Can we be more ethical than Jesus?
Most evangelicals would consider such a question to be the height of absurdity. Since we consider Jesus to be the very standard for moral conduct, it would be impossible to be more ethical than our own Redeemer. What we claim to believe, though, is often often betrayed by our actions.
For example, while we Southern Baptists consider Christ to be the Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos, we do not consider him fit to serve as a trustee for the Southern Baptist Convention. Not only was Jesus a "user of alcoholic beverages" (Luke 7:33-34) but he turned water into wine for a wedding (John 2), a miracle that must be frowned upon by a group that is in "total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages."
Although Jesus' cousin was a Baptist (and from the description, John appears to be a forefather to the Texas Baptists), I don’t think he'd choose our denomination for himself. Unfortunately, SBC committee rooms are not the only place where his behavior would be considered inappropriate. In fact, there are few places within evangelical circles where such behavior would be considered acceptable. A prime example is the realm of higher education: Jesus' consumption of wine would put him in violation of the code of conduct on every evangelical college campus in America.
While a handful of colleges (e.g., Calvin, Dordt, Wheaton) would have no problem with his drinking alcohol (provided he drank off campus), the vast majority would consider such behavior inappropriate if he were enrolled as an undergrad, seminarian, or faculty member. Bethel, Biola, Covenant, Eastern Nazarene, Messiah, Liberty, Oral Roberts University, are just some of the colleges and universities where Jesus' wine-bibbing would get him in trouble.
Although most schools do not give an explanation for their policy, it is likely that they take a view similar to that of Regent University:
Regent also forbids the use of alcohol…on campus and prohibits the abuse of these substances. The Apostle Paul exhorted the Body of Christ that, if they truly loved their fellow man, they would set aside their personal freedom by refraining from behavior that might be a stumbling block to their weaker brother. Regent University encourages members of the Regent community to exercise their personal responsibility and, guided by Paul’s admonition, appropriately set aside their personal freedom and refrain from the use of these substances.
The "weaker brother" argument is often used as a justification for self-imposed (and institutionally mandated) teetotalism. And for good reason. It is scriptural admonition that must be prayerfully considered in regards to an issue like this in which personal conduct can have an impact on others. I myself am sympathetic to that argument and truly wish that I could be convinced that it provided the definitive answer. But no matter how much I want to accept that line of reasoning, I'm stymied by the obvious question: Why did Jesus not refrain from drinking alcohol if it is an obvious "stumbling block" to our "weaker brothers"?
There is no disputing the fact that alcohol abuse is, as my SBC brethren point out, the cause of much "physical, mental, and emotional damage." No doubt that was as true in 1st century Palestine as it is in 21st century America. So why didn’t Jesus say that we should avoid alcohol? If nothing else, why did he not refrain from drinking alcohol himself in order to set an example?
These types of questions have important implications that go far beyond the concerns about drinking beer or wine. Where does Christian liberty end and institutional authority over matters of conscience begin? Obviously there are times when we need to delineate such boundaries. But we should be cautious about where we mark those lines -- especially when they would put Jesus on the wrong side.
My own denomination, Methodism has what I would call a "soft ban" on alcohol. They don't prohibit it's use, but they do strongly discourage it. It is one of the areas where I disagree with Methodism and my wife and I do consume alcoholic beverages. If it were not for the connections we have made at the church and our love of our pastor, we would probably consider attending a different church, but the reality is that most of the more evangelical demoninations have a position on alcohol that is at least as strong as the Methodists.
That list of colleges reminded me of The Swirling Eddies' "Hide the Beer, The Pastor's Here."
Anyway, the "weaker brother" arguement works to a small extent. I wouldn't drink in front of a recovering alcoholic, in front of a bunch of teenagers on a College campus, or even with someone who was the victim of an alcoholic without clearing it first. However, the irony to me is that it's rarely the "weaker brother" who is offended - it's people who have been Christians longer than I've been alive that are offended by another believer having a beer. They may have a historical reason to be, but rules demanding total abstainence from alcohol seem to be more about offending the more conservative members of the body rather than building community and protecting the weak.
As for Jesus drinking, I thought we all knew that Jesus turned water into a weaker form of wine. At least that's the theory I've heard for a long time. I can't imagine it was much weaker than the major US beers, but I guess anything is possible with a miracle involved.
As for Jesus drinking, I thought we all knew that Jesus turned water into a weaker form of wine. At least that's the theory I've heard for a long time. I can't imagine it was much weaker than the major US beers, but I guess anything is possible with a miracle involved.
I have heard this too, but I have never seen any evidence that it is true. In fact, the scripture says that Jesus turned the water into the best wine served at the wedding; I doubt the best wine would be weak. I imagine it would be fairly strong, like port for example, but that is just my personal opinion.
I find it interesting that the SBC feels like alcohol is a stumbling block to others but completely ignores the fact that taking a tee-totaler stand can also be a stumbling block for some. Personally, I have a history of psychological abuse from Christians in which the Bible was used as justification of immoral pursuits. While I cannot classify these prohibitions as immoral they certain cause me to significant struggles in my faith and a huge lack of trust of the SBC. It seems that people who have disagreements with this prohibitive policy (some for good reasons) are marginalized because of their 'rebellious' attitude and need to just 'get over it'. Funny how no one ever tells the alcoholic that they need to just 'get over it'. Want to have prohibitions against cheating and sexual immorality? Fine. That, at least, is in the Bible.
"Regent also forbids the use of alcohol…on campus and prohibits the abuse of these substances. The Apostle Paul exhorted the Body of Christ that, if they truly loved their fellow man, they would set aside their personal freedom by refraining from behavior that might be a stumbling block to their weaker brother."
This statement is patently dishonest. Paul never commanded anyone to give up a freedom nor did he leverage his power to force one to give up a freedom under another guise. If you are forbidding someone, by threat of dismissal from school, from exercising a freedom then it is not really a freedom is it? You are taking a position that even Paul would not take. Have they even considered that disingenuous statements such as this can be a stumbling block to many Christians?
I was once in "mixed company" with some non-alcohol types who seemed a bit put off when I ordered a beer with my dinner. I raised my glass to them and said, "I'll not drink this beer, if you admit you are the weaker brethren." They seemed even more grumpy after that.
"I'll not drink this beer, if you admit you are the weaker brethren."
Heh - Along the lines of John 8:7, I think.
I attended an SBC seminary some years ago that had student spies stationed in restaurants that served alcohol. The purpose was obvious....seminary students that consumed alcohol were considered "liberal" & unworthy of any calling from God into the ministry. A boycott of the restaurants was called saying they would not support any business that sold "that poison". Of course there was an exception to the rule. The local grocery store(sold beer & wine) where the fat boys would line up to buy pork chops and consume them like it's going out of style. Can we really pick and choose which sin is worse than the other?
Of course, plenty of people who feel in tune with Jesus' wine drinking believe they are holier than God in other areas.
When it comes to these issues, in their eyes, God is just not up to minimum ethical standards.
Joe:
Actually, alcoholism has never been much of a problem for the Jewish people. It's been awhile since I read the literature and don't remember if it is the lack of a genetic predisposition or not, but the incidence of alcoholism is very low. So it was probably not as big a problem in Christ's day and society as it is today in ours.
