As Tim Challies points out in the intro to his article Christians and Alcohol, the issue of alcohol consumption is a “source of heated disagreement and even separation.”  But where does this heat come from?  When I linked his article on Facebook a 66 comment discussion ensued with parties demanding black and white answers to an issue that the Bible paints in shades of grey.  Let me be clear:  The Bible no where prohibits the child of God (Old Testament or New) from consuming an alcoholic beverage, though in some places and for different reasons it commends abstinence.  By the same token the Bible no where commands consumption, though in some places and for some reasons it commends the ingestion of strong drink and wine to make the heart glad.

I have read articles that come just short of saying that if you don’t drink you’re sinfully avoiding part of God’s creation that we were intended to enjoy.  And of course there are plenty of articles saying that any imbibing, perhaps even of Nyquil, will probably call down the wrath of God, and definitely call down the wrath of the author (full disclosure…I had a shot of Nyquil last night.  Well…two tablespoons in that little plastic cup they give).  And, of course, there are countless articles in between.

Most articles will cite Romans 14, as they ought, but usually focus on one of two points.  The abstainers will focus on how people shouldn’t drink so as not to offend the weaker brother, though some will chafe when you point out that Paul labels the abstainer as the “weaker”.  The imbibers will point out Paul’s focus on liberty, but some will squirm when you point out that Paul showed that there is a time to abstain.  But the point of the chapter I believe is laid out in verse 19-20.

Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.  Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.  All things are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.

From this passage I think that most of our debates about alcohol miss the point.  It seems that we debate in order to justify our position – rarely are those debates edifying.  Oft times labels are thrown around (immature, foolish, legalistic, unwise, condescending, etc.) with the aim of, intentionally or not, tearing down the opposition and fortifying our own.  If we aren’t labeling the opposition, we engage in judging the motives of the opposition:  ”If they weren’t so selfish they wouldn’t drink” or “You’re just trying to impose your standards on everyone else”.  And if all else fails we appeal to the emotions:  ”But all the potential dangers of alcohol obviously make it a sin!”  Regardless of which side of the debate we find ourselves on, when we employ these tactics we risk, at best, destroying “the work of God for the sake of food” (or drink).

How then do we approach the issue? In making his point in Romans 14 Paul is demonstrating a very important fact of Christian life:  God is working in each person in unique ways.  There is a black-and-white issue in this area of alcohol:  Drunkenness is repeatedly condemned as sin.  But due to the uniqueness of each individual the line where drinking becomes a sin is different.  I’ve come up with four categories and an analogy that will hopefully prove beneficial.

#1 The person who can, and does.

This is the Christian who is self-controlled, sober-minded and free of conscience as he enjoys his adult beverage of choice.  He knows his limits, and is in no way held in bondage to alcohol.  He can enjoy his drink as a gift from God and would not want to take glory away from God by over indulging in any way.  This person also recognizes his responsibility not to cause others spiritual damage and goes out of his way not to boast or wax eloquent about his liberty recognizing that such boasting in no way brings glory to God and is far more likely to do damage to a brother.  This person would eagerly refrain from all refrence of alcohol in order to enjoy the fellowship of a brother in category #3.  I would place Tim Challies and R.C. Sproul in this category.

#2 The person who can, and doesn’t

This is a person who, if he chose to could enjoy an adult beverage of choice in the same manner as person #1, chooses rather to abstain because of providential circumstances in his life.  These circumstances could include being in a position of leadership and influence where his drinking could be misunderstood or misrepresented by those he is leading.  Perhaps he just despised the taste.  Whatever the circumstances, he believes it would be better for him to abstain than partake.  It’s important for this person not to boast about how he could if he wanted to, or assign to himself some sort of extra-spiritual status because he “chooses” to abstain, when the truth is God has providentially hindered him.  I would place myself, John Piper and probably John MacArthur in this category.

