Featured Champions of moderation- not abstinence

Luke,
I would try to talk about moderation from a different angle. I grew up as a Presbyterian in Mississippi (Gulfport), and the one key word for life style issues was moderation. When I became a Baptist 25 years later, one of the differences I noticed was that in several areas, moderation had become abstinence. Of course, the most glaring one, and the one that has had thread after thread is drinking. I do not drink, but still hold to the Presbyterian view of that subject.

Then, there are areas where there is unwritten abstinence in many local churchs, such as dancing, lottery tickets, movies, playing cards and a list that is just too long to list. I do not dance, nor do I buy lottery tickets, but here is why. I look like a klutz dancing, and got better things to do with my money than buy lottery tickets. I still hold that those things fall under moderation. In other words, it is not any of my business what you or the guy down the street feels about dancing.

This mindset is half of what gives Baptists a harsh reputation. In fact, after serving in a Baptist church for 35 years, some areas that Presbyterians do not have a problem with, Baptists do not feel the need for moderation, such as stuffing ones gut at a pot luck and laughing about it. Another area where Baptists seem not to feel the need for moderation, or actually in this case, it should be abstaining, is gossip. It is overlooked with a wink and a nod. I related this in another thread some time back, but years ago, I saw a 350 pound man (at least) stuffing his mouth food at a rapid pace. While doing so, he was trying to convey a message of seeing another church member that had gone to a dance the previous Saturday night. That is a point in time that is a great learning lesson.

The reason I am still a Baptist is not the area that this thread covers, believe me. My reason for being a Baptist is the way we baptize, the local church, and no hierarchy.

When it comes to what you all refer to as vices in daily living calls for guidance of the Holy Spirit, Scripture, and common sense. It also requires that the individual not grow a ten foot nose and mind their own business. If there is a prohibition against something, the Lord makes it quite clear. Again, common sense. There is no moderation in murder and adultery for example.

Anyway, that is my two cents worth.

 

I hear ya, sometimes we have to look past their personality and read what they say. And sometimes we just gotta completely ignore some! :laugh:

 

That which I bolded, truer words could never be expressed. I love to interact with people on here, and our theological differences aren't the hinderances.

 

Why do you have to resort to such demeaning phrases when you bring up a topic for debate? Did you start this to give yourself a platform to do just that? You speak of "moderation". Wouldn't that include a little moderation in your tone?

You said "Teetotalism is stupidity." Tell that to 2 pastors that I know who will not take a single drink of booze. They put down the bottle somewhere along the path that brought them to the pulpit. Tell that to a lost person who has lost a loved one because of actions of a drunk.

You speak of our culture and of other countries. Culture elsewhere doesn't matter. We have to work with the culture of the peoples physically surrounding us. Where I live the "culture" watches who goes to the ABC store situated in the middle of our small town shopping center. When the town drunks enter, the "culture" doesn't pay much attention, because that's an expected action. When a professing Christian enters, "culture" raises an questioning eyebrow. When a pastor enters, both eyebrows rise in shock.

Culture = both saved and lost individuals with their own perceptions of God and the scriptures. Whether those perceptions are right or wrong doesn't matter, in this context. What matters is the reality of what they believe to be true. And, thus, how they react to what is contrary to what they believe to be true.

Culture, right HERE, expects a certain level of separation from what culture views as being worldly. Doesn't matter if it's drinking in bars, visiting our local "massage" parlor or attending a gay pride event. Lost souls are going to ask why Christians don't practice what they preach. How can a preacher stand in the pulpit on Sunday morning when I saw him buy a case of beer at Food Lion on Saturday?

The vast majority of lost souls are not in church on Sunday morning. The vast majority of those souls are watching the actions of church members from 12:01 Sunday afternoon, till the next Sunday morning. What happens inside the church walls - ie that particular culture - has no impact on their perceptions. Doesn't matter if the preacher condems all fermented beverages, preaches moderation, or whatever. The lost families living around the church don't hear the message. Thus, their perception of "Christian" culture doesn't change.

For the record, I don't drink. Can't stand the taste of the stuff. However, that does not mean that I condem a man for drinking a beer after mowing grass on a hot day. Nor, do I condem a man who believes that it is best to stay away from fermented beverages. The 2 pastors mentioned earlier, do everything the can to urge young people not to take the first drink. The first sip that can put them on the road to becoming drunks.

Long winded post. Yes.
One more point. Yes.

Last year, spent several months working with a man being prompted by the Holy Spirit. Physically working with him which gave the opportunity to be a witness. He knew I don't drink. Asked, one HOT summer day, if I'd be mad with him for drinking a beer. Sensed that his question was far deeper than what it appeared on the surface. Answer was no. Didn't see anything wrong with drinking a beer after we finished work. Answer was, too, (summarized) hoped he wouldn't choose to get drunk.

Next day he told me he drank two beers. It was clear that he was testing to see I'd bring any self-rightous condemnation upon him. Long story short. He's showing evidence of his faith since he joined our church. Whether he still drinks a beer or not, I don't know. Haven't asked. That's between him and our Lord.

 

OT,
You have a very healthy view of drinking. As you said, appearance is a big part of the equation, probably bigger than the Biblical argument. Common sense goes a long way.

 

Yeah. That sounds exactly like Paul who would eat no meat as long as the earth stood if it caused his brother to offend.

No, wait—Paul sounds just like a Mohammedan.

(rolls eyes)

 

:applause::applause:
Hi everyone! I have to agree with the OP here:

Teetotalers are so common in the U.S. in part because of a checkered history of abuse of liquor rather than the habitual moderate use of drinks such as beer and wine which are so common and regular in other parts of the world.