But that's no reason or justification for a blanket ban on all things alcoholic. Drinking requires discernment and wisdom, something that is in short supply in too many churches - Baptists or otherwise - these days.
Sadly, since alcohol is banned then Baptists can only resort to knocking back a couple shots of NyQuil (50 Proof!) or eating Xanax (which is the same as a shot or two of rye) to make it through the evening.
I'll have a Guinness, please.
I don't have any use for alcohol, but I think it is counterproductive and wrong for denominations to forbid it. They are adding man-made rules to the Bible.
Ed, I am not sure what you mean; would you please elaborate?
I like what singer Larry Norman once said about this during a concert. "Sure Jesus turned the water into wine. But he turned it back into water again before it hit his stomach."
On May 16, Joe shills for Liberty University.
On May 17, he condemns them.
I've long heard evangelicals (including myself in the olden days) say that people had to drink wine back then because the water was impure. If that's the case, why didn't Jesus turn the impure water into pure, sparkling water?
I certainly don't think drinking alcoholic beverages is a sin, but I do think it is very unwise. Anyone who takes a drink, has just taken a 1 in 10 chance at becoming an alcoholic. Did Jesus know that? I doubt it. Were there any pregnant women at the wedding feast who were endangering their baby with fetal alcohol syndrome? Probably. Why would Jesus encourage drinking? For the same reason he never condemned slavery, never advocated a democracy, never encouraged medical research or any other science, never advocated education, never called for any kind of legislation at all, had no problem with high taxes or tyranny, and thought spending a year's wages on his temporary death was a better use of money than feeding the poor.
Anyone who looks to Jesus for a model of ethical living is in for either a big disappointment or lots of rationalizing.
Joe, I think the focus of this piece is wrong. Your point seems to be that the SBC is trying to be more ethical than Jesus, and I think this is an unhelpful way to phrase the problem. A supporter of alcohol prohibition might say that Jesus, being God, can do what He wants. The most prominent example to come to mind is Jesus making a whip and driving the moneychangers from the temple. I wouldn't support any Christians doing this, not because it is inherently wrong but that we lack the authority Jesus has for doing so. One could also argue that a sinless man can engage in some activities that the rest of us would be led into sin over. One could also argue that some things are inappropriate in a cultural context, like a pastor or elder being alone with a woman who isn't his wife (or a child if you're a priest). These things are not inherently wrong but may be necessary to avoid scandal.
I think a better criticism is the spiritual erosion from the breaking of arbitrary rules. Suppose your church has a rule like fasting from meat on Fridays. But one Friday you have a hamburger and think "Who did I hurt by eating this?", which can lead to greater acts of rebellion. Forbidding alcohol, I think, falls into the same trap. Forbidding drunkenness is probably reasonable on Scriptural grounds though.
I certainly don't think drinking alcoholic beverages is a sin, but I do think it is very unwise. Anyone who takes a drink, has just taken a 1 in 10 chance at becoming an alcoholic. Did Jesus know that? I doubt it....
I wonder if God knew that burning bushes contribute to global warming or if Jesus knew of salts effects on blood pressure when he told is disciples they were "salt of the earth". What I really wonder is if Jesus thinks you are as silly as I do.
Rev. McCain,
"I'll not drink this beer, if you admit you are the weaker brethren."
I nominate this as one of the ten best epigrams in world history. It's just as good as the best of Oscar ("I can resist everything except temptation") Wilde.
I'd say Jesus would be much too "liberal" for today's evangelicals...with all his peacemaking and "class warfare"....
As a Liberty grad, I am thankful for the prohibition on alcohol. This and many of the other rules (like curfew) helped to keep order on campus and helped to keep the atmosphere Christ-focused.
Also, in a required class for freshman, I remember discussing the various Christian viewpoints on alcohol consumption.
A couple of stray thoughts.
1) For those of us Americans: I think it is harder to get a normal view of alcohol in America, because we went through Prohibition. The ill effects of that period are still with us, in a pushing of attitudes to opposite extremes. On one side you have the neo-Prohibitionists, still armed with statistics and interpretations. On the other end you have drunks, who perhaps saw an exciting, forbidden gleam in alcohol because of the prudish attitude others took toward it. Bars in America are not what taverns are in England, and I think Prohibition is at least part of the reason.
2) I have commonly heard the view from Christians that it might be okay to partake, but only if it's done in secret. I agree with the earlier weaker brother comment regarding people who might be driven back to addiction, but those who push that one principle to the breaking point forget that when Paul revealed in various places what attitude is normal and right for a believer to take towards wine, those views weren't contained in secret letters. So no sneaking off to the local pharmacy after-hours for that guy. He openly told Timothy to use it for his stomach, and rebuked the Corinthians for getting drunk at Communion (not for using wine), and said deacons can't indulge to excess.
Moderation is the key. Jesus drank, but he did not overdrink. In the same spirit, Paul said "do not get drunk on wine", but later told Timothy to drink to settle his stomach. So the principle is: 1) drink when you know how to do it in moderation, and 2) when around those who can handle moderation.
So the same principle applies to college campuses. The question is, are the students able to handle drinking in moderation? I would say no. You don't want alcohol on campus for the exact same reason you don't give an unlimited supply of candy to a group of 4-year olds. They can't handle it. Our culture recognises this reality, which is why it doesn't allow drinking until the age of 21.
I'd say Jesus would be much too "liberal" for today's evangelicals...with all his peacemaking and "class warfare"....
Wow, I am sure this comes as a shock to everyone.
So the same principle applies to college campuses. The question is, are the students able to handle drinking in moderation? I would say no. You don't want alcohol on campus for the exact same reason you don't give an unlimited supply of candy to a group of 4-year olds. They can't handle it. Our culture recognises this reality, which is why it doesn't allow drinking until the age of 21.
Do you mean to imply that 18+ year old college students are equivalent to 4 year olds when it comes to self control or that some magical transition happens between 20 years and 364 days and 21 years that suddenly makes people capable of handling alcohol responsibly?
The temperance issue, a re-run of my senior thesis! The Alcohol Question boils down to this:
1.) Industrialization and even slight inebriation don't mix without somebody getting hurt or losing money.
2.) Cheap Grain.
3.) Those Middle Class Christian Protestant Women with Nothing to Do but Try to Fix Social Ailments pick Demon Rum to cast out of society.
4.) Prohibition.
5.) Legal Age to Consume Alcohol.
6.) Equals: We've forgotten how to drink socially (therefore uncomfortable doing it) and are incapable of maintaining a post-industrial economy while having a 2 or 3 martini lunches during the work day. Hence why we still gorge ourselves during college, somehow graduate, and become "responsible drinkers" after around age 25.
~Anna
However, the irony to me is that it's rarely the "weaker brother" who is offended - it's people who have been Christians longer than I've been alive that are offended by another believer having a beer.
They're called "Professional Weaker Brethren". It's the Christianese spin on Victim Politics -- He Who Is The Most Easily Offended Ends Up Controlling Everyone Else.