#3  The person who shouldn’t, and doesn’t

Josh Hamilton

This is the person who would in some way be held captive by drinking.  This captivity could include (though not be limited to) an alcohol addiction, a lack of self-control, or a simply conscience that won’t let them take a sip.  The person in this category must know himself and refuse to put himself in situations where stumbling is likely.  I would stress that this person has also been providentially hindered from drinking whether by choices in his past, or genetics in his body.  The person in this category is no less spiritual than the person in categories 1 and 2, rather he has the opportunity to glorify God through triumphing over temptations that others don’t face…at least to the same degree.  This person however needs to be careful not to hold others hostage to his own conscience.  Or to put it another way, this person should not demand that others avoid alcohol the same way he must.  The mature brother in this category can rejoice with others over the path that God is leading him on without demanding that others leave their God-given path.  I would place Josh Hamilton in this category (player for the Texas Rangers).

#4  Those who shouldn’t and do

This category is inhabited by members of each of the other categories who give in to their own selfishness rather than seeking the glory of God and the edification of others.  This is the category 1 individual who feels it his duty to let everyone know how much he’s had to drink recently, being known for what he drinks instead of the Savior who loves him.   This is the category 2 individual who despite the conscience issues or negative influence he will have, drinks anyway…and probably boasts about it to his category 1 friends.   This is the category 3 individual who knows he should avoid the bar or those friends but gives in anyway.  Category #4 should have a high turnover rate.  When we sin and find ourselves in this category our reaction should be one of repentance, thus turning away from the sin that put us here and moving ahead on the path God is leading us down.  However, there are people that seem to like it here, and have camped out in this category.  For them the issue is no longer alcohol, but an eclipse of the Son by their own selfish desires.

These categories are best used for self-inspection.  They are observations and hopefully can be beneficial in directing our gaze to our heavenly Father.  I believe that in a lifetime God can providentially move a person through the first three categories, and by his grace and forgiveness out of the fourth every time it’s entered.

Finally, an analogy.  If, after all this, you’re still struggling with how to accept Christians who drink, or Christians who abstain.  Let me provide an analogy regarding another “grey” area….the internet.

Is using the internet a sin? Well…the Bible doesn’t prohibit it, yet how many families and lives are destroyed by internet porn, gambling, etc. – and the Bible has lots to say about adultery and stewardship! Shouldn’t we as Christians avoid all appearance of evil? Some would say this is a very black and white issue? Others would say that the Bible no where prohibits the internet but it should be used cautiously, and for some it might be a sin to use because of their propensity to stumble.

So to complete the analogy, and thinking of the four categories mentioned above:

Just as, the Bible nowhere prohibits the use of the internet, but does speak strongly about the sin of lust and other vices easily obtained by using it and therefore caution should be used by those who have liberty to use it and benefit from it for God’s glory, while those who cannot not show restraint should abstain for the glory of God:

So

The Bible nowhere prohibits the use of strong drink for every person, but does speak strongly about the sin of drunkenness and therefore those who have the liberty to use it should do so with caution in order to bring God glory and those who cannot use it without causing spiritual damage should abstain in order to bring God glory!

And as this discussion will no doubt come up again many times in our lifetimes, let us abide by the Word of God via the pen of Peter (well..technically the pen of Sylvanus as dictated by Peter):

   “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” (1 Peter 5:5b–8, ESV)

May our satisfaction lie not in our liberty or conviction but in the God who gives them.

Enough Already!

Reproduced from More than Tennis, the blog of Harold H. Comings: (picture added)

Okay boys, let’s step up to the mirror and open your shirts and count the hairs on your chest. You’re all grown up now. You’ve broken free from those nasty self-righteous, judgmental, tea-totaling Fundamentalists and earned your own place as nasty, self-righteous, judgmental, beer guzzling, whateverists. Good for you.

