A Response to Charles Toy's "Premarital Sex: Is it a Sin or Not?

By way of a friend of friend’s facebook post, I discovered “The Christian Left” and Charles Toy’s article arguing that Christians have wrongly maligned pre-marital sex. To summarize a lengthy blogpost, Toy argues, based on the translatation of pornea and multiple Jewish scholars, that the Bible does not condemn pre-marital sex. To read his article, click here. His article provides a tempting analysis authorizing sin, and merits a response.

Toy ignores Jesus’ interpretation of sexuality. He provides several examples of polygamy, bigamy, and immorality from the Old Testament (none of which is normative) and summarizes the New Testament, saying

Christ’s teachings at the Sermon on the Mount were that the only law is the law of love. He showed this by reversing four of the Old Testament laws which conflicted with loving people. Therefore, anything that was unkind, not by mutual consent, etc. would be immoral for a Christian, but obviously it would not be immoral to love sexuality before marriage or because of different but natural sexual orientation.

The New Testament says nothing about premarital sex. Some versions though do mistranslate the Greek word pornei, which means sexual immorality, into the English word fornication, which means sexual intercourse with someone who one is not married to.

He has nothing say about Christ’s statement in the Sermon on the Mount. ““You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ²⁸ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” In these two verses, Jesus raised the bar. The moral demands of God go beyond the literal act of sexual intercourse into the desires of the heart. Premarital sexual activity is forbidden by Christ on the grounds of it flowing from wrong desires within the heart.

Secondly, this blog claims to be a Christian website. In their purpose statement, the authors portray themselves as believers in Social Justice, speaking for the downtrodden left out of conservative Christian discourse. For a Christian analysis, however, this article has nothing to say from the perspective of Christian theology. Toy moves on from his two paragraph mention of New Testament teaching and explains why modern Judaism now permits pre-marital sex. The core of his argument rests in the assertion that premarital sexual is now normal among 90% of 22 year olds, and therefore Jewish ethics should change to fit the praxis of contemporary adults.

His analysis, then, falls short on two fronts. Toy fails to adequately address the statements on Jesus reinterpreting the Mosaic law code (which admittedly uses the marriage-connected phrase “adultery”), and he applies his argument using Jewish teaching. He does not interact with St. Paul’s understanding of marriage in Ephesians 5, or with the prohibition of Christians engaging in sexual intercourse with a prostitute because of the nature of the body of Christ. Paul contends that since the body of Christ is one, when Christians commit sexual sin, they unite Christ with a whore. Theologically, the Bible presents a clear case from Christians abstaining from sexual activity outside of marriage. The Christian Left fails to provide an adequate analysis or challenge to the traditional Christian position on pre-marital sexual activity.

Notes Toward a Definition of Theology

The longer I am in school, the more frequently I find myself asking definitional questions. The most life changing class I have yet taken spent a semester examining different answers to the question, “what is history?” This past semester I took my first formal theology course, taught by Dr. Steven McKinion. Raised in church and having come to Christ at a young age, I have heard the term “theology” bandied about for as long as I can remember, yet the user rarely pauses to explain what exactly he means by it. While a quick thought on word composition yields the obvious “study of God” definition, I find such a vague concept unhelpful.

Before moving into my attempt at an answer to the question posed, a definition of theology has been on my mind lately in contrast to a group of British theologians in a school of thought called “Radical Orthodoxy.” They propose some fascinating ideas, yet as I listened to an interview with one of the leading lights of the movement, I noticed one missing piece in his discussion of theology – Jesus! He explained, in very eloquent terms, how the church was the universal redemption of the cosmos by the divine and how all who are born into the human race are born into the church. As an evangelical, I reject several of his established church premises, but I was stuck right back at the beginning. If this scholar is an Oxford University theologian, what then is theology for a Christian?

With that context in mind, I was reading in I Peter this morning and could not move past Peter’s greeting. I normally skim through the introductory material in an epistle, but this one gripped me. Peter writes, “To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you” (I Peter 1:1-2). Verse two is what caught my attention. I wonder if theology is the attempt to understand and relate the four headings Paul strings together in this compact sentence.

What if theology, rather than being abstract philosophy for religiously inclined people, is the attempt to comprehend the foreknowledge of God working itself out in the redemption of mankind through Jesus Christ and now in the body of the church? What if the telos of theology, rather than the increase of abstract knowledge of the minutia of grammar (vital as those are), is to produce growing sanctification, greater holiness in the believer as he relates to God and to others?

Peter’s third subject reminds me of how Dr. David Allen Black began his Greek II course – “Why are you learning New Testament Greek?” thunders the elderly professor in a thin white beard. “So we can read the New Testament?” answers the timid student in the third row. “NO! So we can obey it!” The point of greater knowledge is to increase obedience to Christ. Theological reflection should result in greater love of God and his creation.

Paul concludes his sentence with “for sprinkling with his blood.” Part of growth in the Christian life is to understand the importance of our bloody religion. The author of Hebrews spends much space on the importance of blood in the Old Covenant sacrificial system, arguing that we needed blood of a different kind to secure a different, permanent redemption. Perhaps the essence of theology is articulating the need for the blood, the work of the blood, and then how we must live as people covered in the blood of the risen Lamb.

In my limited experience, it seems that theology, like other disciplines, can get bogged down in terminology, obscure German names, and be unreadable by ordinary people. If Jesus did not come to establish a race of scholars but a redeemed community, then the best of theology remains centered upon the crux of the faith:  the knowledge of God and its’ outworking in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, the increasing sanctification of the believer through obedience to the revelation of God, and the importance of the blood shed on Calvary for our ultimate redemption. 

A Meditation on SCOTUS Decisions this past Week

During high school, I recall a history teacher explaining to his students that some court cases were extremely important, and others were not. This week saw a series of important cases, and the two SCOTUS decisions touching on the question of gay marriage – both DOMA and California’s Proposition 8 – have been weighing heavily on my heart for the past couple of days. My thoughts regarding these cases have solidified around two areas of significance – what is the significance of these rulings for a secular nation? And why is marriage such a big deal for Christians? These cases cause my heart to bleed for a land unable to recognize truth, justice, beauty, or goodness anymore.

As Dr. Richard Gamble so eloquently persuaded his students in Philosophy of History, America is not a Christian nation specifically called by God; current statistics indicate that the United States is no longer populated by a majority of orthodox Christians. That being the case, we should not expect Christian understandings to be assumed legal practices. Even so, I think this court case marks a development in the national consciousness. As a nation we have now enshrined in the highest law of the land an unwillingness to define one practice as right or true. We have broken with the tradition of our fathers going back for centuries. We are the heirs of a tradition, a set of practices, that have come down to us from Washington  ‘til now, and this court case marks a specific historical moment when we as a people proclaim that tradition of truth, beauty, and goodness to be unworthy of practice. In his much commented upon dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia points at the sheer idiocy which will result from lacking a uniform definition of marriage. Whether Christian or no, any “child of the kindly west” can recognize this case as a moment of rejecting the heritage of our forefathers.

While I see myself within that western tradition, I also consider myself within a more narrow Christian tradition and it is in that context that my heart truly breaks over this decision. For the Christian, this case is not a question of states’ rights, federalism, libertarian freedom or oppressive morality. Christian theology proclaims marriage as the ultimate metaphor of God’s unfailing love for a people who continually reject him. As God calls us to repentance, we are like an unfaithful wife who returns to her husband. This case undermines the theological meaning of marriage, and thus our understanding of how God and man relate through Christ. I have met many Christians of my own generation (everyone currently under age 30) who support the question of “gay rights” based on superficial notions of love and freedom. They fail to connect the importance of a biblical understanding of marriage with salvation and the person of Christ. The question of marriage also plays into gender roles, family structure, and general understandings of authority. This is not a simplistic question, but one that touches on the heart of our faith. Homosexual marriage is a place where Christians must differ from their surrounding culture because of the way God explains marriage as a picture of salvation. The United States government enshrining homosexual marriage by way of SCOTUS as an acceptable practice is not a place for Christian agreement.

At the conclusion of a meditation on American politics in June of 2013, I find myself right back where Pastor Tom Mercer led his congregation before the last presidential election. Pastor Mercer reminded us that this world is not our home; we are eagerly awaiting the return of the true king; we should not be surprised when sinful people sin. Our right response to events which oppose Christian truth is to mourn the sin, pray for the sinner, and plead for God’s grace over the lost. Ultimately, SCOTUS’ decision is a reminder that this world is still fallen and in need of the Kinsman-Redeemer.

A Meditation on Responses to Jesus

On this Good Friday, I read the fourth gospel account of Christ’s crucifixion and the events immediately leading up to it, and was struck by the variety of responses John includes. Last week Pastor Tom Mercer of Christ Covenant Church of Raleigh reminded his congregation of the intentionality of the gospel authors – we should try to see ourselves in the characters set in opposition within the biblical narrative. With that in mind,  how will you respond to this King who died? John 18-19 records a variety of different people who encountered Jesus on the last day of his life and their responses. How will you respond? In faith? In fear? In skepticism? With indifference? Betrayal? Gratitude? The death of Jesus demands a response; John reminds us that all who encountered Jesus were forced to respond to Him in some way, and the crucifixion 2000 years ago makes the same requirement on us today.

John 18 begins with Judas entering the Garden of Gethsemane accompanied by a group of soldiers on loan for the purpose of arresting the dangerous radical. In Judas we see ultimate betrayal, even betrayal with a kiss. But the soldiers offer a different response. When asked if he was Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus replied, “I am.” The soldiers immediate response is to fall to the ground. The reader is left to wonder if this is a collapse of worship, terror, or something else. Jesus’ declaration of his identity to be one with YHWH, to be the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, resulted in a posture of worship from those men who arrested the messiah.

John highlights Peter, showing two contrasting acts scattered throughout these two chapters. Peter attacks poor Malchus, chopping off his ear. Luke shows Jesus healing Malchus, while John only records Jesus’ condemnation of Peter for resisting the events which must occur. This is one of the moments we see the extremity of Peter’s love for Jesus, and John sets it up in opposition to Peter’s three denials of Jesus. My dad’s favorite metaphor is a pendulum – he often claims all life is swinging between two extremes. This certainly fits Peter. He moves from the violence of jihad to the abandonment of atheism. While Jesus ultimately restores Peter, on Good Friday Peter betrayed the kingdom and the king.

The Roman governor Pilate gets lots of space in this gospel narrative. I have been fascinated by Pilate for years. I want to excuse Pilate from responsibility as a good Roman trying to keep the peace, but John shows Pilate moving through several different responses to Jesus as he uncovers more about this accused kingly criminal. Pilate is at first disinterested, trying to get the Jewish leaders to try Jesus according to their own laws. When he begins questioning Jesus, Pilate moves from curiosity to skepticism. Jesus tells him, “…for this purpose I have come into the world – to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate responds with the classic Socratic question, “What is truth?” This first conversation caused Pilate to try for Jesus’ release by giving the crowd an option. Given a choice between Jesus (the popular healer, teacher, and miracle worker) and Barabbas (a zealot revolutionary, murderer, and thief), the crowd yells “Barabbas! Barabbas!”

Pilate’s discussion about truth does not change his initial disinterest towards Jesus. He treats this man as any brought before a Roman official – Jesus is beaten, and soldiers make mockery of the charges of kingship by crowning the beaten man with thorns and covering his ripped-asunder back with a purple robe. Pilate tries to end the punishment here, but the crowd demands crucifixion. The Jews had shouted “he ought to die because he made himself the Son of God.” Pilate saw the rebellious Jewish nation arising up in religious turmoil against Roman authority, and out of this fear he begins questioning Jesus anew.

In this second conversation, Jesus reveals the source of Pilate’s authority: “You would have no authority over me at all if it had not been given you from above. Therefore, he who delivered me over to you is guilty of the greater sin.” From this point, Pilate’s recognition of Jesus changes. He sees Jesus as the King of the Jews. While that kingdom is not of this world, Pilate saw in Jesus a man of true authority. John writes, “From then on, Pilate tried to release Him…” Pilate, however, did not overcome his fear of the crowd to the point of following justice. He went through elaborate ceremonies to absolve himself of responsibility for allowing Jesus’ crucifixion, yet he permitted the crowd to take Jesus to Golgotha and crucifixion. Even in the crucifixion, however, Pilate ensured people of three languages would understand the King of the Jews hung on the cross.

In the midst of these responses, Jesus professed that he was doing the will of the Father. He came to die, and through his death to make a way for sinful man to be reconciled to a just God. The Incarnation occurred so that death could happen, and through death resurrection. The events of the Passion narrative followed the will of the Father. Yet in that will, these different men interacted with Jesus and responded to him in various ways. Judas betrayed, Peter struck and denied, Pilate moved from disinterest to skepticism, to understanding and fear, and ultimately trying to evade responsibility for the death of Jesus. His fear of man conquered his perception of Jesus’ nature.

How will you respond to Jesus today? To this Jesus who lovingly suffered and died on behalf of mankind? Who drank in full the cup of justice? Who secured His kingdom bathed in the font of blood pouring forth from his head, his hands, his feet, his side? Will you respond in fear? In skepticism? In denial? Or in faith and gratitude for this Savior?

Excerpts from President Barack Obama's 2nd Inaugural Address

I handed out a transcript of President Obama's Second Inaugural address to my high school geography students last week, and this week we are going to work through the elements of American identity within the document. To that end, I have prepared a handout with the lines I am most interested in placed together. The quotations are arranged sequentially, and each address some aspect of how President Obama see America and its role in the world. The only bit of commentary I will add is that he refers early on to a creed which we all share. It seems valid, and helpful, to read through this handout looking for the tenets of the President's creed, and what those who share it should do in response. Please share your thoughts! I would love to get a conversation about American identity branching from this speech.

All quotations taken from President Barack Obama’s 2^nd Inaugural Address, in sequential order

Josh Herring, compiler, 1/29/13

“…what binds this country together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional – what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago…”

“…we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time.”

…”we have never relinquished out skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, these are constants in our character.”

“…when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.”

…”we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment and we will seize it…”

“For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.

We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class.

We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship.

We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.”

“…our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single America…That is what will give real meaning to our creed.”

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity…But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future…We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few…The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.”

“America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe…for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our conscience compel[s] us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom.”

…”we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice – not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.”

“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on earth.”

“It is now our generation's task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.

Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.

Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.

Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.”

“That is our generation’s task – to make these words, these rights, these values – of Life, and Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness – real for every American. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we all define liberty in the exact same way, or follow the same precise path to happiness.”

“Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.”

A Reflection on Radical Islam

This year I have entered the world of teaching. From a connection at church I learned of an opportunity to teach at a local homeschool co-op in Raleigh, and began teaching Global Geography in September. Yesterday we covered a broad survey of African history, culminating in the sweep of Islamic forces through Christian North Africa. The coming of Islam in 639 under military commander Ibn Al-Asi led to the slaughter of thousands of Christians and the preeminence of Islam in Northern Africa today.

With this background, perhaps you will understand my fascination with this morning’s headlines regarding a hostage crisis in Algeria. Supposedly in retaliation for French government support of the Mali government in the wake of last week’s terrorist attacks (by another Islamic group), Algerian Mohktar Belmohktar organized a takeover of an oil facility in the Sahara desert. He currently has approximately 340 hostages from multiple nations including the UK, USA, Japan, and Algerian nationals (per the BBC). Islamic terrorism has become almost a mainstay of the last two generations, and I want to offer a way to understand this phenomenon.

1979 witnessed the takeover of Iran by radical Islam. In 2001, a trans-national terrorist group launched a successful attack on US soil, a feat unperformed since the Japanese bombing on Pearl Harbor. Today in 2013 a spin-off of Al-Queda has claimed responsibility for the terrorist attacks in Mali and a different group has gained control of the oil facility in Algeria. The United States government has been engaged in a war on terror, and those terrorists have frequently belonged to a radical strand of Islamic faith. Like all who write on Islam, permit me to distinguish radical Muslims  from moderates. This distinction lies in how Muslims interpret the demands of jihad. Literally translated, the words means “struggle.” But struggle against what? Moderate Muslims would understand Jihad as a perennial struggle against personal unrighteousness, and the path to victory lies in following the demands of the Koran. Radical Muslims, however, interpret jihad as a struggle against the unrighteousness of the world, against the infidel. Just as the Muslims of the 7^th century practiced a “Convert or die!” strategy of warfare, so modern jihadists seek to convert the world to the true faith through acts of violence testifying to the truth of their convictions.