P.S. Check out how Welch's Grape Juice got started. Reverend Welch was one of the biggest-name "Temperance" preachers of his time, and he had the monopoly on the Certified Non-Alcoholic Godly Alternative to Demon Wine...
The issue of the weaker brother must be resolved by distinguishing the difference between causing someone to stumble and offending someone. The two are totally different and the Bible does not warn us not to offend people. In fact, if we truely show the purity of Christ, it will offend many as is obvious by the comments on some of the left-wing blogs following Falwell's death. People did not hate him because of his tinky winky comment or even his misplaced statement after 911. He was hated because any time he got a microphone, he presented the Gospel and reminded people that they were not pure, but Christ was. And they were offended.
Ex-Preacher: To whom should we look at as a model for ethical living?
To be disappointed with Jesus as a model, that would imply that you have either (a) discovered a superior model, or (b) found His model to lead you into ethical dilemma.
Your post suggests the second option, so I'd be curious to learn more about your experience.
1 in 10 chance of becoming an alcoholic? One of my favorite resident religious bashers here should think about bashing another religious cult that is called AA. It's pretty simple, don't drink until you become intoxicated. It is infantile to suggest that you are somehow helpless and unable to control yourself unless some authority figure lords over you with a set of guidelines 'for your own good'.
Anyone who looks to Jesus for a model of ethical living is in for either a big disappointment or lots of rationalizing.
If Jesus was real then he was a great sport in turning the water into wine. I'd do the same thing if I had the power to do it and I'd certainly be impressed if I was at a wedding where such a thing took place. If you were next to me and started prattling on about fetal alcohol syndrome (which, BTW, does not happen from a single glass of wine) I'd bonk you over the head and then join ucfengr, Joe and everyone else for drinks and fun conversation.
Anna
6.) Equals: We've forgotten how to drink socially (therefore uncomfortable doing it) and are incapable of maintaining a post-industrial economy while having a 2 or 3 martini lunches during the work day. Hence why we still gorge ourselves during college, somehow graduate, and become "responsible drinkers" after around age 25.
I wonder what you got on that senior thesis? We are alcohol wimps compared to society 200+ years ago. People used to drink and they drank a lot, a real lot. Not weak wine but hard stuff. In fact during the time of the American Revolution and before the Victorian period in England people more or less were walking around in a constant buzz. The temperance movement didn't start because industrialization made it easy for lots of people to be alcoholics, just the opposite. It started because a modern society cannot function with just about everyone lushed out of their mind all the time.
If you were next to me and started prattling on about fetal alcohol syndrome (which, BTW, does not happen from a single glass of wine) I'd bonk you over the head and then join ucfengr, Joe and everyone else for drinks and fun conversation.
Great, the next round is on you.
yep, moderation is the key for drinking, eating, and most things in life. what makes me laugh the most is that this conversation will still be held 20, 30, 40, and (as one of my Bible college professors once said "if Jesus taries") 50 years from now. and even then we will have people (students and professors) choosing to abstain and choosing to get drunk both on campus and off. hmmm...i wonder if this conversation comes up between non-Christians. would it look something like this? "I was out minding my own business at the grocery store when i saw a 'Christian' purchasing a case of guiness." "gee, that makes me hate those Bible thumping Jesus followers!" or maybe they wouldn't appreciate that believer because when they desperately needed help with their broken down car in the middle of a rain storm that same Chrisitan drove right on by without thinking twice...
I wonder when these petty arguments will end...
"They are adding man-made rules to the Bible."
Why not? All the ones already there are man-made as well; the authors merely put the words into the mouth of the deity they imagine.
"Wow, I am sure this comes as a shock to everyone."
It probably does. I'm with John on this one. Today's conservative Christians like to ignore or creatively reinterpret passages like "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24) The Bible is to be taken literally with regard to the creation story, but figuratively when it smacks of pacifism or "class warfare". Likewise, conservatives love the Chuck Norris Jesus of the den of thieves, but the "turn the other cheek" Jesus gets short shrift these days.
It probably does. I'm with John on this one.
Rob, you really think it surprises anyone who has posted here for any length of time that JohnW would say that Jesus is a liberal?
Today's conservative Christians like to ignore or creatively reinterpret passages like "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24) The Bible is to be taken literally with regard to the creation story, but figuratively when it smacks of pacifism or "class warfare". Likewise, conservatives love the Chuck Norris Jesus of the den of thieves, but the "turn the other cheek" Jesus gets short shrift these days.
There is probably some truth to this, but it cuts both ways. Liberal Christians like to ignore that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament. The same Jesus that told his followers to turn the other cheek also told Israel to wipe out the Canaanites and take their land.
I don't see it as a moral issue. My Dad is an alcoholic. He has been sober for over 25 years. But he did not become a more moral person simply because he stopped drinking.
Its not the drinking itself that is the problem, its your actions before, during and after where the moral decisions come into play. Its why you drink that is important. If are drinking to feel better about yourself and your life, then you should be very, very careful about drinking.
As a child I used to love going with Dad to the liquor store a few miles away. It was alway a lot of fun because of the exciting way he would drive. Now-a-days of course, I look back at the memory of a 7 year old bouncing around in the back seat of a car without a seatbelt as it fish-tails down the old dirt road with horror.
The things that go along with alcoholism are irresponsible choices, continuous lying, both to oneself and everyone around you, and a vicious combination of self-pity and grandiose ego.
But it also is utterly true that very many people simply don't have these problems when they drink. While alcoholics display these characteristics often whether they are drinking or not. I myself do drink, but rarely and cautiously. And while I do enjoy the physical pleasure it can bring, and the taste, I don't drink because I think it will make be feel better about self. Or more comfortable in social situations.
So it seems to me that drinking of itself just isn't a sin.
I do however find the "weaker brother" argument very persuasive. And I think its something that I wish military service personnel would take more seriously.
Its often not that your brother is weak, it is that he has been injured in some way. Like from PTSD. I have some friends back from Iraq, and I have read about a whole lot more, and how messed up some of them have become, and all their "band of brothers" seem to be able to offer in the way of comfort is to take them out to get drunk. Its just crap and it makes me heartsick and furious at times.
wonder if this conversation comes up between non-Christians. would it look something like this? "I was out minding my own business at the grocery store when i saw a 'Christian' purchasing a case of guiness." "gee, that makes me hate those Bible thumping Jesus followers!"...
No because the Catholic Church has long had a sane and sensible view of drinking. The paranoia about anything stronger than grape juice is an evangelical/Baptist delusion.
yep, moderation is the key for drinking, eating, and most things in life.
Indeed and it's a fact that one of the best ways to learn moderation is to get toasted a few times and see that it isn't some magical wonderland and the aftermath is annoying. Most people are not drunks *because* they learned their limits and how to moderate themselves.
So the same principle applies to college campuses. The question is, are the students able to handle drinking in moderation? I would say no. You don't want alcohol on campus for the exact same reason you don't give an unlimited supply of candy to a group of 4-year olds. They can't handle it. Our culture recognises this reality, which is why it doesn't allow drinking until the age of 21.
And our culture is an ass. Europeans let older teens and even teens drink but drunkenness is frowned upon. The 21 drinking age is a diaster because it's primary lesson is drink hard and drink fast when you're young so you can't get caught with booze.
