There is a Time to be Silent in the Face of Criticism

James MacDonald with some very wise words here.

James MacDonald Shares Thoughts After #TheElephantRoom

You can read his reflections here.

Ed Stetzer Reflects on #TheElephantRoom

Here are his thoughts.

More Reflections on #TheElephant Room - Trevin Wax

Trevin Wax has a lengthy post that is worth reading. His conclusion:

In the end, I admire James MacDonald’s intention to bring about more civil discourse between believers. We need charity and clarity. But civility is not a love-fest. We will disagree – strongly at times. Why? Because theology matters. The stakes are high. Bad theology hurts people.

Bad conflict in the Christian church is caused by ego and pride. Good conflict ought to flow from love and compassion. We need less “bad conflict” and more “good, sharpening conflict.”

Weak unity in the Christian church is caused by minimizing the importance of theology. Strong unity flows from affirmation and celebration of the essential truths of Christianity and how they impact our lives and ministries. We need less “weak unity” and more “strong unity.”

So when we engage in conflict, let’s make sure it is out of love for the truth, love for Jesus, love for one another, and love for the people we shepherd. Sometimes we may even stand against a brother on a certain issue, but even when we take an adversarial stance, it ought always to be for the good of that brother and the glory of King Jesus. Let’s take the goal of The Elephant Room seriously and be people who are full of grace and truth.

Read the rest.

Questions After #TheElephantRoom

Darryl Dash with a helpful post that asks some good questions and provides some links if you missed the commentary from yesterday.

Worst Preaching Mistakes

One time in a sermon on adoption I said, "God hates babies!" Uh... Not good. I was trying to say that Satan hates families and discipleship and reproduction because it is commanded by God, but I was getting worked up and going too fast and said, "God hates babies!!"

It's good to be humbled.


Preaching Goofs from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

How the Gospel Makes Us Generous and Content with Our Money

The danger of wealth has been a prominent theme in the teaching of several pastors in recent years. John Piper’s chapter on money in Desiring God has shaped me and many others to a great degree. More recently, authors David Platt and Francis Chan have championed a similar message with their books Radical and Crazy Love.

Their message has met considerable resistance with counter warnings against embracing a “poverty theology.” Should we not rejoice in what God has given? Shouldn’t we want to take care of our families and provide for them? Shouldn’t pastors be paid well so their wives don’t have to work and they are not continually stressed out with financial pressure?

I’m afraid the framing of this discussion leads us to ask the wrong questions. Like the junior high boy who wonders how “far is too far” with his girlfriend, we are quickly caught up in questions about how rich is too rich, how poor is too poor, and the like. Where is the line? Do I feel guilty for having too much? Do the kids have enough? What does “enough” even mean? Should I feel guilty about not giving as much as so and so? If I give more, does that mean I am more spiritual? The hamster wheel of comparison, propelled by our spring-loaded legalism, keeps spinning unto exhaustion. We are all tempted to be prideful about what we give or feel guilty about what we don’t. Neither response befits the gospel, which crushes pride and erases guilt.

Financial Peace

Still, the question remains: how should we handle money? I’ve learned a lot from Dave Ramsey, an extremely popular radio host,author, and speaker who teaches people how to manage money so they can attain “financial peace.” He is also a Christian who loves to motivate people to cease being a “slave to the lender” (Prov. 22:7) and manage their money so that their money doesn’t manage them.

Ramsey markets his successful 13-week program, Financial Peace University, to churches, schools, military institutions, and others all over the world. My wife and I used his programa few years ago to pay off all her graduate school debt and our minivan (total: about $50,000) in roughly four years. We have lived in the past with big debt. Now we are living with zero debt, as we rent a house. The debt-free lifestyle has given us freedom and removed the stress of money from our our marriage, even when times are tight.

When counseling young couples, we plead with them to obtain a plan for their money. If we would have heard about Ramsey when we were 22 instead of 30 years of age, our financial outlook would be much better today. But there is a point of grave danger that I always communicate when we talk about Ramsey. If you follow his principles, most likely you will have more money. You will perhaps get really rich. In fact, Dave emphasizes this every day on his radio show when he regularly says, “Debt is dumb, cash is king, and the paid-off home mortgage has replaced the BMW as  the status symbol of choice.” Is it wrong to be rich? No, but it IS dangerous.