ABUSE of alcohol was so prevalent in the frontier past of the 19th Century (usually whiskey) that alcohol itself was perceived as the "evil" rather than the person who misused it. Moreover, American whiskey is immediately attached to illegal import and export due to "whiskey taxes" etc...from the colonial period onward such that rebellion of sorts was the immediate context of American liquor use. From the time of the Revolution---American alcohol was immediately associated with moonshining and boot-legging.

Most people have a hard time divorcing their thinking about an issue from their immediate experience. The American historical experience as pertains to alcohol is one which ranges straight from British tax-evading "boot-legging" and the "Whiskey Rebellion" just after the Nation was founded right up to Carrie Nation and her obsessive tee-totallism.

Teetotalism's logic is no different than considering a DvD player to be inherently evil because some people play pornography on it, or even the internet for that matter.
"Complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation"
St. Augustine

 

blah, blah, blah.

When speaking of wine, we are speaking of something explicitly identified in the Scriptures as a legitimate and vital matter of conscience.

So the argument isn't about wine or beer. It's about your belly or your brother and which you love more.

 

O.K.....so apply the statement specifically and exclusively to wine if you so choose. That's immaterial. Consider it "teetotalism" from wine only if that's what you prefer. The statement then, still holds.

 

I would say when you throw words like stupidity and ignorant at people you don't even know, it diminishes your voice. You sound more fundamental than the teetotalers.

 

Was I that unclear? Beer/wine or not beer/wine isn't the argument. The argument is your belly or your brother.

 

The point of the OP.....is that the teaching of "abstinence" vs. moderation is the ONLY reason that the argument is "belly or brother". The point of the OP, is that that is an argument that we should not HAVE to have. It shouldn't be an either/or dichotomy (except perhaps in certain circumstances) but rather a both/and. It pertains to more than merely booze. If, for instance, one can occasionally enjoy a fine cigar in certain moderate social settings, then it shouldn't be a situation where it MUST be a "belly or brother" issue. Rather, unless your weaker brother is incapable of dealing with it (for reasons other than insisting on asceticism).....than blessings of that sort should be able to be enjoyed in moderation.

I think that's the point of the O.P.

 

Besides being wrong, it's probably not a point that should be argued by one who has admitted to an inordinate apetite.

 

There is a case for consumption of an intoxicant in which the Scriptures allow.

I hold that it must be under the oversight of medical folk and for medical purposes.

I hold that is the view of the Scriptures.

However, believers that consume intoxicants for pleasure don't hold that view.

I suppose if I held to some posts on this thread, I could rightly call them "stupid" but then why be so critical of a weaker brother.

What I wanted to ask is if any of those who regularly partake of intoxicants would drink the water in some third world nation such as in Africa or South America where the water is not purified to US standards?

Why would I ask that?

Because Paul said, "Take NO THOUGHT about what you eat or drink..."

It also seems to me that all caution over "belly size" and "liberty" would be discarded by what Paul was stating.

If the OP is correct then every believer should live to the fullest liberty - which is in itself excess - though some would claim it as expressing moderation.

Believer "liberty" is not ever unbounded from the shackles of testimony and the chains of reputation.

Folks, Paul handled the conflicting views of his day on dietary matters in this passage. It would be better if those believers who consumed or did not consume intoxicants would heed it.

13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin."​

See, it isn't a matter of "personal liberty" or even "weaker brother." It comes down to testimony and reputation.

Frankly, I see no good coming from drinking - even a little - outside of what the medicinal case may be.

Those of you who do - fine.

But do not claim that the Scripture does not hold you accountable and that such is without consequence.

This thread is on moderation.

But so far those who have expressed "abstinence" seem to have shown more moderation than even the one who posted the OP. But that is just my own observation.

 

Luke, doesn't your own SBC advocate abstinence? So I'm puzzled at why you're fixating on us Fundamentalist Baptists instead. Why don't you take your alco-pologist views before any Southern Baptist denominational gathering and see how that goes over?

 

Hi aged :thumbs:

"Moderation" is not strictly about intoxicants, but since this is brought up brother let's use that example.

 

Allright -- On topic! :flower: Tell the 2 pastors who are recovering alcholics that drinking in moderation is OK. Tell a lost person, who has had loved ones die from alcohol related causes, that drinking in moderation is OK.

Next, I beg to respectfully disagree. Being totally free of alcohol is the "dead level OPPOSITE of drunkenness". Moderation is sitting on the fence between the two opposites. Rarely ever dead center. Usually leaning to either the right or left, depending on how much ethanol has been consumed.

Shouldn't people set goals that can reasonably be expected to be achieved? Why should I set a goal to climb Mt Everest when it's very unlikely that I'll ever set eyes upon that mountain? Regardless of how lofty we may set our goal, in this case, there's one question outstanding. How do we go about ridding any culture of anything that makes people react as they do? Battles have raged over trying to change cultures since God barred the gates of Eden.

IMO. Our goal, in 3 parts, should be as follows:
1. Love God.
2. Love our neighbors as ourselves.
3. Take the gospel to the lost.

Why do you think the scriptures are filled with references to narrow paths and gates? Our commission isn't to change culture. Our commission is to bring, as many as we can, out of the culture of the world and into a personal knowledge of Jesus Christ. To plant seeds for the Holy Spirit to nuture.

On an individual level, we, each as believers, cannot change culture. Only God can do that. We can only affect SOME of those with our sphere of influence when we cast our seeds and utter our prayers.

Yes, liberty is a good thing. Whether civil liberty or spiritual liberty each carrys a heavy responsibility with regards to choices we make while using our freedom. Within this context, shouldn't every choice we make, in everything we do or say be an earnest, heartfelt, attempt to bring glory to God? Remember He's the 1st of the 3 goals that should be on our list. In some circumstances, our very best efforts of moderation will fail miserably if/when we put a stumbling block in the path of another.