBC's policy-- I was just trying to be humble, in light of the fact that I'm not a student of the Biblical languages, and at least some people on the other side of this issue are... at this point, I still disagree with them though-- and I say that as a Southern Baptist at an "SBC-cooperating" church.
I think some of this is probably in the desire to not become a stumbling block for others. Why should I let my freedom become a cause of stumbling to my brother. This is the reason I rarely drink.
"I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything be unclean, to him it is unclean. For if because of food (drink in this case) your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food (drink) him for whom Christ died... It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles."
- Rom. 14:14-15,21
Mark and Maki, I understand the Biblical desire not to make one's brother or sister stumble. The obvious problem with the SBC's alcohol abstinence policy, though, is that it takes what is a good principle, when one is around particular people with a particular struggle, and makes it into an absolute, binding rule at ALL times. That is, if one hopes to serve in SBC ministry, at least. This move is NOT Biblical. It goes beyond what the Word of God itself prescribes. This is legalism. It might be legalism with misguided "good" intentions, but it is still legalism.
Chris,
I think you are right. I wonder if it is really a "binding rule at ALL times" though. Are their no exceptions for any case? This would be legalism.
I think the most important thing about Pauls statement in Romans 14 about not causing a weaker brother to stumble is this: the weaker brother is called "weak" for a reason, because he has not grown up in the faith yet! As the author of Hebrews says, "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil." (5.12-14)
The point is, to be the weaker brother (the spiritual infant) is not the goal, we are to grow up into Christ. So, around a weaker brother we should abstain, but we should counsel and build him up so that he puts away such childish belief and grows up into full faith. Then we'll have a cold one together.
Post a Comment