When I read the Bible I don’t see the pursuit of riches as a worthy goal to pursue as an end in itself. I don’t think Ramsey believes this, either, but I wish he would state this clearer and more often.

Think of all the warnings from Jesus about money:

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. (Matt. 6:24)

And he said to them, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” (Luke 12:15)

As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. (Matt. 13:22)

Even so, we shouldn’t respond to these warnings by resolving to be dumb with our money to make sure we remain poor. Rather, pursuing a biblical perspective involves three things: 1) financial wisdom, 2) contentment, and 3) generosity.

Seek Financial Wisdom

Said plainly, I would get Ramsey’s book and do what he says to get out of debt and manage your money. You might not agree with everything he says, but most of us need a much better financial plan.

Pursue Contentment

Contentment is a more biblical goal than getting rich. Paul writes about this 1 Timothy 6:6-10:

Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

This is where I have a problem with Ramsey’s emphasis on getting rich. It doesn’t seem to square with what the Bible teaches. Is it wrong to be rich? No, and “rich” is a very relative term. No one thinks he is rich, because everyone knows someone who is WAY wealthier. Ramsey is a millionaire many times over, but his wealth doesn’t hold a candle to Bill Gates or Michael Jordan. So what is “rich” anyway? Who knows, but however you slice it, the Bible tells us to be content with what we have and pursue simplicity (Heb. 13:5). The goal needs to be freedom with contentedness, not a yearning for more stuff.

Be Generous

To Ramsey’s credit, he frequently emphasizes the joy of extravagant giving. Look at how Paul exhorts the rich in 1 Timothy 6:17-19:

As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life. 

If you have the ability to make lots of money, maybe you should. But as you do, be sure to constantly check your heart along the way. Jesus’ words cannot be trifled with. Be constantly on the lookout for how you can be a blessing and how the kingdom of God can be furthered in our day through your resources.

Gospel Emphasis

Rather than debating between “radical” living for God and the dangers of “poverty theology,” we learn from 1 Timothy 6 that contentment and generosity should be our emphasis in light of the gospel.

God has already provided all that we will ever need (Rom. 8:32). He cares for grass (Matt. 6:28-30) and birds (Matt. 10:29), so we can be content with or without stuff. God has been infinitely generous with us in Christ so, rich or poor, we can be joyfully generous in a way that makes our neighbors scratch their heads and say, “Who are these people?”

Generosity is not a poverty theology. Contentment with thankfulness is not a prosperity theology. The gospel motivates us to be generous and gives us ultimate contentment.

This post is cross-posted at The Gospel Coalition Blog.

James MacDonald - Wise Up About Alcohol - Part 6

Here is Pastor MacDonald’s final reason for why he believes that total abstinence should be the norm for all Christians. Listen to his message here and here if you like.

6. Because wisdom calls me to set it aside.

I am honestly glad that Pastor MacDonald is convinced in his own mind that the wisest choice is for him to totally abstain. I have zero problem with that. And because he has this conviction, it is the wisest choice for him to abstain. But what I do have a problem with is his trumpeting of this view for all his people as the wisest choice for all Christians. As pastors we are called to teach our people the explicit word of God and seek to unify our people around the centrality of the Gospel. When a pastor stands before his people and proclaims his views on matters that are amoral it goes against what Paul writes here in Romans 14:

3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

If the Bible does not give a firm stance on an issue then those who lead God's people should not either. It is not as though a pastor shouldn’t speak to issues that are amoral and help his people think through them, but this should always be done in such a way as to not give the impression that those who choose differently than the pastor are somehow weird, odd, or backsliding. I find this statement from Pastor MacDonald to be profoundly unhelpful for his people:

“I can’t imagine for the life of me why a follower of Jesus Christ, a blood purchased son or daughter of the living God, would involve themselves with something that is reeking the havoc in our society that it is. I don’t understand it.”

On issues such as this, pastors should rather use the advice of Paul from Romans 14 and “keep it between themselves and God” (Rom. 14:22). As Augustine said, “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” I fear that Pastor MacDonald is not showing his people the way of liberty, but rather dividing them by condemning something that the Bible does not condemn.

