The Germans frequently have just the word for it. Taking joy in the misfortunate of another is schadenfreude. That feeling of embarrassment you get on behalf of another who ought to be embarrassed himself but somehow isn’t is fremdschämen. I bring this up because we either need to coin or find another word for another condition. I am talking about the very common evangelical pursuit of taking up an offense or concern on behalf of a hypothetical stranger.
Let me use a very pedestrian example. We can’t switch from grape juice to wine in communion because “what if” an alcoholic comes to church, and he has been clean for a year, but then we stumbled him? This tactic never works in the other direction, so don’t even try it. You are not allowed to hypothesize the existence of someone who grew up in a suffocating fundamentalist home, and is considering leaving the faith altogether until that glorious day he discovered the existence of Bible believers who actually believe what the Bible says.
A principle is always a two-way street. Equal weights and measures. The judgment with which you judge you shall be judged. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. A scam is a one-way street. Whatever argument serves the interests of the imperious one is considered to be a sound argument. Whatever argument does not is simply dismissed.
Now the wide-spread acceptability of this technique is why the squishy middle of evangelicalism has been such a band of suckers when it comes to our modern identity politics. This is why our so-called “cultural engagement” has largely been a matter of slow motion surrender to secularism. What we call cultural engagement is actually capitulation to whatever the cool kids want us to do, from rejecting the patriarchy, to opining how black lives matter, to admitting that homophobia is actually a thing.
When we are charged to alter our behavior completely on the basis of how some hypothetical persons might take offense if we don’t alter our behavior completely, many of us leap to the challenge. This is what we do. It is who we are. We call it maintaining a good testimony, and we cite verses that talk about becoming all things to all men so that by any means we might save some (1 Cor. 9:22). We have been protecting non-existent offendees for decades. What’s a few more?
But Pauline citation is not the same thing as Pauline practice. Forty-year-old-pastors who are trying by “all means to save some” usually wind up getting the odd hipster tattoo, and wearing skinny jeans. But “all means” could include getting a Smith & Wesson belt buckle, and going to work as a chaplain in an oil field in a state that went for Trump by twenty points. When we say all means, do we mean all means?
Here is another example. Over the years I have had good and warm relations with black Christians. The overwhelming number of my conflicts over race have been, just that, conflicts over race, not racial conflicts. In other words, the overwhelming number of my conflicts have been with whites who were busy managing the hypothetical concerns of others (a very white activity, by the way). When I engage with black brothers, I usually get a good conversation. When I engage with white brothers about black brothers what I usually get is intransigence. This is because the person being protected from offense is always, at least conceptually, to the left.
Now I have written a great deal over the years about the fecklessness of evangelical leadership. Samples can be found here, here, and here. Let that set the stage.
The lame nature of our leadership can be seen in a toxic combination of two things. The first is the retreat to commitment, in which we cling to our “core values” but make a point of doing so in private, within the boundaries established by our mystery religion. Our public behavior conforms to whatever the reigning deity requires. Here is some more background on that. And also here. All of it is stage-managed by the trahison des clercs,
The second thing is related. We are allergic to the authoritative word. This is what I mean. We think we are not allergic to such a word because we think we accept the authority of that word down in our hearts. We think we are submitting to Jesus when we are actually submitting to the sovereignty of individualism.
Those of us who are involved in cultural engagement pay tribute to that “authoritative” word as the motivating force that caused us to come out to support of whatever the anointed cause currently is. The world sets the agenda, and evangelicals throw their support behind it because motivation x in this case is consistent, or so we say, with supporting cause y. Motivation x is that mysterious Jesus thing, and cause y is whatever the world is currently saying, and which is consistent with the Christian faith provided it is viewed from 30,000 feet. Nothing wrong with racial reconciliation, saving the planet, and so on. The poison is rarely found in the pithy mission statement on the front of the glossy brochure. It is not until we get down into the policy prescriptions that we find out that racial reconciliation is antichrist, saving the planet is antichrist, and affordable housing is antichrist. And you heard me—antichrist.
