This post is a follow up to the one right down below this one (you should probably read that one first).
I said that I had a doozy of an example and here it is. Take into account 1 Timothy 3:2-5. Most of us have grown up in a church that has dynamically been opposed to drinking. That in itself is another blog. However, in this one I don’t so much want to attack whether it is right or wrong to drink alcohol (as if that were the real question). Here, I simply want to show the laziness and erroneousness in how most leaders deal with Scripture.
Take a look... {2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),}
Notice the “period” at the end of verse 3. That will come in handy later! I think it is extremely ironic and even a bit devilish to elevate the importance of verse 3 to the point that we have taught “forget being addicted to wine, stay away from it all together and in fact never go around it nor around those who are addicted to it. Avoid it in the grocery stores unless you have to get that tub of butter on the same aisle. Condemn those in your congregation who know the difference between a Merlot and Chardonnay.” Abstinence from alcohol is NOT what this passage is teaching. We like the Pharisee have added more law to protect ourselves from going around something that has a potential of destruction. However here is where the whole thing just gets my Fruit of the Looms in a big bothersome and vexing knot.
Notice verses 4 and 5
Why is it that we can highly elevate one side of the equation (verse 3) and drastically dumb down the mandate and responsibilities of the other (verses 4-5)? It never worked in Algebra and it doesn’t work here either?
Essentially we have said this, “NEVER touch any alcohol, but it is alright if your kids grow up to be brats.” In fact we’ve even created a cute little euphemism to describe this style of spasmodic child “PK or Preacher’s Kid.” As if it is expected for a minister’s child to be a hellion. I had a man tell me once after a church event, “Well Robert, it looks like your son is fulfilling his duty as a typical preachers kid.” What I wanted to say was, “No the truth is that he’s just sat through 3 hours of baptist boredom, he’s starving, tired, probably soiled to saturation point, and he’s 13 months old... That’s his excuse for being obnoxious. What’s yours?” But I digress.
Remember that ‘period’? In the Greek, there is no period. The sentence does not end until verse 6. This means it was meant to be stated in the same breath so to speak. The two are side by side yet we have driven a large chasm between them never to be bridged. This is anything but trivial or meaningless. This is borderline idolatry according to John Kachelman, “Modern idolatry accepts biblical religion and a biblical God, but first modifies each to suit personal tastes.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
Husband to 1 wife, daddy to 4 kids, ravenous consumer of peanut butter.
Identities
9 comments:
Rob, I completely agree with you on this. We're guilt of selective hearing when it comes to God's word.
It's easier to avoid being a drunk than it is to avoid being a poor father and husband. It's easy to point out one social ill and say, "See! That's why we shouldn't do that;" all the while more Christian homes are destroyed by lukewarm fathers than by alcohol.
Don't get me wrong. I don't drink alcohol, but not because I think the Bible absolutely condemns any and all use of it. I avoid it out of a personal conviction on the matter. Just like I don't listen to "secular" music. You're not inherently hell-bound if you do, but years ago I felt it was something I needed to give up.
Alex Himaya talks about the guilt trips that churches (in his experience, baptist churches) use on their congregations. I think what you're talking about fits that category.
I hear you! This is an exact example I have dealt with having Christian friends who have an occasional drink. How many times have we been told that the wine at the wedding feast wasn't fermented?
It's not exactly what you're talking about but the KJV controversy gets me too...I actually saw a guy try to use Scripture to prove that the KJV is the ONLY acceptable English translation of Scripture.
Rob ...
Great post ... the alcohol thing has never been a big deal to me ... I have not ever had any but not because I think it is wrong ... but rather because I had a grandfather that was an alcoholic and I did want to "take the chance" that I would become one too ... I know, kinda extreme ... but it is the truth
As far as how we ignore parts of scripture while emphasizing others ... I think Casting Crowns has a song title that sums up what has happened ... SLOW FADE ... we have settled ... we have made the words of God / Jesus into what WE want them to be ... to fit our own needs ...
Out of context preaching is dangerous ...
DWC
Bobby, right on! For me it kind of goes back to the whole behavior modification thing. We have become experts at modifying our behavior but are spiritually deficient in reading our new hearts.
Ernest, if the KJV is the only right version then I'm going to Hell.