Patrick (gryph)
Its not the drinking itself that is the problem, its your actions before, during and after where the moral decisions come into play. Its why you drink that is important. If are drinking to feel better about yourself and your life, then you should be very, very careful about drinking.
I would say you should be very careful about living. I mean that seriously. Why do you feel bad about yourself? What is the problem you're trying to solve by drinking. If it's just to take your mind off a rough day then I say go ahead (provided you do so safely). If suddenly every other day seems so rough that you need a drink then you should ask yourself do you have the right perspective towards life?
I do however find the "weaker brother" argument very persuasive. And I think its something that I wish military service personnel would take more seriously.
I find the 'weaker brother' argument paternalistic and annoying. If you really have a 'weaker brother' then you should address why he is weak. Just keeping him away from beer doesn't address the problem. His weaknessess may not manifest themselves in alocholism but they will hurt him in other ways and if you are his friend you will want to help him with that.
I have some friends back from Iraq, and I have read about a whole lot more, and how messed up some of them have become, and all their "band of brothers" seem to be able to offer in the way of comfort is to take them out to get drunk. Its just crap and it makes me heartsick and furious at times.
Many times, though, just this sort of thing is helpful and fine. I have taken friends to the bar and friends have taken me to the bar during difficult times and yes we have had more than just two beers. I have never had a friend with PTSD but I agree that needs something more professional but sometimes the old ways are better. Most of us don't need therapy or antidepressants but most could use a cold one every now and again.
I think you hit the provebial nail on the head when you ask "Where does Christian liberty end and institutional authority over matters of conscience begin?"
Fact is, so many of us want black-n-white answers for all issues, when in fact there are indeed some gray areas.
Take for instance the use of wine in the Orthodox Church - how does one from an evangelical aspect take on all alchohol without besmirching their brother who is merely practicing communion as it has for hundreds of years?
I'm going to link this up over at blogs4God.com and check back here as I find this a facinating topic.
Perhaps you should stand the question on its head. How does the sane evangelical take on the lunatic brother who is under the delusion that the Bible supports 'taking on all alchohol'. To what degree must the sane evangelical endure these 'weaker brothers' with their bans on any and all drinking and demands that everyone live by their rules that are quite literally made up out of thin air?
Deut 14:22-26
22 “You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year.
23 And before the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.
24 And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there,
25 then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses
26 and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.
The Israelite was allowed to by wine or strong drink, and to eat it before the Lord their God with rejoicing. Maybe if these “more holy than Jesus” Christians started calling real sin sin, and quit calling that which is not sin sin, then they might have a bit more credibility. Wine, beer (especially good beer) and strong drink are all gifts from God to make the heart of man glad, and if used (as with all God's gifts) in the manner proscribed in the Bible, then they are to be enjoyed with God's blessing.
I would recommend everyone read Kenneth Gentry’s book God Gave Wine: What The Bible Says About Alcohol and Jim West’s book Drinking With Calvin And Luther.
Thank God for Microbrewries. May they live long and prosper.
Two points:
The people in Jesus's time weren't bombarded with alcohol advertisements. Alcohol likely wasn't as affordable or readily available. Alcohol wasn't a portal to harder stimulants.
The lower classes suffer the most from our bad examples whether in sexual standards or stimulant use.
Don't forget that until very, very recently--around the end of World War II--safe drinking water was scarce indeed. Beer and wine were the only relatively safe beverages.
Also, FYI, this site is formatted so that the left hand column of text blocks about one third of the middle column of text.
Okay- I recognize that I tend to defend the Emerging Church a lot... as well as critique the status quo in American Evangelicalism. I do so for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that while flawed, the emerging church is important. It represents an important voice in the never-ending conversation of how we contextualize the Gospel and live faithfully as followers of Jesus in our day and age... questions which others, among them some prominent Southern Baptists seem to be actively resisting.
I maintain that in a more free-form movement like the emerging church, I can actively disagree with my fellow emerging brothers and sisters, not necessarily buy everything they say, and yet still claim a seat at the "emerging table."
It seems to me that when you talk about things like denominations or political parties, however, the freedom to do something like that is fairly restricted, if not absolutely gone.
In other words, how does one continue, day after day, week after week, year after year continue to belong to any group which stands for the opposite of what one stands for? For example, I ceased to be a Republican (I'm now a "no party affiliation) when I realized that "close-but-no-cigar" doesn't cut it when belonging to official groups with written out platforms, when those platforms and rules and regulations negate what you believe and stand for. Whether it's because of a lack of real, substantive concern for the poor or a lack of real substantive concern for the unborn, I can't in good conscience belong to any party right now...
So here's my somewhat confrontational (apologies!) questions for those of you out there who remain Southern Baptists.
How is it that you can belong to a Convention who wouldn't allow Jesus Himself into leadership?
And how long will you give it? When does that official party line mean that you can no longer belong to the "party"?
I ask in all seriousness... this would be a matter of conscience for me.
I believe that as Paul said we should be willing to lay down our freedoms for a weaker brother but, what is a 'weaker brother'
A great example of a weaker brother would be someone who is struggling with alcoholism. It would be quite callous and even unloving to drink in front of that person. Another could be a non-Christian friend who has chosen not to drink for whatever reason. In this case you may not want to drink out of respect for this friend and thereby not damage your relationship or your ability to share the gospel with them in the future. In the case of Christians, other than the alcoholic, I find very few legitimate applications for the weaker brother.
One who who has simply bought into Christian pharisaism is certainly not a weaker brother, though I've heard that argument many times. To lay down our freedoms in this case would be to perpetuate untruths and unnecessarily put ourselves under laws which God does not.
It's ironic that Christ died in order to give us freedom and life yet we work unceasingly to put ourselves and others back under law.
The media makes it a point to report every soldier killed in Iraq. A drunk driver kills someone on the road in the U.S. every half hour. Ofcourse there's other untold misery in families and in society brought upon us by alcohol. My proposal is to make a drinking license where you have to take classes (and post a bond for alcoholism treatment in case you become an alcoholic) in order to drink. You have to renew your license each year and the proceeds go to pay for the societal costs of drinking --that way those who promote the death and misery in society by drinking can help foot the bill.
I believe there is a distinction between wine and "strong drink".
Wine is "fruit of the vine" while strong drink is wine that starts to "move" or ferment.
Jesus never advocated drinking. When asked to do something about the wine at the wedding he asked Mary "What does this have to do with me?" That's beside the point though. He turned the water into grape juice which is what wine was since the grape starts the fermentation process as soon as it's plucked.
If you believe that Biblical wine was alcohol then you also have to believe that to "know" someone is to have sex with them.
The interpretation of these words have changed over the centuries.
I've come to grips with this by considering the difference between grape juice and wine: the alcohol. Which serves as an effective disinfectant.
As a God-created symbol of Christ's blood I can think of no finer metaphor.
Ed,
So when the psalmist praises the Lord for wine to gladden the hearts of men, he's thanking him for Welches? And the master of the banquet normally brings out the cheaper grape juice, because after drinking the first grape juice, the people wont be able to tell good from bad? And why is it that new grape juice will burst old grape juice skins? Also, just when precisely was it that both the Church and the Jewish community apostatized and started using wine instead of grape juice in communion and passover? The second century perhaps?