So all this foolishness is not really cultural engagement at all—running the world’s cars on our version of fuel. Jesus is not supposed to be like 10% ethanol.
Jesus gives the authoritative word. Jesus is Lord. He issues commands. He summons us to deliver His authoritative words to all the nations who do not accept His authority. Abortion? Thou shalt not. Same sex mirage? Thou shalt not. Socialist predation and theft? Thou shalt not. In other words, we need to get beyond the reason why I joined our army, and start to get into the reasons why all the soldiers in the rebel army need to lay down their arms.
This is the authoritative word. In the great culture war in which we are engaged, the authority of Jesus Christ extends over the entire battlefield. If we go up against Jericho and spare the “accursed thing,” and take it home to hide under the floor of the tent, the only thing we succeed in doing is taking the accursed thing to ourselves and thereby becoming the accursed thing. What Achan did was not cultural engagement. Achan became the accursed thing by adopting the accursed thing.
And so, if we want to get away from taking offense on behalf of others, by which means we are routinely steered into places where we shouldn’t want to be, then we must adopt an explicitly Christian and biblical approach to politics. And by adopting it, I mean adopting it with the understanding that all men will eventually do the same.
This means we must abandon our current stance of offering our conditional surrender to the world, and adopt instead a stance that the Lord Jesus extends to the unbelieving world. He insists upon unconditional surrender. It is Jesus or nothing. Christ or chaos. Scripture or secularism. Good or evil.
“Here is some more background on that.” I think you missed a link in that sentence.
“You are not allowed to hypothesize the existence of someone who grew up in a suffocating fundamentalist home, and is considering leaving the faith altogether until that glorious day he discovered the existence of Bible believers who actually believe what the Bible says.”
I don’t get it. According to whom is that not allowed? Doesn’t that scenario totally happen?
He’s saying the people who are all for capitulating would never allow you to bring up that case in defense of retaining wine in the Supper.
So a person who is brought up under suffocating fundamentalism is all set to walk away from Christ but changes his mind when he learns he can have an half an ounce of wine at his church communion service? Does anyone find this remotely likely?
Well Jilly, a parallel would be, doing good on the sabath, a thing that is actually allowed.
It’s amazing what “details” people can get tangled up in.
For a pharasitical fundamentalist, knowing that a sip of wine will not send you straight to hell, can be a big deal! (at least for our hypothetical stangers!) ; – )
I think the point is that when someone grows up with a truncated or mutated gospel, it serves as an inoculation for them. “I don’t know what I am, but I know I’m not what my fundamentalist/hedonist/superstitious/whatever father is.” it doesn’t take much to kick someone out of that groove. “oh I didn’t realize that there are Christians who drink/don’t sleep around/don’t have the stations of the cross set up in the yard/whatever. Maybe I should hear them out.”
No, just as I don’t think there are any people who are willing to follow Christ, but the alcohol in the wine is the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Doug wrote an article about a typical practice evangelicals have – getting riled up in support of a theoretically offended third party. He’s showing the hypocrisy of the position by arguing for the antithesis.
Yeah! What he said! ; – )
No, he changes his mind when he finds out that Christianity is not inextricably bound up with fear of the stuff that comes in the little cups, and all the other fears that generally travel with that.
Phil Johnson noted years back that if the precious contextualizers were serious, at least some of them would get thick-frame glasses, pocket-protectors and slide rules, and launch outreaches to Chess Club and Math Club members.
Or alternatively, shave, get short hair cuts, cheap suits with white shirts and ties, and older American cars, and start hanging out with rural midwestern or southern churchgoers. But those people don’t NEED to be reached, I guess. Or can’t be, because they commit the unforgiveable sin of 20th century American traditionalism.
the unforgiveable sin of 20th century American traditionalism
LOL
Thanks for the comment, The Glory Has Departed From My Comments. I can’t read it, but I’m sure it was as brilliant, charming, wise, and charitable as you usually are.
