A Case Study in How Fundamentalists Can Kill a Convention (Part 2)

During the aftermath of Peter Lumpkin's ridiculous post about Southeastern Theological Seminary and Peter's baseless accusation of a problem with rampant "drunkenness" on the campus of SEBTS, Dr. Danny Akin, the President of SEBTS, signed in to "comment" (comment #113) on Peter's baseless post. Dr. Akin was gracious but firm in his denial of Peter's charges. Peter Lumpkins responded to Dr. Akin by writing:

"Dr. Akin did not really address the main point of the two posts I’ve written."

I find that statement ironic since Peter invited me to debate him on the subject, but subsequently deleted every single one of my comments. Peter did not have the ability to delete Dr. Akin's comment, so he simply dismissed Dr. Akin as someone who "did not really address the main point of the two posts I've written." So,I will dialogue for a moment on Peter's assumptions in a place where he cannot delete what I write.

Question: What is the "main point" of Peter Lumpkins' posts? Here it is in Peter's own words:

Main Point:  "When one makes the consumption of intoxicants for pleasurable purposes, a consumption of which is widely accepted within our culture, into a mere unimportant, insignificant third-tier, non-gospel-centered, libertarian, amoral issue, what under the blue sky do you think is going to happen?"

Peter is perturbed that some faculty members and administrators at SEBTS have either taught moderation of alcohol from the Bible and/or have invited speakers to the seminary who hold to personal "moderation." Peter believes they are not only wrong, but they pose a danger to the SBC. To Peter and Southern Baptists of his ilk, total abstinence is a first-tier, gospel-centered, foundational moral issue. You either agree with his position of total abstinence, which is the ONLY "official" Southern Baptist position, or you are "immoral." If one dares teach "moderation" as the biblical position, as some professors at SEBTS do, then one can expect the sin of drunkenness to be rampant on the campus among the students.

Wade's response  to Peter's main point - Hogwash.

Let me be clear. What is hogwash is not Peter's personal conviction for total abstinence. I respect that and affirm him in it. What is hogwash is Peter's demand that every Southern Baptist conform to his interpretation of Scripture and accuse those who don't, as in the case of some at Southeastern, as immoral Christians or at best on the verge of rampant immorality. That kind of condemning spirit is legalism; or it could be called Fundamentalism with a capital "F."

Dr. Gresham Mechan, the great conservative Biblical scholar was once asked if he considered himself a "Fundamentalist" or liked being called a "Fundamentalist." Listen to his response:

"I regret my being called by a term that I greatly dislike, a "Fundamentalist?" Most certainly I do. (Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen, p. 337).

John Piper gives seven reasons why Machen never spoke of himself as a Fundamentalist. To Dr. Machen, Fundamentalism meant. . .

(1). The absence of historical perspective;
(2). The lack of appreciation of scholarship;
(3). The substitution of brief, skeletal creeds for the historic confessions;
(4). The lack of concern with precise formulation of Christian doctrine;
(5). The pietistic, perfectionist tendencies (i.e., hang-ups with smoking, drinking alchohol, etc . . );
(6). One-sided otherworldliness (i.e., a lack of effort to transform the culture), and,
(7). A penchant for futuristic chiliasm (or: premillennialism).

The SBC should avoid Fundamentalism. It will kill us. We should never take third-tier issues of fellowship and place them in the first-tier category. I have written before on the freedom Christians should give one another on the issue of alcohol consumption. The Biblical command is to "abstain from drunkenness." Whether someone in the Southern Baptist Convention drinks wine, or beer, or alcohol--unless it is a violation of the law (such as "underage drinking" or "drunkenness")--should be none of our business.

The "main point" of Peter Lumpkins should be vociferously resisted by all Southern Baptists, vocally and in writing, because if the spirit of Peter Lumpkins is allowed to become the predominant and prevalent spirit of the SBC, our great Convention will die a slow death as it is strangled by Fundamentalism. Remember, the issue is NOT whether or not someone should be free to follow a personal conviction to abstain from alcohol, but the issue is whether or not one's personal conviction should be forced onto the entire Convention. Fundamentalism says it should.

God says it shouldn't (Col. 2:16; I Cor. 10:31; I Timothy 5:23 ).

In His Grace,

Wade

Good News for the Chemically Dependent and Those Who Love Them

Jeff VanVonderen is both a personal friend and television reality show star. He is the professional interventionist on the Emmy award winning show Invtervention. Jeff has spoken at our church several times, but his ongoing ministry to the people of our community comes in the form of his bestselling book Good News for the Chemically Dependent and Those Who Love Them. For all the pastors, counselors, teachers and family members who read this blog and know people who struggle with chemical addictions, there is no better written resource to help addicts understood the source of their problem and to find recovery than Jeff's book. We keep dozens of the books in stock in our church office and give them away almost as fast as we order them. Our Celebrate Recovery Ministry is introducing us to people that we would otherwise not know, and Jeff's book has been a great tool and resource for this ministry for our church as a whole.

I've been re-reading the book, and a passage from Chapter 1 reminded me why it is such a great resource for Christians who work with the chemically dependent. I quote from portions of the pertinent text to give you a sense of the power of the book to expose the real cause of chemical addictions.

Chemical dependency is a problem that has reached epidemic proportions in our society. There is no typical alcoholic or chemically dependent person. If it had the power to choose whom it would affect, chemical dependency would not be very good at distinguishing between the rich or poor, young or old, black or white, male or female, white- or blue-collar worker. Holding a religious view that prohibits alcohol use proves no more effective in the area of preventing chemical-related problems than holding a liberal view. Why not? Because alcohol and drugs are not the cause, only a symptom of what runs much deeper.

In Mark 7:15 Jesus said, "There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him." If Jesus is right in this passage, why are so many families and churches characterized by a "barriers" approach to preventing "defilement?" That is, telling people how bad it is for them to drink this, eat that, or go there, making a rule against it, trying to make them good rule-followers. This represents such an inadequate view of health. Just because a person avoids or stops using chemicals and goes out for football or band does not mean he or she is a healthy person. Attendance at church instead of the local bar is no the same as health either. Yet, so much of the effort put forth in families and churches is toward extinguishing one behavior and rewarding another.

Jesus' statement confronts all of our efforts to solve or prevent problems by avoiding something that does not have the power to cause the problem in the first place. What a waste of time! This approach urges us to define health in terms of outside behavior instead of inside fullness. It provides no help or support once a person has broken through the barrier. It simply does not address the cause of the problem.

So what is the cause? It is seeking life from idols. At first glance, my answer to that question might seem so "religious" as to be of no use at all. This is hardly the case. The truth is that this concept, whcih we have too long seen as purely theological, has many very practical ramifications in our lives. I believe that at the heart of all harmful dependencies is the issue of idolatry. A grasp of this concept is essential as a foundation for understanding the processes of chemical dependency and codependency, or, for that matter, any unhealthy dependencies. Let me explain idolatry.

Remember the account of the Garden of Eden in the book of Genesis? It tells of God's creation of Adam and Eve. God was their source and sustainer. He placed them in relationships (with Himself and each other) and in an environment in which all of their needs were met. This is much of what I believe God meant whenHe said, "This is very good." There was a tree in the garden which was off-limits. Genesis 2:17 says, "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." They ate and they died.

Man lost life in the Garden of Eden.

Understanding death and life is not really so difficult. It is like darkness and light. Darkness is not the opposite of light; it is the absence of light. The way to be in the light is not by trying hard not to be in the dark. It is by coming into or turning on a light. Death is not the opposite of life; it is the absence of life. The way to have life is not by trying hard not to be dead. It is by coming to what can give life.

"I have come that you may have life" (John 10:10); "I am the bread of life" (John 6:48); "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25); and "I am the way, the truth and the life" (John 14:6). Why did Jesus come bringing life? Because we did not have it. Romans 5:12 says that "death spread to all men, because all sinned" To argue whether we are dead becasue Adam sinned or because we sin misses the point. The point is that we all lack life.

Anything besides God to which we run, positive or negative, in order to find life, value, and meaning is idolatry; money, property, jewels, sex, clothes, church buildings, educational degrees, anything! Because of Christ's performance on the cross, life, value, and purpose are available to us in gift form only. Anything we do, positive or negative, to earn that which is life by our own performance is idolatrous; robbing a bank, cheating on our spouse, people-pleasing, swindling our employer, attending church, giving 10 percent, playing the organ for twenty years, anything! Addiction is the ulitmate end of idolatry.

 When people look to anything other than Christ for life, they will eventually find ultimate dissatisfaction. Alcohol and drugs dull or mask the inner dysfunction, and soon they become the substitute for life from Christ. Anyone who uses a chemical, or a hobby, or religion, or food in order alter one's mood is addicted. Only when one comes to know, to trust, and to love the fullness of life that Christ brings will the ultimate solution to the idolatry behind addictions be found. This small post gives the reader just a taste of Jeff VanVonderen's book Good News for the Chemically Dependent and Those Who Love Them. I would urge readers of Grace and Truth to You to purchase a copy for yourself. You will find yourself reading, learning--and giving it away to help someone you love.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

The Irony and Humor of Teaching What the Bible Actually Says About Alcohol

Dr. Randy Jaeggli is Professor of Old Testament at Bob Jones University. Last year Dr. Jaeggli published a paperback book entitled The Christian and Drinking where he examined all of the verses in the Bible dealing with alcohol. Dr. Jaeggli's personal conclusion, as one would expect, was that every Christian should totally abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages. However, his scholarly and academic conclusion was a tad different. He wrote that the Bible itself does not command abstinence. Indeed, Dr. Jaeggli points out several places in the sacred text which seem to imply that alcohol is associated with some positive Christian values or serve as a metaphor for foundational Christian truths. He personally advocates total abstinence but writes the Bible prohibits excessive drinking only. To the horror of some fundamentalists, Dr. Jaeggli writes convincingly that Jesus turned the water into actual alcoholic wine at Canaan. An excellent review of Dr. Jaeggli's book is given by Jonathan Taylor.

Yesterday, a blogger going by the name Ektachrome made me aware of an email sent by the President of Bob Jones University a couple of months ago. The email read:

The sensitivity and complexity of the topic of (Dr. Jaeggli's) book, combined with the brevity and inductive arrangement of it, have caused confusion for some readers. They have concluded from some select portions of the text that Dr. Jaeggli condones a Christian’s moderate use of alcohol, which is the opposite of what the book actually teaches.

I'm not sure about the confusion to which the President refers. Dr. Jaeggli was quite clear he personally advocated abstinence. Could it be that his impartial, scholarly, and conservative approach to the sacred text brought about the confusion? Could it be that some readers realized that the good professor's convictions went beyond the commandments of Scripture? In other words, did people read his book and become clear about what the Bible actually says about the subject, but confused about the grounds for total abstinence for every Christian?

It seems the President's email didn't slow the firestorm over the book. Now, Bob Jones University has pulled the book from its shelves, and has decided to no longer make it available to the public. Hmmmm.

Now, if you wish to purchase the little $10.95 paperback you will have to shell out $999.00 to Amazon for the privilege.

Laughing,

Wade Burleson

Total Abstinence from Alcohol Is The Only Solution for the Christian Who Cannot Abstain from Drunkenness

John Gill (1697-1771) is considered by historians as the finest and most erudite Baptist theologian of all time. Spurgeon called Gill "my mentor in Israel," and told his pastoral students that "the world and the church ... both bow before Gill's erudition". Augustus Toplady, author of the classic hymn Rock of Ages, spoke at Gill's funeral and stated:

"Gill never besieged an error which he did not force from its stronghold, nor ever encountered an adversary whom he did not baffle and subdue."

In Gill's classic multi-volume work The Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Gill commented on Paul's statement "Be not drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18; updated with modern punctuation and grammar).

"The sin of drunkenness is a custom, or habit, of voluntary excessive drinking of any strong liquor, whereby the mind is disturbed, and deprived of the use of reason. Though wine is only here mentioned, that being the usual liquor drank in the eastern countries, the same (principle) holds good of any other strong liquor. Drinking for necessary reasons is not prohibited, nor is the drinking of alcoholic beverages for honest delight and lawful pleasure prohibited. It is the excessive drinking of alcohol that is forbidden. This sin is voluntary, and with design, and on purpose -- for sometimes persons may be overtaken and intoxicated, through ignorance of the strength of the liquor, and their own weakness. It is also a custom, or habit of excessive drinking, and not a single act. It is a series of actions, a course of living in this sin, and is what denominates a man a drunkard. It causes persons to be excluded from the communion of the church; and, without the grace of true repentance, (these persons) shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Many things might be said to dissuade people from drunkenness: it hurts the mind, memory, and judgment; it deprives of reason, and it sets a man below a beast; it brings diseases on the body, and it wastes the estate; it unfits for business and duty; it opens a door for every sin, and exposes to shame and danger; and therefore should be carefully avoided, and especially by professors of religion."

I love Gill's expositional abilities, and like Spurgeon, I consider this Baptist theologian an expositor without equal in his day or ours. There are some modern Southern Baptists who allege that total abstinence from alcoholic beverages is the only Christian and biblical treatment of alcohol. As stated before, personal total abstinence from alcohol as a conviction should be respected, but demands for personal abstinence by all Southern Bapists should be resisted. Why? There are four reasons:

(1). The Bible does not command total abstinence, but commands God's people to abstain from the sin of drunkenness.
(2). The historic Baptist position, as articulated by Gill, is that of moderation, not total abstinence.
(3). To totally abstain for the sake of others is wisdom and biblical Christianity, but to demand others totally abstain from alcohol for your sake and to meet your self-imposed standards is unwise and evidence of an extra-biblical religion.
(4). If one concedes to the wishes of those that all Southern Baptists be defined by their total abstinence from alcohol, then it will not be long before other extra-biblical standards will be used to attempt to define Southern Baptists.
(5). Our faith and practice as followers of Jesus Christ is best defined by the Bible and not any other religious standard.

There may be 50 percent of Southern Baptists who disagree with the above five statements, but I have yet to see any Baptist provide a definitive rebuttal to Gill's biblical and historic Baptist beliefs regarding the consumption of alcohol.

Until I do, I shall remain Southern Baptist, a believer in the inerrancy of Scriptures, a supporter of the individual who is convicted to totally abstain from alcoholic beverages, but a firm resistor to to that person who demands that everyone else in the Southern Baptist Convention totally abstain.

In His Grace,

Wade

Personal Holiness: Abstaining from Tea Drinking

Last week the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention replaced the bylaw that required all SBTC employees and elected officials to abstain from drunkenness (a biblical command) to a demand that all SBTC employees and elected officals abstain from “the use of alcohol as a beverage.” The only reason for such a bylaw change is the belief held by SBTC leadership that drinking an alcoholic beverage is a sin - for everybody. A year ago, when I first heard about the SBTC bylaw proposal, I spent a few minutes and wrote a post declaring my deeply held belief that drinking tea was a sin - for everybody. Having served in leadership of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma for the past twenty years, I am inclined to offer my own bylaw amendment next year at the BGCO, demanding that all BGCO employees and elected officials abstain from tea drinking. If you find the following post absurd, then you best ask yourself what you are going to do to ensure that Southern Baptists, either at the state level or the national level, stop codifying sin for others by exceeding the clear standards of the sufficient Word of God.

Reasons Why Tea Totalers Should Be Excluded from Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma Leadership by a Bylaw Change That Calls for Everyone to Abstain from Drinking Tea

(1). Drinking tea leads a person to addiction to caffeine.

There might be some who allege that drinking just one or two glasses of tea does not lead to caffeine addiction. This is technically true, but unfortunately, not all Christians who partake in moderate tea drinking can stop with just a couple of glasses. It is not uncommon for Christian men and women to progress from tea, to coffee, to 64 ounce Colas or Mountain Dews. Where does it stop? How does one know when the line of addiction has been crossed? If caffeine is addictive, then why play with fire? We must conclude that Drinking tea is a sin (Counsels on Diet and Drink: Part II, Tea and Coffee, page 434).

(2). Tea and coffee are destructive to the Christian's body, which is the temple of God.

As pointed out above, caffeine is highly addictive. Quitting coffee can cause withdrawal symptoms such as headaches, sleepiness and irritability. The acidic nature of coffee can lead to stomach ulcers. When the excess acid enters the bloodstream, it also increases calcium loss in urine. Both coffee and tea have no nutritional value. Tannin, the substance that makes tea cups brown and coats tea pots, is used for tanning leather. Imagine the stomach after twenty years of tea drinking.

Caffeine is able to penetrate deep into vital tissue. Evidence shows that it may be linked to male infertility and also birth defects by passing through the placenta. Drinking coffee during breast feeding will cause caffeine to be present in mothers' milk.

Caffeine has a powerful effect on coronary arteries and the pulmonary and systemic vessels, causing a greater flow of blood to the heart muscle, but decreasing the flow of blood to the brain by constricting cerebral blood vessels. Caffeine can cause abnormally fast, abnormally slow and irregular heart beats. It also wreaks havoc on blood pressure, commonly producing hypertension. Coffee has been linked to heart disease, pancreas and bladder cancer, and hypoglycemia.

Caffeine is a central nervous system stimulant, providing that familiar kick on which we have come to depend. But as with all stimulants, there is a price to be paid. If you run the body on overdrive for an extended period of time by artificially stimulating the adrenals, expect breakdown to occur.

(3). Though the Bible does not expressly forbid the drinking of tea, there is an overwhelming preponderence of Biblical evidence that tea drinking is a sin.

"Like vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to those who send him" (Proverbs 10:36). The same acidic quality of vinegar, tea and coffee is as damaging to the Christian as smoke is to the eyes.

“Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand” (Phil. 4:5), “…every man that strives for the mastery is temperate in all things” (I Cor. 9:25).