You have to renew your license each year and the proceeds go to pay for the societal costs of drinking --that way those who promote the death and misery in society by drinking can help foot the bill.
I propose that you leave us alone! Barring that I would suggest 'idea licences' where you would have to post a bond to help us pay for all the great ideas you would impose on us. Fact is wine and drink, while causing some very visible mayham, has served humanity for thousands of years as a social lubricant making life easier, more bearable, more fun and nicer.
He turned the water into grape juice which is what wine was since the grape starts the fermentation process as soon as it's plucked.
If you believe that Biblical wine was alcohol then you also have to believe that to "know" someone is to have sex with them.
Was it also grape juice at the last supper? Seriously you're going to tell me there was serious confusion between wine and grape juice in the Roman Empire of all places!? Wine was used by the Greeks and Romans long before Jesus and was part of Jewish tradition as well. No this was not grape juice but wine you could get drunk on if you drank too much of it.
While we are on the subject, when Mary asks how can she conceive a child since she had 'known' no man are you now telling us she wasn't talking about having sex with a man? Was she saying she was raised on some type of Amazon island like Wonder Woman where men didn't exist?
As a practicing MO. Synod Lutheran living in Southeast MO., I'm surrounded by SBC members, Assembly of God and Methodists, who look at me and I'm sure talk about me and my family as the personification of the Devil. I will be attending a wedding in 2 months, there will be a reception at the Evangelical church (punch/cake) all are invited to that, but a select invited group will attend the real reception with dining, drinking and dancing that same evening in another town 30 minutes away. What does that say about Evangelical Christians? Its okay if I'm out of town. Its okay (wink, wink) if we selectively select those we drink with! Having grown up in a German community, half Mo. Synod Lutheran, half Roman Catholic--it has always astounded me about Evangelical Christians' double standards, like Pharisees or hypocrites. By the way, the other residents are pushing for prayer in schools, school vouchers, etc. When I point out they can't do this in a public school, I've shown my horns! They can't understand the differences in how could a prayer not be acceptable (even if they left out Jesus' name and only mentioned God) I feel like I'm teaching catechism class, and they never get it. Anyway, it comes down to, if you believe its all right to imbibe, then please join a church that believes as you do, otherwise, don't preach to me. I'm not doing anything I don't believe in.
Also, just when precisely was it that both the Church and the Jewish community apostatized and started using wine instead of grape juice in communion and passover? The second century perhaps? I agree Wonders for Oyarsa. When comparing Lutherans (various synods) and Catholics, MO. Synod Lutherans are the most conservative, we're always told we're the most literal Bible interpreters, so where I live I'm looked upon as a raging liberal. New condition for me!
Ben
In fact, if we truely show the purity of Christ, it will offend many as is obvious by the comments on some of the left-wing blogs following Falwell's death. People did not hate him because of his tinky winky comment or even his misplaced statement after 911. He was hated because any time he got a microphone, he presented the Gospel and reminded people that they were not pure, but Christ was. And they were offended.
On the contrary, Falwell never spoke to left wingers, homosexuals, feminists or any of the groups he criticized. He spoke to the people who hated them and his message to them was not that they had fallen short of Christ's purity but that their hatred was ok and they should pat themselves on the back and feel good that they got it right and everyone else was in the wrong.
He was hated by the left for the very simple reason that he hated the left and he was an excellent hater. Are there peole who hate on the left? Sure there are. Few, however, were as good about it as Falwell. The only sad thing about his death...actually two sad things about his death...is first the pathetic attempts by Republicans to suck up to his memory by trying to reinvent him as some type of noble spiritual leader and the second is that in all his long years he never grew beyond his pathetically tiny ego.
I see this post has become a forum to attack and ridicule those of a conservative bent on this issue. That is most unfortunate. I will not say much on the issue as the various arguments and points of view have been covered. But it does seem as those who defend drinking are speaking with an awfully defensive voice. I do not mean to throw stones; far from it. Our attitude must be that of seeking to learn what is best and Biblical in this as in all other matters. I simply wish to counsel each one here to to think about your motives before plunging into the debate.
Joe, your slap at SBC was gratuitous and unworthy of you and your blog. I believe this post to be the exception, not the rule, of course.
As for my own view, I would call consumption of alcohol unwise. The scriptures do not seem to prohibit it totally, but the warnings by Solomon, Paul, and others cannot be dismissed lightly. It is better, especially in light of our confused culture, to abstain from intoxicants.
Finally, we ought to ask ourselves whether alcohol is really any different than nicotine or narcotics.
I see this post has become a forum to attack and ridicule those of a conservative bent on this issue. That is most unfortunate. I will not say much on the issue as the various arguments and points of view have been covered. But it does seem as those who defend drinking are speaking with an awfully defensive voice. I do not mean to throw stones; far from it. Our attitude must be that of seeking to learn what is best and Biblical in this as in all other matters. I simply wish to counsel each one here to to think about your motives before plunging into the debate.
Joe, your slap at SBC was gratuitous and unworthy of you and your blog. I believe this post to be the exception, not the rule, of course.
As for my own view, I would call consumption of alcohol unwise. The scriptures do not seem to prohibit it totally, but the warnings by Solomon, Paul, and others cannot be dismissed lightly. It is better, especially in light of our confused culture, to abstain from intoxicants.
Finally, we ought to ask ourselves whether alcohol is really any different than nicotine or narcotics.
Sorry for the double post!
As for my own view, I would call consumption of alcohol unwise. The scriptures do not seem to prohibit it totally, but the warnings by Solomon, Paul, and others cannot be dismissed lightly. It is better, especially in light of our confused culture, to abstain from intoxicants.
If you are confused then yes you should not drink alcohol. You also shouldn't drive, you shouldn't make major financial decisions. You shouldn't do a lot of things. I think, though, the best strategy is to ask yourself why you are confused and try to address that. It is fine if you want to say that alcohol should be approached with caution. It should indeed. However it would be foolish to assume that in a quest to eliminate all the dangers and negativities from alohol you won't also eliminate its benefits and yes it has benefits that have been recognized by human society for thousands of years.
In our quest to make a world free of danger it should be considered that maybe we are generating as a side effect people who are basically wusses. People who are being taught not to think for themselves, not to exercise discipline over their own actions (which is the only freedom people really have) but to let other people who are supposedly smarter make the world safe for them. This is the essence of how the 'weaker brother' argument is being applied here. It's a rather obvious backdoor for trying to make adults believe they are really children.
A true college committed to the 'weaker brother' argument would assert that students have a responsibility to confront the true weaker brothers who do have a problem with drinking and use peer pressure to push such people to exercise proper moderation and those few who have deeper problems to get the mental help they need. It would not have a one size fits all ban policy that treats the adult who happens to have a beer at a bar like a common criminal
Perhaps you are correct that some of the pro-beer and wine people here have been harsh on the prohibitionists but it is rather grating to see people who would otherwise take a fundamentalist stance on the Bible literally invent out of thin air a prohibition that not only doesn't exist in the Bible but runs directly counter to what it says. I would include in this criticism the dubious revisionism that wine actually means grape juice and people thousands of years ago didn't know the difference.