You don’t care for my new name?
Maybe I should’ve gone with RC Jr, Jr?
I don’t know 40 oz. Switching from FAAK to Rev., well, it’s a bit like switching from,
“Wham” to “George Michael”
The first name was shorter and to the point! ; – )
Thanks for the comment, The Glory Has Departed From My Comments. I can’t read it, but I’m sure it was as brilliant, charming, wise, and charitable as you usually are.
It was!
If I were RCjr, I’d move back to Bristol, Virginia. Sure, that’s where he got defrocked. But, next to another well known Bristol clergyman, Rev. Tommy Tester, RCjr would look like a model of probity.
At least when RCjr got pulled over, he wasn’t wearing a skirt, and he didn’t offer to provide sexual favors to the arresting officers.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/07/31/cops-virginia-minister-flashed-kids-while-urinating-offered-officers-oral-sex.html
You know, when you think about it, having a pastor who loves booze is really overrated.
“JOHNSON CITY, Tenn. “, wonder if the city would consider a name change to
“Pants Place”? ; – )
Some of the redeemed are irredeemable?
To a certain precious type, that I believe Dan is aiming at, culturally conservative churchgoers are less likely to be Christian than anybody else. Lacking tattoos and a willingness to cuss, they’re not authentic and therefore probably Pharisees.
Or something like that.
Doug, many of your articles, this one included, are about twice as long as they should be.
This particular article is approximately 1200 words. At least some of Doug’s posts end up as chapters in books down the road (blogs into books). I surmise a chapter in a book is around 3-5 thousand words. 1200 words is a short chapter, Mister the-glory-has-departed from your petty complaint.
If you expect me to read your comment, you need to edit it. It’s way too long.
Touché. Brevity is necessary to the energy of attention, while being unnecessarily prolix provides the reader with a premium for inattention. (Hat tip to the condescending racist, R.L. Dabney from his book, Sacred Rhetoric).
Darn adjectives
̶D̶a̶r̶n̶ adjectives.
There. I fixed that for you.
Doug, did you know adjectives were invented by the white man?
Modern linguists try to cover it up, but it’s the truth.
“Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs. The adjective hasn’t been built that can pull a weak or inaccurate noun out of a tight place. This is not to disparage adjectives and adverbs; they are indispensable parts of speech. Occasionally they surprise us with their power, as in ‘Up the airy mountain, Down the rushy glen, We daren’t go a-hunting For fear of little men…’ The nouns mountain and glen are accurate enough, but had the mountain not become airy, the glen rushy, William Allingham might never have got off the ground with his poem. In general,… Read more »
Well, Jesus does tend to be more succinct, but then again, Jesus has more authority than our host.
With regard to “twice as long” are you taking up “concern on behalf of a hypothetical stranger.”?
Or just your self? In any case, let’s get to work on that new word! ; – )
“Misfortunate” should be “misfortune.”
And what you’re describing here is, at least partly, how the “world system” invades our thinking… and makes us think we’re thinking for ourselves, when we ain’t.
I thought, or at least I was taught that culture begins with right worship. Now if a denominations ministers have their own personal understandings regarding Paul’s first corporate command of how to worship (and they are many), what does that really tell the people they lead, about the authoritative word? I’m OK-You’re OK worship.
If we need a word, will “scrupulosity” do? It’s the easy path to being holier-than-thou — rather than having to practice enough self-denial to set a standard you want others to meet, you just invoke an absent (or imagined) party and demand that everyone care about them as much as you do. Instant status boost. The kids these days call it “virtue signalling” I think. If you need a few extra words here is my Christmas present to y’all: German’s “backpfeifengesicht” (roughly, “face that needs to be slapped”) and the Yiddish word “farpotshket” (“a problem made worse as a result… Read more »
No discussion of fun German words would be complete without: “Rhabarberbarbara”.
the Yiddish word “farpotshket” (“a problem made worse as a result of trying to fix it”)
AKA tikkun olam
I think I tried that at an Indian restaurant once.
“Farpotshket” sounds like a word derived from the unfortunate results of “distance contests”, back in the days of chamber pots.
Am I right?????
Whatever the merits of your argument here (and there are some great merits to it), your equating of a tee-totaler and an alcoholic is fallacious. There is no reasonable argument that a teetotaler will be caused to sin or influenced to sin by grape juice). There is a very sound argument that an alcoholic may be caused to sin or influenced to sin by having wine. Your argument typically seems to come from those who don’t deal with alcoholics. In that sense, it is similar to your point about race. In my experience (and I am a minority in my… Read more »
Is there a biblical command to have bread?
Yes, why? It instructs us to have bread and the cup. It doesn’t not say that the cup is to be alcoholic wine.
I ask because the Bible has Jesus setting before his disciples bread and wine. Wine has alcohol. Grape juice does not. The Bible knows the difference and makes clear the distinction. I was just curious if you thought another carb could be used.
As you likely know, or at least should know, wine has varying alcoholic contents, including alcohol free wine. Herein lies the issue of the authority of Scripture. Scripture commands the use of a cup. It does not command the use of alcoholic wine. Those who do command the use of alcoholic have added to the Scriptures. And once again, the point is not that one should or should not use alcoholic wine in communion. The point is that the argument was fallacious and Doug, with all his knowledge of logic and rhetoric, should have immediately recognized the fallacy and avoided… Read more »
Dude, I nearly spewed coffee all over my monitor… Did you really say “alcohol-free wine”? What an oxymoron, what a paradoxical impossibility, what a load of cripe. Got it…Scripture says “take this bread” and “take this cup.” Let’s be literal about it, ‘k? There really should be NOTHING in the cup at all! Don’t actually drink anything, brothers! Just take the CUP!! Now, if you recognize the nonsense of emphasizing that “cup” doesn’t mean wine, then you should also recognize the nonsense of saying that “cup” doesn’t mean not-wine. It really only means “cup.” OR…it’s shorthand, figurative speech for what… Read more »
Are you not familiar with wine? I can only assume so because your statement is dead wrong. Google alcohol free wine. You can also search out the history of wines in ancient times. There are a lot of methods to inform yourself. Please use them. In this day and age, there is no reason to be uninformed. On to the rest of your post, it is clear that “cup” is a metonymy. The question isn’t whether we should use a cup, but rather what does Scripture require be in it. It should be clear to those who read Scripture that… Read more »
Can I fill the cup with Coke?
Only if you get it from a vine (cf. Matt 26:29).
Why does what was in THEIR cup now matter to you? Jesus only said to drink from a cup.
Jesus said it was “Fruit of the vine.” That’s why I cited the passage. I thought you would have been familiar enough with it to recognize it. My bad.
Are you trying to say that there was a history of alcohol free wine in ancient times? Is the argument so absurd that you can’t credibly repeat it yourself but have to refer us all to google?
My point is that the information so many here seem not to know is publicly available. Thanks.
How about just a yes/no answer to the first question?
Yes, there was alcohol free wine in ancient times. It was possible to preserve it, but it likely was not common. That’s not really the issue however. I am not sure why that is coming up. I never made the argument that Jesus didn’t use alcoholic wine. So I am not sure why you are bringing this up.
Again, this is a distraction from the point I was making.
Yes, there was a history of very low alcohol wine in ancient times. Wine was drank with every meal, mostly because water was not purified and it caused dysentery. People also drank vinegar, wine that had turned.
I believe the wine was mixed with water?
Presumably the mixing at the time of consumption lowered the alcohol content?
Alcoholic drinks need a minimal alcohol content to preserve them without refrigeration.
“Alcoholic drinks need a minimal alcohol content to preserve them without refrigeration.”
No they do not. The process of making wine is very simple, you simply leave it out to ferment. You either get wine or vinegar.
Over time the demand for a high alcohol content has increased, and so the process of wine making has been refined.
