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 This national movement culminated in the Prohibition amendment to the Constitution, which was eventually repealed.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. 

Mitt Romney Speaking at Liberty University?

Jerry Falwell. Pat Robertson. CBN. The Family Channel. Regent University. Liberty University. Each of these terms came out of the Religious Right movement of the 1980s, and coalesced into a political movement which Ronald Reagan tapped into as the Silent Majority. Thirty years later, this movement no longer exists as a distinct political unit but the institutions remain. Liberty University, an Independent Baptist university with well over 10,000 students, adheres to a clearly Evangelical perspective on education. With rigid rules governing behavior and dress, it has become the favored school for many Evangelicals to send their children to for higher education.

Liberty University announced on their website that Mitt Romney will come to Liberty to deliver the 2012 Commencement Address. What impact does this have? Romney’s struggle in this election rests not in his politics or governmental experience, but in his religion. As a committed, unapologetic Mormon, Romney needs to convince Christians all across America he is one of them. Maybe a slightly different variety, but he is a type of Christian. After all, he talks about Jesus, God, morality, the family, and limited government. Are these enough to make him acceptable in the eyes of Christians throughout the United States? For many, speaking at a prestigious private Baptist university will go a long way in helping Romney to project a quasi-Christian image.

But let’s stop for a moment. If Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and served for years as a pastor in the Mormon church, what does he believe? First, Jesus is God’s son, along with Satan. Jesus and Satan are spirit-brothers, fighting a dualistic war. Secondly, the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri. Thirdly, until 1978, the Mormon Church officially taught that Black people were physically stained with sin. Fourth, as a good Mormon Romney should someday inherit his own planet to be god of, and if he chooses he may bring his wife along for an eternity of popping out spirit-babies to populate the planet. Fifth, the current president of the Mormon Church speaks directly to God and his revelations can completely overturn any written text the Mormon Church adheres to. Finally, Mitt Romney believes that Jesus came to America to physically rule over the Nephites and Lamenites for a 400-year period after his resurrection.

Mitt Romney believes all of this, and he is speaking to the graduates of Liberty University. At best, Liberty is helping a Republican candidate to garner support from their Evangelical base. Unfortunately, many will see this as Liberty’s endorsement of Romney and include him in their thoughts as a sort of Christian candidate for President. 

Rhetoric or Analysis: Two Different Approaches to Problematic Texts

In recent weeks, I have become a student of preaching. At some point while at seminary I will take at least one preaching course, but I have become much more attentive to preaching style and technique. In the past week, I have heard two sermons which followed very different approaches to Scripture. Both tackled difficult passages in profoundly opposite ways. 

While home in Hampton Roads this past weekend to register my wife's car with the DMV, I heard Dr. Eric Thomas preach from John 6:41-58, where Jesus describes himself as the Bread from Heaven come down to satisfy men's souls eternally. This passage contains some very difficult doctrinal statements, including Jesus' statement that "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Pastor Eric preached one of the most blunt sermons I have ever heard from him. Towards the end of his message, he told us that he intentionally did not employ any specific rhetorical devices to improve his persuasion. As a PhD with over 25 years of preaching experience, Pastor Eric can preach persuasively. With this message, however, he wanted to let the text speak for itself. He presented the gospel of Christ as Scripture did, illuminating the doctrines of election, eternal security, depravity, and grace as they were found in the text. If people felt compelled to respond, they could. He did not want anyone to make a decision about the call of Christ because of clever rhetorical tricks.

As a competitor on Hillsdale College's forensics team for 4 years, I am aware of how persuasive people can be after years of rhetorical study. I was amazed at Pastor Eric's faith in Scripture. His sermon expressed a conviction that Scripture is sufficient. The Bible does not need extra help from a persuasive pastor. The preacher of the gospel does not need to use all the tricks of an orator. 