Finally, we ought to ask ourselves whether alcohol is really any different than nicotine or narcotics.
Well you can ask and the answer is yes it is different in many ways and is similiar in some other ways.
I see this post has become a forum to attack and ridicule those of a conservative bent on this issue.
Moderate drinking has been a human tradition for thousands of years sanctioned both by custom and the Bible. It's rather surprising to see prohibitionists described here as having the conservative bent. In reality they are the radicals seeking to rewrite history, literature and tradition. There's nothing wrong with being a radical sometimes but we should be clear about it.
Boonton
He spoke to the people who hated them and his message to them was not that they had fallen short of Christ's purity but that their hatred was ok and they should pat themselves on the back and feel good that they got it right and everyone else was in the wrong.
In your post you go on and on about how Falwell was a hater. I disagree with Falwell on many things but your characterization is over-the-top ugly. If you're going to spout garbage like the above, you better show us some examples. And try not to use Wikipedia or Media Matters for once. I suppose you could quote that well known defender of speech, Larry Flynt, if you must.
Do you really want examples jd? There's probably a hundred blogs & pages that will provide you with a huge array of Falwell's 'best'. If I must I'll go fetch some for you but I think we both know what I'm talking about here.
You may not like hearing the truth and you may think that because the fellow died we are all under some type of obligation to speak only nice things about him but I have no problem telling it like it is & I don't think there's a need to sugar coat the truth about dead celebrities.
gentlemen,
go have a beer and settle down.
Alcohol is neither good nor bad by itself but it is a tool frequently used by the devil or his servants to bring about sin. While it may "gladden the heart" or be a "social lubricant" it also serves to destroy families and lubricate crime.
The LDS church tried to resolve the issue in 1833 with an announcement "Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints. Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—
... strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies..."
BA: "My proposal is to make a drinking license where you have to take classes (and post a bond for alcoholism treatment in case you become an alcoholic) in order to drink. You have to renew your license each year and the proceeds go to pay for the societal costs of drinking --that way those who promote the death and misery in society by drinking can help foot the bill."
Good idea, BA. Let's do the same with vehicles, firearms, porkchops, potato chips, soda, and everything else that is harmful when one is immoderate and incautious. Let's strive to make our society and our diets as bland as possible in a vain effort to elimnate risk in our lives. Let's assume every person is a potential nitwit and penalize him so that we superior people aren't inconvenienced by his weakness when it manifests itself.
Rob Ryan said
"Let's assume every person is a potential nitwit and penalize him so that we superior people aren't inconvenienced by his weakness when it manifests itself."
After working at a public defenders office for the past few years with people Christ referred to as "the least of these my brethren" I lost my Ayn Randian bent. Day after day of seeing lives and families ruined by alcohol changes your world view. Maybe using the legal system to create standards isn't going to work but saying "God bless the microbreweries" doesn't help either.
p.s. as long as your saying my argument is overinclusive, you could use yours to legalize marijuana.
Boonton
Do you really want examples jd? There's probably a hundred blogs & pages that will provide you with a huge array of Falwell's 'best'. If I must I'll go fetch some for you but I think we both know what I'm talking about here.
Yeah, I think you better go find one of those huge arrays of hate and haters, where Falwell spoke to the people who hated them and his message to them was not that they had fallen short of Christ's purity but that their hatred was ok and they should pat themselves on the back and feel good that they got it right and everyone else was in the wrong.
Again, try not to use Wikipedia or Larry Flynt as your primary sources.
After working at a public defenders office for the past few years with people Christ referred to as "the least of these my brethren" I lost my Ayn Randian bent. Day after day of seeing lives and families ruined by alcohol changes your world view. Maybe using the legal system to create standards isn't going to work but saying "God bless the microbreweries" doesn't help either.
1. No one is proposing the microbreweries be subsidized. They are already taxed and heavily regulated.
2. Again I say look beyond the symptoms. Yes it ruins families because some people suffer from an inability to control themselves or are suffering from a mental problem or are suffering from just 'wrong thinking'. The solution is to confront such people and help them directly. Adding more people to the criminal justice system industry isn't going to solve those problems.
jd
Yeah, I think you better go find one of those huge arrays of hate and haters, where Falwell
Shall we begin with the 9/11 quote? I somehow doubt it was really addressed at the ACLU, feminists, gays etc. but at those people who hate them and it's message certainly wasn't one of 'don't hate'.
Again, try not to use Wikipedia or Larry Flynt as your primary sources.
I'll use whoever I want.
Boonton wrote
On the contrary, Falwell never spoke to left wingers, homosexuals, feminists or any of the groups he criticized. He spoke to the people who hated them and his message to them was not that they had fallen short of Christ's purity but that their hatred was ok and they should pat themselves on the back and feel good that they got it right and everyone else was in the wrong.
Falwell certainly made more than his share of intemperate comments, but your characterization of him is way off the mark. For a time, he conducted a well-publicized dialog with with gay-rights advocate Mel White, even hosting forums for debate. And if you can come up with a quote where Falwell said that hatred of people was OK, we'd all like to see it.
Boonton wrote
On the contrary, Falwell never spoke to left wingers, homosexuals, feminists or any of the groups he criticized. He spoke to the people who hated them and his message to them was not that they had fallen short of Christ's purity but that their hatred was ok and they should pat themselves on the back and feel good that they got it right and everyone else was in the wrong.
Falwell certainly made more than his share of intemperate comments, but your characterization of him is way off the mark. For a time, he conducted a well-publicized dialog with with gay-rights advocate Mel White, even hosting forums for debate. And if you can come up with a quote where Falwell said that hatred of people was OK, we'd all like to see it.
Falwell certainly made more than his share of intemperate comments,
I'd be interested to see if you apply the same incredible 'give the benefit of the doubt' princple to others like Al Shaprton or Louis Farrakahan.
but your characterization of him is way off the mark. For a time, he conducted a well-publicized dialog with with gay-rights advocate Mel White, even hosting forums for debate. And if you can come up with a quote where Falwell said that hatred of people was OK, we'd all like to see it.
Yes he did understand the importance of giving people a good show and to that end he was ever the showman. I'm not sure what importance that is unless your standard is anyone who isn't driven to such an instant rage that he jumps accross the stage and tries to knife a gay person to death can't be someone who hates.
Boonton:
That 9/11 quote from Falwell is not nearly as outrageous as you want it to be. (I note that you didn't quote it.) It's not that different from the way most people think about God. You need to come up with better examples to support the kind of slander you've been slinging. Where is that "huge array" of hateful quotes by hateful people that you say we all know about?
As to comparing Falwell to Sharpton and Farrakhan: Falwell never falsely accused anyone of rape, nor encouraged riots in the streets, nor burning down personal property, nor does he believe in the Mother ship beaming us up. You are typical of liberals in that you lack discernment and proportion in your application of moral equivalency. I suppose it's only a matter of time before you compare Falwell to Osama bin Laden.
You also exhibit the liberal tendency to evil-speak. Rather than saying Falwell is wrong, or misguided, or ignorant, or even stupid, you overplay your hand by saying he's hateful and incites others to hate; in other words, he's EEEEVILLLL.
