A while back I wrote an article on why The Wesleyan Church is wrong on alcohol and recently received a couple of new comments. You can read the article and comments here. One of the comments was from Denn Guptill who recently wrote an article for Wesleyan Life magazine called “Why Jesus Drank and I Don’t” . You can read that here. The other article was from a student at Bethany. I’ve wanted to respond to Denn’s article for some time but have held off until now. I figure his comment on my blog is the “green light” to finally do so. So here it goes…
- In Denn’s comments on my blog he tries to creatively use sarcasm to illustrate that maybe we should also let Wesleyan’s smoke marijuana since the Bible doesn’t address it, and it is no more harmful than overeating (as I argued in my blog on alcohol). Sorry Denn, the difference is that while the Bible does not directly address illegal drugs, it does directly address alcohol and plainly teaches moderation over abstinence, just as you point out in your own article. We can debate marijuana, but the line on alcohol is clearly drawn in scripture.
- In Denn’s article he points out that water in Jesus’ day was used for “bathing and washing clothes”, and “drinking untreated water would have been dangerous…” He then goes on to argue that the wine that Jesus drank “was mixed with water, usually two parts water and one part wine.” First of all, which is it? Was the water dangerous or not? Remember, Jesus asked the Samaritan woman for a drink of water (Jn. 4:7) Would He have asked for a drink of water if it were dangerous to drink? History shows that water was very important to the sustaining of life in ancient Palestine, just as it is now, and has been from the beginning of time. Secondly, according to the Old Testament, wine diluted with water was considered undesirable, a symbol of spiritual adulteration (Isa. 1:22). When the Bible refers to “mixed wine” it could refer to a number of different mixes. Ex. wine and myrrh, wine and balsam, wine and oil and garum, and wine mixed with honey and pepper. One shouldn’t assume “mixed wine” is always referring to water.
- In reference to the other comments, no, Deborah, we should not drink today just because John Wesley did. But neither should we require members to abstain from something their denominational name-bearer did not. (Nor did Jesus for that matter!)
- As for finding another denomination, I believe that the Wesleyan Church is big enough and intellectually honest enough to handle challenging debate. If we have to agree with every single jot and tittle with a denomination before joining, we’ll all be standing on our own islands of self-righteousness.
- Also, as a Wesleyan pastor I take my oath to uphold the membership principles seriously. I have not drank alcohol in 15 years and I will not take those who do so into covenant membership. That is why we have community membership. Although, this is one of the reasons for my argument. Should those who practice the same social customs Jesus did be considered second class citizens in the Wesleyan Church?
While some might be appalled that I would take such a stance on alcohol, I am appalled that for so long we have focused on externals such as alcohol, dancing, and movies as standards for holiness while ignoring such sins as slander, gossip, and racism.
If we are to reach people for Christ we must be intellectually honest and biblically accurate. Anything less is ammunition for Satan against God’s Church.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 20, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Joan
You’re back . . . I’m glad . . . ‘nuf said!
July 7, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Warrior From Pennsylvania
Colossians 2:16 seems appropriate. The apostle told the congregation not to evaluate spirituality on the basis of drinking wine. Forbiding what is allowed in the Bible shows a flaw in the faith of persons who are actually weak in their faith. So what is shrouded as being spiritual is actually legalism and weakness in their faith.
On the other hand, at the Eucharist, those who got drunk received chastisement for their over indulgence as clearly noted in I Corinthians 11:21 & 30.
The Christian who becomes a continual drinker will be evaluated at the Judgment Seat of Christ, that judgment which is only for saved persons.
When I pastored churches we had the inner circle of the Communion holder filled with white grape juice, so people with a drinking problem could receive the Holy Sacrament.
July 10, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Deborah Gilbert
I am glad you responded to both me and my father (that would be Denn). I believe that if people want to be a part of a denomination that has a stance against something that destroys families and takes innocent lives than they deserve a pastor who also takes that stance, especially in a public forum. Why would anyone in your church even want to take on membership when their own pastor does not believe in what he is suppose to uphold. It is great that you don’t drink but just writing it in a public forum shows your lack of credibility as a pastor in the Wesleyan Church. My question to you would be, what else in the doctrine do you have a problem with and how do you train up your congregation in those areas?
July 11, 2009 at 12:28 am
Anonymous
Wow Wade! There you go. You are wrong. God is concerned about a drink once in a while instead of judging others and bringing accusations against a brother. After all, neither of those two destroy either. You are wasting your time trying to teach the Word as it was written. You should be building more insulation between you and sin like the Pharisees did. And, by the way, your church who takes care of “The least of these,” well you should just take them and your uncredible self out of The Wesleyan Church. We don’t need anyone who wants to do those things that Jesus was really concerned about. Besides, we have an image that we need to uphold because if someone drinks once in a while, they need to worship elsewhere. And another thing, you must be lost to have a different opinion or interpretation than our denomination. What is really crazy, is that you still submitted to The Wesleyan authority. What is wrong with you? Get out! We don’t need anyone with a different opinion on a trivial issue. We don’t need anyone who tries to minister to those nasty people who drink. We don’t need anyone who accepts authority from those in leadership and still wants to minister because God called you. I think I need to go where that wonderful lady is so we can look down on you.