What are we to make of these jihadists who sincerely believe that their actions are right and good? First, we must understand the draw of such groups. Cultural philosopher Richard Weaver wrote that all cultures are formed around a “tyrannizing image.” Rather than the negative implications of tyranny, with this phrase Weaver sought to invoke the idea of a centrifugal force which draws all things towards itself. He contended in Visions of Order that all cultures are ways of people relating to each other being draw together by such an image. For the Christian, the tyrannizing image is that of the cross. All Christians are bound together in a culture by the centrality of the cross. Remove the death and resurrection of Christ and you have removed the central controlling truth of the Christian faith. Radical Muslims are not motivated by money, power, or geopolitical control (though these ideas may exist on the periphery). The central dominating image of Islam is found in their creed, “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet!” If this idea is true, then all other faiths must yield before it and it is the duty of believers to spread the truth. This first step towards understanding Islamic terrorism, therefore, lies in recognizing them as true believers with a powerful tyrannizing image.

Where then does that leave us as American Christians? Understanding radical Islam as centered on an absolute truth which condemns all other truths gives us both something to admire and something to mourn. There is something within the human soul which cries out for faith, for certainty, for that which cannot be questioned. Muslims answer this cry with faith in Islam. We can admire the certainty, and recognize the flow from belief to action. If they do possess the truth, then all other claims are lies and people world-wide have been dreadfully deceived.

However, while we can appreciate the sincerity of Islamic radicals, we must mourn the lie which they have believed. Countless Disney movies and other artifacts of American culture over the past decade have proclaimed the idea “Just believe in something!” The idea of faith, just faith with no specified object, is a frequent trope of many Christmas movies. In radical Islam we see men who have found a faith to believe in and which they carry to its logical end. Yet they are wrong. We cannot ignore the fact that the faith they have believed in is the wrong answer to life’s questions. They have missed the reality of God’s true and final work in the person of Jesus Christ, of His special revelation in the Bible, and his ongoing redemption of the world through the church.

 For non-Christians reading this, I would urge you to consider the different fruits born by the logical extension of both faiths. Christianity contains a missionary impulse which has given rise to the modern medical movement (with Christians carrying out the mandate of Christ to care for the sick), the imperative to care for the poor, and the modern education system. The educated extremists of the Christian faith have been monastics, bishops, pastors, and missionaries. In contrast, the radical Islam in both Iran (Kahmaini) and Saudi Arabia (the royal family), has produced cultures marked by oppressive legalism, restrictions on human nature, repression of women, and continued adherence to one of the strictest legal codes of the Ancient Near East (beheadings, torture, and stoning to name three current examples from Saudi Arabia). The extremists of Islam have dedicated to spreading the Islamic faith not by persuasion but through violence and threat of death. Rather than an ethos of redeeming the world, Islam results in the enslavement of mankind to a demonic system which claims to be the true hope of men.

How then ought we to respond to events like the bombings in Mali or the taking of hostages in Algeria? First, we ought to pray for God to deliver the captives. Secondly, we should pray for the salvation of the captors. They are men most sincerely deceived. Finally, we must understand that these are not men operating from superficial motivations but that these actions flow from deep convictions of the soul.

A Position on Alcohol

The following is a position paper I wrote for a class I'm taking at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. As part of Pastoral Ministry, I am writing 6 different position papers over the course of the semester. I chose "Alcohol" for my first topic. Just so no one is shocked, I am not opposed to Christians drinking alcohol in moderation, and that is the position I argue for in this paper. I will also add that my seminary requires abstinence while I am a student here, and I do follow that covenant. I would love to get some healthy debate going on this topic. If anyone wants to write a formal response to my position, please email it to me at josh.p.herring@gmail.com and I will post it. I'd rather get actual posts than a never ending comment stream.

A Biblical Position on Alcohol

The consumption of alcohol has been a contentious subject in the United States of America since the mid-19^th century. In the wake of technological advances in brewing which made strong liquor more available at an affordable price, coinciding with growing urbanization and industrialization, Americans moved to curb their national drinking habit. The temperance movement began as an effort to curtail excessive drinking, to encourage men to drink moderately. In light of the second Great Awakening and a growing concern for outward signs of redemption, Protestants adopted the extreme position of teetotalism with some arguing the inherent sinfulness of alcohol and other contending that total abstention constituted the wise path in life. This national movement culminated in the Prohibition amendment to the Constitution, which was eventually repealed. While the federal government and many states concluded that Americans should not be legally forbidden to drink, many Protestants hold to a conviction that Christians should not consume alcoholic beverages.