Forgive me if I pull the age thing on you, but I was working through questions of freedom and conscience before many of you were even born; yet, somewhere along the line someone managed to get it through my head that re-thinking and re-evaluating are a part of life. Sure, I wish I had re-thought and re-evaluated some things earlier than I did, but when the time came it was no big deal. Of course there were people who were disappointed in me (thus teaching me not to play that card on others), and there were those who became obnoxious and threatening (thus unintentionally turning my thoughts to Jesus’ words to treat others as I would want to be treated and not as they treated me).

In my later years I have watched a few movies, but I have done so because I was convinced it would be profitable in connecting with others or simply because it would be something to do for mental recreation. There was no issue of psychological damage which could be resolved only by marathon visits to the local theaters and DVD stores.

I still have not taken up alcohol; but not because I fear some dark judgment. I just happen to recognize I have an addictive feature to my character and I don’t want to risk becoming a drunk when God wants me to think clearly (at least as clearly as I can with what I have to work with). I personally embrace the counsel of Lemuel’s mother (Proverbs 31) who told him there were too many things he needed to be able to do for others to waste his time developing his taste for fine wine. I’m terribly sorry if this means I don’t measure up; and the reason I think it might mean that is, I cannot read anything you write without being told you’re having a beer, a brandy or a night cap. When something gets mentioned enough times it takes on the character of a mantra – a measuring device, a predictable and expected nod to something which has become more than “accepted” – something worshiped. Nope, I’m not telling YOU not to drink. Far be it from ME to tell YOU anything. However, knowing your desire not to be like those Fundamentalists, you might want to check to see if your indulgence is just a mirror image of their legalism.

Speaking of risk. Wow! You guys sure are adventuresome! Yessiree, real risk takers. From paintball to extreme sports you’re the real wild men of the day! Some of you can swear like a pimp and call people who blush bigots and hypocrites. Can you get more awesome than that? With a manly swagger you let it be known that no Fundamentalist is going to tell you what to do. Yet, golly (spoken like a true wimp), since you and your colleagues are so predictable in so many wild and reckless ways, I wonder what issues in your own circles are “enforced” on each other by the “look.” You know what I mean, that raised eyebrow or sneer other legalists use to keep each other in line? Do you, after all, turn your scorn on any of your group who might dare to say that some sacred cow of your wild and wonderful world is not for them?

Please don’t think I’m picking on you. I’m saying the same thing to you that I’ve said to my Fundamentalist circle (and to myself) about many fetishes wrapped in the vocabulary of conviction or freedom. If you want to lump me with them you may, since you do tend to lump people just like they do. However, please be advised that some of my Fundamentalist friends have lumped me with you. On the other hand, please DO think I’m challenging your self-righteous self-congratulationism. My point is, you sound like a bunch of sneering bullies skulking behind the barn daring each other to light up while laughing at the stupid fools who told you not to. Or, worse, you sound just like some legalistic cliques I’ve known over the years. There is, I believe, a considerable difference between Jesus’ passion to seek and save the lost, and the passion to sit around a campfire sniffing arm pits whether or not you are quaffing a pint in the process.

As I listen to you scorn the weak, I am grateful. You have helped me discover true friendships with people who do things my conscience will not let me do or who do not do things which my conscience will allow. They are dynamic. Even if they drink, they encourage me to focus more toward the blood of the cross rather than toward the wine pitchers of Cana. They and I both understand and encourage each other to remember that the casting out of one demon of legalistic error, if not replaced with the humbling force of truth, can result in becoming the slave of seven self-righteous errors worse than the first. We are not offended when we remind each other that the counsel to stand fast in our liberty in Christ is yoked with the warning not to let that liberty lure us to become trapped by some fleshly fetish.

With that said, I must leave you to count your chest hairs among yourselves. I could never match you. (If you ever want to check out nose hairs, that’s another matter altogether.) Nor do I bid you follow me. You say you trust Jesus. Check out his “tattoos.” They’re awesome.

