Seven Observations Concerning Alcohol Abstinence

1) Some who are advocating complete abstinence of alcohol consumption despite the teachings of Scripture, are upset that they are being accused of legalism. Let me ask everyone out there this question for you to answer on your own: what is legalism?

2) “No,” some are saying. “This isn’t about complete abstinence of alcohol consumption despite the teachings of Scripture for everyone, just complete abstinence of alcohol consumption despite the teachings of Scripture for SBC agency trustees and leadership in general.” In all frankness, such a distinction between laity and leadership is unscriptural (never mind the fact that this is an abstinent practice contrary to Scripture). In further frankness, to order complete abstinence of alcohol consumption means that certain NT Christian leaders could not have been SBC leaders: Paul, Timothy, the disciples and apostles, and even Jesus.

Yes, Jesus would not be able to be an SBC leader because of his own alcohol consumption. Now the Scriptures teach of a banquet in the next life where we shall drink wine with Jesus (of course, that is just what Scripture teaches and you know how iffy that can be). Perhaps when we get to heaven we should have an intervention for the Son of God.

Nevertheless, the leaders who wrote the NT books who made the necessary requirements for church leadership could not be leaders in the SBC and neither could those who they themselves chose for leadership positions. What does that say about our SBC leaders?

3) It is interesting that when the SBC leadership really really wants something that they will throw out their own hermeneutics for interpreting Scripture. Yes, the same hermeneutics which many liberals use to legitimate women as pastors, homosexual activity, various forms of sexual immorality, and religious inclusivity is now being adopted by out SBC leadership for the purposes of advocating complete abstinence of alcohol consumption despite the teachings of Scripture. How odd is this? The one group of people who championed inerrancy and sufficiency, warned our convention about the drifting towards liberalism, and fought so hard to expel all those who adopted a relativistic view of Scripture and its teachings, yes, they are now the ones who are advocating this particular form of interpreting Scripture for this specific purpose.

At least the liberals have an excuse: they always interpret Scripture this way. What excuse does the SBC leadership have for using such a liberal and postmodern view of Scripture just for this one issue? Or is it just this one view?

Oh, my friends! The convention, its agencies and its seminaries are drifting dangerously left! The current leadership is pushing the SBC further and further towards postmodernism and liberalism. God have mercy!

Is it not dangerous when our leaders dismiss the Scriptures and their own much touted conservative hermeneutic only when they really really want something? That is more dangerous than to have a liberal hermeneutic at the outset.

4) Apparently Jesus Christ is no longer the full revelation of God and Who He is. Apparently, we can no longer look to Jesus as our example and teacher for how we should live or what we believe. Yes, Jesus did drink alcohol but he was very much a man of his time and could not forsee how his actions and teachings would effect later generations of believers. Better just not read the Bible anymore; its far too dangerous. Better to just allow your esteemed SBC leadership tell you who God is and what He expects of you.

5) Apparently, many if not most our current SBC agency trustees are a bunch of drunks. Apparently, they were out late at night boozing around and getting quite inebriated. Thus our esteemed SBC leadership believed that it was time to put their foot down and stop all of this drunkenness on the part of our SBC agency trustees. They must be drunks; look at some of their recent decisions.

6) A recent person noted:

“John the Baptist, touted by Jesus as “the greatest born among men,” was a total abstainer. He was evidently patterning his lifestyle after that of the Nazarite Law, and thereby expressing God’s prescription for what is the best for a godly man. In fact, the angelic announcement to Zacharias prohibited John the Baptist from using any wine (Luke 1:15). Here also is noted the first specific contrast between the fullness of the Spirit and the use of wine. This contrast occurs again at Pentecost in Acts 2, and again in Ephesians 5:18.”

Yes, we need to be full of the Spirit and not full of alcohol.

Remember: when the disciples at Pentecost began to speak in tongues, the people thought they were drunk. Now that we have removed alcohol no one will think we are drunk when we speak in tongues. … Of course, we have also gotten rid of speaking in tongues. So now no one will ever think we are ever drunk or filled with the Holy Spirit. Of course, no one will ever think the latter anyway, but this makes sure.

You can see the problem can you not? When the charismatics in the convention would get filled with the Spirit but, when caught, would claim they were drunk. When the drinkers in the convention would get filled with spirits but, when caught, would claim they were charismatic.

So this year we at the SBC have removed both tongue-speaking and tongue-drinking so no one will ever be able to give a reason why they are filled with the joy of the Lord. And in the SBC, that is how it should be.

7) A friend noted: "This dereliction of Scriptural teaching is all for your benefit, PC." "How do you mean?" "Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder."