Count it all joy when you face various trials. --James the brother of Jesus

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Alcohol Disclaimer

I thought that this should be added to the post below:

Lest anyone think otherwise, I am a T-totaler. I voluntarily abstain from alcohol as a beverage. I have never even tasted an alcoholic beverage in my life. I am currently a student at SWBTS, and when we apply to the seminary we agree to abstain from the use of alcohol, and I abide by my agreement. However, this agreement is not what compels me to abstain from alcohol. I choose to voluntarily because I know how lacking in self-control I can tend to be some times. If I took away that self-imposed wall for myself, I am certain that I would rush headlong into drunkenness. So I choose not to even let it be an option, and by God's grace I was never exposed to it before I came to this personal decision.

My objection to the ruling of the MBC executive board is not because I think that churches should evangelize by meeting in the bars--I don't. My objection is that I don't think that total abstinence from alcohol is something that is biblically mandated--so we ought not preach that it is, and we ought not draw lines of fellowship separating from those who would hold different convictions. In my understanding, the MBC board can have whatever requirements for denominational service that they deem fit. I agree that they have the right to do what they did. I simply question the wisdom of drawing the line where it has been drawn--in a place that separates conservative, Bible believing, Bible preaching, biblically evangelistic churches from the support of the convention.

In addition, I'm very encouraged by the fact that the MBC is in the hands of conservative leadership. The Battle for the Bible in Missouri is seemingly won--and I rejoice for that. However, drawing lines excluding conservative churches from the support of the convention may give ammunition for the old leadership to throw. Yet, it is possible that they would throw this ammunition either way. My guess is that the old leadership was probably against the use of alcohol too. It's the social issues that give theological liberals a hearing when they claim that they are conservative. They can point to their record on social issues like alcohol, abortion, and homosexuality and claim to be conservative even though they don't believe the Bible--and the average church member doesn't know the difference as long as they support the Republican party. Again, this is one of the reasons why its important to take a stand where the Bible does and to not go further. If we go further we will end up eroding biblical authority and we will raise the next generation of liberals inside of Bible believing churches.

5 comments:

Jason said...

I am a moderationist. I have no problems with abstentionist like yourself. You are the second person that I have come across on the web who has written a blog against their Baptist Convention on total abstinence. The other was from Texas. That blog is called Grace and Truth to You.iek http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com

jfile said...

Upon a bit more reflection. I don't even have a problem with requiring t-totalism for denominational service. What I have a problem with is cutting off all church plants affiliated with a particular network because the network does not have the same policy.

Insp-times.com said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Alcohol abuse affects millions. This site has a lot of useful information.Alcohol Abuse

jfile said...

Annonymous,

Thank you for your comment. I am well aware of the problem that alcohol is for many people. I work at a homeless shelter and I see every day the effects that it has caused in people's lives. I would even probably be in favor of prohibition as a civil law, but I don't think it wise for Christians to require it and try to make a biblical case for what is not there.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Jerad's Shared Items