Correct. But if you stop the process then the drink may not preserve in a hot climate. Wine can stay alcoholic at higher contents. I was questioning how they could’ve made low alcohol wine prior to refrigeration, other than mixing at the time of consumption.
How would you stop the process (without freezers or potassium sorbate or other modern resources)?
Heat
If you heated the wine enough to kill the yeast before it had fermented all the natural sugars it would just start to ferment again whenever you transferred it from your cooking vessel to your wine skin for further storage, right?
Possibly. Though you could try and sterilise the other container.
I don’t know why the ancients would’ve tried this though as opposed to just leong it ferment to completion.
They were not using sugar and refined wine yeasts, and temp control to deliberately create a high alcohol wine. They were simply collecting grape juice and drinking the fermented product that comes from no refrigeration or pasteurization. That does indeed contain alcohol, just as a over ripe piece of fruit does.
I know. My question concerns low alcohol beverages.
If you put some grape juice out on the counter for a few weeks, you will get low alcohol wine. It will stop producing alcohol when the yeast has fed on all the sugar. There is no need to stop the process. The process stops itself.
I doubt they mixed water with wine, because the whole reason you drank wine was to avoid dysentery from contaminated water. If you water down your wine, you have contaminated it.
So you are saying that low alcohol wine was drunk immediately? Else it would not be able to be stored? I gathered wine was predominantly made at harvest and stored.
I was also under the impression that wine was added to water to help sterilise it. I had heard 1 part to 2 or 3 water
I think it was probably used pretty quickly and not stored for long. You can leave it in a barrel for a few years perhaps, but we didn’t really have any bottling techniques in the ancient world. They probably would have carried it in a goatskin or something.
As far as I know the alcohol content of wine will not purify water. It can probably kill a few germs on a wound, however.
I’m surprised RCjr hasn’t dropped by to share his expertise on this topic.
What’s fallacious about it, exactly? You don’t think that ignoring the actions of Christ and the tradition of the church can be a stumbling block?
To the first question, it’s fallacious because, as I already said, it compares two things that are dissimilar church in the argument. The alcoholic and the teetotaler are not similar in the argument. They have very different foundations and roles. Comparisons in argument work by showing similarity or dissimilarity and then using that appropriately. When you take two things that are dissimilar and compare them as similar, it is fallacious. It is the meaning behind the phrase “comparing apples and oranges.” It’s two different things. To the second question, yes, it’s dangerous to ignore the actions of Christ. It is… Read more »
Come now! Jesus said “wine”. Wine is a beverage from fermented grapes. Alcohol is a definitional element in wine, and the only sort ever mentioned in the bible is the sort you can get drunk on.
At any rate, the danger to the alcoholic is not the wine: it is in the indulgence of his tendency to intemperance. The danger to the teetotaller lies in indulging his pride.
(Dunno if comments need to be in chronological order, so I’m posting here as well): as I understand it, the Nazarite can consume nothing from the vine, not wine, nor grapejuice nor grape, so, in my mind, this makes wine/grapejuice/grape similar enough to meet LT’s suggestion that alcoholic wine is not a Biblical mandate for the Table.
I don’t know that it’s a mandate either – I think the supper serves chiefly a memorial, so the precise constitution of the elements is not of first importance. You can serve gluten-free bread or those little soda crackers or whatever – the important thing is what you’re symbolizing.
To your first point, there is a significant dispute about that. I tend to agree with you but it is not nearly as ironclad as you seem to think.
To your second point, that’s both naive and unloving. The indulgence of the tendency to intemperance is not separable from the wine itself. I deal with these people routinely in my ministry. Those who say, “Just control yourself” are missing the Bible’s point about staying away from temptation.
It may be significant in the sense of loud, but I’ve never read or heard any arguments for it that didn’t sound like motivated reasoning. What or whom would you recommend as a good presentation of the case?
I disagree as a matter of taxonomy: the occasion for sin is not the sin. Just as lust is a separate problem from the existence of women. That is not to say that continence is easy, and I didn’t, at any rate.
I am out of town and away from my files at the moment so I can’t cite anyone here. I didn’t realize it was that disputed (at least my argument). It seems to be widely known. As for the taxonomy, Scripture does not merely condemn the pride but the drunkenness itself. And it warns us against it. It is not just the root sins that are sins, but the fruit sins as well. You are correct about lust. But you miss the point. The point isn’t that alcohol itself is sin. It is that having an alcoholic or drunkard drink… Read more »
“Alcohol is a definitional element in wine, and the only sort ever mentioned in the bible is the sort you can get drunk on.” I’m pretty sure the word used in the bible simply means grapes. Wine is the juice of grapes, but so too is vinegar and grape juice. Even the Latin vinum is simply grapes or a grapevine. There is no mention of actual alcohol content as a defining marker of “wine.” The alcohol content we place on wine today is a modern invention and usually regulated by government. Too much alcohol content and you are no longer… Read more »
Hey Memi! Jesus does make a distinction between new wine, and old! ; – ) Luke 5 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. 39 And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’” John 2 10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink;… Read more »
The Latin word for grapevines is “vitis”. Latin “vinum” is not simply grapes or a grapevine. It means wine, and it’s the sort of thing with which one toasts and offers libations to the gods and upon which one gets sloshed. Come on – the pagans organized their religion around drunkenness. Do you really think they didn’t care about alcohol content? In fact, there was even a kind of wine from Jesus’ day (prized by Julius Caesar, if I recall – you can see adverts for it at the Pompeii excavations) capable of catching fire, which I’m guess indicates an… Read more »
Hey look LT, “internet”!
“Is there such a thing as non alcoholic wine?
Though it is physically impossible to remove 100% of the alcohol from fermented beverages, ARIEL wine meets the legal definition of a non-alcoholic beverage, which states that the product must contain less than half of one percent alcohol (<0.5%)."
Perhaps you should simply expect more of yourself? ; – )
So you agree with me. I am glad to hear that.
Let me reiterate the salient point:
“Though it is physically impossible to remove 100% of the alcohol from fermented beverages, ”
Malachi, is more technically correct, in our Lilliputian dialectic here! ; – )
To quote you, “ARIEL wine meets the legal definition of a non-alcoholic beverage, which states that the product must contain less than half of one percent alcohol (<0.5%)."
You quoted it proving the existence of non-alcoholic wine. Which is what I said and you disputed. So you agree with me and proved yourself wrong. ;)
So……….,LT, since you like Lilliputian dialectics so much, Please explain how .5% alcohol out of 100% (or .5% alcohol and 99.5% not alcohol) is non alcoholic. Do keep in mind that the “legal” definition of non-alcoholic is .5% alcohol, which is not the same as “alcohol free”. Or to put it another way: “A principle is always a two-way street. Equal weights and measures. The judgment with which you judge you shall be judged. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. A scam is a one-way street. Whatever argument serves the interests of the imperious one is considered to… Read more »
I thought your citation was sufficient to prove my point. I don’t recall saying “alcohol free.” I said “non-alcoholic” and you proved that for me.
As for the rest, I am not following you. I have asserted and then demonstrated that Wilson made a bad argument by comparing things favorably that are actually quite dissimilar. You (and he in this case) want to run a way one street. But as he says, it cuts both ways.
As for as Rom 14:1-3, I am not sure the purpose of citing it here, but I think Romans 14:21 is certainly relevant here.