In an article titled “The Christian and Alcohol,” Richard Land and Duke Barrett, leaders of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, present the status quo position of Southern Baptists on alcohol. The authors establish a consequentialist argument for total abstention, citing cases of men abusing alcohol and the terrible results that follow. They hold to the position that Christians should never drink alcohol, and to do so hinders their witness for the gospel.[1] Written in 2008 and published in The Criswell Review, this article illustrates the pressing nature of this discussion for Southern Baptists. The International Missions Board will not appoint missionaries unless they agree to abstain from alcohol, regardless of the cultural context in which those missionaries work. The North American Missions Board holds a similar position in regards to church planting.[2] While Land and Barrett argue persuasively based on their family histories and impacts of the abuse of alcohol, they do not provide firm case of Scriptural support to uphold their view.

While historical context and the inertia of tradition have led Southern Baptists to hold a teetotaler position on alcohol, Christians should not draw their positions from culture but from the Word of God. The Bible is authoritative in all areas of life and practice, and alcohol is no exception. By first defining some terms in the alcohol discussion, then looking at the whole counsel of Scripture, several advantages to changing the status quo position on alcohol become clear.

To begin examining the biblical perspective on alcohol requires some definitional efforts. By alcohol, this paper means all forms of alcoholic beverage whether wine, beer, or liquor. Secondly, the Oxford English Dictionary offers the following definition of drunkenness: “The state of being drunk; intoxication; the habit of being drunken or addicted to excessive drinking.” It also defines the state of being as occurring in one “has drunk intoxicating liquor to an extent which affects steady self-control; intoxicated, inebriated; overcome by alcoholic liquor.” One further definitional point seems necessary. This paper will seek to avoid use of the term “alcoholic” as that implies some form of medical disease which excuses the drunk from his personal responsibility. No one reaches the state of drunkenness on accident, but rather as a result of deliberate choices. The term alcoholic allows the drunk to escape responsibility for his own actions since he has a disease.[3] 

Jesus Christ made several radical claims about sin, one of which applies to this discussion. In response to Pharisaical questioning of his disciples, Christ taught on the location of sin. “Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defiles a person.”[4] Sin does not come from external sources. As fallen human beings, people are in essence sinful. Alcohol may loosen restraints upon sin, but it in itself does not cause sin. In his classic book Witness, recovered Communist Whitaker Chambers recounts how his Party superiors forced him to become drunk so they could know his true loyalties. Alcohol may reveal the inner man, but it does not bring sin into a man’s heart; the heart is already wicked. Thus, alcohol is not innately a sinful substance.

Alcohol is present throughout the New and Old Testaments. By looking at a sampling of passages, the proper and improper usages of alcohol become clear. In John 2, Christ performs his first miracle at a wedding. The guests were a thirsty lot, and ran out of wine. Mary asked Jesus to solve the problem. He responded by turning 120-180 gallons of water set aside for purification into 120-180 gallons of “good wine.” The author’s detailing the amount of wine created and its quality is not accidental. By this miracle, John tells us, Jesus “manifested his glory.” Wine was used both in a celebratory manner as part of the wedding, but also as a way in which God demonstrated the glory of His Christ.[5] Later in the life of Christ, Jesus used the normal wine of the Passover meal to inaugurate the new covenant in His blood. During his ministry, Jesus often associated with tax collectors and sinners to the point where He was called “A glutton and a drunkard…”[6] In light of other passages of Scripture, this verse is clearly an exaggeration of how much Christ drank, but does indicate that he met people in their daily lives and joined them in drinking alcohol.

In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul writes, “Do not be drunk with wine, for that is debauchery but be filled with the Spirit…”[7] Paul does not command abstention but wisdom. Debauchery does not honor God, but wise use of his gifts does. Paul mentions wine twice in his first letter to Timothy. He writes that elders must not be drunkards, and then tells Timothy to no longer drink only water but “take a little wine for your stomach.”[8] Paul illustrates the biblical teaching about alcohol in these passages. Like all of God’s creation, there are legitimate and illegitimate to use alcohol. Followers of Christ are not called to ignore or neglect this aspect of creation but rather to learn to use it well. John’s gospel shows wine rightly used to celebrate, and Paul’s urging of Timothy illustrates alcohol’s health properties.