In contrast to Pastor Eric's approach, I heard a second sermon this week. This speaker had impeccable credentials reflecting years of spiritual education and experience. He, however, employed an opposite method. His text was Genesis 38, possibly the most difficult passage in Genesis. This story involves Judah fathering a child on his daughter-in-law after she married three of his sons successively following the custom of Levirate marriage. The preacher spent the first section of his sermon establishing the context and reading the passage. He then transitioned into a hermaneutical discussion about authorial intent, and how we should read this passage as a contrast between Judah and Joseph. To explain how we should not be quick to judge Judah as bad and Jospeh as good, he spent 15 minutes telling the story of a German Jew who first developed the process of nitrogen soil enrichment but later invented mustard gas for the Germans during WWI. The preacher's point was that we cannot simply declare this man good or bad, since he had both positive and negative contributions to the modern world. He then concluded his message by pointing out that Christ came from the tribe of Judah.


As my recounting of his sermon may reveal, I was underimpressed with his handling of a difficult passage. What I want to emphasize, however, is his presentation. Throughout his sermon, this preacher used impeccable poise, gestures, voice inflection, and emphasis. He had the entire chapel enthralled with his emotional stories, and is the only preacher I have yet witnessed at Southeastern to sit down to fervent applause. His treatment of Scripture, however, was not thoroughly gospel-centric. He did not, in my opinion, do justice to the difficuly of this passage. His use of rhetoric, however, covered for superficial analysis. I walked away from his message understanding more about how mustard gas came to exist than how Genesis 38 ties into the overall narrative of the gospel.


In these two different messages, I see two opposite approaches to preaching Scripture. The first preacher made a conscious effort to preach difficult doctrines and let them stand on their own. He did not cover them in sermon illustrations but rather created an environment where the Bible could speak for itself. The second preacher chose a difficult passage, and his credentials formed an expectation that he would offer a deep analysis of a problematic passage. His sermon is memorable not for the scripture he preached but for his emotional illustrations and excellent rhetoric. As I train to someday pastor a church, it is my hope that I will be remembered for preaching scripture, and not for my own rhetorical skill.

What the Future Holds...

From time time, I am taken with the thought that there are men a few years ahead of me who know things I do not know and who have walked where I am walking or where I shall soon walk.  Each season of life has some surprises that if I had looked far enough ahead or consulted someone ahead of me, I might have seen coming and prepared for in a better fashion.

Consider some to the following scenarios...
Retirement Savings - when you are in your first career job in your early 20's putting money aside for retirement seems impossible, but later in life you learn the value of time related to compounding interest and why it would have been a great idea to have let your money work for you over time instead of trying hard to play catch up when it feels too late.

Life Insurance - again, in those young years many cannot see how inexpensive life insurance is when they are young and healthy only to discover later in life that increasing costs and matters like insurability matter.

Weight Loss and Gain...Who knew in those early years of marriage how metabolism would slow when you go past 40 and how easy the pounds add up over the years? ...then how much work it would be to take them off.  I was amazed to learn on this journey that taking it off was 80-85% portion control and diet and only 15-20% exercise.  It is hard to know what you don't know.  All of us can use others around us to help us learn what we don't know.

Taxes...this was my eye opener while visiting the tax man yesterday.  Heads up to a few of you reading this.  If you have children, the year they turn 17, you lose your child tax credit - that's a considerable amount of money.  When they marry, you lose  another deduction - not so surprising, but I as surprised to learn that with a son marrying in December of 2011, the net result would be the loss of the HOPE Education Tax credit as well for college expenses paid in 2010.  WOW!  I never considered the impact of a few days on the tax bill.  I am not sure that my additional taxes will eliminate the national debt, but I will certainly feel a pinch in the pocketbook. (even with all of that, we would not change a thing regarding a beautiful December wedding and a delightful, Godly daughter in law!)

What else is coming?  I am turning 50 this year!  I am interested in  learning from some of those ahead of me what I might look for in the next decade.  Proverbs 13:20 says, "He who walks with the wise, will be wise; the companion of fools will suffer harm."