Last week another “adventure” came to my attention.  On one of my walks to church with Rosalie I was listening to the book of Matthew.  During the course of the walk the narrator read Matthew 25.  Which is summarized as follows:

-A master is going on a journey and entrusts to his servants his property.
-One servant gets five talents, another two, and another one talent
-While the master is gone the first two servants double the amount given them, the third servant does nothing…well…not nothing, he buries the talent.
- The master comes back, rewards the first two servants.
- The final servant tries to excuse his behavior, even tries to cast the blame on the master and is cast out for his actions, and his talent is given to the servant with ten talents.

Now a straightforward reading of the parable shows that the Master pictures Christ, the servants picture those who profess the name of Christ, the lazy servant being one who, at best, does nothing with what has been entrusted to him.

But, if you are pre-occupied with social justice fairness and read everything through glasses of economic fairness and/or an anti-capitalistic worldview this parable might pose some problems.  After all, in today’s day and age the last servant would be idolized as being part of the 99% or something like that – and here he is the villain of the story?

How then would a theologian of the 99% interpret this passage? I’m glad you asked.

Brian McLaren is all things social-justice.  And, as providence would have it, he had a blog entry on Matthew 25.  If you’re interested in seeing convoluted “theology” (and by theology I mean heresy) work itself out ”He links to a couple of different sites that flesh out his view, but he sums it up pretty well with this statement:

…my leaning these days is to refrain from reading violent kings or masters in parables as referring to God. My bias is to associate the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven with that which is rejected, persecuted, killed, banished, tortured … as Jesus was.

In Matthew 25, then, Jesus and his followers are associated with
a) the servant who refused to play the game of the master’s exploitive “Wall Street” economy, and
b) the imprisoned, naked, homeless …

Let me make a couple of observations about this statement and then wrap up with some final observations about Matthew 25 in light of this statement.

1. “my leaning these days…my bias” On one hand it is nice that he recognizes that he’s biased.  However, our bias does not affect the true meaning/intent of Scripture.

2. “My bias is to associate the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven with that which is rejected, persecuted, killed, banished, tortured … as Jesus was.” So was Cain, the entire world except for Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot’s wife, Nadab and Abihu, the Canaanites and nations around Israel, Jezebel, Ahab and other wicked rulers of Israel, etc.  The point being, if one doesn’t have a biblical understanding of sin, it’s consequences and specifically God’s necessary holy reaction to it (justice) then you won’t have a category for necessary punishment.  This is why I don’t see the social-justice crowd really looking for justice, but for a fairness made in their own image…and thus a god made in their own image.

3. “Jesus and his followers are associated with a) the servant who refused to play the game of the master’s exploitive “Wall Street” economy…”  Capitalism stinks…yeah….we know.  But…this parable had nothing to do with economic structures.

4. “Jesus and his followers are associated with… b) the imprisoned, naked, homeless …”  Actually it appears that Jesus is associated with the imprisoned, naked and homeless and his followers are associated with those who are faithful stewards in providing for those needy to whom God gives them to care for.

5. “That doesn’t solve all interpretive problems (in fact, it creates some new ones),”  What I find interesting is that if you don’t bring socio-economic baggage into your hermenutic there aren’t any interpretive problems.  This is why it’s important to allow Scripture to shape your view of the world, and not let what you think the world should look like shape your view of Scripture.

6. “but it seems to resonate most with the whole tenor of Jesus’ life, mission, and message.”  Except….that it doesn’t.  You see…this chapter, and other parables like it, are part of Jesus’ life, mission and message.  Not only that, but Jesus’ life, mission and message are in the context of the Old Testament revelation about the Messiah.  But McLaren has already revealed his bias against anything he perceives as ugly or difficult (the book of Job, for example, not a favorite of his), even coming up with a theory that turns God’s revelation of himself in the Old Testament into an evolution of what man thought about God (To quote: “I think it is both a source of authority, and a library of inspired books that reveal a progressive human understanding about God.”).

The point of the entire chapter, from the parable of the Virgins to the final judgment is Faithfulness.  Let’s look again at the parable.

1.  Who’s resources are they?  “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property.” (Matthew 25:14, ESV)  God entrusts to us that which is His! This is not a no strings attached gift, but a stewardship.