LT, I’ll try again to make ours into a functional discussion. You said “Non-alcoholic” in one of your comments on this topic. You don’t need to “recall” that you said so, as I quoted you. Wilson’s example of a common position for grape juice instead of wine at communion, is an issue that cuts both ways, although he is suggesting that the “no wine” position can be a bit of a red herring. Romans 14:1-3 tells us not to get too hung up on “disputable matters” such as this one, and finally, Romans 14:22 and 23 appear to be the… Read more »
Yes, I said non-alcoholic wine, which was questioned, and then you proved that there is such a thing. I never said “alcohol.free” which was what you said I said. If you see what I am saying. But anyway … Rom 14:21 says not to drink wine if it might cause a brother to stumble. I don’t think we should get hung up on disputable matters. Vv. 22-23 have to do with one’s personal convictions. If you think shouldn’t drink wine because it is sin, then you shouldn’t drink wine. It would be sin for you to do so. Which answers… Read more »
There is no reasonable argument that a teetotaler will be caused to sin or influenced to sin by grape juice Gnosticism isn’t a heresy now? Colossians 2:16-21 seems quite relevant here. I don’t discount the need to consider our brothers’ weaknesses, but there are plenty of congregations that don’t include drunkards (“alcoholic” is a term based on non-Christian assumptions) that avoid use of wine. Stating that “there is no biblical command to have wine at communion” indicates to me that you neither take Jesus’ actions or the traditions of the church seriously. Better to use water than grape juice, at… Read more »
It has nothing to do with gnosticism (something you may not even understand given the way you bring it up here). A teetotaler can rightly interpret Col 2:16-21. And yes, there are plenty of congregations that avoid the use of wine that don’t have drunkards in them. (The point is made better or worse by drunkards vs. alcoholics.) So what? I take Jesus’ commands very seriously. He did not instruct the church to use alcoholic wine. Non alcoholic juice is just as much fruit of the vine as alcoholic wine is. The Bible is clear that the Lord’s supper is… Read more »
Why not go all the way, then, and serve cheeky cherry cola? Or, go all the other way and serve hardtack and whiskey? We don’t go “all the way” with these things, in either direction, because the Biblical instruction is pretty darn clear. We don’t serve BBQ and beer because our Lord’s instruction was for bread and wine. Those who don’t serve bread and wine are acting in disobedience–albeit they feel pretty good about their disobedience, being nice and courteous and all. Being a drunkard is a sin. Being a teetotaler is a sin. The Biblical truth is–as with so… Read more »
I will assume you are serious here and in need of a church where you can get some good teaching. I hope you find one.
The reason you don’t “go all the way” is because your “all the way” has nothing to do with the point at hand. Going “all the way” would not lead to anything you suggest. It makes me wonder if you have read the Scriptures.
The statement that “being a teetotaler is a sin” is a dead giveaway that you are either unserious or untaught. Whichever the case, there is a remedy. Please use it.
Do you understand the distinction between “choosing not to drink alcohol” and “being a teetotaler”?
I am amazed that in this information age, those who use the internet don’t actually use the internet. We already had one person question the existence of alcohol free wine in spite of the fact that at 2 second google search can verify the existence of it and even tell you where you can buy it. Now you seem uninformed about what “teetotaler” means even though you can google it and find out very quickly. One who chooses not to drink alcohol is, by definition, a teetotaler. One can be a teetotaler for various reasons (whether because they thing it… Read more »
“My point was that the argument was fallacious.”
As is a wooden interpretation of Col. 2 that ignores many examples of lawful alcohol use in the Bible (Deut. 14:26 anyone?). And this isn’t even getting into the symbolism of wine that is totally lost with grape juice. You’re probably better off using cheese or yogurt or some other food that goes through a transformation.
I don’t dispute that there are lawful uses of alcohol in the Bible. That wasn’t the point here. Colossians 2 doesn’t really help you. And the symbolism is not the point of the cup in the Bible. It may be elsewhere, but the Bible is our authority. Or at least my authority. You all can use whatever authority you like. And none of that is the point. Wilson made a bad argument. That is atypical of him. But let me ask you this: Are you saying that people who use non-alcoholic wine or grape juice are disobedient and are not… Read more »
New to this blog; new to posting comments (usually lurk and grunt agree/disagree) but felt nudge to support LT in this discussion: as I understand it, the Nazarite can consume nothing from the vine, not wine, nor grapejuice nor grape, so, in my mind, this makes wine/grapejuice/grape similar enough to meet LT’s suggestion that alcoholic wine is not a Biblical mandate for the Table.
“He insists upon unconditional surrender. It is Jesus or nothing. Christ or chaos. Scripture or secularism. Good or evil.” Fine, but now let’s now return to that suffocating fundamentalist home that has done great evil in the name of good, who has insisted on unconditional surrender, who has quoted scripture in all the right places. What distinguishes you or anyone else from that kind hell on earth? Why should you be trusted to properly represent the so called authority of Christ? The culture wins and the culture will continue to win because it has revoked the authority of those professing… Read more »
Better to suffer injustice at the hands of those who rule in Christ’s name than to receive mercy from those who hate Him.
Profound, ashv.
Just the same, most of the world is really not interested in being martyred at the hands of the unjust who hide themselves behind Christ’s name.
Hm.
Do I strike you as the sort of person who is swayed by being told something is unpopular?
You strike me as someone who just equates “unpopular” with “moral and just.” Oddly, that’s actually a liberal way of thinking that tends to create a whole lot of moral relativism in the world.
In that case… why did you make a statement about popularity?
I said nothing at all about popularity.
“Most of the world…”
Hers was not a “statement about popularity” per se, but it certainly was an appeal to the masses, on the unfounded assumption that you cared about popular sentiment.
Most of the world….being of sound mind and a capacity to reason, are not going to politely suffer injustice at the hands of men claiming Christ’s name.
And?
And…precisely what I already said, “The culture wins and the culture will continue to win because it has revoked the authority of those professing Christ’s name and often for darn good reason, too.”
Culture is downstream from power. We have a culture that rejects God because its rulers do.
Our rulers are a product of our culture. If we wish to lead our culture in another direction, then you have to go about winning hearts and minds.
Suck it up butter cup, “it’s better to suffer injustice at the hands of those who rule in Christ’s name than to receive mercy from those who hate Him,” is an epic fail at Christian leadership and one people would rightly reject and condemn.
LOL
If they are truly ruling in Christ’s name, how can they be unjust? If they are dealing out injustice, they do not know Christ. And if anyone is dealing out genuine mercy, they do not hate Christ. They may not know Him by name, but they are doing His will.
Consider the story of King Saul.
Jesus is not supposed to be like 10% ethanol.
But wine is usually like 14% ethanol :)
“In other words, we need to get beyond the reason why I joined our army, and start to get into the reasons why all the soldiers in the rebel army need to lay down their arms.” Let us pretend for a moment that the army of soldiers is comprised of people like those who often comment here. Not to be impolite, but in that case, I will actually be taking up arms rather than laying them down. While Wilson’s point about not taking up the cause of the potential imaginary victim is valid, the lack of compassion towards others and… Read more »
“…taking up an offense or concern on behalf of a hypothetical stranger” sounds a lot like Wilson’s defense of conventional agriculture. So too: “Whatever argument serves the interests of the imperious one is considered to be a sound argument. Whatever argument does not is simply dismissed.” “The poison is rarely found in the pithy mission statement on the front of the glossy brochure.” That statement especially rings true of Wilson’s argument in The Whole Hipster Food Industry. Along very similar lines of “taking up concern on behalf of a hypothetical stranger” here from the Introduction of I’ll Take My Stand:… Read more »
World Magazine called on Trump to resign after the Billy Bush scandal hit.
They never called on Hillary Clinton to resign.
Verschlimmbessern, the German word for making a situation worse by trying to fix it. It is derived from words which mean “a fatal improvement.” I also found the word “Wattebällchenkegler” which means “a person who bowls with cotton balls.”
It is not until we get down into the policy prescriptions that we find out that racial reconciliation is antichrist
Whoa.
I missed that the first time through.
That’s what me and ashv and Barnabas have been trying to tell you for the last year.
Glad you’ve finally seen the light, Doug!