Paul also writes about wine in his letter to the Romans, including it in a list of legitimate issues on which Christians disagree. Paul stresses the need for those of a more robust conscience in such matters to yield their liberties for the sake of weaker brethren.[9] By setting up a contrast between weak and strong believers, Paul implies that Christians should strive to develop their consciences. As one pastor has pointed out, “We shouldn’t want to be the weaker brethren!”[10]

The Old Testament contains numerous examples of drinking alcohol. Genesis lists two occasions where drinking wine to the point of drunkenness leads to sin.[11] Isaac used wine as a symbol of Jacob’s blessing over Esau.[12] In Exodus, God lists wine as an acceptable drink offering, and in Deuteronomy an increase of wine is one of the ways in which God will bless His people.[13] Leviticus gives a prohibition – the Aaronic priesthood is forbidden from drinking wine.[14] The Pentateuch portrays wine as a substance dangerous when abused, but a blessing from God when used rightly. The priestly limitation is not normative, and is a picture of the higher calling of the priests to serve.

Psalm 104:15 provides one further commentary on wine. The psalmist writes, “You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants to grow for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth, and wine to gladden the heart of man.” The fermentation of grapes, wheat, berries, and other vegetation did not take God by surprise! This psalm indicates that God actually built this into creation so that men might enjoy life more. Martin Luther extrapolated from this idea the principle that men who struggled with depression should drink more alcohol. John Calvin took a different approach, arguing that rejecting alcohol meant one rejected the goodness of God’s creation.[15] While few today would go so far as to argue Calvin or Luther’s stance, the natural processes which result in alcohol were created by God as part of the intended order of the world for our benefit.

Scripture presents alcohol as a gift from God to be used in accordance with His wishes. It is not to be abused; Scripture clearly condemns drunkenness. It should be shunned as an inherently sinful substance. The call of Christians in regards to alcohol is the same call as to any other part of God’s creation. The Christian must learn to steward it well, to use it as God intended, and to always honor God in his enjoyment of His gift.

Based on the counsel of Scripture, this paper contends that the status quo position on alcohol is in error. The view of alcohol as a substance to legalistically avoid because of the consequences of drunkenness ignores the power of the Holy Spirit over sin, reduces all believers to the position of weaker brother, and rejects part of God’s creation intended for our joy. Rather than unquestioningly adopting a position held by our spiritual fathers as a response to their historical culture, Christians should examine the full counsel of Scripture and establish their positions on primary and secondary matters from God’s Word. This understanding of alcohol seeks to examine the question just as the believer would examine any other part of his life in culture: is this act idolatrous? Have I made an idol out of the pleasure derived from it? Does this act honor God? What does Scripture say directly about this act? Should I set this aside for the sake of another believer or for gospel witness? Asking these questions moves alcohol from a special category of consideration and restores it to a part of God’s creation which requires a response from the believer. The alcohol is not sin, but how the believer responds to such substances may involve gluttony, drunkenness, or idolatry. Rather than a legalistic abstention, the believer is left to determine how to glorify God by rightly enjoying His creation.

---

[1] Richard Land and Duke Barrett. “The Christian and Alcohol” in The Criswell Theological Review, 5/2 (Spring 2008), 19-38.

[2]This policy has resulted in a growing number of church planters going with the ACTS 29 church planting network instead of the traditional SBC institution.

[3] This argument is most effectively illustrated in the South Park show “Bloody Mary” accessible here: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s09e14-bloody-mary

[4] Matt. 15:17-20a.

[5] John 2:1-12

[6] Matt. 11:19

[7] Ephesians 5:18

[8] I Timothy 3:3, 5:23

[9] Romans 14

[10] Rev. Phillip Herring, Minister of Education at First Baptist Church of Norfolk, VA, in a personal conversation in 2011.

[11] Genesis 9, 19

[12] Genesis 27:37

[13] Exodus 29:40, Deuteronomy 7:13

[14] Leviticus 10:9-10

[15]Jim West. Drinking with Calvin and Luther: A History of Alcohol in the Church, Oakdown Publishers, 2003. West devotes a chapter each to Luther and Calvin and their perspectives on alcohol.