"DON'T DRINK OR DANCE OR CUSS OR CHEW AND DON'T HANG AROUND WITH THOSE WHO DO!!"

"DON’T DRINK OR DANCE OR CUSS OR CHEW
AND DON’T HANG AROUND WITH THOSE WHO DO!!"

I just read a blog by Tom Ascol in reference to Bobby Welsh’s article in SBC Life, dealing with the much disputed "Resolution # 5," A resolution which will live in infamy! (If I may take the liberty to apply an appropriate quote to the issue). This blog drew down a firestorm of comments written by those who agree and those who disagree with the resolution. It seems as if this thing just won’t go away. And that’s sad, because we have far more important issues, which demand our attention and energy.

So why am I taking the time and energy to speak to the issue? Good question! And the answer is that I think I have an approach to the issue that nobody has voiced as of yet. We have heard all of the arguments for the resolution and we have heard all of the arguments against the resolution. So, who’s right? I think they both are. Now just hang with me for a minute and I’ll explain why I say that. I intend to demonstrate that in all of this bickering we have failed to have a balanced view of the issue. There are principles that weigh in on both sides of the issue, and to fail to take them all into account results in a lopsided theology.

Principle 1: It is an indisputable fact that Scripture nowhere condemns the use of alcohol. Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine. Without a doubt, wine was used in the celebration of the Passover and therefore at the Last Supper, which by the way, is the institution of the Lord’s Supper. In evidence of this Paul had to write to the Corinthians in (1 Cor. 11: 17-22) instructing them not to get drunk when they came together to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. This would not have been an issue if wine were not used. Furthermore, Paul actually instructs Timothy in (1 Tim. 5: 23) to use wine for medicinal purposes. In every instance where the Scriptures speak to the issue of alcohol, it is in reference to the abuse thereof. The bottom line is that Scripture nowhere condemns the consumption of alcohol in and of itself, but everywhere condemns it’s abuse.

Principle 2: Every Christian has a personal responsibility to weigh the principle of the weaker brother against the principle of Christian liberty and decide which one is more prudent. As Christians we have the liberty to indulge, as well as the right to waive our liberty to indulge. In almost all cases, those who argue for the liberty to indulge are very good at pointing out that based on (Rom. 14) and (1 Cor. 8 & 9) Christians have the liberty to consume alcohol if they wish, as long as they don’t violate the prohibitions against abuse taught in other portions of Scripture. Unfortunately, the same polemicists always fail miserably to recognize that the OVERWHELMING emphasis in these passages is Paul’s argument that if his liberty could, in any way, become a stumbling block to others, he ABSOLUTELY, WILL NOT partake. In other words, he is willing to waive his Christian liberty with regard to anything, in order to prevent a brother or sister from stumbling. And he has every right to waive this liberty. This is the overwhelming burden of Paul’s teaching in both places. Now I would ask every Christian who sincerely wants to be governed by Scripture to check themselves with regard to this issue. We all know without a shadow of a doubt, how big of a stumbling block alcohol is in our culture (and yes, even within the church). In light of this, it is every sincere Christian’s responsibility to make sure his personal liberty does not cause others to stumble. There are two ways to do this: first, don’t indulge at all; and second, don’t indulge publicly (and that means don’t brag about it or try to champion it as a Christian liberty issue either). If you realize that you, as a Christian, possess the liberty to use alcohol responsibly (as I do), you need to do so with the utmost caution and care for others. And in the vast majority of cases, I think you will conclude that it is better to exercise your right to waive your Christian liberty. Which one of these two solutions you choose in every situation is up to you and should be based upon the particular circumstances in which you find yourself.

Principle 3: It is the churches responsibility to stand exclusively upon Biblical truth and not to water it down or to add to it (Rev. 22: 18-19). As I argued before in my blog entitled: What Is The Gospel, we must be careful to present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I outlined the gospel in five basic propositions and made the comment that anything less than this is not a full gospel presentation, and anything more than this is to bind up heavy loads and place them on men’s shoulders. The gospel of the kingdom should be presented in all it’s complexity and simplicity without denominational baggage or men’s opinions. Therefore, the church should not require more from it’s members than Scripture does. The church is to be "the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth" (1 Tim. 3: 15). If we cannot trust the church to teach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, who can we trust? This is a very serious responsibility and one which we should not take lightly. If the church embellishes the revealed truth of God with it’s own extra-Biblical requirements, the revelation is altered just as much as if we were to take something away. And the full truth of Scripture on the issue of alcohol is this: we have the liberty to indulge as well as the right to waive that liberty in the interest of our weaker brothers. Both teachings are necessary in order to maintain Biblical fidelity.