Though some might argue that these verses do not explicitly 'forid' the drinking of tea, it is clear that the Christian who desires to be holy in all things will not even begin to cross the line of introducing tea or coffee into his system.

(4). Though some have the gall to say Jesus drank tea on the cross, it was clearly not the same kind of tea or substance that tea drinkers consume today.

Some try to be cute in their arguments for moderate tea drinking by pointing out that Jesus drank 'vinegar' on the cross, which contains the same acidic and caffeneited quality as today's tea.

The Bible states, "And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink...." (Mk. 15:36).

Biblical scholars have long pointed out that the acidic and caffeinated content of the vinegar drink offered to Jesus was less than 5% of the acid and caffeine found in today's most popular teas. To compare the actions of Jesus at Calvary with today's tea drinking should be considered a sin in and of itself.

To justify your own desire to drink tea by pointing to the conduct of Jesus is shameful.

(5). The argument that drinking tea is not illegal in the United States, and therefore, lawful for the Christian, is an argument straight from hell.

Homosexuality is not illegal in the states. Adultery is not illegal in America. Dressing inappropriately with boxers showing, and breasts peeking out of tight tops is not illegal in my hometown, but does that make it right?

Just to say drinking tea is not illegal is in reality no argument at all. "In everything we do, whether we eat or drink, we do for the glory of God" (I Corinthians 10:31).

(6). Some cultures drink tea as a normal part of daily life, but that is no excuse for Christians to drink it, since we are to be 'a cut above' the world.

Some missionaries might argue that drinking tea in China is a cultural event, and to identify with the Chinese one must drink tea. As it is said, "When in Rome do as the Romans."

Hogwash. We are not to let culture affect us, we are to be a shining example to culture of how Christ can transform people. The person who drinks tea on a regular basis simply has no idea what Christ can do for his life, and if you drink tea with him, while introducing him to Christ, then you may give him the impression he can continue drinking tea as a Christian.

When in Rome do as Christ would do. Christ would not sit and drink tea with the Chinese. How could He defile His holy body in such a manner?

(7). When a Christian purchases tea he is supporting an entire industry that has made a fortune by leading people to the mind altering, destructive, and nearly impossible to break addiction to caffeine.

This industry must not be supported by Christians. Every dollar you spend on green tea is like purchasing a death warrant for the person who will later die from an acidic stomach from the tea produced by the company to whom you gave profits.

It is time for Christians to shut down the entire, godless industry of tea making and associated tea products.

(8). It has been scandalously reported that some young, Southern Baptist pastors are actually having Bible studies in the local Starbucks in an effort to lead people to Christ.

The pastors who have begun this new outreach program seem to have no understanding of what it means to be 'in the world, but not of the world.'

No matter how many people have come to Christ through these creative efforts, it is unconscionable for SBC pastors to actually meet in a location where people are introducing into their bodies an agent that alters the mind, changes the disposition, and eventually destroys the body.

No matter how slick the environment, there is no excuse for the compromise of the gospel.

(9). A great concern for the loosening of the standard of total abstinence from tea drinking is the belief that those Southern Baptist moderates and liberals who drink tea will eventually cause the Southern Baptist Convention to turn back from a firm belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

It is being reported that there are actually some pastors who are either not using the Bible in their ministries, or trusting in very loose translations of the holy and inerrant KJV.

For example, one loose knit association of SBC pastors have actually quoted Psalm 23 as:

The Lord is my barista; I shall not want.

He maketh me to recline on green sofas: he leadeth me beside the clean tables.

He repoureth my latte: he maketh me a ristretto of righteousness for goodness sake.

Yea, though I walk through the aisles of instant coffee, I will fear no nescafe: for thou art with me; thy cafe and it's staff they comfort me.

Thou preparest an espresso for me in the presence of mine tea drinking colleagues: thou anointest my ears with friendly banter; my latte hath art on it.

Surely warmth and bonhomie shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the cafe of the Lord for ever

(10). Drinking caffeinated tea for recreational purposes physiologically acts as a 'mind altering drug, "

Once a Christian says it is all right to alter his mind by introducing outside agents to change his perspective, where will he stop? Why not marijuana? Why not cocaine? The libertinism of the modern Southern Baptist Convention must be checked. The line in the sand must be drawn with tea and coffee.

There will be a recommendation for a bylaw change introduced at the 20008 Baptist General Convetion of Oklahoma in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, November 15, 2008, which will forbid any BGCO employee or elected offical from participating in the recreational use of tea or coffee.

May God keep our the Baptist General Covention of Oklahoma pure.

May God bless the Southern Baptist Convention.