DWC, I think most people hold this view. That is the view that it might not be wrong but I don't do it. Part of that is because they don't want to be a stumbling block for the weaker brother (Romans 14). However I also think a large part of is the fact that we were practically beat over the head with how wrong it is when we were in the formative years so now the notion seems somewhat mischievous and elusive. It's like we feel guilty for thinking about doing something that we've never done before regardless of whether we ever do it or not. That is where the "Tyranny" of it comes in. And I don't like it. It all sounds a little too oppressive for me. To think that I can have that kind of control over people in my church is downright evil. But I think I've opened a can of worms here so we'll see.
Great thoughts guys. Now we need an anonymous blogger to really stir things up and help us see we're not as smart as we think sound.
I drink alcohol. I enjoy it. Sometimes it makes me feel relaxed or giggly. I don't get drunk, but just about any amount of alcohol makes you feel something, in the same way that just about any amount of caffeine makes you feel something.
I don't begrudge anyone for taking the "i'm not against it but i don't drink it" position, but I would challenge anyone in that position to consider how THAT position affects the weaker brother. With our lives, we are always modeling and imaging Jesus. This is the Jesus who, for His very first miracle, re-stocked the wine cellar after a bunch of partyers emptied it out. Those folks drank so much that they exhausted the booze supply that the wedding planner provided. And then Jesus gave them more booze. Really good booze.
No wonder he was always in trouble.
I really hope nobody takes this the wrong way, because I don't really know anyone on this site but Robert (and I only know him a little). But holiness/separate-ness is only one of the ways that we model the Kingdom to people. Another is freedom. In our "it's not wrong but i don't do it" thinking, i just think it's wise to make sure we're not portraying something less than absolute freedom. Am I absolutely saying that any of you guys are modeling legalism? Of course not. Please don't hear that.
I'm really trying to be careful not to sound like a jerk.
Finally, a couple of thoughts on the "weaker brother" notion. First, back when that was written, there were no blogs or websites or photographs or CD's or mega-churches. People rarely "knew" people whom they'd never spent time with. What i mean is, there wasn't a lot of "hey, isn't that the youth minister from FBC over there?" People primarily knew only those folks who were in their immediate community.
So when Paul talked about eating and drinking with the weaker brother in mind, he wasn't talking about sitting down at Bennigan's and worrying who might see you having a cold one. He just wasn't. He was talking about making sure that you treated the brothers and sisters of your community with respect, awareness, sensitivity, and gentleness. If someone in your community had an "issue" with a certain way of eating/drinking, you were to have grace for that and abstain (at least until you could work out your differences of opinion) for their benefit.
Oh, and since those people with "issues" were operating out of a position of "weakness," the ultimate goal was to bring them to a place of strength; in other words, the hope would be that someday you COULD have a beer in front of that person, because they are no longer "weaker" than you.
And don't forget: in that particular situation, the person drinking beer is actually the "stronger" brother. Am I saying that people who drink beer are stronger than those who don't? Of course not. But we're always using that "weaker brother" argument in this context, and we need to remember that its logical application can lead us down the road to that conclusion. Just think about it.
You guys can disagree with me on all that. I'm totally fine. Again, I don't want to offend anybody. This is all just food for thought.
I'm still learning in this area, for sure, so please have grace if I have misspoken.
Again, Robert, very good and very gutsy post.
Thanks Ross, somehow after reading your comment I am thinking to myself "Yeah that's what I meant to say." Except you're the wordsmith around these parts.
Somehow I knew this post would turn into the drinking vs non drinking discussion (maybe I secretly wanted it to).
I've often wondered "WHY" one person is weaker. But I just can't get away from the notion that the weaker brother is in fact the one who has yet to discover their freedom in full. They are the ones who live "institutionalized" lives. Like Red from the Shawshank Redemption when he said, "Forty years I been asking permission to piss. I can't squeeze a drop without say-so." Could it be that our fear strangles out our freedom? I'm not simply talking about drinking here any longer. Oh we've gone way beyond that now.
Fear is not the issue ... fear is normal .. the fact that fear CONTROLS / CONSUMES us ...that is the issue
DWC
ross what a kick in the nads great post to make us think if we are made to question then we will seek an answer and if we seek we will find hmmmmmmmmmmmm
sorry for the lack of punctuation ( think its spelled right )
Post a Comment