Pastor MacDonald uses Proverbs 20:1 to support his view that total abstinence is the best choice. It reads, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise.” Pastor MacDonald anticipates the potential objection of someone saying, “I am not being ‘led astray’ by alcohol so this verse doesn’t apply to me.” He responds by saying that it is even better to not be on the path to being led astray by alcohol, so total abstinence should be chosen. He would say that since he has chosen total abstinence he is farther removed from any temptation than one who chooses to partake in a responsible fashion. At face value this sounds good, but in reality does not follow.

Think of sex. Alcohol abuse doesn’t even hold a candle to the way in which sex is abused in our culture. Does the fact that I participate in sex with my wife mean that I am somehow going to be led down a path of sexual abomination? This does not follow. Consider eating. How many people do you know that have a problem with eating and are grossly overweight? But does eating in general necessarily lead you down the path of being sinfully gluttonous? Certainly not. His logic simply does not hold. Participation in something within healthy, God-given boundaries does not necessarily mean that one will certainly be led to abuse that same thing.

Pastor MacDonald closes his message by using Romans 14 to support his position. It seems to me that if he took the above verses (3-4) to heart he wouldn’t preach his message the way he did. I won’t take the time here to interact with all the Paul is trying to get at in Romans 14, but I will point you to a short paper that our teaching pastor at Desert Springs Church, Ryan Kelly, wrote for the elders of our church that has to do with this topic. Key questions to consider are dealt with in his paper and I would recommend it to you all.

Pastor MacDonald says towards the end or his message:

“It’s best for you that I abstain. So that when you look to me as an example, you can say, ‘Well he is so concerned about it that he’s decided to have nothing to do with it. Maybe that’s the choice that I should make too.’ And I praise God if people choose to steer completely away from alcohol. There is nothing good for you there. I respect that choice. I think that is wise.”

I wonder if Pastor MacDonald would be willing to say this to Jesus and his disciples? Why didn’t Jesus or his disciples make the choice that Pastor MacDonald does? Were they not wise? Does Pastor MacDonald have little respect for Jesus’ choice to not abstain? Why should he condemn for his people what Jesus has approved? It seems that he is treading on very dangerous ground with this statement.

R.C. Sproul writes the following in his commentary on Romans 14:

Someone I know sits on the board of trustees of a Christian institution, and as a member of that board, he is not allowed to drink wine. The organization has elevated a preference to a rule. They have legislated where God has given freedom. He explained to me that the board was concerned that its members stand out from the culture at large, and I replied, “Do you realize that Jesus and the apostles could not serve on the board of your organization?” We can appreciate their concern to keep the institution unspotted from the world, but their position is one of weakness.

Sproul closes his comments on Romans 14:1-13 with this:

I recall a certain dinner I ate with a group at a restaurant. The waitress came to serve us and asked, “May I take your drink orders? Would anybody like a cocktail?” Our hostess cut her off, saying, “No, we are Christians.” The smug self-righteousness of our hostess not only embarrassed the waitress, who was simply doing her job, but she gave a wrong message about Christianity. Christianity is not about eating and drinking.

Drinking alcohol is a controversial topic in the Christian community. Many argue that Jesus never drank wine and that when the Pharisees called Jesus a winebibber, they were distorting the truth. They also argue that the wine Jesus made for the wedding in Canaan was unfermented. Arguing that way, however, is a hopeless, tortuous treatment of the biblical text, but it happens when people come to the text with a cultural bias. Many are convinced that total abstinence is the only spiritual way, but we learn no such thing from the Scriptures - not from the Old Testament or from the celebration of the Passover. If we were to do a word study of the word wine in the Bible, we would see that it was the real thing. God sanctified it and warned against drinking too much of it, because getting drunk is a sin. God did not give that warning against drunkenness to people drinking grape juice.

This view is offensive to many people. To all such who are convinced that they cannot drink wine, then they must never let wine touch their lips, because for them it is a sin. For others it is not. Our brother ought not to judge us, and we ought not to judge our brother.

So why am I taking so much time to write on this subject? A couple closing remarks:

1. Our churches should not be divided on these types of issues. When it comes to this message, I fear that Pastor MacDonald has contributed to an ethos at his church that is unhelpful and unbiblical. We should be communicating freedom on extra-biblical matters and not give such a strong word on one side or another. Most Christians are spring loaded towards legalism and we should not add fuel to that fire. In the end, these posts are probably less about alcohol and more about healthy ecclesiology.