Voddie Baucham Supports Ron Paul

Several years ago I heard Voddie Baucham speak at a Vision Forum conference at the Ridgecrest Conference Center. He spoke on his vision for the family based model of church, and I recently learned he earned his PhD from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. I have reposted his blogpost (from his blog Here) about why he supports Ron Paul because Paul intrigues me. Baucham does not seem bothered by Ron Paul's Libertarian ideology. I am still faced with a question after reading this post: can a Christian embrace all aspects of Libertarian politics and philosophy?

"Voddie, because I have a great respect for you and your opinion I would really like to know why you are voting for Ron Paul ? I have not liked some of the things I have heard him say and I am wondering if I missed something?" -Pamela Wolfe (via Facebook Fan Page)

Since posting a passing comment on my Facebook fan page about Ron Paul, I have been inundated with questions and concerns about my support of the Texas Congressman in the current Republican Primary race. In one of my many political posts (frequently, I post videos, news articles, etc., in an effort to show the importance and influence of worldview), I simply stated that I voted for Dr. Paul in the last election, and planned to vote for him again.

The result was hundreds of comments; more than any other post I’ve ever submitted. Most of the comments were positive. However, several were extremely negative. Some vowed never to follow, or support my ministry any further, while others simply communicated their dismay. Still others, like today's questioner, just asked honest questions. As a result, I’ve decided to explain my position, and this seemed like the best place to do it.

Let me say ahead of time that I do not believe that politics will save America. Nor do I believe there are any perfect candidates. There never have been, and there never will be. Moreover, it is not my goal to answer every objection to the Paul candidacy as I know that there are those who, for various reasons, will not be persuaded, and more importantly, that’s not my job. My goal here is to offer insight in to my own reasoning as I wade through another political season and make a personal choice.

I. Ron Paul is a Christian Conservative

While I am not looking for a “Pastor-in-Chief,” it is important to me that the man for whom I cast my vote be a Christian, if at all possible. And though I recognize that there is not always a clear Christian choice (i.e., the 2008 election), I agree with Chief Justice John Jay who wrote, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."[1] For indeed, “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe.”[2] John Witherspoon concurs: “Those, therefore, who pay no regard to religion and sobriety in the persons whom they send to [public office] are guilty of the greatest absurdity and will soon pay dear for their folly.”[3] I think we are seeing this on display right now.[4]

My desire is not to see a president who will usurp the authority, responsibilities, or privileges of the Church. However, I do not wish to see those things hindered either. I also want to know that the foundational ideology motivating a man’s decisions is biblical. I know it will not always mirror my own, but I trust God’s word, and appreciate those who look to it for aid in making decisions. To that end, I support Dr. Paul because he is not just a conservative, but a Christian Conservative.

Dr. Paul does not beat his Christian faith like a drum in his public/political life. Unfortunately, that is off-putting for the “Christian Right”. However, in a world full of ‘posturing’ in an effort to win over evangelicals, I find Paul’s public demeanor refreshing. And it is not as though he is a ‘closet Christian,’ either. “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate,” wrote Paul on his Web site.[5] I have also had the privilege of talking with both him, and one of his five children about his faith and how it influences his policy positions.

Nevertheless, the more important aspect is the fact that this Southern Baptist (raised Lutheran) is a regular church attender. What would motivate a man to attend church, but not beat a drum about it in an effort to win over evangelicals in an age when political figures play at Christianity (while living totally contradictory lives, and holding heterodox beliefs) in order to assuage the fears of the Christian Right? Having met and talked to Dr. Paul, I would say it is authenticity, and humility more than anything else. He wants “to avoid any appearance of exploiting [his faith] for political gain.”[6]