Principle 4: The SBC is not a church. This is where I think so many people fail to have a balanced understanding of this issue. The Scriptures and the truth contained within, are the responsibility of the church to maintain and defend. The church must not take anything away or add anything to God’s revelation. Therefore, for a local church to make any resolutions that fail to live up to Scriptural standards or exceed Scriptural standards, is a failure to maintain the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But neither the SBC, nor the Seminary, either one, are churches! They are para-church organizations. Anyone who disagrees with me at this point seriously needs to brush up on their ecclesiology. But I’m going to assume that my readers are in full agreement with me here. That being said, the SBC, and the Seminary, (being constituted as para-church organizations and not churches) both have the authority to impose requirements upon their members for any reason they like - even extra-Biblical ones. In the case of Resolution # 5, the reasons are EXTREMELY COMMENDABLE, and ought to be consented to by all serious Christians. They don’t want to cause anybody to stumble! Nor do they want to tarnish their image as a body of like-minded Christian people, distinct from the world. Yes.... yes.... yes; I know there are those in the ranks who advocate the resolution based upon legalistic, fundamental, and just plain poor Biblical theology. But that’s beside the point! The point is that as a para-church organization and not a church, the SBC and the Seminary are not violating God’s Truth Trust by requiring their members to abstain from alcohol. It is specifically the church who has been charged with the task of being the pillar and ground of the Truth.

Now lets juxtapose these four principles and see if we can construct a balanced view of this issue.

1. The Bible doesn’t condemn the use of alcohol, but rather, the abuse thereof.
2. It is every Christian’s responsibility weigh the weaker brother principle against the Christian liberty principle.
3. It is the responsibility of the church to be the pillar and ground of the truth.
4. The SBC, nor the Seminary, either one, are churches.

When brought together into a comprehensive whole, we begin to see that Resolution #5 is not as polarized as it defenders and detractors would like to believe. The fact of the matter is, they’re both right.

Two points need to be taken into consideration on a personal level. First, Christians have the Biblical liberty to indulge in alcoholic beverages as long as they don’t violate the no-abuse principle. And second, Christians also have the right to waive their Christian liberty if it might become a stumbling block.

Two points need to be taken into consideration on an institutional level. First, it is the Church who has been charged with the task of being the pillar and ground of the Truth. And second, the SBC nor the Seminary are churches.

So when we look at the issue of Resolution # 5 through the lens of these four principles, on an institutional level we see that it was not wrong for the SBC or the Seminary to impose a rule of abstinence upon it’s members because they, in fact, are not churches. Furthermore the weaker brother principle supports the decision as a prudent one at such a time as this. At a time when alcohol is such a huge stumbling block in our culture, it does indeed seem wise and prudent to exercise our right to waive our Christian liberty to indulge. I think the serious Christian who weighs the liberty principle against the weaker brother principle, will eventually see this. On a personal level, each individual Christian has the liberty to indulge, and the right to waive his liberty to indulge. That being said, make your decision Christian. The SBC and the Seminary have made theirs. You have no right to castigate them for exercising their right to waive their Christian liberty. Nobody’s forcing you to remain in the SBC, or for that matter the Seminary. If you cannot live with their decisions, which are both Biblically supported and prudent for our times, then you should leave. As a matter of personal choice whether to exercise your Christian liberty to indulge, or to exercise your right to waive your Christian liberty to indulge, the matter is simple. As students at Southern, you are bound by the Code of Student Conduct to abstain. By enrolling at Southern, you implicitly give your consent to this perfectly legitimate and Biblical rule to exercise your right to waive your Christian liberty. As a member of the SBC you are not bound personally to abstain unless you want to serve in office. Now you have two choices, either exercise your Christian liberty to responsibally indulge in private so as not to cause a brother or sister to stumble; or exercise your right to waive your Christian liberty.

In conclusion, let me say again that the burden of this blog was to demonstrate that the issue if Resolution # 5 is not as polarized as it’s defenders and detractors would like to believe. In fact they are both right. And it is only when we properly juxtapose all of the Biblical principles involved and look at the issue through that lens, that we can escape the lopsided theology of which most are guilty and come to a balanced understanding. May God grant us light!

Soli Deo Gloria,
Shane Morgan