2. I honestly have not done a lot of thinking along these lines in the past and wanted to systematize my thoughts a bit on this issue. It is sure to come up at the church where I will serve in Madison, WI, thus these posts will probably turn into a position paper of sorts.

If you have been tracking with these posts, thanks for reading. I never thought it would generate the type of response that it has. Again, please consider Paul’s words again in Romans 14:3-4 as you ponder this issue. We are sure to disagree at times, but may love rule the discussion.

If you would like to read all of these post in one place, you can do so here. (Start at the bottom.)

James MacDonald - Wise Up About Alcohol - Part 5

Before I post my final response to Pastor MacDonald’s message on alcohol I wanted to make a few clarifying comments:

1. I like James MacDonald. I think he is a great Bible teacher and has been greatly gifted by God as a leader of God’s people. I think he is profoundly mistaken in reference to the topic of alcohol, but I celebrate his overall ministry and pray that the Lord would continue to sustain it.

2. I don’t think that everyone should drink alcohol. Usually in these types of discussions people assume one of two things or both. 1) That I think everyone should participate in the consumption of alcohol or 2) that I am diminishing the horrific effects of drunkenness in our society. Both are false in reference to my view. I want to fully acknowledge that you are certainly free not to drink alcohol and I know full well the damage that is done by those who abuse it.

3. I don’t feel the need to flaunt my Christian liberty. If you firmly believe that, for you, alcohol is sinful to consume, I would abstain out of love if you were to come over to my house for a meal. But if you believe that you can’t be a Christian and drink alcohol, then I would certainly seek to teach you otherwise and probably openly drink in your presence. The Gospel is NOT Jesus plus teetotalism. Consider what D.A. Carson writes in The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World:

Paul refuses to circumcise Titus, even when it was demanded by many in the Jerusalem crowd, not because it didn’t matter to them, but because it mattered so much that if he acquiesced, he would have been giving the impression that faith in Jesus is not enough for salvation: one has to become a Jew first, before one can become a Christian. That would jeopardize the exclusive sufficiency of Jesus.

To create a contemporary analogy: If I’m called to preach the gospel among a lot of people who are cultural teetotalers, I’ll give up alcohol for the sake of the gospel. But if they start saying, “You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,” I’ll reply, “Pass the port” or “I’ll think I’ll have a glass of Beaujolais with my meal.” Paul is flexible and therefore prepared to circumcise Timothy when the exclusive sufficiency of Christ is not at stake and when a little cultural accommodation will advance the gospel; he is rigidly inflexible and therefore refuses to circumcise Titus when people are saying that Gentiles must be circumcised and become Jews to accept the Jewish Messiah.

4. How many times in the Gospels did Jesus and his disciples offend religious people? If you are a person who is offended by all consumption of alcohol by fellow Christians, are you also offended when you read in the Bible that Jesus turned water into wine, drank wine at the Last Supper, and that he clearly spent much time with those who consumed alcohol (Luke 7:34)?

5. When Paul talks about these types of amoral matters in Romans 14, he writes that we should not pass judgment on one another. Love should reign. We should respect the varying opinions of others, because that is what they are: opinions. What you are convinced of about alcohol is your business and I will not look down on you for your view. Consider verses 1-4:

“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”

Unfortunately, some folks in the comment sections of these posts have done the exact opposite of what the verses above require.

6. This is not all about alcohol per se. I would be writing the same series of posts if Pastor MacDonald got up in front of his people and said "Christians should never send their kids to public school! I can't understand how any Christian parent would do such a thing. It's simply not a wise choice." And our kids don't go to public school, by the way. If the issue was Christians and yoga, or Christians and eschatology, or Christians and rated R movies. You get the point.

James MacDonald - Wise Up About Alcohol - Part 4

Today I will continue to interact with Pastor James MacDonald's sermon called "Wise Up About Alcohol" (here and here). Here is his fifth reason for his belief that total abstinence is the wisest choice for all believers.