II. Ron Paul is a Constitutional Conservative

Not only is Ron Paul a Christian Conservative; he is also a Constitutional Conservative. He holds himself accountable to the Constitution of the United States, even when it means he has to vote against legislation that may be otherwise beneficial. This has cost him on numerous occasions as people use the “Ron Paul voted against so-and-so” tactic to paint a caricature of him and play “gotcha” politics.
This is actually an important quality in a President. I don’t want a man in the White House making decisions based on what “feels” right. I’m not looking for a conscientious King; I want a Chief Executive. I want a man whose decisions are predictable because of a long track record of constitutional conservatism. I may not always agree with a man like that, but I will always know why he did what he did, and I can live with that. Especially in several crucial areas facing our Republic, like money, war, States’ Rights, and foreign policy, for example.

Constitutional Money

I support Ron Paul because he has a constitutional view of money. He is the only candidate consistently to confront the Federal Reserve Bank (which is not federal, has no reserves, and is not a bank), and address the issue of fiat currency (a.k.a. unjust weights and measures; Lev 19:36; Prov 16:11), which debases the dollar, manipulates business cycles, creates inflation, and always benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised. And he talks about the issue in just those terms.

Congressman Paul is also the only candidate who has a budget that will cut a TRILLION DOLLARS in spending in year one.[7] He is the only candidate who has committed to defund and eliminate expensive, unconstitutional agencies. This is crucial for a country headed for an economic cliff. Our debt is larger than our GDP and we simply must address it NOW (Luke 14:28)! This is arguably the most important issue we face, and while others want to tinker with the status quo, Dr. Paul wants to do the hard thing; the right thing; the biblical thing; the constitutional thing.

Constitutional War

I support Ron Paul because he is a military veteran (yup... he refuses to beat that drum too, which is why you may not have known that little tidbit). And though I do not believe it is necessary for a man to have served in the military for him to serve as President, the fact that Congressman Paul knows and hates war lends credibility to his desire and commitment to ending the wars and bringing our troops home. Moreover, he has a constitutional understanding of war (only Congress can send us to war), and a Christian commitment to historic Just War Theory (rooted in the Sixth Commandment... HIS WORDS).[8] He, unlike other candidates, can be counted on not to commit to acts of war without congressional authority (i.e., unilaterally deciding to bomb a sovereign nation if they advance their weapons technology in a region several thousand miles away from the U.S., under the watchful eye of a nation with over 300 nukes who can stop them in a heartbeat... but I digress).

There is a reason Dr. Paul has received more support from members of the military than all other candidates (Republican and Democrat) COMBINED! The top three employers of Ron Paul’s donors are the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, respectively. Dr. Paul will not use our military to hunt down and overthrow heads of state without Congressional authority (i.e., Libya), kill American citizens without warrant,[9] detain citizens indefinitely without benefit of a trial,[10] or chase warlords in central Africa.[11] When it comes to war, Dr. Paul understands that, “Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears.” (Proverbs 26:17)

Constitutional States’ Rights

I support Ron Paul because he not only understands, but believes in the Tenth Amendment. I know many Christians have been scared off by the “Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs, gay marriage, and abortion” rhetoric. However, looking beyond the rhetoric reveals Paul’s true constitutional conservatism (and biblical understanding of jurisdiction). He has personal convictions, but those will not be allowed to steer him away from his constitutional oath. The presidency, and the Federal Government have limits.

The President is not “Pastor in Chief.” It is not the President’s job (or the job of the Federal Government) to set such policies. The “War on Drugs,” for example, has been a monumental, unconstitutional, fiscal failure (to the tune of more than $3 BILLION)![12] The Federal Government must be held within the confines of its enumerated powers. This is important for Christians because we will not always have people in the White House with whom we agree (in fact, politicians will always let us down). What happens when we send a man to the White House with the express purpose of “changing the moral standards” of America in our favor, then, down the line we have a president who uses the same un-cheked powers to promote moral standards with which we disagree? How’s that workin’ for ya’?