2.  What determines the amount? “To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.” (Matthew 25:15, ESV)  From my perspective there are two reasons why this does not sit well with the social fairness crowd.  First fairness means equality regardless of ability.  It doesn’t matter if you work hard to earn your money, if you don’t do with it what they think you should do with it, it’s not fair…and generally they seem to think you shouldn’t have it (unless you’re a democrat politician or celebrity apparently).  Second, especially for the Christian social fairness advocate, I see a trend to try to gain stewardship of areas that God has not given them stewardship of.  For example, I think it’s horrible that there are men, women and children starving and dying of disease and war throughout Africa.  However, apart from prayer, has God given me stewardship of this issue?  Or has he given me stewardship of the hurting within the body of believers he has called together at Fellowship Baptist?  Has he given me stewardship of the man I’ll never meet in Sudan or has he given me stewardship of the man I meet as I walk around Lake Mirror?  I cannot “make a difference” in the lives of every hurting person in the worlds, but the hurting people who God brings into my sphere of influence, that person I must be faithful toward, as toward Christ!  Alas…how many times do I bury the opportunity for Christ-like kindness that God has given me.

3.  What are the servants rewarded for?  “His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’” (Matthew 25:21, ESV)  This goes back to the obvious point of the parable.

This whole study reminds me of this lesson Jesus had for his disciples:

“This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” (Matthew 13:13, ESV)

Incidentally, I’m not sure how many social-fairness supporters would even get to verse 13 since the previous verse is:

“For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” (Matthew 13:12, ESV)

But that’s another post.

Image by brizzle born and bred via Flickr

So, every once in a while as I’m cleaning out my spam folder a comment catches my eye.  This of course is what at least some of the authors of these comments are trying to do in order to get their comment approved so their link can be attached to this site.  Mostly these comments are over-the-top praise of my astute and amazing communicating style – this of course immediately reveals that the spammers have never read this blog.  But today I spotted something new:

How is it that just anyone can write a weblog and get as popular as this? Its not like youve said something extremely impressive more like youve painted a fairly picture through an issue that you know nothing about! I dont want to sound mean, right here. But do you really think that you can get away with adding some pretty pictures and not definitely say anything?

Ouch.

To label my thoughts as issues I know nothing about cuts deep…even from a spammer.  But then I noticed something that made me laugh – the post that the spammer had left this comment on was….

“About the Author”

Apparently what I know nothing about….is me!

I love spam.

Image via Wikipedia

From this mornings “Morning and Evening” by Charles Spurgeon:

Oh! what enlightenment, what joys, what consolation, what delight of heart is experienced by that man who has learned to feed on Jesus, and on Jesus alone. Yet the realization which we have of Christ’s preciousness is, in this life, imperfect at the best. As an old writer says, “’Tis but a taste!” We have tasted “that the Lord is gracious,” but we do not yet know how good and gracious he is, although what we know of his sweetness makes us long for more. We have enjoyed the firstfruits of the Spirit, and they have set us hungering and thirsting for the fulness of the heavenly vintage.

Spurgeon, C. H. (2006). Morning and evening : Daily readings (Complete and unabridged; New modern edition.). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

First of all let me make clear that I mentally agree with and adhere to the Doctrines of Grace and the fact that as a Christian I am saved by the grace of God through the finished work of Christ on the Cross, and that even my faith in that is a gracious gift from God.  I know that there is nothing I can do that will add to the righteousness of Christ that has been imputed to me, nor is there anything that I can do that will strip that righteousness away.

But…

I don’t always, and sometimes I think often, live that way.  Therefore I’ve come to the conclusion that at least a part of me is having issues with the reality of God’s grace.  This conclusion has been drawn in part from looking at my reaction to other people talking about grace over the past few months.  I’d read a blog post, or hear a sermon talking about focusing on the grace of God instead of our sin or some righteous guideline we’d set up and I’d think “yeah, I agree with that…but…what if grace is ‘abused’”?  And so I’d carry on debates, mostly in my mind, arguing that if we over-emphasize this marvelous grace that we would fill our churches with the hypothetical Christian who ignores Romans 6:1 – or at least re-writes it to say “What then, shall we continue in sin that grace may abound…you betcha!”