5. Because Alcohol Is Addictive

Yes, and so is sex, eating, exercise, and a whole host of other things. Just because alcohol (or anything else) may be addictive for one Christian, doesn’t mean that alcohol should be abstained from for all believers. Should we abstain from sex because it has even more addictive power than alcohol?

I wish he would have made this distinction: Alcohol MAY be addictive. Many Christians, myself included, drink alcohol and don’t feel any slavish addiction to it. To make a definitive statement that alcohol IS addictive would give a power to the substance of alcohol that is doesn’t inherently possess.

This is the phrase from his message that disturbed me the most:

(Said in very passionate tones):

“I can’t imagine for the life of me why a follower of Jesus Christ, a blood purchased son or daughter of the living God, would involve themselves with something that is reeking the havoc in our society that it is!! I don’t understand it.”

I can’t imagine for the life of my how a pastor who is the shepherd of thousands of people would make a statement like this. It would be like me getting up in front of my church and saying “I can’t for the life of me understand why a follower of Jesus Christ would ever send their kids to public school!”

This may be my strong personal conviction, but sending kids to home school or public school is an extra-biblical issue that should NOT divide our churches. As their shepherd, I should seek to uphold the unity of the body and not make strong statements like this that will only divide my people on a matter that should never be divided upon.

Pastor MacDonald says at the end of his message that he isn’t making a law here for his people, but he does essentially say in his statement above, “You may be a Christian and drink but I don’t get you! You are weird to me!” This is not a very loving statement for his people and it grieves me deeply. When you have that much power and influence over your people and make statements like this that have zero Biblical foundation the detrimental fallout is potentially huge.

How much better would it be to say, “I know that this issue of alcohol is potentially divisive among Christians today. As your shepherd, it is my conviction that I will personally abstain, but I want you to know that we will not be divided at this church over abstinence from or participation in the consumption of alcohol. Even though I choose not to, as a Christian, you have the freedom to drink alcohol in such a way that does not promote drunkenness and if you choose to do so I will not pass judgment upon you.” How much more unifying, biblical, and helpful would that we for his people?

Jerry Bridges is very helpful on this topic. If you have not read his book, Transforming Grace, you should. It is one of the most helpful, easy to read, books on the Christian life that you could ever find. He has a very helpful chapter that deals with these matters and I could do no better than to quote him at length.

...legalism insists on conformity to manmade religious rules and requirements, which are often unspoken but are nevertheless very real. To use a more common expression, it requires conformity to the “do’s and don’ts” of our particular Christian circle. We force this legalism on other or allow others to force it on us. It is conformity to how other people think we should live instead of how the Bible tells us to live. More often than not, these rules have no valid biblical basis. Like the Pharisees of Jesus’ time, we have tried to “help” God by adding our manmade rules to His commands (p. 120).

These manmade rules are what Bridges calls, “fences”. Fences are not all bad. For us personally, they can be quite helpful at times but we need to be cautious with our fences. Bridges writes:

For all of us, it may be good to have some fences, but we have to work at keeping them as just that - fences, helpful to us but not necessarily applicable to others. We also have to work at guarding our freedom from other people’s fences.

Some of the fences in our respective Christian circles have been around a long time. No one quite knows their origin, but by now they are “embedded in concrete.” Although it may cause conflict if you violate one, you must guard your freedom. To paraphrase Paul, “Stand firm in your freedom, and don’t let anyone bring you into bondage with their fences.”

I’m not suggesting you jump over fences just to thumb your nose at the people who hold to them so dearly. We are to “make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Romans 14:19). Use discretion in embracing or rejecting a particular fence. But don’t let others coerce you with manmade rules. And ask God to help you see if you are subtly coercing or judging others with your own fences (p. 124).

Bridges’ quote here gets to the heart of my problem with Pastor MacDonald’s message. Bridges writes:

As Christians we can’t seem to accept the clear biblical teaching in Romans 14 that God allows equally godly people to have differing opinions on certain matters. We universalize what we think is God’s particular leading in our lives and apply it to everyone else.

When we think like that we are, so to speak, “putting God in a box.” We are insisting that He must surely lead everyone as we believe He has led us. We refuse to allow God the freedom to deal with each of us as individuals. When we think like that, we are legalists.