But what about the moral issues to which we, as Christians, must speak? First, we must speak to them at the local level. I have no right to look to Washington, D.C. for remedies when I am not preaching on Mars Hill at every opportunity. The Roe v. Wade, for example, started in Texas; not D.C.. Furthermore, there is not a single institution more prolific in the spread of moral decay than the government education system, and Ron Paul is the only man who plans to get the federal government out of that business by ending the (unconstitutional) Department of Education IMMEDIATELY (Luke 6:40).

Beyond that, if there are issues we wish to address on a federal level, we have a federal remedy, and it is not the election of a President; it is the amendment process. This is less favorable to those who do not wish to do the hard work of changing hearts and minds in the marketplace of ideas. However, the alternative is a quasi-monarchy (or oligarchy) that changes with the wind, and a view of the presidency that is both unbiblical and unconstitutional.

Constitutional Foreign Policy

I support Ron Paul because he has a constitutional view of foreign policy. Ironically, our foreign policy has been so unconstitutional for so long that many people recoil at the idea of getting it back in line. Moreover, the semantic game Paul’s opponents play (using “isolationism” as opposed to “non-intervention” to define his position) doesn’t help. For most Christians, this is where they believe I’ve left the reservation. They may not say, “We have to be the world’s police force,” but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard, “Do you know his position on Israel?” “Surely you can’t support a man who doesn’t support Israel!”

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Ron Paul does support Israel. It is our current foreign policy that does not support Israel! However, there is a deeper issue here. There is a sort of misplaced Dispensationalism that governs people’s sentimental attitude toward Israel. Let me state clearly that I do not believe the Bible demands that the U.S. support Israel. I do, however, believe that it is wise to do so for geopolitical reasons. To do so for theological reasons, I believe, is actually misguided, and quite dangerous. Nevertheless, Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East, and that is important.

But there’s a more important question: “What does it mean to “support” Israel?” Does it mean that Israel remains God’s “Chosen People,” and we must stand with them in anticipation of the coming Armageddon? Is the President to act as “Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces” and “Supreme Defender of Israel”? Or are we simply to make sure the foreign aid dollars don’t stop flowing? Here are a few things I took into to consideration in evaluating Congressman Paul’s foreign policy.

1. Israel is the most powerful nation in the Middle East... BY A LONG SHOT! In fact, Israel could potentially defeat all the other military powers in the Middle East simultaneously if they had to.
2. We not only give money to Israel; we give money to their enemies as well. That is not supporting Israel! That is using money to buy influence in a region thousands of miles away from us in the name of oil, when we happen to have the largest repository of oil on planet earth right here in the US, but refuse to go and get it (in the name of Earth-worshipping environmentalism)!
3. Israel is a sovereign nation, and we have no right to treat her like a child. Our foreign aid has been a tool used to influence Israel’s domestic policy for far too long. If we are their friends, we should allow them to exercise their sovereignty without our interference, and certainly without our condemnation. Who do we think we are? No, I disagree with my Christian brothers and sisters who think a country who supports Israel’s enemies, interferes with Israel’s domestic policy, condemn’s Israel in efforts to keep ties with oil-rich countries in the region, and helps to destabilize and radicalize one of Israel’s historic foes lurking on her southern boarder is engaging in a foreign policy that supports Israel.

III. Ron Paul is a Consistent Conservative

Finally, I support Dr. Paul because he has been a consistent conservative. He has been married to the same woman for more than fifty years; delivered over 4,000 babies as an OB; never performed a single abortion; has never voted for an unbalanced budget, a tax increase, or a bailout; forecasted the economic debacle long before it happened;[13] and gave back $140,000 last year through his office to pay down the national debt (100,000 in 2010). This man is so principled that he refuses to claim his congressional pension!

Ron Paul is the real deal. He is not perfect. He needs a savior just like you and I do (as noted by his trust in Christ as his redeemer). But when it’s all said and done, he is a man with whom I agree in principle. I know where he’s coming from, and it’s not based on his “personal story,” or his sense of what’s going to get him elected. It’s the same thing he’s been running on (and governing from) for over three decades; the Constitution of the United States (viewed through the lens of a basic biblical world and life view). And I’m glad to support a man like that.