July 13, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Cody Thomas
Wade,
I have read both this post and the previous one and I believe you are exactly on target with this. I absolutely agree with you on three levels:
1. The Bible draws a clear line on alcohol: moderation, not abstinence.
2. The Wesleyan Church is making “second class citizens” in the kingdom of God through the “if you drink, you have to be a ‘half’ member” rule.
3. When we require more lifestyle rules from people than Jesus did, that’s called unbiblical legalism.
We need to seriously examine the church’s view on alcohol. When we require things of members that Jesus never required, that is called legalism. The Scriptures and the Spirit should guide us, not man-made additions to the Scriptures.
Deborah, I understand that alcohol, when abused, can have bad outcomes. It can cause spousal abuse, child abuse, vehicular homicide, and other problems. However, that doesn’t mean abstinence is the answer.
That same abstinence logic could be used for sex. Sex kills hundreds of thousands of people every year through STDs, AIDS, and other outcomes. Sex has destroyed tons of marriages. It has violated tons of people’s innocence. Sex has left a horrible trail of pain, suffering, and deceit. Using the Wesleyan’s logic, I guess we should abstain from sex because of all the bad that it causes. Obviously, you would rebuttal me and tell me that it is only when sex is abused and used outside God’s design of marriage do we see these outcomes. If you were to say that, then I would say thank you for proving my point. Just like sex should not be abused or used outside God’s clearly written rules for it (marriage), alcohol should not be abused or used outside God’s clearly written rules for it (moderation).
Neither sex nor alcohol are inherently evil. God provides clear lines in the sand for how to properly use both. So why should we force even stricter rules on people than even God Himself does?
Challenging the doctrine and legalistic rules of the denomination does not show a “lack of credibility” as a Wesleyan pastor. We should always be questioning our rules and doctrines to make sure they are EXACTLY lined up with the Scriptures. We need people who will start these conversations. We are all intelligent adults and we should be able to challenge our doctrines/rules without someone shouting, “Never question the church!” What if Luther had stopped questioning the beliefs of indulgences when the church told him to stop asking questions? What if Wesley would have quit questioning the methods of the Anglican Church when the Anglicans said stop? It is the questions that force us to look at the Scriptures and make sure we are believing/living the right things. The “never challenge the church” mentality never helps.
I would also dare say that you would be hard-pressed to find Wesleyan pastors that absolutely believe the whole Discipline as God-breathed perfection of how to live the Christian life. I don’t think I know of a Wesleyan pastor who thinks dancing is evil. I don’t know a Wesleyan pastor who abstains from watching those God-forsaken, “moving picture shows” as the Discipline says in such a wonderful, 1940s kind-of-way.
So, please stop the personal attacks, attempting to belittle Wade. That’s not useful. Let’s bring our evidence for either side of the debate instead of hateful, belittling words.
July 13, 2009 at 7:28 pm
B.C.
Denn writes that distilling was not discovered until 1500 AD? The oldest distilleries date back to 2000 B.C. Babylon. There are even surviving written works by Greek authors on distilling from the 5th century. Do your homework.
July 14, 2009 at 8:10 pm
bubba138
Being a Wesleyan pastor myself I have had to deal with these issues personally. The biggest problem with issues such as these is the tendency for both sides to characterize the other as straw men.
Certainly, it would be legalistic to say one is less of a Christian if he or she chooses to drink. Becoming Pharisaic is the greatest danger we face as a denomination so focused (and rightly so) on holiness.
However, to paint with a broad brush everyone who thinks drinking alcohol is inconsistent with Christian wisdom and love is to choose to ignore that fact that Paul himself said “It is better to not eat or drink.” (Romans 14:21)
The difference is in motivation. To espouse that drinking is inherently evil is legalistic. To say that the wisest, most loving choice a Christian can make is to surrender his right to drink for the benefit of those who are at greater risk is not.
The argument that “When we require more lifestyle rules from people than Jesus did, that’s called unbiblical legalism,” doesn’t hold water either. Is it unbiblical legalism to outlaw slavery? Jesus never required anyone to give up their slaves. But the church was the front-runner on abolition because the institution of slavery violates Christian love even though the bible does not specifically condemn it.
Finally, the Wesleyan denomination is moving in the right direction on this issue. Community members now hold every right as covenant members save being eligible for elected leadership positions. This is no different than most churches, regardless of denomination. Check it out and you will find that most churches ask their top leadership to abstain from drinking. Making a distinction between leadership and membership is not instituting “second class citizens” in the kingdom of God. It is recognition that leadership holds a higher responsibility and accountability.
What I hate more than anything else about codifying these behavior issues in the Discipline is that it forces Wade & I to spend more time on secondary issues than we should have to. I do not want to have to fight battles about stuff like this when there are lost and hurting people who need Christ.
July 15, 2009 at 1:21 am
waderog
Bubba 138 , comparing the slavery issue to the alcohol issue is apples and oranges. Slavery in biblical times was totally different than the historical slavery we are familiar with here in America. The alcohol issue transcends time, while the slavery issue does not.