We must not seek to bind the consciences of other believers with the private convictions that arise out of our personal walk with God. Even if you believe God has led you in developing those convictions, you still must not elevate them to the level of spiritual principles for everyone else to follow (p. 126).

This is why I can’t believe that Pastor MacDonald would stand up in front of thousands of Christians and say what he said above. When your spiritual leader says something like this in reference to an extra-biblical matter I can’t see how it can possibly be helpful for the Body. Will it not drive a wedge between those in his church with differing convictions on alcohol? He has not served his people well in this way. We should not be dividing our people over this issue. Pastors (and all believers), be wary of how you communicate your views on extra-biblical matters.

James MacDonald - Wise Up About Alcohol - Part 3

Today I will continue to interact with Pastor James MacDonald's sermon called "Wise Up About Alcohol" (here and here). Here is his fourth reason for his belief that total abstinence is the wisest choice for all believers.

4. Because alcohol is destructive.

I disagree. Alcohol is NOT destructive. The ABUSE of alcohol is very destructive. This is an extremely important distinction that unfortunately Pastor MacDonald does not make. The wine sitting on my kitchen counter right now has never rose up and punched me in the face. If I drank a whole bottle of it in an hour I might rise up and punch myself in the face, but this would stem from my own stupidity and not alcohol in and of itself. Alcohol has zero power to do anything unless I choose to give it that power through my destructive use of it.

Pastor MacDonald gives many statistics about the abuse of alcohol, but again, he does not qualify these statements as abuse, but rather, as alcohol in general having the power to do these things. But in response to these stats, I could give you many counter examples of the healthy use of alcohol from my life and the lives of many of my Christian friends. Again, alcohol has no power for destruction in an of itself.

The problem with the statement, “Alcohol is destructive” is that is fails to make careful distinctions. What would you think if I said, “Sex is destructive”? I hope you would pause and think about that for a second. It seems that sex taken out of it’s God-ordained context is very destructive, but sex in the right context is very beautiful and affirming.

So if we are going to say that alcohol is destructive then we better not stop there. That would be way too short sighted. We should add sex to the top of the list and abstain from that as well because the destruction done by it in our society dwarfs that of alcohol. We would have to add eating at McDonalds to the list (ever seen the movie, Super Size Me?). And who in their right mind would ever set foot in an automobile again? Just because some people use something amoral for destruction does not mean that is should be outlawed for all Christians.

I fully recognize that the abuse of alcohol does great damage in our society. The Bible clearly affirms this and so do I but from the example of Jesus alone we can know that responsible use of alcohol is clearly within the bounds of Christian freedom.

Pastor MacDonald cites the text below to support his view that the wisest choice for all Christians is to completely abstain from all alcohol.

Proverbs 23:29-35 -

29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow?
Who has strife? Who has complaining?
Who has wounds without cause?
Who has redness of eyes?
30 Those who tarry long over wine;
those who go to try mixed wine.
31 Do not look at wine when it is red,
when it sparkles in the cup
and goes down smoothly.
32 In the end it bites like a serpent
and stings like an adder.
33 Your eyes will see strange things,
and your heart utter perverse things.
34 You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea,
like one who lies on the top of a mast. [8]
35 “They struck me,” you will say, [9] “but I was not hurt;
they beat me, but I did not feel it.
When shall I awake?
I must have another drink.”

He sees this text as an argument for total abstinence but it seems that the Proverbs speak here of drunkenness and not wine in general. The key verse is verse 30 where is says, “tarry long over wine”. What does “tarry long over wine” mean? It means drunkenness. Causal drinking is not tarrying long over wine. If you read this text to the end it’s clear that the description given in this section of Proverbs is one of drunkenness.

So in sum, alcohol in and of itself is not destructive and the Bible does not teach this. It does certainly teach that drunkenness is a sin but this says nothing to the inherent power of alcohol in and of itself. This distinction is vital.

The previous two posts can be found here and here.

James MacDonald - Wise Up About Alcohol - Part 2

Yesterday I posted part one of a series of reflections on a recent message (here and here) called, "Wise Up About Alcohol" from Pastor James MacDonald. In his message he gives six reasons why he believes that total abstinence should be the norm for all Christians. Yesterday I addressed his first reason and today I'll address his second reason.