______________________________________________________________________________

For a better understanding of Voddie's view of Christians and Politics: Listen to this sermon series on Romans 13.

For more information on the role of the Bible in Politics, purchase this book by Wayne Grudem

_______________________________________________________________________________

[1] The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., New York: Burt Franklin, 1970, 4:393 [to John Murray, Jr., October 12, 1816].

[2] The Papers of James Madison, Robert Rutland, ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973, Vol. 8, pp. 299, 304, June 20, 1785; cited in Barton, p. 120.

[3] Witherspoon, Works, Edinburgh, J. Ogle, 1815, IV:266-67, from "A Sermon Delivered at a Public Thanksgiving after Peace."

[4] I realize that President Obama professes Christianity. However, his theology, as well as the theology of the church he attended for more than twenty years is heterodox (committed to neo-marxist, Black Liberation Theology. There is little in his worldview that commends his profession of faith.

[5] http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-of-faith/

[6] Ibid.

[7] http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

[8] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o

[9] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/501364/main20113732.shtml

[10] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama

[11] http://allafrica.com/view/group/main/main/id/00014859.html

[12] http://actionamerica.org/drugs/wodclock.shtml

[13] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o

Matthew 2: Jesus' Birth Demands a Response

In reading Matthew 2 this morning, I was struck by the two opposite reactions taken to the birth of Christ. First, the wise men worshiped. Often portrayed as astrologers from the east, these men were so observant of God's creation that they witnessed God's sign in the heavens, and took action. Not content to simply observe God's work, they felt compelled to travel and discover the wondrous thing God was doing in their midst. Matthew does not indicate that they knew exactly who this person was they sought; "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?" does not necessarily reveal a knowledge of Christ's saving mission. They understood, however, that something astonishing was happening, and that they needed to respond. How often does God do wondrous things in our midst, and we simply do not pay attention? The wise men reminded me this morning that I should constantly be looking to see how God is working, and that work compels a worshipful response.

Secondly, Herod responded in anger. Herod was faced with an opportunity.  Three wise men came from a great distance and brought him word of a newborn king whose birth has been marked by a new star appearing in the heavens. Ethnically half Jewish, King Herod immediately understood the significance of this star, asking his priests where the Christ was to be born. After learning that Bethlehem was the prophesied location, Herod could have dropped everything, abandoning his crown and responsibilities, and raced to worship the newborn messiah. Instead, he turned from worship to eventual murder. Herod reminded me of a young man I met this past semester in Greensboro, North Carolina. This man had been a firm believer in Christianity, and yet he turned his back on it and embraced an angry, militant agnosticism. Not content simply to reject the faith of his family, he felt compelled to angrily debate any Christian who would engage him with the intent of tearing down his opponent's faith. Herod was not content to leave Christ alone, but sent soldiers to Bethlehem in an effort to kill the babe. There is something about Jesus that forces people to respond to his existence. One cannot easily ignore Him. His existence compels either worship, or vehemence. When confronted with a sign confirming the birth of the Messiah, the wise men worshiped while Herod murdered. Today, will you respond to Christ in worship or anger? 

On our doorstep...

This was on our doorstep this morning. We saw it as Josh was leaving for work. It is from one of the girls you live next door. I find the phonetic spelling of my name quite endearing.

God's Roadmap to Happiness!

¹ Blessed is the man
   who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, 
nor stands in the way of sinners, 
   nor sits in the seat of scoffers; 
² but his delight is in the law of the LORD, 
   and on his law he meditates day and night.

 ³ He is like a tree
   planted by streams of water
that yields its fruit in its season,
   and its leaf does not wither.
In all that he does, he prospers.
⁴ The wicked are not so,
   but are like chaff that the wind drives away.