Thanks for not quoting media matters or Larry Flynt in your "refutation." If nothing else, your posts have not been as long as they usually are.
That 9/11 quote from Falwell is not nearly as outrageous as you want it to be. (I note that you didn't quote it.) It's not that different from the way most people think about God....
I would say you are wrong on both accounts. Most people do not believe God has spent the last X number of decades protecting the US from terrorists but is now letting go because we pass laws saying you cannot discriminate against gays.
You are typical of liberals in that you lack discernment and proportion in your application of moral equivalency. I suppose it's only a matter of time before you compare Falwell to Osama bin Laden.
It would seem according to Falwell the ACLU, gays, feminists etc. are already equilivant to Osama bin Laden. Guess the old chap beat us to the punch.
You also exhibit the liberal tendency to evil-speak. Rather than saying Falwell is wrong, or misguided, or ignorant, or even stupid, you overplay your hand by saying he's hateful and incites others to hate; in other words, he's EEEEVILLLL.
Well he was all three of those things and stupid as well. He was also hateful and placated hatred by his target audience. I didn't say he was evil. At the end of the day he was just a guy who said wrong things.
nor does he believe in the Mother ship beaming us up.
Hmmm, what did he think about the rapture? Functionally any different? Thanks for making long lists of irrelevant differences between Falwell, Sharpton and Farrakahan. I suppose we could add a huge number more such as Sharpton and Falwell enjoyed pork but not Farrakahan. Falwell was from the south, Sharpton from the north. Falwell's hair was qutie undramatic. and so on...
Boonton:
I don't know why I bother discussing anything with you. You can twist anything to your way of thinking. But then you're the guy who said Clinton was too honest. Silly me.
Actually I said Clinton was a bad liar but hey, why bother paying attention to the truth. You haven't for the last 10,000 comments so don't break your streak!
Boonton:
First, to say Clinton was a bad liar is stupid.
Second, you DID say Clinton was too honest. You can deny it all you want, but you said it. It was outrageous, and now you want to back away from it. I don't blame you. But don't try that "I didn't say that" crap with me. You've done that 10,000 times and it stinks.
1. Are you saying Clinton was a good liar? If so then why did everyon say he was a liar? This isn't rocket science. The purpose of telling a lie is to deceive someone. If they know you have told them a lie then you are not a good liar.
2. We've been down this road 10,000 times. I remember saying Clinton was a bad liar. I may have said he was more honest than Bush but I don't remember ever saying he was honest. Every time this comes up I tell you I'm perfectly open to the possibility I might be wrong and I'll admit as much if you simply show me. So either show me or drop it.
You tell me how to show you. There's no way on this blog to check for keywords as far as I know. If there are, I'll show you.
You said it and that's the fact, Jack. Interesting that you won't stand by it and that you still persist in your first points about Bush being a better liar. Typical convoluted logic. Because Clinton got caught red-handed lying once, therefore, he's not a good liar. This is all so stupid, Boonton and so typical.
Try using Google. Go to the advanced link and you can do a keyword search restricted to a URL
Interesting that you won't stand by it and that you still persist in your first points about Bush being a better liar. Typical convoluted logic.
I'm perfectly willing to stand by it if I said it but I'm being perfectly honest with you I do not remember saying that and I don't feel like I did. I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong and simply forgot, in which case it would be very useful to see where I supposedly said it.
Because Clinton got caught red-handed lying once, therefore, he's not a good liar. This is all so stupid, Boonton and so typical.
Actually Clinton was accused of lying quite often on numerous occassions from before he was first elected up until the day he left office and beyond. Even accused of lying when he was telling the truth. So again you are a poor liar if everyone says you lie all the time. Again a good liar doesn't make people think he lies, he wants people to think he is telling the truth. I'm not sure why you find this so incomprehensible. Most people find this a rather obvious observation.
Actually Jd I spent three minutes to do your work for you. you're probably thinking of post 76 on http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003247.html.
What I wrote there was:
No the idea was crazy and crazy sounding even if you were one who suffered from hyper-sensitivity to Bill's slickness. (BTW, I buck the conventional wisdom regarding Clinton. I always thought his problem was that he was too honest. You could always tell when he was trying to lie or bend the truth. Someone like Bush, on the other hand, will lie so well that you'll think he was telling the truth, too stupid to know the truth or anything other than purposefully telling you a lie. Here's a hint, if everyone says you're a good liar then you're a very bad one.).
You'll note that I never said Clinton was 'too honest' in the sense that he told the truth enough. He was 'too honest' in the sense that he always showed his hand when he was bluffing (or lying to be more blunt about it). No one who actually read what I wrote would have honestly come away thinking I claimed Clinton told the truth too often.
If you want to declare a superficial victory I did indeed use the phrase 'too honest' but not in the context you would imply in your ranting posts.
Now you see was that really so hard to look up?
It was hard to look up. I couldn't find it. How did you find it? In fact, when I click on your link it takes me to an internal server error page.
I appreciate your due diligence. It's completely unexpected. I had basically given up on finding it, though I did really try your suggestion.
However, your characterization of Clinton's lying is still silliness. I think it's typical thinking for you: it's logical and it sounds intelligent and "right", but it's actually circular and pretty damn useless.
In order to believe that Clinton was a poor liar, you would need to believe that all the rest of the liars in Washington were better liars than Clinton because we don't think they're liars, even though we know they're all liars. Do you get the headaches often? Because this kind of thinking causes a V8 slap to the forehead. Somehow I don't think anyone outside of the fever swamp would agree that Clinton was not an exceptional liar.
It was hard to look up. I couldn't find it. How did you find it? In fact, when I click on your link it takes me to an internal server error page.
Google advanced, just do searches for "Boonton Clinton 'too honest'". I don't comment on many blogs so even if you don't restrict your search to EO it should come up.
A while ago someone said I had declared myself an athiest. I think it might have been giggling. I demanded proof and he produced a disjointed paragraph and refused to cite its url. It turned out he had searched Yahoo for something like "Boonton athiest" and copied the search results which joined sentences from several different commentators. He failed to actually look at the site, if he had he would have noticed the "I'm an athiest" sentence belonged to another comment.
What annoyed me about the whole affair was when I called him on it his defense was along the lines of "it doesn't matter 'cause I think it sounds like something you would have said anyway".
In order to believe that Clinton was a poor liar, you would need to believe that all the rest of the liars in Washington were better liars than Clinton because we don't think they're liars, even though we know they're all liars.
Do we think they are all liars or do many of us secretly think 'our guy' is a bit less of a liar than 'all of them'? Sort of like how everyone says public schools are horrible but most people like their local public school...it's 'everyone else's' public school that's bad.
I think the media creates narratives about popular figures and the bias is in selecting stories that confirm that narrative and ignoring ones that defy it. Clinton's narrative was 'slick liar' so lots of stories got play that fit that mold but others didn't. Likewise one popular narrative for Bush was dumb. I think more than a few stories carried the premise of 'look at Bush being dumb' would have been 'look at Clinton being dishonest' if the same facts had happened during his term. Of course it's not quite like any one person creates the narrative. The politicians themselves spin out part of it as well as their enemies. John McCain, for example, spins the war hero / former POW narrative as much as he can.