2. Alcohol impairs wisdom.

Pastor MacDonald bases his argument on the following verses from Proverbs 31. In this section of Proverbs, Lemuel is remembering and recounting what his mother taught him.

It is not for kings, O Lemuel,
it is not for kings to drink wine,
or for rulers to take strong drink,
lest they drink and forget what has been decreed
and pervert the rights of all the afflicted.

Pastor McDonald makes the case from this text and others that the Bible teaches that people of prominent position or influence (like Kings) should not engage in drinking alcohol of any sort. But that is clearly not what this passage is teaching. It is important to ask, what type of drinking would cause you to forget “what has been decreed”? Certainly not drinking in moderation. When Lemuel’s mother exhorts him to not drink wine, this certainly points to drunkenness and not having a glass of nice wine with dinner. I have consulted many commentaries on this verse and did not find one that said that this verse is teaching total abstinence.

Ponder the previous verses.

What are you doing, my son? What are you doing, son of my womb?
What are you doing, son of my vows?
Do not give your strength to women,
your ways to those who destroy kings.

The mother implores his son to “not give his strength to women.” If we are following the interpretation from Pastor MacDonald, it would seem that he was supposed to stay away from all women. Don’t drink and don’t engage with women. Do the Proverbs really teach this? Based on the context of these verses, I think it would be more appropriate to assume that the mother is saying that he needs to be careful not to be consumed with passion for sexual relationships with women. This can be seen in the plural form of the word “women” which leads one to think of various mistresses. So these verses are not teaching that one should be completely free from alcohol or sex but rather, if one is to pursue them it should be within the appropriate boundaries.

Consider The Lord’s Supper and the example of Jesus. Should we assume the only time that Jesus and his disciples drank alcohol was in a very unique and sacred moment when Jesus ushered in the New Covenant and they never before nor never after participated in alcohol? Was this just a ceremonial one time event? I should think not.

If you want to make the case (like Pastor MacDonald) that alcohol is never fit for those in prominent positions of leadership then the disciples who where given the responsibility to usher in a whole new epoch in Christian history would certainly have had to observe total abstinence. Obviously, this seems to have not been the case.

Certainly drinking alcohol in excess can impair wisdom, but there is a reason why you can drink one beer and then get in the car and legally drive. It’s the excess of drinking and not alcohol itself that can impair wisdom. Unfortunately, Pastor MacDonald does not offer this qualification in his message.

Tomorrow we’ll look at this third reason for total abstinence.

James MacDonald - Wise Up About Alcohol - Part 1

James MacDonald is the Senior Pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel in Illinois. He is a very gifted communicator and has a ministry that reaches thousands through his preaching and various forms of media. I have personally benefited from his blog and find myself agreeing with much of what he has posted.

Recently Pastor MacDonald preached a sermon from his series on the Proverbs called "Wise Up About Alcohol". You can listen to the two parts here and here.

In the next few days I want to interact with what Pastor MacDonald presents here. I care little about resurrecting a tired debate about alcohol and Christians, but I think there are deeper issues in this message that I would like to address.

In his message he gives six reasons why he believes that total abstinence from alcohol should be the norm for all Christians. His six reasons are:

1. Because drunkenness is a sin and not a disease.
2. Because alcohol impairs wisdom.
3. Because alcohol is an unnecessary drug.
4. Because alcohol is destructive.
5. Because alcohol is addictive.
6. Because wisdom calls me to set it aside.

I want to start today by looking at point #1.

1. Because drunkenness is a sin and not a disease.

Agreed. I greatly appreciated Pastor McDonald’s thoughts there. The Bible always presents drunkenness as a sin issue and not a disease. What about genetic predisposition? There are conflicting studies about this and the subject is far from settled.

I would add that even if alcoholism was found to be a genetic disposition it wouldn't matter in the least. Christian theology has a category for this. In light of the Fall, Romans 8 speaks of the creation being subjected to frustration or futility. That means that on this side of The New Heavens and The New Earth, things don't work right. We are broken from the DNA on up. If alcoholism can be shown to be a "disease", this does not absolve anyone of the responsibility to address this as sin. I know that straight from the womb I have a disposition towards certain sin issues. I am still called to "put to death" these misdeeds (Col. 3:5).

Tomorrow I'll address his second point, that alcohol impairs wisdom.