 ⁵ Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
   nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous;
⁶ for the LORD knows the way of the righteous,
   but the way of the wicked will perish.

Pastor Tom Mercer of Christ Covenant Church surprised and convicted me yesterday. Psalm 1 was his text, and he began by discussing happiness and every man's desire for it. Pastor Mercer took a different approach from other preaching on happiness. Quoting Pascal's Pensees, Jonathan Edwards, and Jeremy Taylor, he built a case for historical Christian leaders being concerned with happiness. After adding the fact that God commands us to be happy 28 times within the Psalms, Mercer moved into his text.

Psalm 1 begins with the attainability of blessing, of happiness. We can reach it, but the question is how? The first step Pastor Mercer outlined was to avoid the wrong path. To live a happy life, we must avoid the world's influences. He asked "Who influences you? From where do draw your understanding of community, life, goodness, truth, beauty?" If your understanding of these things come from the world, happiness is impossible. 

In contrast to worldly influence, Mercer drew a connection I had neverbefore made. When the psalmist writes "his delight is in the law of the LORD," I had always understood this verse to describe detailed descriptive law of the Old Testament. Pastor Mercer explained that the word used for law, Torah, literally means instruction. His delight is found in the instruction of God. We are to meditate, to groan over, to continually ponder, to mull over, the instruction of God. "Day and night" describes the continual nature of meditation.

From these definitions, Mercer built his persuasive case. Happiness is tied to our literally delighting in the instruction of God. Rather than reading the Bible as a duty, or as a means of gathering data, we must literally delight in it. We should draw joy from our study of God's Word. Mercer then asked "how should a New Testament believer read this?" According to Luke 24, all of the law and prophets point forward to Christ. Christ is the fulfillment of God's instruction. Therefore, we draw our delight from studying Christ, from seeing how the Old Testament points forward to Christ. This is the source of our happiness and joy. As we meditate on Christ, on the overwhelming goodness of God, on his holiness, on His coming kingdom, on His indwelling Spirit, our very lives overflow with joy.

He concluded his message by describing what a life rooted in the Word of God looks like as portrayed by the rest of the Psalm. The person who delights in the instruction of God is like a tree well rooted able to withstand the trials and storms of life, bearing fruit for others, filled with perspective and certainty flowing from their meditations on Christ. As we commit to delighting in God's instruction each day, as we nourish the inner man, ministry and grace flow out of us to everyone we encounter.

To live a happy life, we must delight in the instruction of God. Rather than reading the Bible as a dry book out of duty, we should delight in meditating on the richness of God's revelation.

Having Something to Say

Joshua inspired this adventure of reading, writing and publishing. Having served four different churches in pastoral ministry positions in three states over the past 30 years, I have come to value an economy of words.  There are many people on the web today posting many words.  With so much available to read, and time being so valuable, I hope to limit my words to the times when I truly have something to say.  This blog will be a  platform for a discussion of many topics including recent reading, ministry ideas and opportunities, current events and what God's Word may have to say about any and all of these.  I will seek to be brief and to the point!  I will also seek to give my near 50 year old perspective to many of Josh's mid 20's perspective.

Beginnings

While a student at Hillsdale College, I failed to appreciate how unique a community resides there. After moving to North Carolina, beginning seminary studies, and finding a job, I am even more impressed with the rarity of the kind of thinking Hillsdale taught me to appreciate. I want this blog to be a place where I can share my thoughts about the world, the books I am reading, the people who continue to influence me, and how these all interact with my Hillsdale education. Dr. Darryl Hart once said that he tries to write for 15 minutes a day, and that habit has led to his extensive list of books and articles. I hope to cultivate such a habit. This blog, however, is not mine alone. Though I had the idea for it, my father will be the co-author. A Southern Baptist minister for nearly 30 years, Phillip Herring brings a wealth of practical ministerial wisdom to this blog that I at the age of 23 can only aspire to. Blog posts from me will include regularly observations from seminary classes, summaries of noteworthy sermons preached at seminary and at Christ Covenant Church of Raleigh, book reviews, occasional historical meanderings, alongside thoughts inspired as by reading through the works of Richard Weaver. As for what Dad intends to write, he will spell that out in his own introductory post. We want this blog to be a place of discussion and debate, and invite you to join us as we think about the world in which God has placed us.