So in the end I think because Clinton, fairly or not, got stuck with the 'slick liar' narrative he got reamed out every time he came even within a mile of telling a lie. I think on the flip side a lot, and I mean a real lot, of lies told by others were ignored (or got dismissed as 'everyone does that') because they didn't have that narrative stuck to them....not because they were any more honest.
Just to give you an example, you may remember that Chinese scientist who was accused of passing secrets to China. When the story broke I believe Phil Graham was all over Clinton....'look he's letting China steal our secrets' blah blah blah. At the end when the gov't had to admit it didn't really have much of a case against the guy and cut a deal where he plead guilty to a minor charge of just not properly securing classified information the very same guy came out and bashed Clinton for racial profiling! Clinton could never have pulled that off without the media hitting the "LOOK HE IS FLIP FLOPPING" macro on their word processors.
Anyway I'm not asking you to feel bad for Clinton. He had exceptional skills so a slightly unfair narrative probably evened things up a bit for him. If I were a politician I'd rather have Clinton's skills and his bad narrative than Graham's lackluster skills and ok narrative.
You can make all the excuses for Clinton's behavior you want. You can defend him by saying that he was labelled a liar and therefore it was easy to call him a liar (is that a defense?) During the time he was in office I came to the conclusion that he was a sociopath, a man without conscience or shame as I understand it. Lying was his modus operandi. It's how he got to where he was. His serial philandering was the vice he had to hide and he hid it by lying. He seduced women by telling them little lies; he seduced the whole country by telling us little lies.
He even lied when he didn't have to lie. People would have forgiven him if he had just come out and said he made a mistake with "that woman, Miss Lewinsky." But no, he decided he would destroy her and label her as a stalker. Why not? He was able to lie his way out of similar problems in the past. She was just a hump in his road.
He was a master politician with an incredible memory; I don't know how else he could keep all the lies from busting out. His presidency was mediocre at best, but there is little doubt in my mind that he was the worst man to have ever been president.
He seduced women by telling them little lies;
So Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich used the pure unvarnished truth to seduce women?
I can't take my eyes off of some of you for a minute, can I?
I haven't blogged here in probably 6 months and I come back to what???a blog about WWJD (What would Jesus drink?) and, I don't know how some of you did it, but you turned it into a Bill Clinton bashing party. Man oh man!!!
It is a timely issue though. As an evangelical Christian (born again, believe the Bible to be written by God, etc.) I do see many, many so-called conservative Christians who use this and other issues as a control factor. If you can stop them from drinking anything stronger than grape juice, even though Jesus clearly did, you can control them on anything. Just look at the Liberty University female co-ed who thought non-drinking on campus produced an "orderly" campus. I don't want orderly...I want THINKING on American campuses (campusi?)
I've (almost) given up on my conservative brothers and sisters understanding the Grace of Jesus Christ and the Love of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. Many walk around so high and mighty, hypocritical and stiff-necked as the modern day Pharisees that opposed Jesus and his ministry so often.
Haven't you understood anything about Christ's command to us to "Love one another?" That means, and you know what it means, it's just one of those "inconvenient" commands from Christ that you choose to ignore (like "Love your enemies" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" among others - try the Sermon on the Mount or the Plain for that matter.)
After blogging here, I prayed and prayed and finally did what God had in mind for me. I bought some time every Sunday afternoon (12:30-1pm) on a Dallas/Fort Worth radio station (KKGM) and there I do indeed proclaim a Christ that is probably too liberal to be included as a Southern Baptist. Too bad. I love you (at Christ's command) even if you hate me as a liberal.
What would Jesus Drink?
Who cares, as long as you love who Jesus told you to love.
Love
David Perkins
ps. The name of my ministry, "The Jesus Christ Said" ministry, was chosen to highlight, in this world of religious bigotry, the real words of Jesus Christ.
In the Septuagint, Genesis 9:21, 14:18, and 19:32-35 all use "oinos" which is translated as "wine" in the RSV, KJV, NAB, and DR. Chapters 9 and 19 refer to someone (Noah, then Lot) getting drunk from drinking it.
Romans 14:21 uses "oinos" as well ("it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble"). Ephesians 5:18 uses it too ("And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery"). Paul suggests to Timothy that he drink a little wine ("oinos") "or the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments" (1 Timothy 5:23). And Revelation 17:2 mentions people getting "drunk" from wine ("oinos").
The Cana pericope (John 2:1-10) uses the word "oinos", so Jesus turned the water into something by which the wedding guests COULD have gotten drunk.
As for the juxtaposition of "wine" and "strong drink", this comes up not only in reference to John the Baptist, but also in Isaiah 5:11-12,22: "Woe to those who rise early in the morning, that they may run after strong drink, who tarry late into the evening till wine inflames them! They have lyre and harp, timbrel and flute and wine at their feasts; but they do not regard the deeds of the LORD, or see the work of his hands. ... Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink." It is also found in Isaiah 28:1,7 and myriad other places. The Septugaint uses "oinos" in the verses I've listed here.
So then... what did Jesus and the Apostles drink at the Passover meal? If the Jews were of the custom of drinking wine (not just grape juice) in the Passover ritual, then that's most likely what Jesus himself drank. There's evidence outside of Scripture for that, both Jewish and Christian.
See the first entry on http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd382.htm for more information on "wine".
People are condemd differently by God if you are not sure if drinking beer,alcohol or strong drinks other than needed for medications is for you, you might want stay away from such or just ask God in prayer He has all answers to your questions and our God is not a God of confusion if The Bible says do not get drunk -DO NOT GET DRUNK.
People are condemd differently by God if you are not sure if drinking beer,alcohol or strong drinks other than needed for medications is for you, you might want stay away from such or just ask God in prayer He has all answers to your questions and our God is not a God of confusion. The Bible says do not get drunk -DO NOT GET DRUNK.
http://ciberia.ya.com/mvyhz/ sex toys
[URL=http://www.dailygmat.com/yahoo-fr] yahoo fr [/URL] yahoo fr
[URL=http://www.dailygmat.com/dragonball-it] dragonball it [/URL] dragonball it
[URL=http://www.friland.net/donne-nere] donne nere [/URL] donne nere
[URL=http://www.friland.net/spartiti] spartiti [/URL] spartiti
[URL=http://www.cedricleroy.com/pronostico-tris] pronostico tris [/URL] pronostico tris
[URL=http://www.huraiyth.com/l-unione-sarda] l unione sarda [/URL] l unione sarda
[URL=http://www.huraiyth.com/terreno] terreno [/URL] terreno
[URL=http://www.ncfliving.net/carta-credito-bancaria] carta credito bancaria [/URL] carta credito bancaria
[URL=http://www.ncfliving.net/turismo-roma] turismo roma [/URL] turismo roma
[URL=http://www.key4fun.com/case-vacanza-corsica] case vacanza corsica [/URL] case vacanza corsica
[URL=http://www.key4fun.com/premio] premio [/URL] premio
[URL=http://www.key4fun.com/cosmetic-surgery] cosmetic surgery [/URL]