And so this hypothetical person became the focal point of my mental debates until last week when I came to a startling conclusion – the hypothetical person was me!  As a human being, saved by grace but who still struggles with sin I discovered that the catalyst for my “grace abuser” argument was the personal reaction I was having toward my own sin:  “How can someone who’s life has been supposedly transformed by grace keep sinning?” and “Where’s the line between trying to do the right thing and legalism?”

These questions among others led to a condition I later discovered had been coined by Pastor Harold Comings as “Autopsychoanalytical Paralysis“.  God used that article as well as this article by Tullian Tchividjian  to bring me to the realization that I was having a fundemental/practical issue with the grace that He has given.  It was as if my mind was jumping from Romans 7:15-24 (skipping verse 25) and going right to Romans 12:1-2 leaving me to answer the question “who shall deliver me from this body of death” with myself – a hopeless situation to be in.

So, it is true, naturally speaking I have a problem with grace.  But in a twist of wonderful irony, God’s grace is continuing to work on my heart, tearing down the idols of pride and self-righteousness that I’ve clung to and directing me lovingly into the arms of His grace.  Grace that will motivate to live for Christ instead of trying to earn some sort of righteousness for myself.  Grace that will pick me up when I stumble and remind me of my true identity in Christ.

What truly Amazing Grace!

- The Gospel Coalition Conference is one I would attend again.
- Sharing a bed with your brother is awkward as an adult.
- The music and lyrics the Getty’s put together promote worship in ways that few songs achieve.
- Chicago is a neat city….to visit.
- Christians of different stripes united under the banner of a Christ-centered gospel are a beautiful thing.
- Christians who separate over non-gospel related things don’t know the worship potential they are missing.
- Christianity is ultimately about worship.
- I’ve been away from Emily way too long these last two months.
- I believe this will be the last solo trip I take in a while.
- Today is my birthday!
- Today is my last birthday with no (out of the womb) children!
- it’s been great spending quality time with my eldest brother before he heads back to Brazil for 4 more years.
- The name “Isabella” is of Hebrew origin…who knew
- We are less than 100 miles away from Orlando airport…time to wrap this up.

In a sermon titled “Getting Out” Keller pointed out 3 similarities between the salvation of Israel and Christs salvation of the redeemed.

1. What we’re getting out of – bondage

Israelites were slaves in Egypt.
The redeemed were slaves to sin.

Each bondage/freedom had layers. Example: Objectively – Israel was free at the banks of the Red Sea. But when the Egyptians chariots started advancing against them they revealed by their complaining that they were still subjectively in bondage to Egypt (the condition of their hearts/attitudes).

Anyway here were four layers of bondage that we as Christians are freed from.

A. Free from the bondage of the law objectively.
B. Free from the bondage of the law subjectively (in the heart – deep down we know we should be perfect)
C. Free from the bondage of our sin nature. “Sin is the suicidal action of the human will against itself.”
D. Free from the bondage of idols. (false masters)

The condition of most Christians is that they are enslaved to things that Christ has freed them from.

2. How do we get out? Crossing over by grace.

Stand still! God is going to do your fighting (Rom 4:5). Receive a complete forgiveness based on Gods grace.

The Israelites crossed over out of reach of their enemy. Our salvation us a “crossing over” out of the reach of our enemy.

Christianity is a (permanent) change of status.

3. Why it is possible to get out – we have a mediator.

God’s judgment is being unleashed and Israel had a mediator. For Israel it was Moses, for us it is Jesus Christ.

These of course are brief notes (typed on an iTouch). You can find the complete sermon on the Gospel Coalition website (google Gospel Coalition).