A Response to the Popularity of Jefferson Bethke's Latest video about Jesus and Religion

Jefferson Bethke is back, and this time with a more controversial poetry video. His “Jesus is Greater than Religion” has gone viral, posted I don’t know how many times on my facebook page. I have noticed an interesting element of these re-postings, however. One group of postings comes from a more evangelical leaning group from Southern Baptist circles, while my more reformed friends and those from Catholic and Orthodox denomination repost it with critiques in mind. Bethke certainly reveals his West coast Christianity concerned with social justice. He critiques the church generally, however, for not being concerned with issues of social justice.

This past week I read, for the first time, Dorothy Sayers’ classic essay “The Lost Tools of Learning,” and this essay from the 1940s has some implications for Bethke. Sayers’ wrote,

Have you ever followed a discussion in the newspapers or elsewhere and noticed how frequently writers fail to define the terms they use? Or how often, if one man does define his terms, another will assume in his reply that he was using the terms in precisely the opposite sense to that in which he has already defined them? Have you ever been faintly troubled by the amount of slipshod syntax going about? And, if so, are you troubled because it is inelegant or because it may lead to dangerous misunderstanding?

Throughout his rapping/speaking/poetry, Bethke uses the word religion. Not once does he offer a definition of this term. In his Road to Emmaus blog post, Father Demack explains “ that religion is actually a rather great word, once you look inside it. It’s from Latin, and (at least in its etymological parts) it literally (and yes, I mean literally literally) means “reconnection” (re + ligio). Is that what you mean Jesus came to abolish? I had gotten the impression that reconnection was actually the purpose of His coming.” Father Demack has written a thorough critique of this video from both a literary and theological standpoint.

Bethke’s approach to religion has become increasingly popular, and is one reason for the popularity of his poor poetry. Religion has become a dirty word within emergent and seeker friendly church circles. Where Christians of previous generations understood their religion as way of understanding their duties to God owed out of gratitude for their salvation, today many hear “religion” and think of Pharisees and legalism. The danger of Bethke’s message lies in its lack of definition. If he used hypocrisy when he means hypocrisy, fine. By using religion indiscriminately, Bethke permits his viewers to quickly interpret his message as an attack on the institutional church. While he protests that he loves the church, his lack of definition and overall tone work to tear down the church he claims to love.

My father, Phillip Herring, preached a sermon related to this topic on New Year’s day, 2012. Entitled “The Church in 2012: Value and Identity,” he worked from Ephesians 5 and Romans 12,  addressing the value of the church and the literal impossibility of claiming to love Jesus while refusing to value the very things He values. Christ died for the Church, and is returning for her. Christians should love the church, and consequently the religion which the church teaches. Christians should not be the first to criticize the church’s failings but rather jump to her defense.

Christianity is a religion. It has specific teachings based in a written text which are espoused by a global institution, the church. Bethke attempts to separate Jesus from the religion, but the things he criticizes do not belong to religion, but rather to sinful humanity living in hypocrisy. While on first hearing, his poetry seems to cater to Christians seeking a humble recognition of sin within the church, it actually lends itself to an attack on the Bride of Christ.

Having just married my bride less than a month ago, I can hardly imagine my listening to similar remarks about marriage and specifically my new wife without coming to her defense personally and to a greater degree to the defense of the institution of marriage. Criticism comes easy for all, however well thought out reasoned defense for the church today requires  greater thought and time. How does this video edify and build up the body of Christ?   Maybe a better  video would be “Saved is Better than Lost” of “Life is Better than Death.”  Now that’s a statement I could support!